Deportations and Refugees
The sole concept of deportation conflicts with the Basic Law and the Immigration Act.
About the absurdity of deportation, its contradictions, and why those in power like to talk about it so much.
At a Wahlparty in Potsdam, some AfD and Junge Alternative (JA) members were filmed loudly chanting, to the tune of an Atzen classic: ‘Hey, now it’s going down, we deport them all, deport them all.’ Anna Leisten, the young fascist of the JA, held up a sign with a party colleague reading ‘Deport Millions!’ — just another normal Friday night at the AfD.
The mainstream press expressed outrage: ‘Tastelessness at AfD election party!’ (Bild), and former Green politician Volker Beck filed a criminal complaint for apparent incitement of the people. The AfD itself saw nothing offensive in it and casually excused the young fascists’ behavior with: ‘The Junge Alternative has done a great job in the election campaign; they were allowed this song on election night’ (Chrupalla). That little bit of incitement to hatred is fine, apparently!
The indignation of the liberal experts seems to stem from their own shame, because they cannot oppose the actual aim of ‘mass deportation.’ It was representatives of the coalition parties who denied refugees their last right to self-determination in the form of the ‘prepaid card.’ The ‘democratic’ parties have decided to resume deportations to Taliban-controlled Afghanistan — a death sentence for many people whose lifestyles are criminalized there. The Green leadership has long advocated speeding up deportations, while the SPD under Faeser is responsible for the strictest political persecution measures since the 1960s. Not to mention the FDP and CDU.
Everyone wants deportation; the outrage toward the AfD is a shy cover-up of their own policies, which at their core demand exactly the same thing. The only difference between AfD policy and others is the willingness to speak openly about what is actually being demanded.
The liberal parties try to give their domestic agenda a ‘woke’ gloss to obscure its real cruelty; instead of calling for ‘mass deportation,’ it’s framed as ‘more clarity on issues that are not easy for us’ (Greens), even if this results in deportations to Taliban Afghanistan.
Deportation is therefore a consensus across the board. Baerbock, in response to Merz’s plan to stop accepting refugees from Afghanistan and Syria altogether, speaks of ‘proposals that sound harsh but are not feasible because they violate the Constitution or European law, maybe good for populist headlines, but do not make our country any safer.’ The suggestion to stop accepting refugees from states where our (or the West’s) power ambitions contributed to the decay of life there is like setting a neighbor’s house on fire and then locking the door.
The contradictions of deportation
Legally speaking, most deportations (or ‘returns,’ according to EU law) in Germany happen due to rejected asylum applications, where no protection status is granted. People who entered without valid residence permits or whose permits have expired are also affected — especially asylum seekers from so-called ‘safe countries,’ who have lower chances of recognition — e.g., Ghana and Senegal. The classification as a ‘safe country’ often has little to do with political realities and primarily serves to deter potential migrants. Foreign nationals who commit crimes may also be deported, particularly in serious cases.
Section 60 (1) of the Residence Act states: ‘A foreigner may not be deported to a country in which his or her life or freedom is threatened on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.’ Section 60 (2) adds: ‘A foreigner may not be deported to a country where there is a concrete risk of being subjected to torture.’ Article 3 of the Basic Law also states: ‘All people are equal before the law.’ Article 3 is a ‘universal right,’ i.e., it applies equally to citizens, foreigners, and stateless persons.
Yet, the contradictions are obvious: although everyone is equal before the law, deportation clearly undermines that equality.
Consider a radical example: murder. If a German citizen commits murder, they face about 10 years (up to ‘life,’ typically around 15 years) in prison. With good behavior, they may be released early and continue life relatively normally. If an Afghan commits the exact same crime, they are likely to be deported. No distinction is made; this is a punishment a German citizen would not face. Equality before the law is violated.
‘I knew nothing about the deportation. When we were at the airport, I could only briefly call my wife. It was around 2 a.m.,’ reported an Afghan deportee who had served five of six years in Germany. Upon arrival, deportees face hunger, homelessness, and the risk of losing ‘life or freedom due to race, religion, nationality, social group, or political opinion.’
