Jens Spahn Accuses Greens of "Migration Denialism"
THE ZEIT: Mr. Spahn, you’ve stated that the Greens are "migration deniers." What do you mean by that?
Jens Spahn: I mean that the vast majority of the Greens refuse to acknowledge the severe consequences of illegal migration and failed integration. They turn a blind eye to the societal effects of uncontrolled immigration. They don’t want to discuss the problems in overwhelmed municipalities, schools, and marketplaces.
Franziska Brantner: Nonsense. Over the past three years, we’ve accelerated asylum procedures and deportations, passed security packages, and facilitated integration with the reform of nationality law. At the European level, we’ve enacted a comprehensive asylum reform. Horst Seehofer couldn’t achieve that in ten years. However, it’s also clear that we need to improve integration, language courses, and expedite job placement. Cooperation between federal and state security agencies must also be strengthened.
Spahn: And at your recent party conference, you resolved to expand migration and advocate for a more generous family reunification policy.
Brantner: That’s not expanding migration. This concerns the immediate family circle, mother to daughter, in a quota of 12,000 people per year. These are all security-vetted hardship cases, and we know exactly who’s coming. If you want to reduce irregular migration, closing down regular channels is the wrong approach. I would have expected that reuniting the core family would be in the interests of a party like the CDU, which upholds Christian values.
Spahn: The fundamental question is: Is there a limit to what a society can tolerate when it comes to migration? In my opinion, that limit exists, and it has been surpassed. Most Greens I speak to disagree. I can’t see any willingness to even discuss this question. Cem Özdemir attempted to do so in a guest commentary for the FAZ, and he was promptly side-lined.
ZEIT: Özdemir called for a stricter migration policy, citing, among other reasons, the experiences of his daughter, who was "unpleasantly stared at or sexualized by men with immigrant backgrounds."
Brantner: How can you possibly suggest that Cem was side-lined? That’s a crude theory. After the collapse of the traffic light coalition, Cem even took on an additional ministry. I’d also like to point out that we’ve been addressing the capacity limits of municipalities for a long time and are therefore demanding better funding. We’ve lifted the ban on work for asylum seekers, for example, so that people coming to Germany can earn their own money and avoid dependence on the state. These work bans have hindered integration for years—we’ve finally found a solution.
Spahn: The Greens’ answer is always: more money. But that doesn’t solve the problems. The numbers are simply too high. A school class with two or three children who don’t speak German is unproblematic. But if there are 12, 14, or 20 children, the class can’t cope. No amount of money will change that; there’s simply a lack of staff. The same applies to psychiatric care, which has long exceeded its capacity. The attackers in Magdeburg and Aschaffenburg had mental health issues. We mustn’t allow even more young men with post-traumatic stress disorder or experiences of violence into the country, for whom we cannot adequately care. Your party fails to recognize this.
Brantner: Again, that’s not true. I’ve already mentioned the legal changes we passed in the traffic light coalition. And they are having an effect: The number of asylum applications has dropped by a third in 2024. You complain and rant, while we take action—without resorting to agitation against people with immigrant backgrounds.
Spahn: However, the Greens in the European Parliament voted against the European asylum reform.
Brantner: The Green Foreign Minister played a key role in negotiating it. This reform will mean that some asylum procedures will be carried out at the EU’s external borders, along with a solidarity obligation for the distribution of refugees. This should be implemented now, and ideally by this year. We must continue to build on this agreement in the future. But no one will benefit from national unilateral actions, such as the CDU’s demand for a blanket rejection at the borders.
