> While it is clear that this wording would indeed prohibit denaturalisation on an explicitly ethnic basis, this is not what Sellner proposed. In the meeting, he called for the introduction of incentives that would encourage the emigration of ‘unassimilated’ citizens — the primary issue with such people not being their foreignness per se, but rather that their beliefs and practices are not aligned with the rest of German society. For example, is it discriminatory to suggest that a third-generation Salafist or Turkish nationalist should be paid to leave Germany, or that the practice of such ideologies should be prohibited or severely discouraged?
Perhaps I'm missing something, but this strikes me as a distinction without a difference. In practice, Sellner's proposal would necessarily amount to the removal of citizenship from passport-holding Germans with non-German blood ("paper Germans", if you will), which is something that is hard to reconcile with the very broad language in the anti-discrimination clause of the Basic Law.
I think Sellner made a strategic blunder here, in that he started talking about denaturalisation in a country whose constitution is still controlled by the Regime he wants to do away with. The more savvy approach, IMHO, would have been to hide his power level until such time as the Basic Law can be amended to explicitly recognise the distinction between paper Germans and actual Germans, at which point you can start talking about denaturalisation without courting legal trouble.
But he did it the wrong way around, and as a result he has brought further suspicion onto the AfD who now need to deal with the fallout.
Taking as a given the awfulness of the people running Germany, this looks like an unforced error (and an easily avoidable one) by a RW that doesn't yet understand the need to be smarter and savvier than, for lack of a better word, the Establishment.
> While it is clear that this wording would indeed prohibit denaturalisation on an explicitly ethnic basis, this is not what Sellner proposed. In the meeting, he called for the introduction of incentives that would encourage the emigration of ‘unassimilated’ citizens — the primary issue with such people not being their foreignness per se, but rather that their beliefs and practices are not aligned with the rest of German society. For example, is it discriminatory to suggest that a third-generation Salafist or Turkish nationalist should be paid to leave Germany, or that the practice of such ideologies should be prohibited or severely discouraged?
Perhaps I'm missing something, but this strikes me as a distinction without a difference. In practice, Sellner's proposal would necessarily amount to the removal of citizenship from passport-holding Germans with non-German blood ("paper Germans", if you will), which is something that is hard to reconcile with the very broad language in the anti-discrimination clause of the Basic Law.
I think Sellner made a strategic blunder here, in that he started talking about denaturalisation in a country whose constitution is still controlled by the Regime he wants to do away with. The more savvy approach, IMHO, would have been to hide his power level until such time as the Basic Law can be amended to explicitly recognise the distinction between paper Germans and actual Germans, at which point you can start talking about denaturalisation without courting legal trouble.
But he did it the wrong way around, and as a result he has brought further suspicion onto the AfD who now need to deal with the fallout.
Taking as a given the awfulness of the people running Germany, this looks like an unforced error (and an easily avoidable one) by a RW that doesn't yet understand the need to be smarter and savvier than, for lack of a better word, the Establishment.