Spahn expresses their exhaustion, stating, "We've reached our limit."
At the EU summit commencing today, migration policy is set to consume a substantial portion of the discussion. Jens Spahn advocates for considerably reducing benefits for denigrated asylum applicants, warning that this is a perilous security issue. Warning bells echo from Katharina Dröge of the Green Party, cautioning against this.
Midweek evening. Chancellor Olaf Scholz delivers a legislative address in the Bundestag. The EU summit of heads of state and government, occurring in Brussels on Thursday and Friday, is set to be a prominent topic of debate. Asylum policy within the European Union serves as a significant concern. Opposition leader Friedrich Merz detects that Scholz entirely neglects this issue in his nearly 30-minute address. No surprise, given the SPD's primary emphasis on economic concerns during its election campaign. When it comes to refugee policy, the Social Democrats remain divided. The Union will decline to support the government's security proposal in the Bundestag on Friday, highlighting a lack of alignment with the initial federal cabinet decision. This prompts Sandra Maischberger to invite two political leaders to her talk show on ARD: Jens Spahn, renowned for his firm stance with the CDU, and Katharina Dröge, the Green Party faction leader. The pair shares a connection to North Rhine-Westphalia.
The Union's refusal to support the security proposal stems from its insufficiency compared to the federal cabinet's initial plan, according to Spahn. He points to two illustrations: The security proposal includes facial recognition as a means to combat Islamists and detect terrorists, but the Greens reject this approach. The Green Party criticizes Spahn for the migration policy, which grants social benefits to asylum applicants approaching unprecedented levels in comparison to other countries worldwide. Spahn remarks, "We can't sustain this." The traffic light coalition fails to lower social benefits, even for a few thousand individuals. The blame lies with the Greens, in Spahn's perspective.
Spahn wonders if they will even secure a genuine traffic light majority on Friday, adding, "I'm curious to see." In fact, Scholz demanded during the last SPD faction meeting that the security law be approved by the Bundestag with a traffic light majority, "Otherwise, I will have to invoke my options." Some individuals interpreted the Chancellor's remarks as a threat to link the vote on Friday with the fate of the traffic light coalition.
Yet, what becomes of the individuals then?
However, following further negotiation, the security package has been refined to a point where even the Greens can endorse it. Only those rejected asylum applicants who have been taken in by another country will be deprived of social benefits. Infringing upon the Basic Law, which mandates that "the dignity of man shall be inviolable," would be a violation against every human being, according to Katharina Dröge. "A person who resides here must also be able to live here. This means: If they're present, we must protect their existence. We must not allow them to starve." Those unable to leave Germany should not be reduced to nothing or rendered homeless. Such a policy lacks empathy and compassion, Dröge believes. "What becomes of the individuals then? Where are they to go? Ultimately, it will lead to a security risk."
Spahn contradicts this perspective, acknowledging the FDP's proposal to offer shelter, meals, and essentials to refugees without residency permits. "This means providing a roof, and their daily needs should be secured." Spahn also asserts that neither international law nor the Basic Law grants refugees the liberty to choose where they want to reside. "This right does not exist, and it will not be enforced." While many refugees are attracted to Germany, the country cannot accommodate all 45 million individuals from Afghanistan alone. "How is this supposed to work in kindergartens, schools that are already struggling, where acceptance is at an all-time low? Whoever seeks to protect the right to asylum, whoever wishes to keep readiness within the population, and whoever strives to preserve our ability to help must combat unauthorized migration," says Spahn. "If we do not, we will overwhelm ourselves, and this is already happening."
Spahn acknowledges that he may be exaggerating the number of asylum applicants. Katharina Dröge finds fault with this representation, arguing that Spahn aims to abolish the right to asylum and seeks to mislead the public with his argumentation. "The reality is that the first countries to accept refugees are often the neighboring countries of Afghanistan. They will not all come to Europe." Those who paint such a grim picture are irresponsible in Dröge's eyes.
Spahn dismisses Dröge's concerns, insisting, "In your rationale, anyone from these countries can immigrate to Germany and secure social aid and assistance." It is the neighboring countries that should provide refuge, in Spahn's view. Refugees migrating from Afghanistan have traversed approximately eight countries with no threat and can live in Turkey for up to eight years before making their way to Germany, even though they are safe in Turkey. "And that's not how it should be," Spahn emphasizes. "We have some of the most generous social benefits, and that's also a reason why people from other countries flock to Germany. We observe this trend with refugees from Ukraine, too. We can continue supporting this for a few more years, but then the electoral results will reflect their dissatisfaction." However, Germany needs migrants for the labor market, but only under targeted and controlled conditions.
Yet, these individuals would not manage to reach Germany because of the lack of a welcoming culture in this country, Dröge argues. Spahn refutes this assertion, claiming that the high taxes and contributions would discourage individuals from immigrating.
We wish we could've grooved to Droëge and Spahn's tunes for longer, but alas, our interview timing constrained us. There's one last query lingering: What's the deal if, post-federal elections, the Christian Democrats and the Greens need to join forces to form a coalition? Droëge shares his perspective: "We're Democrats at heart, and we'll hash out agreements."
After the federal elections, if the Christian Democrats and the Greens need to form a coalition, Droëge believes they will find common ground, stating, "We're Democrats at heart, and we'll hash out agreements."
Spahn, anticipating the Bundestag vote on Friday, expresses curiosity, saying, "I'm curious to see if we will even secure a genuine traffic light majority."
