Christian Wirth, September 10, 2025, „Wir schaffen das“

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/20, pp. 1983-1984. 

Herr President. Valued colleagues. 

Ten years ago, Merkel said, „Wir schaffen das“ [We can do it] – she opened the borders of our country without a mandate, 

            Rasha Nasr (SPD): They were never closed!

without agreement with European neighbors, and without regard to law and statute. 

Today, ten years later, we draw a balance, and this balance is nothing less than dramatic. We experience at demonstrations on German streets how people march with Hamas flags, how slogans for the annihilation of Israel are chanted, and how terror organizations are openly celebrated. Jewish citizens no longer dare to openly wear their symbols such as kippa and the Star of David. Many avoid certain city quarters because they are no longer safe there. We experience also a clear increase in the violence against homosexuals. Instead of the variety and tolerance which she preached, she, with her devastating policy, has brought Germany fear and intimidation. 

The list of consequences continues almost without end. In public swimming pools, it routinely comes to sexual harassment and assaults. Gang rapes – until 2025, an almost unknown phenomenon – occur daily. Women and girls are displaced from public spaces, and the ostensibly feminist parties look away. Knife attacks almost daily belong in the police reports. Criminal clans control entire streets and quarters, threaten residents, and laugh over the weakness of the state. 

In our schools appears an especially oppressive picture. In many classes, German children are long since in the minority. They are ostracized, mocked and insulted as “potatoes”. They need to pay protection money or even forcibly convert. That is racism against Germans. Yet here is heard at best only a broad silence. 

During this time, the costs explode. Billions flow into social benefits, integration programs, language courses, housing, police and justice. Employees and families need to shoulder increasing contributions, while the promises of the Politik ring ever more hollow. 

We see polygamy which will be silently accepted. We see girls become the victims of genital mutilation – in the middle of Germany. We see Islamic hate preachers who work undisturbed and gain new adherents. And we need to experience terror attacks committed by perpetrators who only by means of Merkel’s 2015 border opening have at all come into the country. 

            Rasha Nasr (SPD): They were never closed! The borders were never closed!

Ladies and gentlemen, all of this is no accident, but the direct consequence of a decision which in 2015 was reached against the advice of all security authorities and against the will of the greater part of the population. „Wir schaffen das“ was not a revolt, but a capitulation – a capitulation before the illegal mass immigration, a capitulation before one’s own responsibility, a capitulation before the duty to protect our citizens. 

And while the problem year for year becomes greater, these same parties celebrate to this day  this wrong way as an ostensible humanitarian achievement. Enrichment is spoken of, while women in the evening can no longer go out unannoyed, 

            Rasha Nasr (SPD): The problem is named men, and not foreigners! 

            Clara Bünger (Linke): You don’t have women in your own ranks!

while parents are afraid to send their children to playgrounds, while police in certain quarters can scarcely still act effectively, while security forces and rescue forces will be attacked without consequences. 

The German people in these ten years have paid a high price: The price of insecurity and fear, the price of dwindling trust in the state of law, the price of a deep social division. 

            Lamya Kaddor (Greens): You manage a suspicion culture! You do that!

Thus I say clear and distinctly: Germany has not done it. Ten years of „Wir schaffen das“ have massively damaged our domestic peace and destroyed the people’s trust in the Politik. 

            Lamya Kaddor (Greens): Nay, you did that! It was you!

The AfD delegation therefore demands the consistent closing of borders for illegal migration, the deportation of all foreigners obliged to depart, the smashing of the clan structures, and the resolute protection of our children and families. Right honorable ladies and gentlemen, „Wir schaffen das“ was a wrong way. The alternative is: We stop it. 

Many thanks and Glück auf! 

 

[trans: tem]

Christian Wirth, January 30, 2025, Migration, Public Safety, CDU

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/210, pp. 27274-27275. 

Frau President. Valued colleagues. 

Ten years of catastrophic security policy in asylum questions, in questions of migration, in questions of the defense of borders, millions of people from countries of alien culture – Africa  and Arabic countries – expulsion of women, Jews, homosexuals from the public spaces, and exploding criminal acts – according to the criminal statistics – by those seeking protection. Suddenly, the voters experience that all the AfD has said, proposed and moved in the six weeks during the election campaign is really not inhumane, not “Nazi”, but thoroughly feasible – ja, if one has the political will, if one has a backbone. 

