The attack comes from the right – the defense from below by Clara Bunger, May 2025

The attack comes from the right – the defense from below

The new federal government wants to further erode asylum law. Especially now, when everyone is shifting to the right, it is important that the Left takes a stand and fights back.

By Clara Bünger

[This article posted in May 2025 is translated from the German on the Internet, https://zeitschrift-luxemburg.de/artikel/der-angriff-kommt-von-rechts-die-verteidigung-von-unten/.]

In the 2025 federal election campaign, migration was not an expression of social diversity, a topic of justice, or a field of solidarity. It was discussed almost exclusively as a threat. There was talk of “irregular” or even “illegal” migration. How do we stop them? How quickly can we deport them? The discourse was brutal. Facts were twisted, European law was misquoted, constitutional principles were openly questioned. Even in parties that had once fought for humanitarian standards, the willingness to stand up to right-wing pressure seemed to be waning. And in parts of the social left, there was reluctance: Should migration even be an issue? Wouldn’t that play into the hands of the AfD?

And then came Heidi Reichinnek’s speech. It was a moment that propelled Die Linke forward and showed what it means to take a stand when it counts. Her speech was a crystal-clear commitment to an open and united society, to human rights, and to solidarity with refugees. Because what was at stake at that moment was more than just a motion: for the first time, the CDU had openly sought and found majorities with the AfD, whose unique selling point is an almost exclusive focus on anti-immigration policy. It was a historic turning point. And Heidi Reichinnek called it what it was: a taboo breach – not only in form, but also in content. The new government will continue Merz’s policy. That is why this clear and loud opposition must continue.
Authoritarian turn with migration as a gateway

The coalition agreement between the CDU/CSU and SPD contains a series of measures that, taken together, will further cement a repressive system. The new federal government’s ideas are numerous and in some cases relate to small details with a big impact. However, the measures can be roughly divided into three areas: closing migration routes, more deportations, and dismantling the asylum system.

With regard to migration routes, the first step is to close supposedly “irregular” migration routes. Dobrindt and Merz had already announced before the elections that there would be a very concrete change at Germany’s external borders from day one of the new government: Until now, checks were carried out there, but anyone who had applied for asylum was allowed to enter. At least in theory, there were no pushbacks at German borders – but in practice, it is well known that asylum applications were often ignored by local officials. This practice is now to become the norm, with people seeking protection being sent back to neighboring European countries directly at the border. In addition, the new government also wants to close legal escape routes as far as possible. It is therefore ending existing admission programs, such as the Federal Admission Program for Afghanistan. Family reunification with beneficiaries of subsidiary protection will also be suspended for two years, even though it is already limited to only 1,000 visas per month. The aim of these measures is clear: as far as possible, no more people seeking protection should come to Germany.

The coalition also wants to ensure that as many people as possible without secure residence rights leave Germany again. Among other things, asylum seekers who have come to Germany via another EU country will no longer receive benefits from the state and will thus be forced to leave. A corresponding regulation has already been decided by the traffic light coalition, but is not being implemented in several federal states because it would effectively lead to homelessness and hunger among those affected. The new federal government wants to work toward “consistent implementation.” These ‘incentives’ for “voluntary return” will be supplemented by a “repatriation offensive.” The government plans more deportations to neighboring countries and countries of origin. Even deportations to Afghanistan and Syria are to be made possible again, despite the danger to life. A small but crucial detail is that the coalition agreement stipulates that these deportations will “begin” with criminals and so-called dangerous individuals. Little resistance is expected from these groups, which have been defamed as dangerous. Once people have become accustomed to this, the next step will be to deport everyone to unstable Syria or Taliban-ruled Afghanistan. The police will be given additional powers for this “offensive.” In addition, more detention centers for deportees are to be set up. However, these detentions are already proving to be illegal in many cases. This problem is likely to worsen in the future, not least because the black-red federal government wants to abolish the recently introduced mandatory legal representation for deportees.
“The rule of law is being dismantled where it is most urgently needed. This is not a change of course. It is an authoritarian turn using legal means.”

