Rescuers, traffickers, human trappers

Am I in favor of saving human life? Of course I am. Do I have sympathy for human traffickers and smugglers? Of course not.

It becomes problematic for the inner compass of values when the two questions become blurred. Then the simple good-and-evil world view becomes confused. What happens when sea rescuers and smugglers cooperate, when they network and are sometimes even identical? Long unthinkable, this theory is now also being discussed in the mainstream. As an example here linked to an article in Focus. Another phenomenon can be observed. Long ignored, the problems of uncontrolled migration are now also being discussed by the ruling politicians. 

We can do it! No human being is illegal! Refugees welcome! The much-vaunted German welcoming culture, which the political media ivory towers have intoxicated themselves with, is beginning to falter. Until just a few weeks ago, questioning such PR slogans, even in the slightest, put critics of the migration policy introduced by Merkel and continued by the traffic light government in a dubious right-wing corner. Not any more. Scholz, Faeser, Lindner, Merz, Lang, Gauck, Steinmeier, Schäuble - in a remarkable linguistic and temporal unison, political celebrities are now pushing for the consistent deportation of rejected asylum seekers and tougher border controls. What was considered AfD-speak for eight years is now political consensus. It looks like a concerted effort by the established parties. There may be two reasons for this. 

On the one hand, political insight. The local authorities are up to their necks in water. We can't cope any more, is the rumbling message from the grassroots towards Berlin. The manifold problems can no longer be concealed. There are problems with accommodation, funding and social tensions. The many violent excesses, gang rapes and knife attacks can no longer be brushed aside as isolated incidents. Private security services in outdoor swimming pools, parks and pedestrian zones, at train stations and public offices, even at schools, are part of the urban and rural landscape in many places.

The other reason is of a pragmatic nature. The issue of migration is causing the AfD's poll ratings to skyrocket. For a long time, the AfD was the only party to criticize the current course. Countermeasures are to be taken here. The message to voters? We have recognized the problems and are taking action.

And yet it remains a political balancing act. How can you criticize a path that you yourself have chosen and endorsed without losing face? After all, this wrong path is the result of a policy that for eight years was considered by all parties to have no alternative. In this balancing act, the German Minister of Economics and the German Minister of Justice performed some interesting linguistic contortions. 

"We have to accept reality and solve the concrete problems." 

This is what Robert Habeck demanded of his own party in an appeal. Questions: Shouldn't it be a matter of course to accept reality? Conversely, does this mean that the Greens were previously living in a parallel world? The quote referred to the issue of migration. Elsewhere Concede Habeckthat the renovation of a house now costs up to 200,000 euros. Welcome to reality, Mr. Habeck.

"Many of these people have a level of education that is primary school level." 

Justice Minister Marco Buschmann also mutates into a hardliner overnight. Buschmann pleaded at Markus Lanz for a turnaround in migration, for tougher action against asylum seekers. A specific and a general question: Primary school level or skilled workers? Why does every name in the law now sound like a linguistic advertising package? I am grateful to Marco Buschmann for pointing out a little-discussed problem. And this brings us full circle to supposedly good sea rescuers and supposedly evil traffickers. According to Buschmann, there are, "closed financing circles where the German taxpayer pays the traffickers". 

The world is not good and evil. It is not black and white. It has shades of gray. But the German state cannot want to finance sea rescuers with one hand and fight traffickers with the other. At least not when rescuers and smugglers work hand in hand and profit from each other.

A soccer comparison comes to mind here. Every professional club has extreme fan groups. They accompany their club on every away trip and support them even in bad times. They do dedicated voluntary work, organize impressive choreographies and sacrifice every spare minute for the club of their hearts. In other words, they do good and are accordingly courted by the club management with privileges of all kinds. The flip side of the coin is that it is often those fans who go overboard. Whenever love for their own club turns into fanatical hatred and violence towards fans of other clubs. Then the club management's PR department is forced to perform a political balancing act. Then they have to admonish their flock in a publicity-effective manner without alienating them.

The topic of migration is always morally charged. Saving and helping people is a good thing. But the world is not good and evil. The problem is the political extremes. These include real right-wing extremists who reject foreigners per se. But above all, they include fanatics who defame any objective criticism of migration policy as right-wing extremism. 

Am I in favor of rescuing and integrating persecuted people? Of course I am. Am I in favor of deporting violent people who are unwilling to integrate? Definitely. Am I in favor of accepting reality? I hope for times when a minister is embarrassed to demand such a matter of course.