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]

Beatrix von Storch, July, 2025, AfD Strategy Process

AfD Bundestag Delegation, July, 2025. 

To shape Germany politically – the end of the firewall and the way to government responsibility. 

Ideas and proposals for a strategy process of the AfD Bundestag delegation. 

Introduction 

The AfD achieved a great success at the last Bundestag election. It dislodged the SPD as the second strongest power in Germany and has become by far the strongest power in eastern Germany. In Germany, there is a clear middle-right majority with which the migration change and the economic change can be implemented. 

Despite the great election success and the voters’ large assent, the firewall prevents a sharing in the government by the AfD, the exclusion of the AfD continues to be enforced, and the AFD is even threatened with a ban. To become a permanent people’s party, to overcome the firewall and to pave the way to government responsibility is an enormous challenge for which a strategy is required. The following paper offers proposals for an AfD delegation strategy process in the German Bundestag. 

Prerequisite for the fall of the firewall and government responsibility for the AfD: 

The AFD strives for government responsibility in Germany. The actions of the black-red coalition prove that neither a migration change nor an economic change is possible without the AfD as a driving power in the government. The political change in Germany is only to be achieved when the AfD overtakes the government responsibility. So that the AfD can design politically, the the firewall needs to fall. 

The firewall will fall and the way for assumption of government responsibility will be open when 

1.      The AfD is firmly anchored by its core voters who vote for the AfD out of adherence and conviction, the AfD exploits additional parts of its potential, and has clearly gained in acceptance beyond the AfD voter base (Part I).

2.      Other party-overlapping coalitions are no longer possible because the rift between Union and the leftist parties can no longer be bridged (Part II). 

In the following will be sketched possible ways of creating the prerequisites for such a scenario. 

Part I. Create majorities – the people for the government responsibility won by the AfD. 

For the analysis, we separate into three relevant groups the electorate for the AfD: The AfD’s voter base, the AfD’s potential, and the scope of acceptance [Akzeptanzumfeld]. 

To the AfD’s voter base belong those who with great certainty vote for the AfD and can be permanently united to the AFD. 

The potential are those voters who basically can imagine themselves voting for the AfD and who also are attainable as possible voters. 

The scope of acceptance are those voters who do not vote for the AfD and do not intend doing so, yet under certain circumstances may welcome or at least do not reject a government participation by the AfD. 

According to INSA, the AfD’s voter base is around 18 percent; additionally, with the present voters and the potential voters, the AfD could achieve up to 30 percent of votes. Yet even if the AfD completely exploited its potential, that is no guaranty for the end of the firewall and a participation in government. In addition, there needs be a scope of acceptance which indeed does not vote for the AfD, but is not unfavorably opposed to a participation in government by the AfD. 

So that the AfD can attain government responsibility in Germany and shape the Politik in Germany, it needs to permanently unite to itself its voter base, exploit the greater portion of its potential, and expand and attain a basic acceptance of its participation in legislation and government. For all three groups, voter base, potential, scope of acceptance, the AfD requires a differentiated strategy. 

1. Unite base voters: Ostdeutsche, workers, rural area, young voters, Russlanddeutsche.

The goal is to create a tight milieu anchoring and a permanent voter base. Voters should not vote for the AFD primarily out of protest or frustration, but because they identify themselves with the AfD. In the following milieus and regions, a tighter anchoring is already visible: 

Ostdeutsche, workers, citizens in villages and small and mid-sized cities, Russlanddeutsche and Germans from the post-Soviet space, and first time voters, especially young men. 

So as to permanently unite the voter base to the AfD and to strongly anchor the AfD in these milieus, the delegation prepares in three areas: 

The AfD delegation identifies the political interests and problems of these groups and develops concrete legislative initiatives which therein aim to accomplish the base voters’ concrete interests and to improve their living situation. 

The AfD identifies the channels of communication and creates referral networks so as to continually and permanently communicate with the base voters. 

The AFD works towards a positive self-image of the base voters and their sense of life  which is tightly bound with the AfD. 

The AfD directs to this purpose work groups which identify the interests of base voters, develops a communications strategy, and draws up a positive picture of these groups; for example, workers as the providers of performance, Ostdeutsche as an avant garde of democracy and freedom, rural people as carriers of good, traditional values, young Germans as bearers of hope of a better future. Thus shall be developed a common AfD purpose image as a free, conservative people’s party which embraces its voter coalition. 

2. Identify potential: Over-60 generation, women, academics, churched [kirchcennahe] Christians, big cities.

In regards specific groups, the election results clearly lagged behind. The following groups can be identified in which the AFD has not exploited its potential and which represent a large portion of the German people: 

Women, citizens with a college education, citizens in big cities and metropolitan areas, voters over 60, and professing [konfessionsgebundene] Christians. 

These groups are not homogenous and cannot be addressed as a unit. So as to increase and win for the AfD these hard-to-access groups, we require a socio-demographic micro-analysis of these groups. Partial groups need to identified to be able to build a bridge to them. 

Examples of such partial groups: 

A partial group of women is, for example, housewives and mothers; of academics, engineers and graduates of technical training; of big cities and metropolitan areas, citizens in focal points or outlying locales; in regards the over-60 generation, pensioners concerned about crime or older people with traditional values; and a partial group of professing Christians is conservative Protestants and Catholics. 

The delegation’s work groups should deeply occupy themselves with the social groups in which the AfD is weaker. They may identify hindrances and problems at talks with these groups and develop solutions, find sub-groups which may be addressed for the AfD, and propose measures for themes and a communications strategy so as to become stronger in these groups.

             3. Enlarge the scope of acceptance.

Even strong elections results are no guaranty for an AfD participation in government. As important to the mobilization of base voters and to the address to potential voters are concrete public opinion indicators for the scope of acceptance: Surveys of AfD Verbot procedures, for acceptance of various forms of cooperation with the AfD, for government participation and for fundamental rejection and fear of the AfD. 

