The sentence that Germany's security will also be defended in the Hindu Kush is still quite new.
But in terms of the matter, external and internal security were always linked - also during the Cold War and during the time of the RAF terror.
Today, of course, the effects of distant wars and their (flight) consequences can be felt more directly.
The democratic freedom and security for which citizens are directly responsible and noticeable begins at one's own borders.
The question of who is allowed into the country and who is allowed to stay for how long is of essential importance.
Anyone who thinks that the borders in Europe are open anyway and that everyone has to be allowed into the country in case of doubt reveals only democratic and constitutional deficiencies.
Many people who were obliged to leave the country were not deported for a long time;
not because of actual obstacles, but because the political will to do so was lacking.
The lack of an immigration policy
The lack of an interest-based immigration policy is the result of an at best naive idea of the social consequences of any migration. The Chancellor herself, who was still the invitation in 2015, later spoke of an abuse of Germany's hospitality in view of murderous crimes by asylum seekers. So-called clan crime, i.e. the decades-long toleration of organized criminal structures and unlawful areas, is also part of this policy.
What is necessary here is not the development of new criminal offenses, but the consistent application of existing law. That this must be done in the spirit of the Basic Law, i.e. humanity, should not be worth mentioning. This includes deportation, which is particularly tough, but which is part of the instruments of the democratic constitutional state. The fact that children may also have to be deported works particularly hard, especially if they were already well integrated. But if one were to forego this on this justification, the signal would be: Anyone who has made it here, brings their family with them or lets them join them, is allowed to stay. But this is not a policy, but a surrender.
Hazards must be consistently monitored. The fact that video cameras at hot spots, which may only be used under regulated conditions, are already valid for some as identification of a surveillance state, is a sign of a perversion of constitutional values. The fact that everyone is fundamentally in control of their personal data - that was and is a necessary and still very important consequence of general personal rights. In practice, of course, the impression is sometimes created that the right to informational self-determination per se takes precedence over other fundamental rights or other values of constitutional status. The corona pandemic in particular made this clear. Combating a threat to public health or serious crime must not fail due to a misunderstood data protection policy.
It is not only because of the Corona crisis that there are more perceived insecurities in our country, which is in principle quite safe. The security situation is not only characterized by Islamist terrorism and right-wing terrorism, which was previously not considered possible, as well as still dangerous left-wing terrorism.
For the citizen, it is important whether, for example, a burglary or a robbery, which one may only experience once but in a traumatizing way, is effectively prosecuted. Are you left alone - or does the state show that it takes every citizen seriously, even in the case of so-called petty crime? The rule of law shows its great (albeit resource and time-consuming) art in procedures that are effective for the public. But the unknown victim of a crime, the man on the street, has a hard time enforcing his rights. It is a question of the police and judiciary, but not only. As long as the production of new laws is seen as an important proof of political activity, the result is tangling in the thicket of norms.
The staff, on the other hand, can only fulfill their task if, on the one hand, they are in accordance with the Basic Law themselves, but on the other hand, if politicians do not place them under permanent suspicion of being hostile to the constitution. Unfortunately, parts of the political leadership also lack the understanding and even less empathy for the hardships of the everyday life of a patrol officer or a soldier in action. This is then also reflected in the population, so that those who commit their lives on the front line of the rule of law, both internally and externally, are perceived more as racists and war criminals than as upholders and enforcers of democratically established law.
The fact that everyone in this country can move, express, assemble, vote, set up and control the government freely, even in the face of diverse crises, seems self-evident and should be. But a look into the world shows that this freedom has to be fought for, defended and lived every day. Otherwise it is quickly lost.