Half of the beneficiaries of the “citizen’s subsidy” in Germany, budgeted at 50 billion per year, are foreigners
Alternative for Germany (AfD) is the only party that advocates prioritizing nationals in social benefits, as well as the deportation of illegal immigrants. This — along with its rise in the polls, where it has become the leading force — is the reason why the establishment seeks to outlaw them.
The sovereigntist party has denounced that the “citizen’s subsidy” in Germany “has failed.” “50% of its beneficiaries are foreigners. It costs 50 billion euros per year. Sanctions for those who refuse to work? There are none. We demand an active basic income with benefits in kind instead of cash, clear rules, and a mandatory quid pro quo,” the party stated via the social network X.
AfD also claims that more and more young foreigners are refusing to study, train, or work in Germany. Among them are Syrians, Afghans, and also Ukrainians. “Those who do not contribute must leave,” it adds. The party continues to denounce violence by foreigners — harassment, fights, assaults on girls and women. In Bavaria, the party points out, 60% of the perpetrators are foreigners, “and Syrians are significantly overrepresented.” “This is the result of an irresponsible migration policy. Anyone who breaks our laws must be deported immediately.”
This stance, supported by a large part of the German population, alarms the German system, which governs in a coalition. German intelligence classified AfD as an “extremist” organization whose objectives are “contrary to the democratic order,” although this classification was later suspended pending court rulings.
In this context, the Congress of the German Social Democratic Party (SPD), held at the end of June, decided to support the process of banning the party. SPD Secretary General Lars Klingbeil emphasized that this is a “historic task to expel them from Parliament once again.” “Based on our historical experience, we have a Constitution that provides us with the necessary tools,” he said, and “it is our democratic duty to use these instruments to protect the Constitution,” he concluded.
