CDU interior expert Throm: “The migration policy of the traffic light is extremely dangerous”

Government district Berlin, Paul-Löbe-Haus, room 6.437. The office of Alexander Throm (54). The lawyer from Heilbronn, married, two children, in the CDU since 1986, was elected to the Bundestag for the first time in 2017. He is domestic policy spokesman for the CDU/CSU parliamentary group. Throm’s specialty: causes, control and limitation of immigration.

FOCUS online: The number of asylum seekers is increasing, many municipalities are at their limit, and the majority of citizens are increasingly critical of the strong immigration. How do you assess the situation?

Alexander Throm: Germany is stuck in an acute migration crisis, which will only get worse because the number of asylum seekers will increase significantly in the coming months. I expect at least 300,000 refugees this year. That doesn’t include those seeking protection from Ukraine.

We can do it?

Heavy: We welcomed more than 1.3 million people from Ukraine and other countries in 2022. Now there are another 300,000 on top. The capacities of the municipalities are already exhausted. Hanover has only just been freed from taking in refugees, and other cities will follow. All of this shows that Germany is like a saturated sponge that can no longer absorb anything.

Throm: “Germany is like a saturated sponge”

Just repeating 2015?

Heavy: No. We have a different situation. First, by the refugees from Ukraine fleeing Putin’s war of aggression. We want and will help our European neighbors, that is our responsibility. In addition, the authorities are better prepared by the previous government of the Union than eight years ago. However, the situation is made more difficult by the policy of the federal government.

In what way?

Heavy: After after taking over government, the traffic light initiated a paradigm shift in migration policy. It has created new admission programs, especially for Afghanistan, extended residence rights, increased social benefits and thus created additional incentives for migrants to come to Germany. People know very well that they just have to make it to Germany somehow, then they can stay here.

Is the federal government encouraging migrants to come to Germany with its policy?

Heavy: Yes. The traffic light operates an open refugee policy. In doing so, it opposes almost all other European countries, which tend to tighten their asylum course. Germany is at odds with the EU. The federal government has given up almost all control, order and limitations in asylum policy. The consequences are already visible, and it will only get worse.

“Dissatisfaction with traffic light migration policy is growing”

Didn’t Chancellor Scholz and Interior Minister Faeser recognize the seriousness of the situation?

Heavy: Obviously not. Just a few weeks ago, Ms. Faeser declared that Germany did not have a migration crisis. If I don’t even recognize the problem or don’t want to recognize it, then I can’t solve it either. The interior minister pursues an ostrich policy. Head in the sand, then the crisis will pass us by. This is a dangerous denial of reality.

Many municipalities feel abandoned by the federal government, but their calls for help are not getting through. What’s wrong?

Heavy: My impression is that the traffic light has lost all contact with the representatives in cities and municipalities. Those responsible for the government move around in the Berlin spaceship without noticing the worries and needs of the base. The local politicians notice that, but also the people in the country. Dissatisfaction with the traffic light’s migration policy is growing.

Is the anger at the grassroots justified?

Heavy: I can understand the anger and I experience it almost every day, in my constituency and elsewhere. The people are in solidarity, they want to help, especially the war-torn families from Ukraine. But they have absolutely no understanding of irregular immigration. If the traffic light doesn’t change quickly, the mood changes.

“Politics against the majority opinion of the population”

What do you mean?

Heavy: It is already clearly noticeable that there is less and less willingness to take in refugees from outside Ukraine. To put it bluntly: I consider the traffic light migration policy to be extremely dangerous because it divides society and endangers the acceptance of refugees by the population.

Should Faeser resign?

Heavy: Nothing would change. Any other Interior Minister of the traffic light would continue this wrong and harmful for Germany migration policy. It’s the policy agreed at the traffic light.

Does the traffic light make migration policy against the people?

Heavy: In any case, it makes a policy against the majority opinion of the population.

Who are the driving forces?

Heavy: I can’t except anyone. In refugee policy, no sheet of paper fits between the traffic light parties. They all want more and also uncontrolled immigration. The Greens and SPD for ideological reasons, the FDP because it believes it can save the job market. We all know that doesn’t work. The left and open refugee policy is supported equally by all three traffic light parties.

The FDP makes left-wing politics?

Heavy: The FDP always acts as a bourgeois corrective. Party leader Lindner even claims that the FDP is preventing a left-wing republic. That may be true in economic and tax policy, but not in domestic policy, which is left-wing through and through. The FDP is not a corrective here, but an accomplice.

“Only those who have refugee protection can stay in Germany”

How can Germany push back illegal migration?

Heavy: We must not create any further incentives for migrants to come to Germany. We have to take back sprawling residence rights. We have to send a clear signal to the world: Only those who have refugee protection can stay in Germany.

And we must ensure that social benefits within Europe are adjusted according to purchasing power. It cannot be that there is no social assistance in Greece, but we have several hundred euros of citizen income.

What would the Union do differently?

Heavy: We would reintroduce many measures that the traffic light turned back. For example, the anchor centers. We would only distribute people to the municipalities if they have a right to stay. In addition, we would declare the Maghreb countries Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia as well as Georgia and other countries to be “safe countries of origin”.

And further?

Heavy: We would also check whether we need stationary border controls at the borders with the Czech Republic and Switzerland in addition to veiled manhunts. Personally, I think this is urgently needed. In addition, we would put more pressure on countries that do not take back their compatriots when they are deported from Germany. For example, by cutting development aid or not issuing visas for regular entry.

Do we need fences along the border? “Yes, of course”

There are more than 300,000 foreigners living in Germany who are actually obliged to leave the country, and 56,000 would have to be deported immediately. Why is nothing happening there?

Heavy: Because the government operates a total refusal to work. There is no sign of their much-heralded “repatriation offensive”. The only things that are returned are the numbers in the statistics. The traffic light grants more and more foreigners, who should actually leave us, the right to stay. This means that they are no longer considered to be required to leave the country and are excluded from the statistics.

Does Germany have to move away from the welcome culture towards a farewell culture?

Heavy: We want and have to help people who are in need and are looking for protection. But we not only need the willingness to accept, but also the will to consistently deport, if possible. We must differentiate between those who need help and those who come to us for other reasons.

Do refugees have to be checked and sent back at the EU’s external border if there are no grounds for asylum?

Heavy: From the point of view of the Union, this is absolutely necessary. We need screening centers at the EU’s external borders that only distribute refugees to Europe who also have a right to protection and a perspective to stay. All others must be consistently returned to their countries of origin.

Do we need fences along the border?

Heavy: Yes, of course. The open borders within the Schengen area are a real achievement. But these can only be guaranteed in the long term if we have effective protection of the EU’s external borders, including with fences. The countries with an external EU border decide for themselves on specific measures. It is important that the EU supports them financially.

On May 10, the federal and state governments want to discuss the distribution of the costs for the accommodation and care of asylum seekers and refugees again. What are you requesting?

Heavy: First of all, we call on the chancellor to finally sit down at the table with the leading municipal associations. Because the municipalities do the actual core work. Chancellor Scholz has to make the migration problem a top priority because his interior minister is obviously overwhelmed.

Does the federal government have to give the municipalities more money?

Heavy: The federal government has pledged 2.75 billion euros for this year so that the federal states and municipalities can take care of refugees. We need at least twice that! And as long as the federal government refuses to pursue an orderly and controlled refugee policy, it should also bear the full financial burden of its policy.