Merz and the right to asylum: fundamental right to nonsense

comment

He has long been of the opinion that the basic German right to asylum must be openly spoken: "Germany is the only country in the world that has an individual right to asylum in its constitution." This is what Friedrich Merz said on Wednesday evening to CDU audiences, in one of his application speeches for the party presidency.

Some people in the audience called Bravo, others were a bit surprised. And many ask now, the day after: What's going on with that? Is that allowed?

After all, it's about a fundamental right.

Of course, Merz is allowed to do so. Of course, the content of individual constitutional articles may also be debated in a liberal-democratic republic. At least if these are not enshrined as irrevocable constitutional principles. And the asylum article 16a does not fall into this category. He is to change with two-thirds majority in Bundestag and Bundesrat, the most far-reaching change dates back to 1993.

And who is mocking now, what could Merz next want to debate, maybe human dignity? The reading of Article 79 is recommended. For there is in it what is essential to change the essence of the Constitution with no majority: among other things, the human dignity in Article 1.

But that's not what Friedrich Merz is all about. He is concerned with the debate as an end in itself. To the impression that with him a fresh wind blew in the CDU that under and with him debates could be held again, so to speak, after leaving the Merkel's rest zone.

So if Merz says that "talking openly", then he wants to suggest a break, a taboo. It creates the picture: The Merz is one who dares. He also touches the hot iron.

A classic of political rhetoric.

In fact, nobody prevents him from speaking "openly" about German asylum law. Certainly not the constitution. He may also speak openly about the detachment of the Sauerland from North Rhine-Westphalia and an affiliation with Hesse, if he likes.

Everything possible in our democracy.

Of course, we already know this debate scheme: Merz's rival Jens Spahn used it a few days ago in connection with the UN Migration Pact. Spahn has called on the CDU to discuss the pact. If necessary, the Federal Government should rather not sign first. Spahn himself did not say what he thinks of the pact. He blinked sharply to the right without going to the dirty side of the street.

Merz and Spahn are competing for the votes of the conservatives in the CDU, which is why these days they are offering themselves an out-bidding competition. Spahn may have been amazed by Merz's assault on asylum law. Merz may even have surprised himself, because the day after he clarifies something.

My comments on European approaches to migration have sparked a debate. Again, to be clear: I do not question the fundamental right to asylum because we have a policy based on Christian responsibility ... (1/4)

"Of course, I do not question the fundamental right to asylum," he writes on Twitter. It's about him - exactly! - A calm and factual debate on how the basic German asylum right "and a European solution approach can work together".

Okay, please. This debate is easy to lead.

In fact, Germany once had a very broad asylum law: "Politically persecuted enjoy asylum." Point. So it was until 1993 in the Basic Law, then in the so-called asylum compromise between the Union and the SPD Article 16a was created. There is still this one, clear sentence - but then followed by several paragraphs with definitions, who may just not invoke this first sentence. In short: Only those people may invoke the right of asylum in Germany, which does not come from safe third countries.

This intensification was preceded by years of discussion, especially in the Union parties. The then Bavarian Interior Minister Edmund Stoiber, for example, told the SPIEGEL in November 1990: "The CSU wants to eliminate the individually enforceable claim that can not be found anywhere else in the world."

It is this ancient debate that Friedrich Merz joins today. Although we have been much further along, even at European level.

Of course, just in recent years, hundreds of thousands have come to Germany. However, the recognition rates under Article 16a are very low since the tightening. Most of those seeking protection receive refugee protection under the Geneva Refugee Convention or a limited, so-called subsidiary protection - or have to leave the country again.

The individual right to asylum is and remains a great civilization achievement after the Nazi rule and its consequences. We should defend it.

And at the same time avoid any debate. Because even Friedrich Merz has an individual right to nonsense.