Gottfried Curio, June 13, 2024, The Politics of Deportation

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/175, pp. 22574-22575. 

Right honorable President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

After an asylum applicant, rejected for ten years, wanted to murder a critic of Islam and thereby killed an intervening police officer, those responsible follow one after another in the casting of smokescreens. For the longest time, the Afghan was not removed from the country by the parties of the Merkel Groko. Guilty of his illegal lingering were Union and SPD, then also Greens and FDP. 

The Chancellor, who since his grandiose announcement of deportations in grand style, which never came, is especially practiced in long distance smokescreens, again got underway such a  deception maneuver just before the EU elections: The most serious criminals and those posing a danger were to be deported to Afghanistan. Naturally just hot air, not having consulted with the Green coalition partners who want to give up no illegal migrants. 

The result: Sweden and Turkey do deportations, the Ampel does not want to. And not only that in regards the erstwhile offender of Mannheim simply nothing would be brought – no, the inconsequence was already pre-programmed. Since then if a person can be deported to Afghanistan, then naturally this can and must be done with all rejected asylum applicants. Yet to express this was too daring even for Scholz, the sham bomb disposal expert. Apparently, it will saved for the week before the Bundestag election, ladies and gentlemen. 

If one indeed wants to deceive, then needs be more skillfully intonated what the Union brings us. Which says in a motion, in any case in the latest motion, that they presented just a return of the culpable to Afghanistan. Only, what is to be done? Elections are already at hand. It therefore quite suddenly occurs to you, after endlessly many murders, rapes and knife attacks: Perhaps something real must be demanded. – And since the AfD, after an entire series of state falsehood propaganda, grows and grows and grows, 

            Irene Mihalic (Greens): Na, ja! Since January, rather shrinking, shrinking,                             shrinking!

what does the Union say? Quite clear: We need to copy still more from the AfD! 

Ladies and gentlemen, quite suddenly the Union notices: Even those from Syria who have been rejected nevertheless need to be deported. That is done neither with red nor green but only with the AfD. 

Quite suddenly they notice: Border controls, which deserve the name – in a word: including refusals – would perhaps even be a good thing. Quite suddenly they notice: The citizenship law is not allowed to be further watered down. All of this is done neither with red nor green, only with the AfD. 

Julian Pahlke (Greens), turned to the CDU/CSU: Na, where remains the Union’s distancing to that? No one reports!

Therefore is fully clear the result in regards the theme of deportations: The SPD wants to fake it, the Greens want to entirely prevent it. Only the AfD will actually enforce it. Thus what does a Union want, which explicitly does not want to form a coalition with those demanding an enforcement but prefers the parties of fakers and preventers? Does this Union want to enforce or fake or prevent? I think the answer is clear and the citizens also know this! Only the original stands for actually enforced deportations. Only with the AfD will the security situation again become tolerable for our citizens. Only with the AfD finally comes the so urgently required migration change. 

 

[trans: tem]

Gottfried Curio, December 15, 2023, Artificial Forced Migration

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/145, pp. 18457-18458. 

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

These days the EU negotiates a new version of the Common European Asylum System. Prominently discussed are external borders procedures for migrants from countries of origin with low recognition rates – not the largest group, which makes the measure little effective –, as well as a “solidarity mechanism” penalty payment for countries which do not participate in the acceptance of illegal migrants, the well-known Brussels Unkultur of presumption. Yet we need discussion neither of micro set screws nor of the EU’s encroachments. What we need is an end to this quite artificial forced migration of peoples, ladies and gentlemen. 

In the Dublin III system, the respective state of first entry was responsible for the asylum application – a regulation which the Union under Merkel destroyed in a striking breach of law,  with the catastrophic consequences of open borders. Since then, migrants set out aimed at Germany. Italy and Greece equally alike omit the registration and refuse the return transfer. And Germany bears the principal burden of this entire madness with its continually further strengthened tendency by means of additional family reunification for those already landed here. In that regard, the war in Syria in the peripheral areas has been ended for years. Required now is the return of one million Syrians, and not their naturalization. 

Julian Pahlke (Green): Have you inquired of Putin? You have good connections in the Kremlin! 

            Tobias B. Bacherle (Greens): The butcher Assad still commands in Syria! 

Stop with the continued misleading pretense [Vorgaukelung] of a need for protection – unconcerned with the consequences for our destroyed education system, the disaster of domestic security with over-propotional immigrant criminality in regards violent offenses, unconcerned with the 50 billion euros per year thereby squandered, the collapsing housing market, and even with the cultural identity of our homeland! Anyone who still intends well with Germany needs to end this artificial forced mass immigration, ladies and gentlemen. 