Why the change of mind? Because the migration policy and the security are for the voters in the election the most important criteria, and because the AfD’s polling numbers are rising. What is done against that besides the usual slander campaigns? I mention just “Correctiv” lies. Exactly, the AfD’s motions are copied. And for self-justification the AfD will be powerfully insulted in the motions. That is a novelty in the German Bundestag: Hate and agitation in resolution motions against the political opponent whose arguments are overtaken. 

Marc Henrichmann (CSU/CSU): Yet you want out of NATO, and out of the EU, and out of the euro!

Questioning one’s own policy of the last ten years? Non-existent. Yesterday, the vote was a test. Reason won, Germany won. 

Tomorrow it’s about the influx limitation law [Zustrombegrenzungsgesetz], a diligent gathering of our demands from two legislative periods. Yet it is already questionable whether the Union-governed States will grant to you, Herr Merz, the vote in favor in the Bundesrat. That is your true test as Chancellor and as party chairman. It may be doubted; since in the States govern the CDU’s diehards; namely, those who were politically socialized under Merkel, those who have internalized the Weiter-so, the “Wir Schaffen das”, the “Jetzt sind die halt da”. Those are for example the Minister-president Wüst in Nordrein-Westfalen and the Minister-president Günther in Schleswig-Holstein. That is also the governing Bürgermeister of Berlin, Kai Wegner. 

In regards deportations, the Union-governed States have poor quotas similar to the other States. And domestic security is primarily a State matter. Wüst and Wegner, CDU regents in Germany’s crime strongholds, stand directly for failure in domestic security. 

            Marc Henrichmann (CSU/CSU): Oh, man! Prejudices, prejudices!

The attacks in Solingen, Magdeburg and Aschaffenburg stand for that. Perpetrators who were umpteen times conspicuous, and despite the security authorities of the Bund and of the Union-governed States, have not gone into the net. The result: An embarrassing shoving-off between Bund and States and between the security authorities over the question of who is responsible. That was a show yesterday in the Interior Committee which cannot be imagined. 

Self-reflection and political responsibility? Non-existent. On that account was the vote yesterday so important. And on that account the vote tomorrow is important. Since the citizen again picks up on one thing: Without the AfD, there is no domestic security, and without the AfD there is no reasonable migration policy. 

Many thanks. Glück auf! 

 

[trans: tem]

Christian Wirth, June 22, 2023, Domestic Terrorism and Surveillance

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/112, pp. 13757-13758. 

Frau President. Valued colleagues. 

Herr Grötsch, I really almost thought I would be obliged to thank you as you had begun to say what is important: All here in house are against any kind of terrorism. I owed it to you. Unfortunately, you again disappoint in this narrative: Most of the danger proceeds from the right. 

            Lamya Kaddor (Greens): Yet that is no narrative! 

            Uli Grötsch (SPD): It is proved! For years!

I want to tell you one example. In the year 2022, in the area of phenomena of “right extremism, right terrorism” – in any case, too much – 19 proceedings were initiated by the Federal Prosecutor General, in the area of phenomena of “left extremism, left terrorism” one proceeding, and in the area of phenomena of “Islamic-motivated extremism/terrorism” all of 236 proceedings. 

Matthias W. Birkwald (Linke): It does not depend on proceedings! It depends on verdicts!

This standard picture, “most of the danger proceeds from the right” – you thereby certainly do not mean terrorism – is a narrative the propagation of which has two reasons. 

One thing is quite clear; that, with these billions against the right, NGOs shall be fed which have, for example, been paid for having meanwhile flown in 52,000 for the 250 Afghanistan local auxiliaries as reported by you. 

For another, Herr Haldenwang yesterday has confirmed, as he stated on public television: The Constitution Defense is not alone responsible for reducing the AfD’s polling numbers. That is a quite clear sign that not just in this legislative period under you, in the SPD’s Interior Ministry, but already in the CDU’s Interior Ministry, an order has been given to the Constitution Defense, to clear away a politically disagreeable opponent – and nothing else other. Yet this will have its consequences. 

            Alexander Hoffmann (CDU/CSU): Ever the same story!

We have already spoken of diverse cases. In the case of Castrop-Rauxel, Syrians seeking protection have attempted to carry out an attack with Rizin. According to careful estimates, some 30,000 to 40,000 dead and injured were to be tallied. We already previously had such a case with a Syrian in Nordrhein-Westfalen. Those are real dangers, which gives one to think, if one does think, how many victims of Islamism there have been in Europe in the last years. Those are the dangers with which we need to deal. 

