René Springer, June 12, 2024, Social Benefits Abuse

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/174, pp. 22520-22521. 

Frau President. Right honorable colleagues. Dear guests. 

Before us lies a motion of my delegation [Drucksache 20/11745] with which we pursue the goal of opposing abuse of social benefits. We demand immediate measures against commuter migration. What is commuter migration? Nothing other than social tourism. That means that foreigners come here to Germany, apply for Bürgergeld and other social benefits, then return home, and there do with the money as always; all of this at the cost of the German taxpayers. 

If the Social Ministry is asked, then one gets either the answer: “There is no problem”, or: “It is a matter of quite few single cases”. We however do not believe in single cases; for one, because we no longer at all believe this Federal government, and for another, because massive evidence says otherwise. 

Since 2016, there are media reports of Syrians, who have a protection status here in Germany, drawing social benefits and yet then driving home on vacation. Recently, the Münchener Merkur reported on a Algerian of 56 years who lived in Bavaria, drew social benefits – namely, Bürgergeld – then had gone to Algeria and forgot to report to a job center. He received 13,900 euros. The Welt recently reported on a married couple from Nigeria, who lived for years in Nigeria and received Bürgergeld, and in fact 33,000 euros. The Focus recently reported on a Ukrainian family who came to Germany seeking protection, then however returned home and there received 40,000 euros in Bürgergeld. 

            Markus Kurth (Greens): Then inquire at the job centers there!

Every day, 50 flex busses drive from Berlin to Kiev. One needs be crazy to believe that not a single one of the 723,000 Ukrainians receiving Bürgergeld sits therein. 

With this government, and with you here in hall, there is no motivation to oppose social tourism. You lead this country like a banana republic, that is the problem. 

            Marian Schieder (SPD): We want to oppose corruption of members!

An AfD-led government would effectively prevent the social tourism. How would we do that? By increasing the degree of contact at the job centers and indeed by a personal audition every four weeks. We would introduce an identity test by means of a finger-printing procedure, and it is an absurdity that there has not been that up to today. I get letters from job center workers who report from Berlin-Kreuzberg. There, fully veiled women stand before them and say they are whoever, and the workers must believe that because it is not allowed to require the veil to be lifted. How shall it be possible to ascertain the identity? 

We demand in regards suspicion of absence to conduct a test search at home. We demand that the operators of long-distance bus lines be required to pass on passenger lists to the Federal police with which the job center can undertake inquiries there; the same applies besides for air travel to German airports. 

We demand in regards suspicion of unpermitted absence that the immediate stop of payments follows. We demand that in regards the confirmation of an unpermitted absence that not only the payment will be stopped, but all previously made payments be paid back, inclusive of costs of shelter. And should those in need of protection travel in a war area, from which they have ostensibly fled, then that means reimboursement of the social benefits; then that means also the withdrawal of the protection status and a ban on entry. Such people who exploit our social system have nothing to lose here. 

Honestly said, I was shocked at the committee sitting today. There, I had addressed the theme, the social politicians among us will recall. 

            Jens Teutrine (FDP): You did not! You did not speak!

All peek with big eyes and ask how can it be that, in EU comparison, so few Ukrainians are working here, yet so many Ukrainians are on Bürgergeld. I had asked whether not perhaps this is connected with the flex busses to Kiev. The Frau State Secretary’s answer – there she sits; she will be able to well remember – was accordingly: It is nevertheless self-evident that Ukrainians go home so as to look after things. And you also said: The SGB II [Social Code] also foresees a vacation. I thus can only say one thing to you: You do not oppose the social tourism, as we demand; you promote the social tourism. You are the problem in our country. 

I can only say one thing: Who comes to Germany and here draws social benefits, then goes on vacation, goes to a supposed war area, 

            Markus Kurth (Greens): “A supposed war area”? O Gott!

he has no claim to social benefits, he has no claim to protection, he does not belong in Germany, he belongs in his home and there he can remain. 

Many thanks for your attention. 

 

[trans: tem]

 

 

 

 

 

René Springer, February 22, 2023, Foreign Labor and Germany

AfD Kompakt, February 22, 2023.

As if there was not sufficient immigration from Africa, the Federal government now goes personally to Ghana to motivate people to migrate and obtain them for the German labor market. The migration centers, which were actually thought of as for those returning from Europe, shall now be reconstructed as job centers in foreign countries.