The goal is to reduce below 50 percent the portion of voters who express fear of the AfD, who are for banning the AfD and who reject a cooperation with the AfD.

For that, it is important to analyze by means of collections of public opinion which negative images, negative narratives and notions of the AfD exist, and how these are mediated and strengthened. On the basis of the knowledge is then a proper strategy developed for a targeted counter-communication which refutes the arguments against the AfD, a positive purpose image developed, and proposals formulated on how the scope of acceptance can be clearly enlarged. The target groups of our efforts for enlarging the scope of acceptance are: 

Citizens who do not belong to the voter base or the potential of the AfD, and whose rejection on the basis of their ideological location and party affiliation is not insurmountable. 

Part II. Split black-red – Prevent party-overlapping coalitions.

Majorities without the AfD were hitherto possible by means of party-overlapping coalitions, coalitions of the Union with the SPD or Greens. The firewall will fall when these political options have failed and are no longer possible. In the end, the Ampel broke down because the opposition between the expectations of the FDP”s bürgerliche voters and those of red-green were ultimately no longer bridgeable. The conflict potential between the CDU/CSU and the SPD, especially between the conservative market economy wing of the Union and the SPD-Linke, is especially great. The AfD has two ways to enlarge these rifts: 

1. The polarization of debate leads to the separation of bürgerliche-conservative camps from leftist radical camps: The demarcation [Abgrenzung] of the radical leftists, who for the majority of Germans represent unacceptable positions, facilitates the AfD positioning itself as a bürgerliche-conservative power. The strengthening of the radical leftists proceeds at the cost of the SPD and Greens, and forces these onto a course which makes the agreements with the Union considerably more difficult. 

2. The pressure on the CDU/CSU increases: The AfD will launch motions and initiatives which meet with a high agreement within the Union voter base, especially the voters who voted for the CDU/CSU for a migration and economic change, yet now are disillusioned by black-red. Besides the migration change, the AfD takes in view the economic change as a central theme field so as to increase the pressure on the Union and make accessible new competences and voters for the AfD. 

1. Polarization against the Linke. 

            1.1 Drive forward separation of the bürgerliche-conservative camps from                                 Leftist camps.

Presently, polarization in Germany proceeds all too often between AfD voters and all others. Our aim is to create a situation in which the political rifts no longer run between the AfD and the other political streams, but a bürgerliche-conservative camp and a radicalizing leftist camp oppose one another, comparable to the situation in the U.S.A. 

The starting point for such a development is given: 

The Linke have become a driving power in the leftist camp which makes it difficult for the Greens and SPD to engage in compromises with the CDU/CSU; for example, in regards migration and economy. 

The AfD and the Linke form the two ideological poles of the social argument. As a counter-pole to the ideological and woke Linke, the AfD can sharpen its bürgerliche profile. 

The AfD can essentially contribute to that the argument in politics and society becomes a “duel” between the two irreconcilably opposed camps, culminating in an  election between the AfD and Linke: Weidel or Reichinneck. 

The consequences of this polarization already show themselves with the Bundestag election in regards the first-time voters. There, the FDP and Greens were relieved as the strongest political powers by the AfD and Linke. If this trend spreads through the entire electorate, the political poles will be stronger, the rifts between both camps greater. The rifts within the camps, such as between AfD voters and CDU/CSU voters, becomes smaller because the Linke have a strong interest in attacking even moderate conservative and CDU-like positions as being close to the AfD.   

            1.2 Differentiate communications strategy. 

The communication needs to be thematically, rhetorically and argumentively differentiated between the argument with the opposing leftist camp and the argument within the bürgerliche-conservative camp. 

The argument with the leftist camp will be conducted on a fundamental level with the central point on socio- and cultural-political basic conflicts:  Family versus gender, nation versus open borders, freedom versus socialism. 

The argument with the Union needs to be primarily conducted on the themes of credibility and trust, substantially [konkret] on the political failures in regards the practical implementation of the migration change and economic change. 

In a Kulturkampf with the Linke, the AfD positions itself as the only relevant opposing force; as the credible original in political competition with the CDU/CSU, it delivers what the Union in the election campaign has only promised. 

2. Political pressure on the Union. 

            2.1 The AfD can become the strongest party with variable voters from                                    the CDU/CSU.

In the 2025 Bundestag election, the CDU/CSU gained four million voters from the SPD, FDP and non-voters; 1.76 million voters from the SPD, 1.35 million voters from the FDP and .9 million non-voters voted for the Union. These new voters for the Union gave as a reason for the vote decision that the Union after Merkel had changed course. Economic growth, domestic security were the most important themes of the CDU/CSU voters. 

If the AfD succeeded in winning these variable voters from the CDU/CSU, it will be the strongest power and expel the Union to the second place. If the AfD gained these four million voters, the absolute number of its voters climbs from ten to 14 million. That corresponds to an election result of about 28 percent, which largely corresponds to the AfD’s measured voter potential. The CDU/CSU would correspondingly lose votes and come out even worse than in 2021, as it attained with its Chancellor candidate Armin Lachet a historic low of 24 percent. 

For that it may succeed in motivating these new Union voters to a change to the AfD there speaks: 

            That these new CDU/CSU voters have already shown themselves ready to change 

            That they have voted out of protest against the Ampel CDU/CSU 

            That they are in agreement with the AfD’s positions on domestic and                                    economic policy 

            That the Union by its coalition with the SPD disillusioned these groups of voters 

The way to win these earlier SPD, FDP and non-voters, who at this election gave their votes to the Union, lies in, besides the migration policy, the key question of economic competence.  

The Union stands before the dilemma that compromise with the SPD makes it easy for the AfD to win these voters from the Union – the fight over these voters inevitably brings it into conflict with the SPD and Greens. 

