"None of this is coincidence"

IMAGO, Christian Schroedter, Gedenken vor der Magdeburger Frauenkirche

Repression leads to failure: The attack in Aschaffenburg

"Enough is enough. How much more? Mannheim, Solingen, Magdeburg, Aschaffenburg: what might come next? These are no coincidences," said Markus Söder after the knife attack in Aschaffenburg. Oh, some listeners may have thought, but Markus Söder continued: "but the result of a chain of years of misguided migration policy."

I want it to be simple.

Yes, that would be nice.

But the time for that is over. And it's not coming back.

The thesis that these are not coincidences should be taken up, but first the leaders of the other parties should have their say. Chancellor Olaf Scholz explains,

"This cannot go on. We must do everything we can to ensure that such things do not happen again." Much has been done, but there is a deficit in enforcement. There are obvious deficits in enforcement – especially in this case with the Bavarian authorities."

Robert Habeck believes that the authorities must conduct a thorough and self-critical investigation in order to learn how to prevent this from happening again, and points to mistakes made in Bavaria and the Federal Ministry of the Interior. He also speaks of a pattern.

"We must acknowledge that this series of murders – Mannheim, Solingen, Magdeburg, now Aschaffenburg – appear to have parallels, and we must ask whether a pattern can be derived from this with regard to the care of violent, perhaps mentally unstable young men. Can local authorities manage this, and is it even possible to follow up on such clues in prison? ... Some of the suggestions I am now hearing from Friedrich Merz have been discussed repeatedly and have not stood up to objective scrutiny."

Christian Lindner also weighs in:

"We have a veritable failure of the state in Germany. Because Aschaffenburg is not an isolated case. There is a pattern of origin, conspicuousness, and obligation to leave the country."

He had already been critical of Angela Merkel's immigration policy. As the FDP in the traffic light coalition, they would have done everything in their power to return to the rule of law. There would have been a lot of wrangling in the traffic light coalition and some things would have been achieved, but most of the time it would have been against the Greens and the SPD, not with them. There must be a break with the past. He is concerned with a different immigration policy. With the Greens and SPD in government, that would not be possible, and he goes so far as to say:

"Those who vote for the AfD increase the likelihood that the SPD and the Greens will be in the next government, thereby preventing what is actually necessary in immigration policy."

Friedrich Merz plays the role of the chancellor:

"I refuse to accept that the events in Mannheim, Solingen, Magdeburg, and now Aschaffenburg are supposed to be the new normal in Germany. Enough is enough. We are faced with the ruins of an asylum and immigration policy that has been misguided for ten years now. In my view, there are now some conclusions that a federal government led by me must take immediately." 

He is certainly the most substantive when it comes to the question of what consequences should be drawn from the act. The measures include a "de facto entry ban" for asylum seekers – explicitly also for persons entitled to protection. The European rules – Dublin, Schengen, Eurodac – would be recognizably dysfunctional. Germany must exercise its right to give priority to national law. The federal police must be able to apply for arrest warrants. He calls for departure centers and deportations to take place on a daily basis. In addition, the right of residence must be changed so that anyone who is required to leave the country and poses a threat can be taken into custody immediately and for an indefinite period until they leave.

In his efforts to decisively convey his leadership skills through language, gestures, and content, he then lacks—at least one would assume—the mental capacity to answer a question from Welt TV about whether his stated intentions would mean the definitive rejection of a coalition with the Greens in a way that suggests he is aware of what he is expressing with such fervor:

"I don't care who joins me on this political path. I'm just saying that I'm not going any other way. And anyone who wants to join me must adhere to these five points. Compromise on these five issues is no longer possible."

Alice Weidel obviously listened to him carefully, because a few hours later she responded to X with an open letter to him. After noting that he had a similar assessment of the terrorist acts as the AfD, she also recognized similar ideas for solving the problems and derived a proposal from this:

"An even better sign is that you have obviously adopted the urgently needed solutions proposed by my party, Alternative for Germany, to bring about a change in migration policy: comprehensive, strict border controls and the rejection of illegal migrants without exception, substantial deportations and repatriations under the responsibility of the federal government, additional powers for the federal police, and unconditional detention pending deportation.

...

In my capacity as a statesman, I therefore appeal to you: let us take the necessary decisions without further delay to implement what the citizens now rightly expect from politicians. The upcoming session week in the German Bundestag offers an opportunity for this that must not be missed. The majorities for this are there. My parliamentary group and I are available to you at any time for a coordinating discussion."

Finally, she says she is looking forward to the TV interview with him.

Sahra Wagenknecht also speaks up.

"I wonder what else has to happen before politicians realize that we cannot continue like this. ... Politicians always return to business as usual. First, everyone says they are appalled, then another topic comes along. ...

And we also have to protect our population from people who abuse our right to asylum. That's why I think two measures are urgently needed: one is that a violent crime should lead to the termination of the asylum procedure and to immediate expulsion and deportation, and the second is to only grant asylum to those who do not enter from a safe third country. We have to reduce the numbers because we simply can't cope anymore."

