Proponents of the government's decision to resume deportations argue that the state has a fundamental duty to protect its citizens from individuals who have violated the law. By removing foreign nationals who have committed serious crimes, the government is reinforcing the integrity of its immigration system and ensuring that those who abuse the right to asylum are held accountable. Supporters maintain that a functioning deportation policy is essential for maintaining public trust in the rule of law and the broader migration framework.
From this perspective, the inability to deport convicted criminals creates a perception of impunity that undermines social cohesion. When individuals who pose a clear threat to public safety remain in the country, it places an undue burden on the justice system and creates anxiety within the community. Supporters argue that the government must prioritize the security of its own residents over the concerns of individuals who have forfeited their right to remain by engaging in criminal activity.
Furthermore, advocates for this policy suggest that the use of indirect diplomatic channels is a pragmatic solution to a difficult problem. By working through intermediaries, Germany can achieve its security objectives without compromising its stance on the legitimacy of the Taliban regime. This approach allows the state to act decisively while navigating the realities of a fractured international landscape. For many, this is a necessary step toward restoring order and ensuring that the asylum system is reserved for those who truly need protection and abide by the laws of the host country.