Although §60 prohibits deportation to states where there is a real risk of torture, this danger clearly exists in many deportation countries. Ironically, the German Foreign Office notes regarding Afghanistan: ‘Systematic human rights violations occur, such as torture, extrajudicial killings, corporal punishment, and public executions. Rule of law and democracy are abolished.’ But deportees are foreigners — if they are tortured, it’s their own fault.
‘Then they shouldn’t have committed crimes!’ some may argue. But the law that defines what is a crime is the same law that enables deportation. Many will inevitably commit offenses — the idea that newcomers must respect the ‘guest law’ collapses when most lawbreakers are themselves the hosts. The claim ‘guests must follow guest rights’ distinguishes between those obliged to obey and those who are not — which is false. Deportation in practice equates refugee status with a pre-existing criminal record, which then affects sentencing.
Deportation as a tool
Ultimately, the ruling elite doesn’t care what happens to deported people, as long as the status quo is maintained.
In July, Germany attempted to deport a ‘17-year-old Iranian student and her 70-year-old grandmother’ to Turkey, from where Turkish authorities would have sent them to Tehran. The young girl had fled Iran due to political persecution connected to feminist unrest, facing execution, sexualized violence, and torture. The deportation was halted only through activism and demonstrations at Berlin Airport BER, with support from activists like Ferat Koçak. This is the so-called ‘feminist foreign policy’ of the coalition.
In the future, non-German citizens who, for instance, support Palestinian resistance via social media could be deported — possibly without a court ruling. Interior Minister Nancy Faeser (SPD) justified the law’s tightening: ‘Anyone without a German passport who glorifies terrorist acts must be deported wherever possible.’ Even a single comment or like on a post deemed ‘terrorist glorification’ could justify deportation. What constitutes terrorism is defined by the German state. A German citizen glorifying terrorism may face minor or no consequences, whereas refugees face deportation.
Deportation as symbolic politics
In 2023, around 16,400 people were deported from Germany; the number will be higher this year, partly as a countermeasure to the AfD. Even if numbers doubled, deportation remains purely symbolic. Its effectiveness is unclear. The AfD claims, ‘Deportation creates housing,’ yet Germany lacks 800,000 homes due to speculation and insufficient state investment, while most asylum seekers live in collective accommodations.
The notion of ‘refugee crime’ is politically exaggerated. According to statistics, migrants account for 8.6% of suspects (201,000) despite being only 2% of the population. Most offenses are theft (esp. shoplifting) and fraud (esp. fare evasion) — crimes driven by poverty. Around 65% of recognized refugees in 2018 earned less than 60% of the median income, and 41% worked below their qualifications after six years due to non-recognition of credentials.
Crime is usually linked to life circumstances, not nationality. Refugees face cramped accommodations, limited privacy, scarce opportunities, and restricted societal participation. Most migrants behave lawfully; criminality is a result of structural, not ethnic, factors.
The German state has managed to obscure class contradictions by blaming refugees: poverty is not a result of systemic inequality but ‘expensive refugees,’ crime stems from the harshness of migrant life, and flight is caused by capitalism’s wars — the refugee becomes the scapegoat for systemic issues.
Deportation, loud chants, and political posturing are thus convenient ways to externalize the internal contradictions of a wealthy yet unequal society.
Refugees as scapegoats
The loud chanting about deportations is a logical conclusion of the attempt to attribute internal contradictions — such as poverty despite a wealthy state, the decay of social infrastructure alongside top military spending, declining purchasing power amid corporate profits, or the gap between the populace and the rulers — to a single group.
Poverty? Not a logical consequence of escalating class contradictions in capitalism — it’s the ‘expensive refugees.’
Crime? Not a logical consequence of life in precarious conditions, in which migrants perform the worst jobs for the benefit of corporations — it’s the ‘nature of refugees.’
Flight itself? Not a logical consequence of capitalist wars in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, or Ukraine — the refugees are lazy and want to live off our welfare system.
The refugee is the scapegoat for the problems arising from the nature of the capitalist system. It is a psychological relief to believe that this scapegoat can be blamed for every injustice — as long as it disappears, the status quo is preserved.