In that regard, the reinforced migration from Africa will solve not one, single problem in Germany, but will lead to yet more wage dumping. Why should German businesses pay prosperous wages when at their disposal is a never to be exhausted stream of labor from all the world?

The AfD delegation in the Bundestag posits a clear concept against these neoliberal fantasies of a global labor market: In Germany, raise the at hand potential, qualification and employment of hundreds of thousands of domestic unemployed, and an end to age discrimination in German industries. Yet before all, businesses in Germany need to finally recognize that they most readily obtain qualified and motivated co-workers with reasonable wages.

 

[trans: tem]

 

 

René Springer, November 10, 2022, International Rights

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 60/66, pp. 7696-7697.

Frau President. Right honorable ladies and gentlemen.

Mention was already made of the ratification of the 2008 facultative protocols – it is already some time here – for the international pact on economic, social and cultural rights.

I am irritated that the two preceding speakers have made reference to Qatar. Human rights in Qatar are nevertheless not so protected that we here today are to ratify this treaty.

            Wolfgang Strengmann-Kuhn (Greens): I spoke of Germany!

That lies in the hands of Qatar. And Qatar has not ratified this treaty. I would wish that you not tell such nonsense to those who are watching. That is completely misleading.

What shall this facultative protocol make possible? A grievance procedure will be contrived for individuals and groups which, subsequent to the exhaustion of national state legal means, will have the opportunity to lodge a grievance at a UN committee if they feel themselves violated in their rights. Individual persons and groups? What are groups? NGOs, that is nevertheless clear. Here is an NGO law. Here, it is about that once again will be created for NGOs the possibility by means of international organizations to execute an attack upon the national states. That is the actual aim. – At least you applaud honestly.

We of the Alternative für Deutschland always put forward two questions: A law has which uses, and which risks proceed from a law? What are uses of this? In a two-fold sense: None. The rights dealt with here which have been defined in the 1973 international pact on economic, social and cultural rights – which was ratified – are guaranteed and protected in Germany. No one here present would assert that these rights are stepped on in Germany.  

            Kai Whittaker (CDU/CSU): Yet you assert it every day!

Thus we therefore do not need this law. Beyond that, it is a duty of the lawmaker to adjust to where a need for regulation exists. And we are the lawmakers and not some international organization distant from our states.

            Götz Frömming (AfD): That is so!

Beyond that, risks proceed from this law if we ratify it. What will happen is that NGOs will make Germany laughable before the United Nations where, for example, limitations of rights are made a theme in the sense that they are certainly not limitations of rights if it is meant seriously. I even see already some sort of crazy gender association which then brings complaint before the United Nations that here there are no toilets for the fourth gender.

            Manuel Gava (SPD): That is precisely the aim!

That is nevertheless to where this law leads. We do not want precisely that. We do not want that a UN committee decides over what is here law and statute.

            Stephan Stracke (CDU/CSU): That is just not right!

You say: What is happening here is not legally binding, it is only soft law. – Yet the fact nevertheless is that soft law very quickly becomes hard law,

            Stephan Stracke (CDU/CSU): Now he’s on “soft law”. It’s just nonsense!

by which of course national courts in regards their decisions draw upon that decision of the next higher level for an interpretation.

            Vice-president Aydan Özoğuz: Please come to a conclusion.

Thereby is national law nevertheless again at an end

            Lamya Kaddor (Greens): That is pitiful!

and that we reject.     

We reject the left-green Agenda which pursues just one goal:

Vice-president Aydan Özoğuz: Please come to a conclusion.

To soften up the national state and democracy for an attack by international organizations.

I am grateful for the attention.

            Lamya Kaddor (Greens): Good night!

 

 

[trans: tem]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

René Springer, May 19, 2022, Afghanistan Investigation Committee

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/37, pp. 3544-3545. 

Herr President. Right honorable ladies and gentlemen. Dear guests. Dear soldiers and veterans who perhaps are watching.

The Alternative für Deutschland here in the German Bundestag today moves for the appointment of an investigation committee for a reappraisal of the mission in Afghanistan, which in 2001 was begun by red-green, was carried on by four additional Federal governments, and in 2021 ended in a disaster. Not one, single goal was attained. Afghanistan was thrown into chaos.