The new regulations foreseen in Brussels however do nothing for the necessary reduction of the influx. We therefore demand: Preventing the European internal migration, excluding multiple asylum applications, fundamentally ending a transfer of competence to Germany following the time period expiration – in the first half of the year alone, 15,000 cases; that asylum applicants from Asia and Africa be able to obtain their protection requirement preferably fulfilled in a region near to home and akin to culture, in any case, in secure countries on their continent which they certainly do numerously cross on their way to far distant Deutschland; 

            Julian Pahlke (Green): Aha! The China connection! 

further, the conclusive end of residency by cessation of possible reasons for refuge – Syrian – or by the abuse of “homeland vacations” which unmasks an ostensible necessity of refuge. Only a fundamental re-direction will stop the unfortunately willed migration storm, and only with the AfD is there a parliamentary majority for that, ladies and gentlemen. 

For all of that is also required an end to the false focusings in the migration debate.   

First, it is often not a question of seeking refuge – after crossing secure third countries, certainly not – often not even about leaving the country of origin. Many migrants themselves openly declare the wealth disparity as a reason. 

Second, the fairy tales of the good rescuers at sea. The foreign traffickers are service providers to their deliberately negotiating customers who, for a life-long full provision, slip a couple of thousand. 

            Michael Sacher (Greens): Hopefully, you never need to flee in your life! 

The German trafficking fleet operates no rescue at sea. That would be a bringing to the nearest safe harbor a few kilometers distant on the coast of Africa, instead of to Lampedusa at a distance of hundreds of kilometers. 

End also the lie of a lifetime of the “ability to produce integration” [Herstellbarkeit von Integration]! 

Julian Pahlke (Green): Na ja, your lifetime reality is the surveillance by the Constitution Defense, Herr Curio! Quite lovely greetings from Herr Haldenwang! 

Tobias B. Bacherle (Greens): That again shows where you have remained hanging, in which era, from which you yell out! 

The codification of standards of conduct – as in the Basic Law – is always a durable summary of matching realities [nachträgliche Zusammenfassung von gewachsenen Realitäten]. The idea of being able to successfully lead to its adherence in a brief time anyone from another culture is a failure of categories. Such culture codes will in the long term be accepted by means of an unconscious assumption of relations from the social surroundings – by no means through a merely rational acknowledgement of their codified form. The idea that contempt for women, an excessive male sense of honor, or a positive connotation of a lived-out propensity to violence, are to be corrected by a Basic Law presentation [Grundgesetzüberreichung], or an integration course, is at an absurd distance from life, ladies and gentlemen. 

Julian Pahlke (Green): “To present the Basic Law” [„Grundgesetz überreichen”] is a good keyword, Herr Curio! 

Filiz Polat (Greens): You need an integration course, a values course! You should here make transparent in which networks you act in your constituency. That would interest us!

And surely it may not ever again be only about how illegal masses of immigrants by unfortunate organization are allowed to run through the system, be it with debt money or mis-purposed gymnasiums and hotels!  Nein, the stream itself is to be prevented. For that, is required the elimination of all incentives here in this country, a most concentrated as possible action in Europe. Ever more states understand this. 

Julian Pahlke (Green): What do you actually know of the China connection in your delegation? 

Only Germany is the wrong way driver, which thinks all others should convert to its wrong way. 

Therefore is required a decisive re-direction that really represents the interests of our citizens. These threatened interests have found their asylum with the AfD. 

I thank you.           

Tobias B. Bacherle (Greens): How long did you require for the witticism? The entire legislative period, or longer? 

 

 

[trans: tem]

 

 

 

Gottfried Curio, September 21, 2023, Immigration

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/122, pp. 15098-15099. 

Right honorable Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

Had Interior Minister Faeser invested as much zeal in her own area of duties as in Schönbohm’s dismissal - in border defense, domestic security, deportations  - Germany would then have no acceptance problems, Europe no migration crisis, there would be no pictures from Lampedusa. For it might lie within her power to make an end to it all. The migrants primarily want Germany. Yet Faeser rather wants to show solidarity, to take these migrants from Lampedusa. If again next week an armada lands there: Germany in case of doubt takes them – France however not. 

Germany is concerned that the stream does not dry up. Therefore Germany last year had three times as many asylum applications as Italy. That indeed must be the much praised EU solidarity by which those already most heavily burdened will then be ever more heavily burdened to the benefit of others. We require no acceptance in solidarity, no European distribution, certainly not from the CDU Frau von der Leyen, but decisiveness. No one from inner Africa is in flight on the Mediterranean. Germany in area fits into Africa 85 times, yet Africa into Germany not once. It is so simple. 

Europe's attractiveness will nevertheless remain; since the grade of living standards will remain. Better to live on support in Germany than to work in Africa.

            Timon Gremmels (SPD): Oh, man! 

            Clara Bünger (Linke): Disgusting! ****!

The solution thus bids, when the next fleet of welfare migrants invades Europe: Bon voyage home! Build yourselves a beautiful continent! 

