sueddeutsche.de
Winkler Critiques German Asylum Policy, Favors Institutional Approach
Historian Winkler, in a Spiegel Online article, criticizes Germany's Green and SPD parties for their asylum policies, arguing they've led to negative consequences and advocating for a shift from a subjective to an institutional asylum right, a view closer to CDU leader Merz's position but contested by Chancellor Scholz and some jurists.
- How does Winkler's historical analysis of the German asylum law connect to the current political debate and the rise of the AfD?
- Winkler argues Germany's asylum law has evolved differently than intended by the Basic Law's framers, shifting from an institutional right granted by the state to a subjective, judicially-claimable right. He blames this on various groups, including churches and NGOs, and the Merkel-era CDU, and links the current lack of public support to irregular mass immigration since 2015 and the AfD's rise.
- What are the immediate consequences of the current German asylum policy according to historian Winkler, and how do different political parties respond?
- A Spiegel Online guest article by historian Winkler criticizes the German Green and SPD parties for their stance on asylum law, arguing their policies have led to undeniable negative consequences and require self-critical review. He aligns more with CDU leader Merz, who wants to restrict asylum law and allow border rejections, unlike Chancellor Scholz who emphasizes individual asylum rights.
- What are the long-term implications of Winkler's proposed shift from subjective to institutional asylum rights, and what are the potential risks and benefits?
- Winkler proposes replacing the subjective with an institutional asylum right to curb the effective transformation of asylum law into immigration law. He warns that democratic parties' reluctance to act due to potential AfD support politically paralyzes them, hindering effective responses to the challenges posed by immigration. This inaction is further exacerbating the rise of the AfD.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The framing consistently favors Winkler's perspective. The headline (not provided, but inferred from the text) likely emphasizes Winkler's critique of current asylum policy. The article's structure prioritizes Winkler's arguments and uses loaded language to present them more favorably. For example, the repeated use of terms like "problematic consequences" and "irreguläre Massenimmigration" (irregular mass immigration) frames the situation negatively, even though alternative descriptions might be possible.
Language Bias
The article uses loaded language, such as "irreguläre Massenimmigration" (irregular mass immigration) and "rechtsextreme Partei" (far-right party), which carry negative connotations and could influence reader perception. Neutral alternatives might include "significant increase in immigration" and "the AfD party". The repeated emphasis on the negative consequences of current policy contributes to a biased tone.
Bias by Omission
The analysis omits discussion of the European dimension of asylum law and relevant legal precedents that contradict certain claims made by Winkler, such as the possibility of rejecting asylum seekers at the border. This omission limits the reader's ability to form a complete understanding of the complexities surrounding asylum law and its legal framework.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy by framing the debate as a choice between a subjective, individual right to asylum versus an institutional right granted by the state. This oversimplifies the nuanced reality of asylum law and ignores the potential for a more balanced approach. The article does not explore alternative perspectives on balancing individual rights with state interests.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article discusses the ongoing debate in Germany regarding asylum laws, highlighting disagreements between political parties on asylum policies and border control. The lack of consensus and the rise of far-right sentiments linked to immigration concerns demonstrate a negative impact on peaceful and just institutions. The potential for further polarization and the weakening of democratic processes due to political gridlock represent a threat to strong institutions.