The deputy parliamentary leader of the AfD in the Bundestag has been working on this topic for a long time, as the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (Bamf) has been interviewing numerous asylum seekers about their itineraries since 2017.
It is also about the question of how the refugees came to Germany – on foot, by train, by car, bus or plane. A question from the deputy AfD group leader revealed last year that just under a third of all interviewed refugees said they had arrived by plane.
When Holm recently inquired about the latest figures, he was given the answer that they were now classified as a secret “(VS) – only for official use” – for reasons of “state welfare”. This means that the AfD member may see the numbers in the Parliamentary Secretariat of the Bundestag, but he must not make them public – and the general public should not know the extent of the arrivals.
Since Holm did not want to accept that, he checked with the Federal Government again and asked for the reasons for their secrecy. But the Interior Ministry continues to stonewall the deputy. The travel route survey is now being standardized for all applicants who are older than 18 years old, according to Parliament Parliamentary State Secretary Stephan Mayer (CSU).
The findings from this would be used to analyze migration movements on the main routes to Germany. In addition, the travel route survey may also be included in the decision process regarding respective asylum applications.
“Disclosing the evaluation of the itinerary survey could provide information on the specific questions raised in the survey, which are the core component of the asylum hearing,” the official response given to Berlin weekly Junge Freiheit, noted.
But Holm did not just want to know how many refugees flee directly to Germany, but also how many ever used a plane on their entire journey. Finally, it is conceivable that asylum seekers – for example from Africa – first fly to France and from there continue by train or bus to Germany. Once there, they then apply for asylum.
But even here, the Federal Government refused to comment. The itinerary was designed to gather “evaluable route information and ‘modi-operandi,” was the brief answer. “A detailed answer to the first part of the question would provide information about the specific questions posed in the survey. This information is especially worthy of protection.”
According to Holm, the government wants to sweep the impact of immigration on the social system under the carpet
He says he can not understand the decision of the Interior Ministry. “What is so secretive and worthy of protection for questions that have already been asked to thousands of asylum seekers in the context of the itinerary? The asylum seekers have certainly made no secret of the questions among themselves. The behavior is completely incomprehensible.”
The question of how asylum seekers illegally arrived in Germany is the key issue of the entire asylum crisis. After all, it’s also about which neighboring countries could simply wave refugees. “In particular, the question of whether an aircraft was used on the entire itinerary to Germany is very significant in this context,” Holm added.
Those who have enough money to fly to Europe comfortably by plane can hardly be a destitute refugee.
“It is just about the usual welfare state immigrant. And that is exactly what the federal government wants to sweep under the carpet.”