Every discussion about the right to asylum quickly becomes so charged that an objective discussion becomes impossible.

This was evident these days in the state parliament, when Prime Minister Boris Rhein (CDU) was scolded for his sentence that a “repatriation offensive” was needed for refugees, until the Interior Minister jumped to his side and pointed out that exactly this, the Announcement of a repatriation offensive, found in the coalition agreement between the SPD, the Greens and the FDP in the Bundestag.

Why deportations are still rare, how the inconsistent asylum and immigration law, which is riddled with contradictions, could be sensibly reformed - all this can hardly be discussed in the heated mood.

The victims are the local authorities, which are not called upon to decide on fundamental questions of immigration, but have to put up with poorly thought-out policies.

The fire letters are piling up;

Most recently, the District Administrator of the Bergstraße district, Christian Engelhardt (CDU), let it be known that "the uncontrolled influx of refugees must be stopped", immigration into the social systems is a problem in particular, and the heads of the Main-Taunus district appealed Federal Chancellor and Prime Minister, "actively control and limit the influx".

The letter is not only signed by district administrator Michael Cyriax (CDU), but also by the first district councilor Madlen Overdick (Die Grünen) and district councilor Johannes Baron (FDP) as well as all mayors.

The demands show the seriousness of the situation;

the municipalities are at the limit of the burden.

But these are letters that will hardly trigger a reaction that will go beyond one or the other cash injection.

Greater than the concern about the possible crop damage of an open debate about immigration is the trust in the cities, districts and municipalities to somehow cope with the refugee numbers.

This is probably also possible because organizational talent is proverbial at the municipal level.

But it would be good to listen more carefully to what people at the lowest levels of government think about the action, or in this case rather inaction, of the top.