The rhetoric from the AfV party and the Chancellor Fredrick Mertz is part of a larger trend worldwide towards far-right anti-immigration sentiments. When reading about the methods for deterring refugees from entering Germany, I was struck by the similarities between their method and the policies in the US; offering money to those who are deported, a focus on criminality in the selection process for deportations, and a rollback of refugee initiatives. One quote that struck me from the Reuters article was from the chief of staff to Mertz: “As long as we have irregular and illegal migration to Germany, we simply cannot implement voluntary admission programs.” I find this statement highly concerning. The idea that refugee policies wouldn’t be reinstated until illegal immigration falls to zero is not only unrealistic, but is very clearly a false rationalization of their anti-immigration policies to avoid responsibility for refugees.
Negative consequences of changes in immigration and refugee policies are clearly seen in the Pakistan guesthouse, holding Afghan women initially promised asylum. The women cannot envision a life back in Afghanistan, but fear they may be returned if Germany continues closing doors for refugees. I find the arguments given by the AfV party for anti-immigration policies completely unconvincing when set in contrast with the situation of these women. The idea that Germany must shut its doors to women fearing prosecution because the country has reached “capacity” for refugees is hard to believe. Especially when analyzing the attack on Church asylums, a space able and willing to house refugees, the government’s claim appears completely unsubstantiated.
Reading the introduction to the investigation pieces on the Pentagon records, a set of clear and concise facts are presented. As a student of journalism, however, I know the process to get to the point where an author can make those claims is incredibly difficult and lengthy. The authority the author of the piece claims is so strong because they have done their due diligence on the story so thoroughly there can be no question of the truth. Writing with full certainty is hard to find in some shorter form news pieces, as they generally discuss the “what” and not always can determine the “why” or the “how.”
Additionally, reading this series I felt reassured that the way in which our country, as well as other struggling democracies, will eventually come back together must be through a strong journalistic backdrop. As these articles helped uncover government secrets many would have regarded as untouchable, it is clear that this type of reporting holds governments to a level of accountability that is not otherwise possible. The depth into which this investigation reaches is hard to do in a way that keeps the reader convinced of both its veracity and the author’s authority. As a reader, I can understand how dropping in pieces of information, like the number of interviews the Times conducted or links to official government documents, serves to strengthen the impact of the story.