2.2 The AfD as the party of the sozial market economy: Overtake the CDU/CSU in economic competence. 

The “core brand” of the CDU/CSU lies in its economic and financial competence. In the voters’ attributions of competence prior to the Bundestag election, it was far ahead of all other parties. “Economic growth” was a central motiv for the election of the CDU/CSU. The AfD strongly increased in these competence fields in the last Bundestag election, yet still lay far removed from the Union’s competence values other than in regards to that of migration where the competence attributions lay more closely one with the other. 

The economic competence is the key question so as to exploit the potential, to win the Union’s variable voters, and to enlarge acceptance for the AfD’s government responsibility. The goal is to essentially reduce the Union’s margin in regards attribution of competences in the areas of economy and finance, and to conclusively overtake the Union. In the eyes of the voters, the AfD needs to stand not only for the migration change but also for the economic change. 

The starting point for that is given: 

The lifting of the debt brake cost the Union considerably in credibility. The growing state debt and interest burden will become in the coming years a permanent theme. 

As a result of the coalition with the SPD, wide-ranging and necessary structural reforms are practically impossible. The massive problems for Germany as a business venue and for the social security system are not to be solved by the least common denominator of the CDU/CSU and SPD. 

The AfD can make market economy, ordnungspolitische and financial policy demands and program points of its own without the Union, as a result of its captivity in the coalition with the SPD, being able to oppose something credible to it. 

The AfD is the only party which, without regard to leftist climate discourse, can acknowledge itself for economic growth and can act in the central energy themes without ideological restrictions. 

The theme of economic growth and the prosperity promises united with it, besides the themes of migration and domestic security, can be an additional mainstay for the AfD, and at the same time be the clothes pin between the AfD’s various voter groups: From the unemployed to workers to the self-employed, from the former SPD to the former FDP voters, and also thereby for CDU/CSU’s variable voters. 

3. Foreign policy should create no additional problems. 

The base electorate as well as the AfD’s potential voters are primarily to be addressed by means of domestic and economic policy positions. The AfD’s foreign policy positioning has the duty to avoid controversies within its own electorate, to minimize areas of attack and thereby contribute to enlarging the AfD’s scope of acceptance. A duty of AfD foreign policy is to early identify the danger of potential internal conflicts and current negative effects for the AfD by a wise  positioning and a stringent communication agreed to within the delegation. 

Outlook: Use the members’ experience and competence. 

An overall strategy, especially in regards to the many various voter groups, should use the experience and competences of the members of the Bundestag delegation. The delegation has at its disposal comprehensive knowledge from its voter circles, from the citizen contacts, and a reservoir of life and vocational experience with which that of no other delegation is comparable. 

In a strategy process itself arise new ideas, especially in the address to the base voters, the potential, and the scope of acceptance, but also in regards considerations of tearing down the firewall and opening the way for government ability. Work groups for individual voter groups make it possible to speak beyond the usual snips of political themes, of access to the various target groups, and to speak of the solution of outlined problems, to use experiences, gather together ideas, to use available sources, so that they can flow into the overall strategy. 

The socio-empirical evaluation and analysis and strategic adaptation is thereby a permanent duty with the goal of optimizing our result and making possible the political change in Germany. 

 

[trans: tem]

 

 

           

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Martin Hess, June 4, 2025, Asylum, Remigration, CDU

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/9, pp. 711-712. 

Frau President. Right honorable ladies and gentlemen. 

Our asylum system in its present practice is not only dysfunctional, it has developed into a massive danger and led to a catastrophic security situation in our country. Ever more citizens are ever more often attacked by so-called asylum seekers and seriously wounded or indeed killed. He who actually has at heart the security of our country, he can and may no longer accept this, and needs now to act decisively. We therefore bring in this motion [Drucksache 21/318] today. 

As of reference date April 30, 2025, over 224,000 persons obliged to depart live in Germany; of  these, around 42,000 are obliged to depart immediately; there is neither a factual nor a legal reason which would prevent a deportation. Despite this, in the first quarter of 2025, merely 6,151 persons were deported from Germany. That is just 15 percent of all the immediately dischargeable persons obliged to depart. That is a completely unacceptable failure of the state, and that needs to be most quickly corrected. For these numbers stand not only for systematic and bureaucratic failures, they stand primarily for tangible, human suffering which the old parties would have been able to and needed to prevent. 

So as to avoid misunderstandings: Not all of those obliged to depart are dangerous. Yet it is also true: For a much too large number of these people, it is about perpetrators, violent criminals and dangerous Islamists or terrorists. 

Filiz Polat (Green): That’s not right! They are children and youths! That’s simply not right! 0.001 percent! That is straightaway wrong! 

And thus the toleration of these hundreds of thousands of violations of the law and the failures in regards the deportation of these persons is an unpardonable defect which has ever more frequent deadly consequences. 

I want to recall to you two cases: May 31, 2024, Mannheim. An Afghan Islamist at a demonstration cuts the Islam critic Michael Stürzenberger. The police officer Rouven Laur, 29 years old, wanting to assist, intervenes and is thereby brutally murdered with a knife. 

            Filiz Polat (Green): Speak of Michèle Kiesewetter!

He leaves behind family, friends, colleagues, who to this day cannot understand why this murderer was still in Germany. – January 22, 2025, Aschaffenburg. An Afghan obliged to depart attacks a kindergarten group with a knife. Two people, one of whom a two years old child, die. The parents will never again see their child laugh, they will never again be able to take their child in their arms. 

These victims are not single instances. They are the result of the political indifference of all of the old parties. Each of these crimes was avoidable. Had you taken our statute seriously, had you consistently implemented deportations, had you consistently protected our borders, and had not let loose these violent criminals in our places, in our streets, or on our children, then would these people still live. Therefore must now finally be large-scale deportations. Who misuses our guest right, who murders, who rapes, who hates our freedom, he has no right to remain in our country. Remigration makes security, remigration saves lives, right honorable ladies and gentlemen. 