The right to asylum is to be further eroded by the so-called “beibringungsgrundsatz” (principle of provision). Whereas previously the authorities and courts themselves had to ensure that they had the necessary information about the situation in the respective country of origin in order to make a qualified decision, this responsibility is now being shifted to asylum seekers. However, they are often unaware of the specific requirements of German courts or asylum law and therefore find it difficult to provide this information on their own. The fact that the federal government wants to “evaluate with an open mind” the recently introduced independent asylum procedure counseling service bodes ill—it could mean that asylum seekers will soon have to convince the authorities of their need for protection on their own. The individual right to asylum may remain “untouched” on paper, as promised in the coalition agreement, but in reality it is degenerating into a hollow formula that no longer protects anyone. The rule of law is being dismantled where it is most urgently needed. This is not a change of course. It is an authoritarian turn using legal means.

The truth is that previous governments—both the traffic light coalition and the grand coalition—had already implemented numerous massive tightening measures in the area of asylum and migration. As a result, asylum law had already been de facto transformed into a special right over many decades. However, what we are experiencing in terms of migration policy is not just a legal dismantling; it is part of an authoritarian shift that follows a clear strategy:

First, an existential threat is constructed: migration is declared a security risk. This creates a mood in which exceptions to the law for refugees as a group appear necessary, even though they actually violate democratic principles. These exceptions do not remain temporary, but become the new norm.

Second, rights are withdrawn, but selectively: asylum seekers today, other groups tomorrow. The payment card, the principle of self-provision, camp accommodation—all these are prototypes for disenfranchisement.

Third, this goes hand in hand with the reinterpretation of historical achievements: The right to asylum is not a technical regulation—it is a consequence of the experience of fascism, persecution, and extermination. It was created because people were turned away at the borders during National Socialism and left at the mercy of their murderers. Today, however, this very right is increasingly portrayed as a “problem” – as outdated, naive, or an invitation to “the wrong people.” What was once considered an important lesson from the “never again” by even CDU politicians is now declared a burden. This does not simply mean that history is forgotten—it is actively reinterpreted, and from the so-called center.
“The right to asylum is not a technical regulation—it is a consequence of the experience of fascism, persecution, and extermination.”

Finally, fourthly, society is systematically divided: no longer into top and bottom, but into ‘us’ and “them.” This breaks solidarity against fascist developments. The causes of social insecurity—poverty, exclusion, precarious work—are no longer negotiated along class or power lines, but interpreted as consequences of “external” factors. Refugees and migrants become projection screens that distract attention from the real culprits.

This division is also evident in political rhetoric. Politicians such as Jens Spahn (CDU), who says that migration movements should be stopped “with physical force” if necessary, or Friedrich Merz (CDU), who uses populist terms such as “social tourism,” are uninhibited in their discourse.

Together with increasing state isolationism, this paves the way for more attacks on refugees, people with a history of migration, and anyone who does not fit into the national self-image. The potential for violence is rising, and the state is failing to protect its citizens. On the contrary, in many cases it is part of the problem. This includes the arbitrary treatment experienced by many people seeking protection.

Rights are no longer reliably enforced, but are applied differently or denied depending on status, origin, federal state, or case worker. Migrants and refugees live in constant uncertainty as to whether they will be allowed to stay or be deported. Political engagement is also met with measures affecting residence rights. Anyone who is politically active can face deportation even without a conviction. This has been demonstrated by the case of four pro-Palestinian activists who received deportation orders without conviction. The potential for violence is increasing – not despite, but because of the political rhetoric. A glance at Hungary or the US, where arbitrary and unlawful deportations of people have become the norm, shows that this is not just a problem in Germany.