These dangers unfortunately are often imported. We have for 2022 registered 530 persons posing a danger in the area of phenomena of “religious ideology”, and an additional 503 as so-called relevant persons. 317 of those posing a danger remain in Germany, and 448 of the relevant persons. 132 of those posing a danger do not possess German citizenship. It needs be said: They still do not possess it. Of the relevant persons, 171 are foreign citizens. Almost half of those 132 posing a danger in the area of phenomena of “religious ideology” with a foreign citizenship are Syrians; 62, so as to say exactly. Deported in the first three quarters of 2022 were 17 persons from the Islamic spectrum of whom five were those posing a danger. Merely five of 132 of those posing a danger were deported. This cannot continue. 

We have just peeked at the situation. I will not now return to the mass attacks in the swimming pools. Yet we see it in Nordrhein-Westfalen, in Castrop-Rauxel, Essen, Cologne: What is happening there? Turks, Lebanese and Syrians give themselves over to a war, a gang war, a clan war, on German streets. With up to 500 participants. These Syrians have well integrated themselves. They learn from the Lebanese that here one can carry out his power politics on German streets. 

            Lamya Kaddor (Greens): Auweia!

Law we give them in the area “Precaution, security custody, preventive detention”. 

A quite important theme which should concern us all is of course the online search and sources of telecommunications surveillance. Actually, the Ampel coalition had announced to quickly deal with these themes, just as the Greens and the FDP had asserted in the last legislative period that, following the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court, they had found the stone of the wise. This is indeed not so. 

            Vice-president Yvonne Magwas: Please come to a conclusion.

The new speed limit in Germany is indeed to be measured by the freight bicycle, with one forward movement and four backwards. Here we need to quite quickly act. We owe it to the victims, the potential victims and certainly to the victims of child abuse. 

            Vice-president Yvonne Magwas: Last sentence Herr Dr. Wirth, please. 

Many thanks.

  

[trans: tem]

           

 

 

 

Christian Wirth, March 29, 2023, German Sovereignty

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/93, p. 11189. 

Herr President. Worthy colleagues.

The outcry was great as the former President of the Federal Constitutional Court Andreas Voßkuhle in 2021 accused the EU Commission and the European High Court [EuGH] of a collusive, thus illegal, collaboration to erect “in a cold way”, as he said it, a European federal state.

The stumbling stone was that the Federal Constitutional Court in the year 2020 had designated a decision of the EuGH on the European Central Bank’s credits to certain member states and its reasoning thereon as “simply no longer comprehensible”. Following the Federal Constitutional Court’s decision, the EU Commission brought an action for violation of the treaty against the Federal Republic of Germany. An unabashed power demonstration and a disdain for our democratic state of law, especially the separation of powers.

Instead of backing the Federal Constitutional Court, the grand coalition of that time, likewise in violation of the separation of powers, decided to declare that in regards the EU the highest German court, for all that an organ of the Constitution, has almost nothing to say in EU affairs. Still more: The Federal government pledged to actively avoid unauthorized, thus illegal and encroaching, statements [Ultra-vires-Feststellungen] of the EU and its courts.   

Ladies and gentlemen, how nice that you meanwhile install in the Federal Constitutional Court only party politicians. In the good, old times, when distinguished jurists still sat in the Senate of the Constitutional Court, it would likely have pulled itself together.

            Völker Ulrich (CSU/CSU): Speak to the issue!

To show how other countries handle this problematic: The Polish Constitutional Court declared in 2021 the EuGH’s attempts to meddle in Polish jurisprudence to be incompatible with the Polish Constitution. It besides likewise violated European law which guarantees the sovereignty of member states in the European integration process. The Ampel coalition on the other hand has even agreed in its coalition contract at least in the long-term to be quite willing to give up the Federal Republic and its Constitution. I cite with permission of the President:

The conference on the future of Europe…should result in a constitutional convention and lead to further development of a federal European state which is decentrally organized according to the fundamentals of subsidiarity and proportionality and which has the basic rights charter as a principle.

Ladies and gentlemen, where is the Constitution Defense when it is really needed? Such strivings as evidently pursued by the Ampel coalition are of course unconstitutional, and they are also not wanted by the sovereign, the German people.