Dear colleagues of the Union, the AfD delegation at the beginning of this year voted for a five-point program brought in by you for a limitation of migration. The therein contained measures were indeed in large part copied from us, yet they were thus suitable. Therefore, it also received our support. This motion thus obtained a majority in this house; nevertheless, as good as nothing of it has so far been implemented. A goal, among others, was to be able to much more frequently apply custodial departure deportation [Ausreisegewahrsamund Abschiebehaft]. And precisely that we demand with our motion today. I thus appeal to the Union: If you seriously mean it with your migration change, then please leave off these party-tactic little games and support our motion. Let us finally take care for the security which we owe to the people of our country. If you do not do this – it remains left to you – then you break for an additional time an election  promise and, for that, the citizens of our country will not pardon you. 

 

[trans: tem]                  

René Springer, May 15, 2025, Sozialpolitik

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/4, pp. 216-217. 

Herr President. Right honorable ladies and gentlemen. Dear guests. 

Frau Minister, for a beginning: We wish you all the best and much luck. You will need the luck; since you overtake not only an important ministry, but also a social policy field of rubble. 

Eight million pensioners in Germany are under the level of the basic security. A hairdresser who worked 40 years gets a pension of 700 euros, while a Syrian with two wives and four children receives 5,000 euros for doing nothing. That is absurd, that is wrong. Those who criticize this are not right-wing extremists, they are simply extremely right. 

High energy prices, expensive groceries, and the tax burden drive broad swathes of the population into poverty. The Tafeln report record crowds, the unemployment increases. A country in which a fresh apple and a warm dwelling become luxuries has a failed social policy. He who works in this country will be systematically taken advantage of. The Bürgergeld rises while the real wages sink. The social state becomes an apparatus for punishing the diligent. And then comes Herr Merz tottering around the corner and says to the Germans they need to work more so as to secure the prosperity in this country. 

What is sold to us as skilled labor immigration is much too often an immigration into our social system, into a maintained dependency. 

            Rasha Nasr (SPD): That is a lie!

More than half of the young foreigners in Germany have no occupational certification, and the number of foreign Bürgergeld recipients is exploding. 

            Clara Bünger (Linke): That is mendacious.

Ladies and gentlemen, that is no modern Sozialpolitik. That is a failure of the state. 

            Tanja Machalet (SPD): That is a falsehood, what you are telling!

That, what you of the so-called progressive coalition have left behind, is not progress. That is decay! That is the bitter consequence when leftist-green ideologues are allowed to govern, who think there is a basic right to migration, not depending on training level, not depending on the qualification, and without use for our country. 

Those who are convinced that a well built social state can combine with unlimited immigration, those are beyond help, and they are not to lead this country [denen ist nicht zu helfen, und die haben nicht dieses land zu führen]. 

And then we still have the ideologues to whom equality is more important than justice, and redistribution more important than relief. He who produces in Germany will be punished; who does not produce will be paid. The Bürgergeld stands emblematically for your madness. Those same ideologues dream of saving the world climate and of intentionally expensive energy, heating, dwellings and driving. For many, that means freezing in winter, daily renunciations, rising unemployment, and poverty as a new normality. That is no environmental protection. That is a social-political powder keg! 

151 AfD members have been elected to stop this ideological blind flight of the cartel parties. We now need a clear change of course – away from ideology, into reason; away from global redistribution, into responsibility for one’s own people. It is time for a Sozialpolitk for Germans. 

Precisely for this reason we demand the following measures: 

First. Stop the immigration into the social system. Germany may no longer be a magnet for poverty migration. Foreigners maintained long-term have nothing to lose in the Bürgergeld. The social state must be there for our citizens and not for social tourists. 

Second. Lower taxes for small and middle incomes! Abolition without replacement of the CO₂ duty. An end to green inflation! He who carries the country needs to be relieved – immediately and long-term. More net from gross is no act of grace. It is what the people have earned, those who keep this country running. 

Third. An end to social transfers without conditions into Bürgergeld. We need an activating basic security with clear rules and considerations. We need tough sanctions for those who are exploiting us. 

Fourth. A life’s work deserves respect – you mentioned it – and not alms. Who has worked for decades can in old age plainly not become a social case. And who has worked must in old age always have more than anyone who has plainly not done that. The whole would be able to be financed if the plundering of the pension accounts by non-insurance benefits was stopped. 

Fifth. Let us use the potential we have in our own country. 1.6 million young people have no occupational qualification. We need to give them a perspective with a real occupational training, a targeted qualification. The skilled labor shortage will plainly not be solved by mass immigration, but through training and innovation. 

Frau Minister, if you really want social justice, then end this ideologically driven self-destruction of our social state. Finally protect what millions of Germans and well integrated foreigners have built. If you are not in the position for that, then vacate the field, and leave to us this responsibility. 

            Rasha Nasr (SPD): Certainly not! 

            Tanja Machalet (SPD): Never!

I thank you for the attention. 

 

[trans: tem]

Alice Weidel, May 14, 2025, Democracy, Migration, Extremism

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/3, pp. 89-92. 

Right honorable Frau President. Right honorable Herr Chancellor. Right honorable ladies and gentlemen. 

Weakness and instability are the signals which proceed from your historic false start, Herr Merz. You are the Chancellor of the second ballot, and from this stain you will no more be free. You are weak primarily for one reason: You are a Chancellor of the leftists. 

            Heidi Reichinnek (Linke): We are not to blame for everything! 

            Sören Pellman (Linke): This is an impudence, what you say! That is ridiculous.

Your way to the Chancellor’s office is lined with broken election promises and capitulations before the Linke and Greens. The debt brake, to which you high and holy wanted to adhere, you have removed in a financial policy coup d’état, with help of the Greens, with an old Bundestag voted out of office. 

