Proponents of resuming deportations argue that the rule of law must remain consistent, regardless of the destination country's political situation. When individuals who have been granted refuge in Germany commit serious crimes, they forfeit their right to protection. Supporters emphasize that the state has a fundamental duty to its own citizens to maintain public safety and ensure that judicial sentences are carried out effectively. Allowing convicted criminals to remain in the country simply because their home nation is difficult to deal with undermines the integrity of the entire immigration and asylum system.
From this viewpoint, the focus is on the necessity of deterrence and the preservation of public trust in government institutions. If the state cannot remove those who violate the laws of the host country, it risks creating a perception of impunity. Advocates for this policy argue that the government is not ignoring human rights but is instead prioritizing the safety of the German public. They suggest that by targeting only those who have committed serious offenses, the government is applying a narrow, justifiable standard that balances national security with international obligations.
Furthermore, supporters point out that the government is acting with caution by seeking indirect routes for these deportations. This approach acknowledges the lack of formal diplomatic ties while still pursuing the objective of removing individuals who pose a threat to society. By working with regional partners, Germany can uphold its legal standards without necessarily endorsing the Taliban regime. For many, this is a pragmatic solution to a difficult problem that ensures the justice system remains functional and respected by the public.