The Syrian attacker in Solingen was supposed to have been deported last year. He was a failed asylum seeker. My presumption, and this has not been reported anywhere so Iām just pulling a rabbit out of my hat, is that native countries (in this case Syria, hot mess that it is anyway) deny re-entry to their own citizens and the host country is stuck with this failed asylum seeker who is wanted nowhere (I donāt write this with any sympathy or emotion, just as a matter of fact). How on earth do policymakers even approach the magnitude of the problem that is immigration post Arab Spring and all its dashed dreams that have aided in shaping todayās nightmares (among a myriad of other regional problems in the Levant/ME)?
And itās fine bringing up Viktor Orbanās approach to immigration. His stance is interesting. He is interesting. It could be argued that his stance is the correct one, given the reality that Hungary doesnāt have the economic means, strength, labour market, or even infrastructure to support a mass influx of migrants from war torn countries. Orban is as hardline about Ukrainians as he is about Syrians for example. His country cannot economically cope with a mass influx of refugees/migrants. Hungary is a poor country.
Does any country have the capacity to do what Germany did years ago? Does Germany, really? Who knows. But Germany is the economic heart of Europe that, letās not forget, survived reunification (enormous achievement and enormous struggle all at once). Itās also a country in chronic need of a replenished labour force. Iām sure that this was a deciding factor when opening the floodgates to Syrian refugees years ago.
As for these terror-linked crimes bleeding Germans of their right to safety, tougher knife laws and more deportation will be the rhetoric. But what will the solution be? AfD might go with final solution type drivel. AfD is not the cavalry coming over the hill. Where is the cavalry? is a good question though.