This manner also shows your character, Herr Merz. Up to 1.7 trillion euros in new debt are thereby authorized at one blow. In sum, that is the doubling of the Federal debt – and this in times of recession, of the shrinking economy and the accelerating impoverishment of the citizens. What you thereby serve up, you know quite precisely, since you yourself before the election warned of it. This money will trickle away in all possible channels. The urgently necessary consolidation of the state finances is thereby sacrificed, and the costs for the taxpayer and consumers will drastically rise. In regards another opportunity, you flirt with new taxes and tax increases. And that is an additional broken election promise. Almost 47 billion euros of tax money was devoured in 2024 by the Bürgergeld – you name it basic security – which has long since mutated into migrant money. 47 billion! Almost every second recipient is a foreign citizen. The naturalized foreigners have already fallen out of the statistics. 

            Luigi Pantisano (Linke): What’s with the foreigners from Switzerland?

Around 4 billion euros go to Syrians. That corresponds to the entire budget of the Federal police. Afghans – the nationality with the highest criminality charge in regards violent crimes – received around 1.6 billion euros, as much as foreseen for the social housing construction. It cannot so continue! You however are too weak to change course. 

It continues: The promised abolition of the heating Verbot and the cold expropriation of homeowners by means of the compulsory heat pump is also already again disowned. Exactly like the combustion engine Verbot. You go further with the destruction of the German automobile industry. And you continue Habeck’s heat pump coercion by other means in which you namely make heating with oil and gas even more expensive by the CO₂ air management. 

Instead of ending the planned economy wrong way of the energy change, you even give it a new push, for you, under pressure from the Greens, have even written climate neutrality into the Basic Law. You have additionally cemented the German wrong way drive into impoverishment and de-industrialization. That is dramatic! Heating now becomes more expensive by around 20 percent – the situation this week in the newspapers – tendency rising. The assets of private households in Germany, which in European comparison as well lie in the lower range, according to the Bundesbank’s newest numbers adjusted for inflation since 2021, sank around 20 percent. 20 percent for private households!  The industrial production is in a dive in any case, while the unemployment rises steeply because the production in Germany recedes. It will be stopped. Why? Because the energy prices are too high. 

Without a reliable and affordable energy supply, no economic reconstruction is possible. That goes only by means of a fundamentally different energy policy. End the energy transition. You need to push the re-entry into nuclear power, coal power and the use of advantageous natural gas from Russia! 

            Konstantin von Notz (Greens): Still going to Moscow!

All of that, you do not want. The election promises to correct the nuclear power exit by a responsible CDU Kanzerlin, you in any case have broken. The rest of the world commits to nuclear power. You cling to the Greens’ fetish, hostile to technology. You thus ruin Germany as a business venue. 

Even when you hit upon something correct, half-measures and chaos come forth. The turning back of illegal migrants who enter from secure third states needs be forcefully pursued. It is not discretionary. Border controls and turning back need to ensue without a break and long-term, and not just as momentary pacification measures. Since the illegal immigration into Germany and into the German social system needs to be driven back to zero. 

Turning back at the borders is just a first step, and you even stumble over that. The migration magnets need to be turned off, which lead poverty migrants from all the world over the EU borders to Germany. The Bürgergeld is only one of them. The family reunifications for refugees and asylum seekers, as well as the practices of turbo- and mass-naturalization, need to be immediately completely set aside! Millions of people in illegal ways have come into the country in the last ten years as a consequence of the migration policy rule of injustice which a CDU Kanzerlin set in motion. Hundreds of thousands are immediately obliged to depart, for countless others the residency status needs to be examined and if necessary revoked. To that end, nothing comes from you. 

The migration criminality as a consequence has exploded. The murders, knifings and rapes go on, day by day, week by week. To speak out on these facts is, in the eyes of your subordinated Constitution Defense, allegedly hostile to the constitution. I named named facts, which is urgently necessary so as to finally correct this mis-development. 

The citizens await your plans for sending back and deportation [Abschiebung]. They will well need continue to wait; since your coalition partner, the SPD, does not want to cooperate in any of that. You are stuck in the asylum case, Herr Merz. You yourself have actually built this case because you submitted yourself to the dogma of the anti-democratic firewall which, for the Linke voted out of office here, shall secure a long-term subscription to power. 

And the domestic secret service, the Constitution Defense, which in regards the fulfillment of its actual duties, the defense against Islamic terror and foreign espionage, has miserably failed, arbitrarily and abusively cements this dogma. 

            Konstantin von Notz (Greens): Agent Moscow!

The absurd confidential opinion, which the SPD Interior Minister voted out of office launched shortly before the end of office, is the best evidence for that. Under pressure of the legal situation, the Constitution Defense needed to meanwhile take back its classification. 

            Konstantin von Notz (Greens): Such rubbish! 

            Luigi Pantisano (Linke): That is false!

To you, despite that, it is right to discriminate against our delegation and over 10 million voters, and withhold from us essential parliamentary rights. 

            Britta Haßelmann (Greens): No idea! You would have it gladly!

That the Constitution Defense’s defamations are ludicrous, you know quite precisely. An ethnic term for the people is not counter to the Basic Law; since the Basic Law itself takes it as a basis [Ein ethnischer Volksbegriff ist nicht grundgesetzwidrig; denn das Grundgesetz selbst legt ihn zugrunde]. 

            Saskia Esken (SPD): Then re-read it!

Ah, ja, that was a caesura, because you all have experiences with real extremists. Since an extremist is he who installs and maintains the destructive policy of the open borders. The U.S. foreign minister Marco Rubio certainly needs be recalled: An extremist is he who under the label of Corona preventive measures spreads panic, arbitrarily limits basic rights, and with hate campaigns, with the aid of the public broadcasting, covers, defames and discriminates against those not vaccinated. 

That you laugh, I can imagine.

An extremist is he who destroys the welfare of the citizens and the nation with an eco-socialist transformation. 

            Britta Haßelmann (Greens): You’ve gotten lost with your speech!