She thinks it would be terrible to leave the issue to the AfD, which would also stir up sentiment against well-integrated immigrants. She finds it just as bad when the climate becomes so poisoned that it leads to general xenophobia. She aptly puts it this way:

"We need to stop taking in refugees because even 11-year-olds are walking around with knives."

Looking at all the statements, the horror at the crime is not followed by any deeper investigation of its causes, and no one can resist attacking their political opponents and assigning blame. In particular, however, all of the contributions lack a substantial discussion of the increase in terrorist acts since May of last year and a more in- e examination of the causes of the influx of refugees into Germany. But this seems necessary if we really want to get a sustainable grip on the problems.

We deal with singularities

without considering the complexity that needs to be overcome.

We deal with complexity

without looking at the singularities that need to be overcome.

The Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution lists two attacks for 2020 (1 dead, 7 injured), one attack for 2021 (3 injured), no attacks for 2022, and one attack for 2023 (1 dead, 4 injured). Since the attack in Mannheim on May 31 last year, followed by attacks in Solingen on August 23, Magdeburg on December 20, and now Aschaffenburg, there have been 12 deaths and 316 injuries within eight months. Isn't it necessary to ask ourselves what explains this spate of terrorist acts? Does it make sense to ask whether there is a connection to the upcoming federal elections – and to consider that the end of the traffic light coalition already seemed possible last fall (1, 2, 3, 4)?

The fact is that asylum policy will attract attention in the coming weeks and will already reach a climax in the German Bundestag next week. In the glare of this, other issues will fade into the background: issues that should be of great interest to voters. This raises the question of how all the wonderful things with which the parties want to lure voters are to be financed: Given the costs of the war in Ukraine, the persistently high energy costs in Germany, the increasing number of companies moving to the US, rising insolvencies and foreseeable growth in unemployment figures, Russophobic and increasingly Sinophobic foreign policy, and growing pressure from the US on Germany to increase military spending to 5% of GDP and purchase even more expensive LNG. What was that again about the TAURUS that Friedrich Merz, Robert Habeck, and Christian Lindner are so keen to make available to Ukraine: Could this affect the benefits promised to voters? It will probably not be particularly noticeable if those involved somehow manage to persuade the Chancellor to cough up three billion for Ukraine.

And then one has to ask oneself how this whole problem came about in the first place. When Friedrich Merz casually dismisses Angela Merkel with "the shambles of an asylum and immigration policy that has been misguided for ten years now," one has to wonder whether her "We can do it" statement on August 31, 2015, is to blame for the misery of a migration policy that came to fruition during the grand coalition between the CDU/CSU and SPD. Did the world only come into being in 2015, or was there a time before that which influenced it? That this may have been the case can be surmised from an interview on Deutschlandfunk radio on August 24 with SPD domestic policy expert Carmen Wegge, who, when asked why refugees were coming to Germany, replied with disarming naivety:

Well, because they are being persecuted or because there is war in their country, and that's why they are fleeing.

No further questions were asked. However, if one follows the heretical assumption of a previous era, one finds that the countries of origin from which the refugees primarily come strangely correlate with states in which the US, and with it Germany in particular, have endeavored to ensure freedom and democracy, and the number of deaths and injuries caused in the process is not insignificant compared to the number of refugees: in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria.

Germany in particular had to and continues to bear the follow-up costs of these adventures. Between 2016 and 2024, the federal government's costs for refugees and asylum seekers amounted to approximately €218 billion, and they are estimated to rise by another €96 billion over the next four years until 2028 (1, 2). Added to this is what the federal states had to spend: approximately €37 billion between 2017 and 2023 (1). In 2024, the figure was just under €30 billion. But that's not all: this does not include the costs for the 1.2 million refugees from Ukraine – some speak of the consequences of a war between the US and Russia and even believe it to be a war against Germany – as they are not going through the regular asylum procedure: In 2024, they amounted to 35 billion euros by October 31 (1, GDP in 2023 at 4,185.6 billion euros).

Be courageous: analyze today and shape tomorrow

in such a way that it also serves the day after tomorrow.

Otherwise, tomorrow you will have to live with the consequences of

what you have not addressed today.

Just as you are already experiencing today.

Why is it important to consider these two aspects? There will be further attacks if we do not succeed in achieving climate change. This significant change certainly includes developing an understanding that refugees are people who have come to Germany out of legitimate self-interest and often find that it is not the promised land – which does not mean do-goodism, as is dissected in the eight-part ARD series "A Better Place," , which was certainly moved from prime time to late night programming after the first two episodes due to the attack in Aschaffenburg, where the remaining six episodes aired on August 24 at 10:20 p.m.

Another aspect of climate change is the comprehensive inclusion of internal security issues: we must get to the root of the problem and initiate problem-solving processes from there. Furthermore, we need a foreign policy that reduces the pressure on Germany's borders and pursues a policy with the countries of origin that makes returning home attractive.

Therefore, let us conclude with another quote from Markus Söder: "It is long overdue for something to change in Germany." He is right.

Der Anschlag von Aschaffenburg.pdf

Download PDF • 191KB