A FOCUS online article about the rapist (31) from Afghanistan, who is now living in the place where he committed the crime after his prison sentence and does not want to leave Germany, has caused quite a stir. The Union wants to prevent such cases in the future – and has a tough plan.
The current developments in the case of the convicted rapist from Illerkirchberg (Baden-Württemberg), which FOCUS online reported on this week, have caused a stir nationwide. The 31-year-old man from Afghanistan is living in the place where he committed his brutal crime again after serving his prison sentence – and wants to stay in Germany.
The man, who raped a 14-year-old girl together with other immigrants in 2019, told his lawyer: “People should realize at some point that they can’t get rid of me.” He entered Germany in November 2015, his asylum application was rejected in 2017, and since then he has been considered “tolerated.”
After the end of his more than two-year prison sentence, he was briefly detained pending deportation, but attempts to return him to his home country failed. A court has already ruled that the man can be deported from a legal perspective.
However, Germany has not sent anyone back to Afghanistan since the Taliban came to power in 2021. This even applies to serious criminals like the rapist who was convicted and now lives in Illerkirchberg again. He continues to live at state expense and, according to his lawyer, will soon become a father, which further increases his chances of being allowed to stay in Germany permanently.
Many people find this unbearable. They consider the current deportation policy of the traffic light government to be a fiasco and accuse those in charge such as Chancellor Olaf Scholz and Federal Minister of the Interior Nancy Faeser (both SPD) of only talking about tougher measures but not taking action. The Union no longer wants to accept the situation.
The domestic policy spokesman for the CDU/CSU parliamentary group, Alexander Throm, told FOCUS online with reference to the released rapist from Illerkirchberg: “It is precisely for these perpetrators that we want to create an indefinite exit arrest, which they will be placed in immediately after their prison sentence. The people must remain there until they leave Germany voluntarily. The only way to freedom is to return to their homeland.”
CDU man Throm has developed a corresponding concept, which the Union faction in the Bundestag unanimously approved and which was discussed in parliament this week. The core message of the “exit arrest” model: “The way back into German society is permanently closed. But the way back home is always open.” How long someone has to remain in exit arrest depends entirely on them.
Throm told FOCUS online: “Anyone who behaves like the perpetrator in Illerkirchberg, or other serious criminals, has forfeited their right to hospitality.” It must be made clear to these people “that there is no prospect for them in Germany under any circumstances, no hope of being tolerated or anything like that.”
The CDU politician said of the aim of his initiative: “Such perpetrators must never be allowed to walk around Germany freely again!” Serious criminals and highly dangerous extremists who have blatantly violated our laws and rules should no longer be treated with kid gloves. They “can be expected to live in Syria or Afghanistan,” said Throm.
The lawyer from Heilbronn rejects accusations from critics that the proposed model is inhumane and does not correspond to the principles of a constitutional state and points to Canada, which is often cited as an example of successful migration policy. The Canadian “Immigration and Refugee Protection Act” allows for arrest without a time limit, says Throm. Great Britain takes a similar approach with its “Illegal Migration Act”.
One politician who criticizes Throm’s initiative is Clara Bünger, refugee and legal policy spokeswoman for the Left Party in the Bundestag. In a guest article for the FAZ newspaper, she called the exit arrest concept “contrary to the rule of law.” It would “violate fundamental human rights as well as the European Convention on Human Rights and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.”
If people are “forced to behave in a certain way through psychological pressure,” one can hardly speak of a “voluntary” return to countries like Syria or Afghanistan, where they face serious human rights violations or, in the worst case, death. Bünger: “Even an asylum seeker who is a serious criminal has the right not to be deported to a country where war is raging.”
Throm replies that the new tool will ensure that a highly dangerous person who is required to leave the country will never be able to return to the city “where he raped a child a few years ago”. The German state not only has the right, but also the duty, to “enforce the departure of these perpetrators with all possible consequences”.
After the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Germany took in hundreds of thousands of people in need of protection. However, these included men who were required to do military service – and who also received a citizen’s allowance. Some of the interior ministers of the federal states are now demanding that this must stop.
What was the slogan of the left-wing parties in the European elections? Vote for democracy, that is, for us! Show your attitude, who needs content anyway? But it is always said that the right-wing are the ones without arguments. Let’s be honest: Anyone who feels the need to make democracy an election issue is already at the end of their rope.