An extremist is he who, with majorities voted out of office, manipulates the constitution so to present himself with a debts blank check – at the cost of the taxpayer and of the future generations. 

And now you come in!

            Katharina Dröge (Greens): What was that then?

An extremist is he who with a hammer gang attacks those who think differently, and for that, with the blessing of Bavarian Minister-president Söder, receives a culture prize, paid for by the state, for smashing life and limb [Gelenke und Leben zu zertrümmern]. You should be ashamed! 

An extremist is he who like the Linke wants to overthrow the system, and shoot the rich, or stick in works camps, and, despite that, will be flattered by you with submissive pandering. 

An extremist is

            Ralf Stegner (SPD): Who speaks like you!

he who wants to abolish our free, democratic basic order – you screech the entire time, I know that it hits you – 

Britta Haßelmann (Greens): Yet you know what’s what with the theme! Look at your ranks!

the pluralism, democratic basic principles, bürgerliche freedoms and the freedom of opinion. He is an extremist! 

To maintain this mendacious, leftist, double morality, you plan, under the false label of the fight against hate and agitation, an attack on the freedom of opinion which even exceeds the excesses of the Ampel. You want to intimidate and silence the citizens, thereby to still be able for a while to go on in the old, false paths and sun yourself in the shine of power. 

To the same purpose serves the martial rhetoric with which you spread the war mood so as to divert from the mountains of domestic problems and conflicts. The agitators in your own ranks still bloviate, far from every reality, of Ukraine’s victory over Russia, without saying that would be without having a third world war – and with a third world certainly not. You yourself flash with your advances that the European leadership should dissemble [simulieren sollen], just so in Washington as in Moscow. That is no wonder; since vis-à-vis both powers, you yourself have already shattered very much political porcelain. Of a return to diplomatic reason in the Foreign Office under your government, is also not much to see. If it’s up to you, weapons deliveries to the Ukraine should no longer be spoken of in public. Does that mean you want to deliver Taurus cruise missiles to Kiev, secretly, silently, easily, so as to manage the escalation of the Ukraine war and make Germany a target? 

The citizens have a right to learn what you propose. You however have no answer. Since your government is not a government for citizens, but a government for warmongers and the maintenance of one’s own power. And before all, you have no answer to the question which most moves the citizens: Where remains the political change for the voters, which the people in this country voted for? When finally comes the break with the false, leftist policy which has thrown our country into prosperity annihilation and de-industrialization, into servitude and insecurity? Should there still be anyone in the Union who still has a sense of responsibility for our country 

Britta Haßelmann (Greens): Please do not speak of that!

and wants these questions answered, he knows where he may find the alternative majorities. 

I am grateful. 

 

[trans: tem]

Mary Khan, January 22, 2025, Migrant Trafficking

EU Parliament, Strasbourg, P10 CRE-REV(2025)01-22(3-0290-0000). 

Frau President. 

Over 90 percent of the illegal migrants are assisted by traffickers. The latest Europol report speaks volumes: 48 criminal networks which have specialized exclusively in the trafficking of migrants. And a report from UN Women shows that 90 percent of the women and girls on the Mediterranean route become victims of rape – 90 percent! 

And that ultimately is the result of your left-green policy. Your open borders, your migration pact with family reunifications, and the right to an asylum procedure, make trafficking a lucrative business model. And from countries – naturally also from my homeland, from Germany – comes the signal: Any can come, any will be provided for. 

Yet what we finally require are refugee camps outside the EU, a motion also of my delegation, for which was found a majority here in this plenary session, yet which nevertheless, as a result of the leftists having no understanding of democracy, would bust the budget. Since such an idea would also generally prevent that people make their way to us in Europe along this life-threatening way. And it would also only be that people receive an asylum application or an asylum procedure who really have an asylum reason, and that would primarily reduce the suffering on both sides. 

Since what today has again happened in Germany: A mother, a father, have lost their small child because an Afghan with a knife went after a kindergarten group. And this Afghan has again been a perpetrator who was previously conspicuous. I can only say one thing to you: With my party, the AfD, there will first of all be after the election a political change. Remigration will then be order of the hour. 

 

[trans: tem]

Alice Weidel, February 11, 2025, A Future Government

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/212, pp. 27657-27660. 

Right honorable Frau President. Right honorable Herr Chancellor. Right honorable ladies and gentlemen. Dear colleagues. 

Green-red has failed. The citizens have enough of the ideological transformation of left-green sectarians as they sat here in the government. 

Katharina Dröge (Greens): This entangled, ideological undertone with which the speech begins!

Yet you also, Herr Merz, have already failed; since what you are pushing is deception of the voters. You will be able to implement nothing of your promises with red-green. That belongs to the truth. 

            Katharina Dröge (Greens): This self-hypnosis!

You will thereby merely attain that the work of destruction driven to the extreme by your Angela Merkel and green-red will be continued in our country. 

            Katharina Dröge (Greens): That is just weird!

And the reforms required to again bring Germany in order you will thereby only be able to needlessly delay but, Gott sei Dank, no longer prevent. The migration change, the economic, energy and taxation change, and the change of course in social policy will come. And it will only be possible with the Alternative für Deutschland. 

How would appear a Germany in which the Alternative für Deutschland as a governing party were involved in its program? 

            Ralf Stegner (SPD): It would be Hell! 

            Manfred Todtenhausen (FDP): Gott bewahre uns!

It would be a Germany with secured borders and a border defense which effectively barred illegal migration and cross-border criminality, and let into the country only those who have a legal claim to residency in our country. 

            Britta Haßelmann (Greens): Otherwise, is everything in order with you?

It would be a Germany with a modernized asylum law which no longer opens the floodgates to abuse by illegal immigration, but is directed to the reception capacity of our country. 

            Katharina Dröge (Greens): Even if you speak slowly, it is no less wicked,                                                what you’re saying!

