- The AfD discharges its foreign affairs representative <unk>, unaware of the potential consequences.
Recently, the narrative surrounding the Bautzen Foreigners' Commissioner has shifted into a tale of failures. Particularly affected is the Commissioner herself, Anna Piętak-Malinowska, as the Bautzen District Council, with assistance from some CDU district councilors, dismantled her position at the request of the AfD. Whether this move is even lawful remains uncertain.
The catalog of losses is extensive. It includes:
- Landrat Udo Witschas (CDU), who inadvertently paved the way for the AfD without fully comprehending the significance of the resolution
- The CDU Saxony, which is now compelled to ponder over the robustness of its boasted barrier against the AfD, just days prior to the state election
- The Bautzen district, which sends a negative message towards foreigners while simultaneously seeking foreign professionals for its economy
- The AfD Bautzen, achieving a clumsy resolution request – but this is a matter of perspective. The AfD views itself as the victor
How did this unfold?
August 19, 5 p.m., Bautzen District Office: The newly elected district council convenes for its initial assembly. The AfD holds 32 seats, with the CDU trailing behind with 25 seats.
Bautzen: The AfD carries a winning ace
The district councilors deliberate over adopting the main charter, a sort of municipal constitution, regulating the administration structure and the district council itself. The resolution appears uncontroversial, as the charter's fundamental aspects were already agreed upon. However, the AfD stuns everyone in the evening with a proposal to remove the Foreigners' Commissioner position from the main charter.
AfD faction leader Heike Lotze has still another underhand move up her sleeve: She proposes a secret ballot. Apart from the 32 AfD district councilors, three district councilors from the extreme-right Free Saxons, one from the Free Voters, and especially six CDU district councilors, including Landrat Witschas himself, endorse this proposal.
With this support, a majority is achieved, and the voting occurs in secret. It seems that some individuals are unwilling to publicly associate with the AfD.
In total, 47 members of parliament vote for abolishing the Foreigners' Commissioner, 30 are against it, and 7 abstain. The majority only came about due to CDU district councilors' votes.
The CDU fails to comprehend the uproar
A call to CDU faction leader Matthias Grahl. He fails to grasp the uproar. Grahl asserts that Bautzen is in debt and must cut costs. The district council is no longer obliged to appoint a Foreigners' Commissioner legally. Therefore, it is only logical to delete the position.
In fact, until lately, the Saxon District Ordinance mandated districts to "appoint commissioners for migration." And indeed, this provision was removed in the latest amendment of the law.
However, this is only because it can now be found in slightly modified form in another state law: In the Saxon Integration Act, which the state parliament ratified in June. It stipulates that the districts should appoint "main administrative commissioners for integration and participation."
The matter is "legally watertight," says CDU man Grahl. A Foreigners' Commissioner will still exist in the future. And interestingly, they are in favor of it. It's just that the state is now responsible for financing the position, if it specifies it in a state law.
However, there are doubts about this legal interpretation in Bautzen. Even District Administrator Witschas cannot confirm whether his authority must now hire an immigration officer or not. He is still awaiting instructions from the state, he writes in response to an inquiry. He intends to "investigate" the implications for his administration and the officer herself.
I also called AfD faction leader Lotze. She should know what will happen to the immigration officer now. After all, she drafted the application, and she also practices law.
Well.
She claims she "cannot currently specify" whether the new state law mandates the position of the immigration officer. "The law states 'should'. It is unclear whether this is in the sense of 'can' or 'must.' Her application had 'substantive reasons,' she also refers to the amended district order and the financial requirements of the district.
Lotze deflects responsibility back to District Administrator Witschas. He "is accountable for operational administration." She is unaware of the employment contract and cannot estimate "whether the district administrator might not simply reassign the employee to another position." I would not presume to anticipate the district administrator's decision, she adds.
We note: The Bautzen district council abolishes the immigration officer without knowing whether this is even lawful. The CDU hides behind legal technicalities. The district administrator remains uncertain about the repercussions of the resolution for his administration and the officer herself.
All this adds up to a farcical episode of local governance in Bautzen. Yet, the incident also holds a secondary, more political implication. It raises questions once again about how sincerely the CDU, particularly in Saxony, takes its own pledge to establish a barrage against the AfD.
In Bautzen, the Union openly expresses its stance on the matter. A collaboration ban with the AfD, as suggested at both the federal and state levels, is something that faction leader Grahl claims cannot be implemented on the local level. "We don't submit joint applications with the AfD or hold joint faction meetings," he clarifies. "However, we do engage with all district council members. An application isn't bad just because it comes from the wrong source."
District Administrator Witschas, who also serves as the Bautzen CDU district association's chairman, shares that his role allows him to collaborate with all district council members. Such collaboration, he says, isn't feasible on the local level, given the current majority ratios.
The Saxony Social Ministry provides some clarity: Eliminating the immigration officer goes against the Integration Act. The provision is outlined as a 'should provision', the authority notes, allowing for deviations only in 'justified exceptional cases'. The potential cost savings also necessitate 'supervisory review'.
Unfortunately, the Bautzen district's losing tale has been officially confirmed.
The CDU district councilors, including Landrat Witschas, failed to fully understand the implications of their votes, inadvertently aiding the AfD in dismantling the Foreigners' Commissioner position. Despite the CDU's claims of legalities, doubts persist about the legality of abolishing the position.
The AfD Bautzen, through their actions, have now placed the Bautzen District Council in a precarious position, potentially violating the Integration Act and facing scrutiny for their decision.
