Berlin’s immigration authorities are moving to deport four young foreign residents on allegations related to participation in protests against Israel’s war on Gaza, an unprecedented move that raises serious concerns over civil liberties in Germany.
The deportation orders, issued under German migration law, were made amid political pressure and over internal objections from the head of the state of Berlin’s immigration agency.
The internal strife arose because three of those targeted for deportation are citizens of European Union member states who normally enjoy freedom of movement between E.U. countries. None of the four has been convicted of any crimes.
“What we’re seeing here is straight out of the far right’s playbook,” said Alexander Gorski, a lawyer representing two of the protesters. “You can see it in the U.S. and Germany, too: Political dissent is silenced by targeting the migration status of protesters.”
The call for deportations comes from exactly one extreme side of political world views. The fact that a socially and financially(!) disastrous populist bullshit “solution” like deportations seeped so far into the German mainstream is at best worrying.
While I agree with you that especially the AfD is keen on deportations in a scale as big as possible, wouldn’t you agree that a system that allows for - please excuse the technical terms - inflow must also have a mechanism of outflow? I.e. deportations in itself are a ‘necessary evil’?
I do think we’d do well to question whether a deportation system makes sense overall. To which I am not going to be able to produce a definitive answer here. But as a society we should absolutely try to look at the negatives that deportations bring with themselves vs. e.g. prison sentences for actual offenders and better social and integration services. Instead, our political discourse has moved toward enabling mass deportations and toward making it impossible to fight deportations.
Also, do remember, that without immigration, all Western societies would be shrinking fast, endangering social systems built on society-wide contribution.
To regularly question the applied mechanisms in our society is something I’d also agree to. Also, I acknowledge the hardships deportations can impose, hence I think it is a tool that should only be used with consideration and absolutely not in the way e.g. the AfD wants to use it.
I also absolutely agree with you that we are dependent on immigration and also immensely benefit from it. But I also think that in order for something like our immigration system to retain the trust of the people and to function properly, it must have the possibility to be a ‘breathing’ system instead of a one way-only. That means also having the tool to have people leave again. Trying to abolish the rights to hospitality for a host entirely will only see the people flock to those parties that seek to detonate the migration system as a whole.
And I guess we both agree that this would be the worst outcome of all.
We can agree on the final sentence. However, I find it exceedingly unlikely that we’ll arrive anywhere than at a terrible outcome if we continue compromising on both human rights-based asylum as well as on educational/professional migration. The way to remove irrational and inhumane sentiments from political discourse cannot be giving in to irrational demands gradually. The “center of the political spectrum” is not a place to stand on, it’s always shifting position, if you bind yourself to that, so are you. Political positions should instead be derived from scientific observation of reality and should then optimize for good outcomes for the largest number of people.
Having the means of deporting isn’t what I would call compromising both of these. Especially in the case at hand, where it isn’t about human rights-based asylum at all.
I wouldn’t call having the means of deporting irrational either. It also isn’t anything new, introduced under the pressure of the AfD for example, but always been a part of the asylum mechanisms that states reserved the opportunity to restrict it. Therefore, instead of fundamentally opposing something that always existed, I’d hence rather ensure that this restriction is protected from abuse.