This Germany would have a from the ground up reformed – 

            Johannes Fechner (SPD): Your delegation here is snoozing. Make it more exciting! 

            Katharina Dröge (Greens): That is really malignant!

I do not know what you here are actually doing in the Bundestag. You, the Greens, what are you doing here actually? 

            Britta Haßelmann (Greens): What do you want?

You are at best only hecklers. 

Manuel Höferlin (FDP): Thus says the righteous!

You are at best only howlers. 

            Ralf Stegner (SPD): Look in the mirror!

This slobbering kindergarten here! What are you doing actually? You make politics against the people. 

Our Germany – as per our vision of the future – would have a from the ground up reformed residency and naturalization law which is open to all those who work here, pay taxes and identify themselves with the German national state, its culture and legal order, and want to make a positive contribution; which, however, consistently shows to the door notorious criminals, religious extremists, and all who wish to exploit its reception readiness. In this Germany, respect for the law and equality of all before the law would again have unconditional validity. 

Filiz Polat (Greens): Yet you are working with concealed symbols. What then are they for symbols?

It would be a country in which the citizens’ freedom is not just a lip service, but stands at the center of the order of laws and values. 

            Filiz Polat (Greens): Say what that is for symbols!

Frau President, this heckling! 

President Bärbel Bas: You can also say that of your own delegation which                        continually calls out. 

Friedrich Merz (CDU/CSU, to Alice Weidel): You are very sensitive here! Take a peek at how quickly you become sensitive!

Your job, Frau President, is a neutral guidance of the presidency, and this slobbering in fact goes to the broadcasters. This is really painful, and these people have no business here in the Bundestag. They all have never worked in their life. You’ve never worked in your life. What are you doing here? 

We want a country in which the basic right of individuals of the right of defense against – 

It again continues exactly so. Get to work! From the week after next, you then have the opportunity for that, when you are further decimated. Go to work, find yourself a job! 

            Johannes Fechner (SPD): A bit weak today! 

            Katrin Göring-Eckardt (Greens): Even your own people find that painful!

We want a country in which is the basic right of the individuals’ right of defense against state encroachment, and which is not misunderstood as an allotted act of grace which could be incumbent or be withdrawn at pleasure after it has been put over with tax-financed campaigns. 

Katharina Dröge (Greens): That makes no sense, what you put forward here. That is simply absurd!

The courts in this country have the foremost duty to pronounce uncorrupted, independent law, without regard to person or opinion. The filling of the highest judicial offices would be withdrawn from the influence of the parties, and the state prosecutors’ offices would be independent of the Justice Minister’s directions. Since the judiciary as the third power has to control and not confirm the executive. 

            Joe Weingarten (SPD): You can tell that to to your friend Donald.

The Constitution Defense and the domestic secret service would be fundamentally reformed. The citizenry, the entirety of the state’s citizens, is the sovereign, and should be able to give its vote not only in parliamentary elections but also be able to vote in peoples petitions and referendums on the central questions. 

We want direct democracy in Germany. 

President Bärbel Bas: Frau Dr. Weidel, do you allow an interim question                                    or interim remark?

No, the others have not.

In this country, there would be a multifarious media landscape which would vie to control the powerful, to keep in check precisely these, instead of serving as a megaphone. The competition would no longer be distorted by a plentiful public media sector, financed by compulsory fees, which has long since surrendered its journalistic independence. The broadcasting fees would be abolished. 

Tax money in this country would be levied frugally. A good government pays attention to what the citizen has earned by hard, grinding work, and claims no more of that than is unconditionally necessary for the fulfillment of its few core duties. A good government respects its citizens’ property, and does not appropriate it with asset, inheritance and invasive income, business and consumption taxes. 

A well governed state does not interdict and manipulate its citizens. It does not distribute its money to all the world, and not to ideological lobby groups 

            Lamya Kaddor (Greens): You discriminate against only the minorities!

and favorites so as to purchase their servitude. It leaves in the taxpayer’s pocket as much net from gross as possible so that he can provide for himself, his family and his future. It does not meddle in his private lifestyle, and also not in the raising of his children. And it does not presume to ideologically indoctrinate the people from childhood to old age. 

Stefan Schmidt (Greens): What are you actually talking about here? A manometer!

A good government knows that the bürgerliche middle class and the business Mittelstand are the backbone of welfare, prosperity and Bürgerlichkeit in the country. A good government knows of business freedom, and it only attends to and is concerned that are guaranteed domestic and foreign security, the order of the state of law and a functioning infrastructure, a performance-oriented, ideologically neutral education system as well as social provision for those who are unable to help themselves.   

A functioning Germany would have its own, strong currency 

            Ralf Stegner (SPD): The reichsmark!

which ensures that the national wealth created by the people remains in the country and retains its value. 

            Saskia Esken (SPD): Then good night! 

            Britta Haßelmann (Greens): The D-mark, or what?

It would have its own independent central bank, a Bundesbank which does not permit the Politik to cold expropriate the citizens by way of inflation, the most unsozial of asset taxes. 

Britta Haßelmann (Greens): Every reasonable person knows that that leads us economically to the abyss, the D-mark!

Without a functioning – now we are again with you – secure and advantageous energy supply, no flourishing economy! Germany has the highest energy prices worldwide because all of you here in this sovereign house have destroyed our energy infrastructure. 

            Britta Haßelmann (Greens): You would be the downfall of the economy!

Instead of further destroying our landscape with much too expensive, highly subsidized wind mills and solar mirrors, which deliver no electricity during darkness and doldrum, a reasonable government would therefore the subventions monster – 

            Johannes Fechner (SPD): Here, you yourself need to laugh!

No, I laugh over you, because you are not able to behave yourself. You cannot behave yourself. You are guilty of that to your voters. Simply make serious policy. You’ve driven this country kaputt. For that, you will be punished by the voters. You will in the next sitting no longer sit here. 