And all this is happening in a seemingly technocratic manner: as “administrative modernization,” “digitalization,” or “efficiency measures.” But in reality, a different state is being formed—one in which institutions that support people are being dismantled, while repressive elements such as (deportation) prisons, the police, and the military are being expanded.
Political resilience – our counterstrategies

What we see in the political debate on migration is only the gateway to policies that can and will be implemented in all areas of society in the future. Migration is the starting point because it is where the least resistance is expected. Everything that is being tested on refugees today could affect other groups tomorrow. Those who still have rights today may lose them tomorrow – if fundamental rights no longer apply to everyone. That is why we must fight for these fundamental rights for all. What we need is not a moderate corrective, but a clear alternative: a party that takes a stand when things get uncomfortable. A movement that does not get on the defensive, but knows what it is fighting for. A society that cannot be divided. Anyone who believes that migration is a topic best avoided is complicit in the deprivation of rights. Human rights are not a secondary issue. They are fundamental. And they are non-negotiable – not even for tactical electoral reasons. This way of thinking only ever helps the AfD.

Resilience means solidarity from below. While the federal government is closing itself off, resistance is growing in many places: in cities and communities, in migrant organizations, in refugee councils, in civil society, and in companies that stand up for their employees who are facing deportation. Every day, these groups prove that a different migration policy is possible. One that protects instead of deterring. One that organizes participation instead of isolating people. One that focuses on shared interests in affordable housing, higher wages, and a functioning infrastructure—not on fear.
Defend the Basic Law—but don’t stop there

It is true that the Basic Law is not what we on the left would consider a truly social, democratic, and solidarity-based constitution. Max Reimann, who sat in the Parliamentary Council for the Communist Party of Germany (KPD), said despite his rejection of the Basic Law: “We will not sign it. But the time will come when we communists will defend this Basic Law against those who accepted it.”

That time is now. Because wanting more than this Basic Law does not mean that we will not defend it. On the contrary: because we know that things can be better, we also know how much we would lose if even what is enshrined in it today were to fall. We must not be satisfied with that. But we must not leave it to those who are quietly gutting it. We must develop our own narrative: one that defends the rights enshrined in the Basic Law and at the same time fights for the rights that are missing from it. For more social security with an economic policy that considers economic and social rights from the perspective of people’s needs. For freedom of movement. For the right to equal participation – regardless of passport, income or origin.
This fight must be organized in reality.

Migration has been turned into a symbol: for loss of control, excessive demands, the disintegration of a supposedly homogeneous society. This is precisely why it has become the main target of the right wing. It allows fears to be bundled together that actually have their roots elsewhere: in social insecurity, in the loss of participation, in the experience that for many, nothing gets better no matter how hard they work.
“The class we are fighting for is not homogeneous, but it still exists. It is female, queer, black, East German, employed on temporary contracts, poorly paid, often disenfranchised.”

The conflict between the top and the bottom is systematically obscured by an artificially created conflict between the inside and the outside. Yet it is obvious that those who live at the bottom today are often migrants, precarious workers, marginalized. The class we fight for is not homogeneous, but it still exists. It is female, queer, black, East German, employed on temporary contracts, poorly paid, often disenfranchised.

Organizing as a class means starting from reality. Not in symbolic debates, but in concrete contradictions: for good work, affordable housing, equal rights—for everyone. Not through appeals, but through joint action.

We do not engage in client politics. We engage in class politics. For migrant care workers. For single mothers. For temporary workers in Gelsenkirchen. For queer youth in small towns in eastern Germany. For refugee workers in logistics companies. For those who are not asked, but without whose work society would collapse.

Because this class needs each other. When the rights of refugees are attacked, it affects us all. When labor rights are dismantled, it hits the invisible first, such as people without work permits – but never only them. Our struggles are not separate. They are connected – or they will be lost. It is our task to make this commonality visible and to organize it: against the authoritarian restructuring from above. Always together, never alone.
Clara Bünger

Clara Bünger is a lawyer and politician. Since January 2022, she has been a member of the German Bundestag and spokesperson for refugee and legal policy for the Left Party. In 2017, Bünger co-founded the association Equal Rights Beyond Borders, which provides individual counseling and strategic processes for refugees, especially in Greece.