What were the goals of the Federal government? The principal goals were the preservation of security and creation of a self-supported stability. The fact is that the number of terrorism deaths in the course of time, and with the presence of the Western troops, increased year for year. In the year 2007 for example, there were 2,000 terrorism deaths; the year 2009, 8,600 terrorism deaths – a fourfold increase. In 2016, the blood toll of the Afghan armed forces was so great that the Afghan government and the U.S. government decided to no longer publish the numbers, and the Federal government joined in this deception strategy. All together from 2001 to 2021 are 212,000 deaths to lament. This is the result of a values-conducted foreign policy, in regards to which the export of values and democracy were more important than the reality on the ground, the cultural identity of the Afghans and the traditions of these people. In the eyes of many Afghans, we were not liberators, we were occupiers, a Western foreign body in an archaic, tribal culture, and thus ourselves a factor in the increasing instability in this country.

An additional goal of the Federal government was the promotion of the state of law, democracy and women’s rights. A research opinion of the Bundestag’s scientific service now says: There was never a functioning state of law in Afghanistan in the years of 2001 to 2021. Afghanistan was at the latest since 2010 a de facto failed state. The Taliban won the upper hand, and thereby also corruption, the drug economy and militia arbitrariness. For an additional ten long years, the Federal government nevertheless spread an endurance rhetoric and led the public to believe in an improvement of the situation which was not in place.

And what about women’s rights? Today is the burkha – as is read in the newspapers – again obligatory for women. Women’s freedom to travel without male escort is restricted. Girls are no longer allowed to attend continued schooling. That is the result of feminist foreign policy!

            Gyde Jesen (FDP): Rubbish!

The Federal government pursued the goal of fighting drug cultivation in Afghanistan. The announced goal was the halving of the drug cultivation area. In fact, the opium production from 2001, the last year of Taliban rule, to 2021 increased 36 times. 36 times more drug production, although the fight against drugs had been proclaimed. Afghanistan is today the principal drug producer, the principal opium producer worldwide, and supplies 24 million drug consumers, 80 percent of all users. In 2021, Afghanistan was also the world’s second largest producer of hashish. No citizen understands how the fight against drugs can be announced and there then arises a state which works its way to become a global player in the drug economy. No man understands this.

An additional goal of the Federal government was to enable the Afghan security forces to guarantee security in its own country. In 2003, the Afghan armed forces numbered 6,000; by 2020, 270,000. The armed forces included more troops and police than the Bundeswehr. Despite this, following the withdrawal of Western troops, the Taliban without encountering resistance worthy of the name could re-conquer Afghanistan. The results of 20 years of education, equipment, financing and training were pulverized within a few days. How is something like that possible?

Ladies and gentlemen, this war had many losers, yet also winners. The losers are the German taxpayers who have paid over 17 billion euros for this mission. The losers are over 100,000 German soldiers who were senselessly used as cannon fodder [verheizt] in this mission. The losers are the 59 dead German soldiers and thousands with mission-conditioned psychic illnesses with which today they still have to struggle. And the profiters? That is the arms industry which did a good business; primarily however it is the Taliban who today sit stronger in the saddle than in 2001, and who are extremely well armed by means of our equipment and by means of our formation.

Endlessly many questions are yielded from this 20 year mission; and these questions we want to clarify in the scope of an investigation committee. How could five Federal governments deceive themselves and the German public for two decades? Why did the Federal government set up as partners corrupt warlords and war criminals whose only interest was building their own power, yet not in stability?  How could it be that the opium production was continually higher than under the rule of the Taliban? Why did the Federal government so long refuse to conduct talks with the Taliban, as was demanded by then SPD chief Kurt Beck in 2007 and as was ultimately done by Trump, the U.S. President? How much tax money landed in the hands of corrupt power elites? And before all: How could an entire army, which was larger than the Bundeswehr, collapse within a few days? In our view, these questions need to be clarified.

I thus come to conclusion. The appraisal of the 20 year Afghanistan mission will not heal wounded and traumatized soldiers. It will also bring back none of the 3 dead police and 59 dead soldiers. Yet we owe it to them and their relatives to unsparingly clarify the disaster, the wrong decisions, the empty promises, the deceptions, the lies. We want to and we must hold to account those politically responsible. That is the goal which we pursue with this motion for the appointment of an investigation committee on Afghanistan.

I am grateful for the attention.

 

[trans: tem]