Proponents of the government's decision to resume deportations to Afghanistan argue that it is a fundamental requirement for maintaining the rule of law. For a state to function effectively, it must be able to enforce its immigration policies, particularly when individuals have exhausted all legal avenues for asylum or have violated the laws of their host country. Supporters emphasize that the credibility of the German asylum system depends on the government's ability to carry out returns for those who do not meet the criteria for protection.
From this viewpoint, the policy is not merely about migration, but about public safety and the integrity of the justice system. By removing individuals who have committed serious crimes, the government is taking a necessary step to protect its citizens and maintain social cohesion. Supporters argue that failing to act would undermine public trust in democratic institutions and embolden those who disregard legal standards.
Furthermore, advocates for this policy note that the government has taken a pragmatic approach by focusing on criminal offenders. This targeted strategy is seen as a balanced way to address security concerns while still upholding the rights of those who have a legitimate claim to stay. By establishing a mechanism for these returns, Germany is signaling that it will no longer tolerate the indefinite presence of individuals who pose a risk to the community.
Ultimately, those who back this move believe it is a long-overdue correction. They argue that the state has a primary duty to its own population and that international obligations should not prevent the government from taking decisive action against those who have forfeited their right to remain. As the program continues, supporters expect it to serve as a deterrent and a clear message that German law must be respected by all residents.