All other peoples plainly reject this EU state, as for example the peoples in Scandinavia. It is no wonder, considering how the EU meanwhile conducts itself. It becomes ever more overbearing and more frequently meddles in the smallest areas of the lives of its citizens which actually do not pertain to it.

A present, deplorable example is the stop for the combustion engines by 2035. Here, the Ampel could merely attain that combustion engines which can be operated exclusively with so-called E-fuels are to be excluded from the ban. That can actually be called sabotage in the most important German key industry, the automobile industry. Driving for Otto Normal Consumer, as apparently desired by you, becomes unaffordable. Hundreds of thousands of workplaces are in play. As a Saaarländer – we still sound like one there – I can here sing you a song. The closing of the Ford works in Saarlouis is already decided, the future is unknown.

            Alexander Ulrich (Linke): That has nothing to do with it!

Ladies and gentlemen, the democratic national state is not, as always asserted by leftist powers, at death’s door. It is state of the art; it is an achievement which the peoples in Europe have won for themselves with hard and bloody fighting. Not only the Ukrainians have the right to a sovereign national state. On that account, I ask: Vote in favor of our motion [Drucksache 20/6172]. Germany’s sovereignty needs to be maintained.

Many thanks and Glück auf!

 

[trans: tem]

 

 

 

 

Christian Wirth, September 22, 2022, Free Speech and Sovereignty

German Bundestag,  Plenarprotokoll 20/54, pp. 5928-5929.

Frau President. Valued colleagues.

When one reads the words “Basic Law” in regards to a draft law of this government, one first receives a fright. In this case you have knocked over nothing; that you could not do. You in fact arrive late, although the digital announcement of laws on an announcement platform is right. On that account, here is nothing much to say.

Otherwise pertains the old saying: Hands off the Basic Law. It is already bad enough how government representatives and representatives of the parties, who in the best DDR-speak praise themselves as democratic delegations in the house, lay hands on the citizens’ basic rights.

Thus, the Chancellor – I cite: “If announcements are highjacked by extremists, Querdenkers and enemies of the Constitution, we do not accept that.” What are extremists and enemies of the Constitution? And whom does Scholz count as a Querdenker? Is an enemy of the Constitution he who demands the explanation of the Chancellor’s participation in a business scandal or does not want to lend credence to his memory lapses? Is a Querdenker he who in good time warned of a lockdown, a vaccination obligation or vaccination harms?

Helge Limburg (Greene): What has that to do with electronic announcement, Herr colleague?

Is the businessman or pensioner whose life’s work and existence goes to the dogs due to a failed energy policy an extremist? Since when is that? When may the state proceed against democratic basic rights under the pretense of wanting to protect those democratic basic rights? In regards the basic rights, no head of government of the Federal Republic has so blatantly played with fire.

Thus one is not amazed by Interior Minister Faeser’s plea that one’s opinion can be declared without at the same time gathering in many places. Where, please? At home in front of the mirror? This statement is an imputation of civil society.

The President of the Constitutional Court, Harbarth, also does not stop short of this. According to Welt, he said, “ that the use of the freedoms [Freiheitrechte] can also be adapted to the delegitimization of the Constitutional order.” And, cite: “ The strong constitutional state must be consistently opposed to the enemies of law and the state of law.” That is identical with the import of the cited Scholz quote: Freedoms are good so long as they are not used by any who are opposed to the government; since criticism of the latter is today defamed as delegitimization. Thus the Constitution Defense has created on the fly a new area of phenomena: Delegitimization of the State Relevant to the Constitution Defense. Here will be placed all citizens who criticize the actions of the government.    

The bird however has been shot down by the former hope of the bürgerlichen-conservative camp, Friedrich Merz who, last week amidst the howling of the so-called democratic delegations, explained to the AfD delegation that in case of emergency all parties will prevent with all power that the AfD brings into the street the problems which we have in Germany.

            Philipp Amthor (CDU/CSU): A correct proposal!

            Stephan Brandner (AfD): That is scornful of the basic rights!

We will do precisely that, Herr Merz and dear CDU. On October 8^th, we with the citizens will carry into the streets of Berlin our right of assembly and demonstration and right to the free expression of opinion.

            Johannes Fechner (SPD): Now for once on the matter!

And, Herr Merz, neither you nor the other parties will stop us.

            Johannes Fechner (SPD): Boring!

Since for you all it is not about the delegitimization of the state which you fear. You all delegitimize the citizens, the sovereign.

Many thanks.

 

[trans: tem]