A reasonable government would therefore stop the energy transition subventions monster, and indeed immediately, fortify the re-entry into nuclear power, and indeed immediately, and advantageous oil and natural gas 

            Katharina Dröge (Greens):…buy from Russia!

and buy it where is most advantageous. 

            Katharina Dröge (Greens): Putin now rejoices! Did he order that in your speech? 

            Irene Mihalic (Greens): You yourself do not take it seriously!

And a reasonable government would end a ruinous energy policy which only harms our own country. We will put an end to it. 

A good government would have a functioning army which would be taken seriously by allies and opponents, and a foreign policy which has considered balance and good economic and political relations with all neighbors and major powers. It would be a diplomacy which would not let itself be drawn into military conflicts, but enter as an honest broker for peace. It would have a foreign policy which continually has in view the interests of our own country, and with reason and skill represents, and does not make itself the laughing stock of the world with unworldly pedantry and moral-political megalomania. 

The conviction guides us that the sovereign national state is the foundation for democracy, freedom, welfare and self-determination. We know that politicians conscious of responsibility are the servants of the people in this country, and that the self-conscious representation of national interests is their foremost duty. We therefore enlist for a Germany which is based on respect for freedom, on the unconditional respect for law and equality before the law, and on unity in the defense of these values. 

That is our vision for Germany. Our hand is out-stretched 

            Irene Mihalic (Greens): To Russia!

for all who want to realize it with us. And it lies with you, whether you grasp this hand. Our beloved country has long since deserved it.

 

[trans: tem]

Bernd Baumann, January 31, 2025, The Firewall Dead

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/211, pp. 27529-27530. 

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

Herr Merz, you wanted to bring in today at 10:30 a draft law for the limitation of migration. You wanted to take the lead in this country. 

Yet then you began again to hesitate and to trip, again negotiating with red-green, for three and a half hours. Every voter needs now understand: There is a fundamental change of migration policy only with the AfD. We stand fast, ladies and gentlemen, we do not trip, we do not cozy up to red-green. We overcome red-green; that is our goal.   

Already on Wednesday, there was an earthquake here in the Bundestag. The Union attempted for the first time to free itself from the embrace of left-green, and in a vote sought a majority beyond that. It was a majority with the votes of the AfD. We in common reached a majority, and immediately in the first attempt. Decisive was the cooperation of blue and black. And after the Bundestag election, this majority will be still greater – as a result of the AfD’s strength, Herr Merz. 

            Friedreich Merz (CSU/CSU): Forget it!

The journalists asked me afterwards: Herr Baumann, are you saying that the Union has now overtaken all of your migration points, even the turning back at the borders? What then distinguishes you from the Union? – Do you know what I answered? Yes, the Union has overtaken all points. Yet it still does not amount to what the Union promises in the election campaign. It comes to whether they are credible. And precisely that, they are not. They will form a coalition with SPD and Greens and implement nothing of what they promise. 

We were able to see the same after the successful vote on Wednesday. Here went a Friedrich Merz with trembling knees 

            Friedreich Merz (CSU/CSU): Ach du lieber Gott!

to the speaker’s podium and apologized to SPD and Greens that he received a majority for his own motion. That is today’s CDU: You do not stand, you stagger – how pitiful is that actually! 

Today the Union wants to place a proposal for migration limitation in the daily order, this time a draft law proposal. It’s about the residency law, strengthening the police, limitation of family reunion. Again all good demands, since it has renewed our demands – the Union has only copied them – and we will therefore again vote in favor. 

We vote in favor, yet the Union staggers. Daniel Günther, Minister-president of Schleswig-Holstein, already announces that today’s immigration limitation law will be stopped, at latest in the Bundesrat, by CDU State chiefs who vote against a law of their own party. And the Berlin CDU head of government has already expressed that. That says everything about this Union: They cannot be trusted, they are simply without credibility. 

It is not enough. Yesterday, ex-Chancellor Merkel also stabbed in the back her party friend Merz. She held it to be wrong if he brings in a law without previously negotiating with red-green, with red-green voting. Three-quarters – this, everyone out there needs to know – of these present-day Union members, as they sit here, were already with Merkel, are old-time Merkel servers, three-quarters of the present Union delegation, upon whom Merkel now calls for resistance – against one of their own laws. For what can the Union still be relied on? On simply nothing. This party is without credibility through and through. 

A glance at the Federal States in which the Union governs shows this. Nowhere there will more be deported than in left-green-governed States. Nowhere does the Union realize its election promises. The Union can be trusted neither in the States nor in the Bund; that, the voters need now know in regards the upcoming Bundestag election. 

The Union and Friedrich Merz now also assert that it is the present Aschaffenburg murders which have brought them to a reconsideration. Yet, Herr Merz, what then was with the many, many previous murders? Maria from Freiberg, in 2016 murdered by an Afghan. Mia from Kandel in 2017 killed by an Afghan. Susana in Wiesbaden: In 2018 killed by an Iraqi. And these are only the cases upon which the media has reported. The present total figures for asylum migrants indicate something quite different: For 2023 alone – these are the latest figures which are presented – 64 murders, 8,800 rapes and sexual assaults, and 56,000 cases of bodily harm. This has never interested you of the Union. And now, four weeks before the Bundestag election, you come to it. The present murders are thus not the reason for this reconsideration, just as little as the previous murders. It is alone the AfD’s success shortly before the Bundestag election. That drives the Union, and simply nothing at all otherwise.   

On account of all of these horrific acts of violence, we of the AfD have here ever again placed motions. First in 2017, we were just then in the parliament, an AfD motion for turning back at the borders – rejected by the CDU. In 2020, a renewed motion for turning back at the borders – rejected by the CDU. 2022, 2023, 2024 – rejected, rejected, rejected. How many people need die on your account, dear Union? You have them on your conscience. They are the dead of your firewall. 

Only the AfD can credibly and lastingly redeem Germany. 

 

[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]