Solingen terror: Kuhle (FDP) for cancellation of social benefits

Mr Kuhle, the Chancellor has spoken out against the knife attack in Solingen announced a tightening of gun laws. This will only happen if the FDP plays along. Will it do that?
Sensible changes to gun laws are not a taboo subject. However, they neither bring more order and control to migration policy, nor do they help in combating violent Islamism. However, these are precisely the issues that must now be the focus.

The proposal by Federal Minister of the Interior Nancy FaesersThey recently called the proposal to ban knives with blades longer than six centimetres “unconvincing”.
I stick to that. There is already a knife ban at events such as town festivals. The perpetrator in Solingen should not have been carrying a knife either. We can talk about sensible proposals for gun laws. But people are not expecting pseudo-measures now.

Let’s talk about Migration policy. What needs to change?
The traffic light coalition made deportations easier at the beginning of the year. But the federal and state governments must coordinate better and more closely. People without residence permits must leave Germany more quickly.

The implementation of deportations is a matter for the federal states.
If individual federal states are not able to do this, we must think about giving the federal government more powers. For example, that the federal police will be responsible for carrying out deportations on their own in the future. But there also needs to be more state pressure on foreigners who are required to leave the country. We urgently need to talk about this in the coalition.

I will not put on the blocker’s shoe

What do you mean by that?
I don’t understand at all why we keep paying money to people who we expect to leave the country. If someone is not allowed to stay here, they should not be allowed to receive social benefits.

The Greens are unlikely to be happy about this.
Now is not the time for dogmatism. Citizens expect us to think about the necessary measures and implement them. This applies to all coalition partners.

To what extent is the traffic light under pressure to act?
All levels of government are under pressure to act. But we must keep a cool head and not lose our minds as a society. Otherwise we will play into the hands of terrorists who want to stir up unrest and discord.

The FDP has a reputation for being a blocker on security issues. Does your party need to move?
In the coalition agreement, we agreed on a number of security policy measures: a legal basis for the counter-terrorism center, clear rules for informants and a new version of the intelligence service law. The fact that we are not making progress here is not the fault of the FDP. I therefore do not take on the role of the blocker.

Sounds like there’s a ‘but’ coming now.
As liberals, we are particularly committed to civil liberties and civil rights. This means that we do not blindly say ‘yes’ to every proposal for restrictions on civil rights and tightening of laws just a few days after a terrorist attack. We must first look at how we can better implement existing laws.

A blanket admission freeze would not be enforceable

CDU leader Friedrich Merz is calling for a freeze on the admission of Syrians and Afghans. What do you think about that?
I share his view that something fundamental has to change in migration policy. But we shouldn’t demand measures that we know we can’t implement. People are really fed up with that. A blanket ban on admissions would not be enforceable under constitutional or European law. It is right that we think about how we can enable deportations to Syria and Afghanistan. And we have to reduce the numbers.

Do we need stronger border controls?
Open borders within the European Union must always be our goal. But as long as we do not have effective control of the EU’s external borders, we must protect the German borders more strongly. That is why I think it is right to extend the border protection measures now.

Many Islamist perpetrators, including the one in Solingen, are radicalized on the Internet. Are our authorities sufficiently prepared for this?
Our security authorities can monitor known Islamist threats. The big problem is those who the authorities do not have on their radar. This also seems to have been the case in Solingen. We therefore have to dry up the source of radicalization.

Where is this source?
Influencers on social media are specifically targeting young Muslims. We need to put a stop to these influencers. Many of them live in Germany. If possible, we need to deport them. We also need to do more preventive work. And of course, social media platforms need to finally start to live up to their responsibilities.

Shouldn’t security authorities monitor the Internet better?
What exactly should such surveillance look like?

The state can never guarantee 100% security

One possibility would be data retention without cause, as demanded by the Minister of the Interior. Her party colleague, Minister of Justice Marco Buschmann, is against it.
The indiscriminate data retention would not have prevented Solingen because the authorities did not even know the perpetrator. Even if they had stored all the data, they would not have known whose data was to be evaluated.

So which measures will have an effect?
The intelligence services must be more present in digital forums, like a digital patrol, collect news and keep a closer eye on radicalization on the Internet. This is already being done today, but it must be expanded. This requires more resources and must therefore be a priority in the upcoming budget negotiations.

So more money for the intelligence services?
More staff and better financial resources will bring more than new surveillance powers. Finance Minister Christian Lindner has already made concessions to Nancy Faeser in the course of drawing up the budget. The two have a good exchange of views on how to adequately equip the intelligence services and the federal police.

Could an act like the one in Solingen then be prevented?
In a free society, the state can never guarantee 100 percent security. But it has a duty to drastically reduce the likelihood of such acts.