            Timon Gremmels (SPD): Cynical!

Therefore an immediate stop of all programs by which Germany itself acts as a trafficker [Scheluser]. No family reunion for illegal immigrants. It must not occur in Germany. 

            Filiz Polat (Greens): All of that is just untruth!

The yearning appears not to have been so great as the billeting officers were sent forward – from, besides, well to do families who gladly afford the trafficker costs and danger to life so as to later have it paid back a hundred times in the fools’ paradise of Germany. 

From non-refuge transit countries like Tunisia or Turkey, no one can be accepted. No Nigerian is in refuge in Tunisia, no Syrian, Afghan in Turkey. As soon as these countries speak of themselves as deadends, the fortune hunter caravan stream immediately dries up. “Afghan local auxiliaries”, a perverted term. Perhaps there were a couple hundred, the government invents 44,000 

            Clara Bünger (Linke): Lies! Those are lies! You lie! Of course there were                                               more auxiliaries than you say!

plus each year again 12,000 in the scope of an arbitrary acceptance program. 

When the Polish government underhandedly sells hundreds of thousands of work visas, Italy refuses to again accept those first registered there, when for Greece it is supposedly unreasonable, then can Schengen not even defend the external borders. Germany itself needs, at least for the time-being, to take the required defense and control measures at its borders. Who does not process deportations just so is allowed to again accept no one. 

Yet instead Faeser sends quite different signals: Opportunities to remain for those without a right to remain, turbo-naturalization as soon as the Afghan can read the three letters, SPD. 

            Tabea Rößner (Greens): What rubbish! 

In Hesse, the desperation is so great that now even the right to vote shall come for asylum applicants! Mein Gott, how embarrassing is that then? 

            Johannes Fechner (SPD): Nonsense! 

            Tabea Rößner (Greens): Nonsense!

We are indebted to the unsustainable migration situation for exploding immigrant violence: For New Year’s in Berlin, our new citizens’ festival of destruction, public swimming pools no longer to be entered by girls and women, clan war in the inner cities, 

            Clara Bünger (Linke): ****!

faction compromise managed by Scharia judges. When there is again a slugfest of hostile groups of foreigners, Faeser somewhere says: Violence with us certainly does not go. – When thus again a traumatized case in need slits open innocent people, she says: We really need more social workers.   

            Filiz Polat (Greens): Sickening!

What do all parties other than the AfD want? Continue with the immigration from the Near East and black Africa. The Ampel just as so. 

            Filiz Polat (Greens): Shamelessness!

The Union demands hundreds of thousands yearly simply as a quota [Kontingent]. 

            Philip Amthor (CDU/CSU): What?

What a madness, ladies and gentlemen. 

You now bring the ugly pictures of 2015 into our cities. Train stations, parks, schools: Ever more often zones of fear. Daily, dozens of knife attacks, twice daily gang rapes, swimming pool terror through the entire summer, repeated large family brawlings. Lübeck: Faeser’s police want to suppress the evidence videos of migrant violence. Instead: A quick right to vote for all. No politicians want to take the lead to stop these illegal border crossings other than the AfD. We say: Deportations make security. Who defends borders, defends people. 

Yet the Union certainly does not want to change the destructive migration policy of Ampel-Faeser. They want to hypocritically copy the AfD motions, 

            Philip Amthor (CDU/CSU): We have no need of that.

yet at the same time want to keep Ampel Minister Faeser, as they showed yesterday. One needs for once to imagine it. Who then needs such a pseudo-opponent which wants that the government remain in office?           

            Clara Bünger (Linke): You cannot do more than recite, or?

You Union voters, you voters in Bavaria, you voters in Hesse. Look at this hall and recognize that you might not trust and could not trust this Union. 

            Gulistan Yüksel (SPD): But you! 

 

[trans: tem]

 

 

Gottfried Curio, June 9, 2023, EU Immigration Regulations

AfD Kompakt, June 9, 2023.

The regulations will not solve the problems. If now some countries in fact buy their way out of a new “reception obligation”, in the end a considerable portion might again remain attached to Germany. And with the keyword “distribution” [Verteilung], the Merkel-ish subversion of Dublin III will now be set: The secure knowledge that from southern Europe one cannot further migrate under a declaration of an ostensible need to flee would thereby have led to a considerable relief, particularly in this country. In the end: Who comes from a secure country actually need simply not be tested; in other cases, the principle of secure states is ultimately reduced to an absurdity.

Even in the specifics, the regulations are highly ineffective: To be able to continue – under pressure of the Federal government – to simply pass through unaccompanied minors, without a stop at the external border with fast track procedures, even so entire families from Syria. And the problem that 80 percent of those coming to Germany could previously pass through the EU unregistered is not addressed: They indeed should be registered – yet this “should” is again plainly only a pure declaration of intentions and in the negotiations was not in the least operationally secured. Just so, again under pressure of the Ampel, was hindered a “Rwanda solution”, as aimed at in Great Britain. And why countries should at all participate in a distribution, why they should otherwise at all pay money, is not really established. One then may also not be surprised by a rejection.

In sum: For the main flow from countries where there is now already some acknowledgements, that is perhaps Syria and Afghanistan and various interior African countries, nothing really changes; thus here also, no relief in sight. And even in regards the planned rejections, the actual return is, as before, completely unclear. Without a return, even according to the new regulations, an appeal to the EU will then again soon be possible, with then a new asylum application. Even after a distribution within the EU, naturally will happily continue further secondary migration to Germany, as long as in this country the will and the structures are not created for an effective rejection and deportation mechanism. And important relief measures, as demanded by the AfD, plainly now simply do not arrive: Neither an alignment of the national refugee and/or social benefits, nor a conversion to primarily benefits in kind. Instead, false principles are perpetuated, such as one can be a refugee by a trespass in the EU, even if one already has come through ten secure third countries. An opportunity to perceptibly confront [begegnen] the dramatic overburdening in Germany was given away. The decisive problems were certainly not approached, primarily because, for that, any political will is lacking in Germany.  

 

[trans: tem]

 

Gottfried Curio, May 11, 2023, Immigration and Politics

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/103, pp. 12394-12395.

Right honorable President. Ladies and gentlemen.

The Ampel grandly announced in the coalition contract a repatriation offensive, yet for which certainly the thereto belonging FDP announcements party did not deliver. The number of deportations is far less than even before the pandemic. There is simply no migration agreement for the return of rejected asylum applicants. The show agreement with India does not function. In regards over 800 Indians without a pass who in Sachsen-Anhalt are liable for repatriation, nothing happens. Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Morocco – generally nothing. The theme of “Dublin Repatriations in other EU Countries”: It in the last year failed by far over 90 percent.   

What does the standstill coalition do? They set up new incentives for additional migration and secondary migration to Germany: Extension of social benefits, extended rights to remain, an abolition of revocation checking. This naturally intensifies already existing repatriation problems. SPD Interior Minister Faeser positions herself against even the EU with her rejection of a visa lever against uncooperative states of origin; actually just as needed as the reduction of development aid. There lacks any political will for enforcement – similarly as in regards the acknowledgment of the Maghreb states as secure states of origin – blocked by the governing party of the Greens, supported by the FDP. Toss out those who sustain the government! Its time as well is past, for the people have noted how the dangerous fanaticism of this eco-dictatorship sect in its deterioration coalition squashes the citizens’ interests.

The Union’s answer: A mix of right and wrong. Naturally, it is right to take over the AfD’s years-long demands. How reliable that is, each can judge when you previously rejected these same demands made by the AfD. But, ja, it requires the repatriations offensive, bilateral return agreements. Only how the FDP announcements party speaks of that does not suffice. Naturally, the EU visa lever needs to be on the table, those considered a danger and obliged to depart, and criminals, need to be deported. Certainly the same is required for Iraq, Syria, Eritrea, Somalia. In any case, it’s a good idea to agree with the AfD demands, ladies and gentlemen.   

Certainly the actual deportation policy in the Union’s 16 years in government unfortunately indicates no essentially different picture from that of today’s government. When you announce to shortly again form a coalition with exactly these Ampel parties against which these ostensibly oppositional demands should be directed, then the voters note that and, in case of doubt, prefer to vote for the original.  

Certainly then no one needs what is further in your motion: To financially strengthen the promotion of voluntary returns by means of counseling centers in foreign countries. Financially promoted voluntary departures scarcely work; some again re-enter. From the net asylum application benefits, money is sent home. This needs to be converted to benefits in kind, as for long demanded by the AfD. Only thus will one of the most important incentive factors be finally eliminated. The migration change, ladies and gentlemen, comes only with the AfD.

Simply summarized: That which in your motion is good and right, is from the AfD; what is not from it, is not good.

Ladies and gentlemen, a majority of Germans want that finally fewer migrants be admitted. A majority say: The current admissions policy brings primarily disadvantages for Germany. Other countries simply make policy for their own citizens. Denmark self-evidently permits judicial deportations to Syria, just as does Hungary. Yet it happens here with us in Germany, to where one million Syrians from foreign countries could suddenly be brought, to indeed be left here at the cost of our working people, there are just no negotiations on a migration agreement – which the Union also does not want.  

In that regard, the civil war there is long since at an end – not in the Union, but in Syria. Here is finally required a policy primarily in the interests of German citizens. That is only with the AfD. We therefore say to you, ladies and gentlemen: It’s not the heating that needs to be exchanged, but this government!

I thank you.

 

[trans: tem]