logo
Germany has swung to the right. What does that mean for the country – and Europe? Our panel responds

Germany has swung to the right. What does that mean for the country – and Europe? Our panel responds

The Guardian24-02-2025

Fatma Aydemir
Guardian Europe columnist and Berlin-based journalist, novelist and playwright
Now is the time to move closer together. The historic success of the far right in Germany's federal election is a threat not only for all disadvantaged groups in this country – including women, immigrants, queer people, people of colour, Jewish people, disabled people – it is a threat to democracy that should concern everyone.
Still, it is those groups that will be most affected by a mood shift that comes with the reality that one in five voters are in favour of a party whose leader announced last night on live TV: 'We will hunt them down!' Echoing a warning once proclaimed by a former AfD co-chair in 2017 when the party first entered parliament, this was ostensibly a warning to other political parties, but her intentional wording of course provokes all of us who the AfD sees as opponents. And it doesn't even cause a scandal any more. We know who they are and what they are up to. The question is: who else will join them in rhetoric and actions?
On Sunday night when the counting of the election results had just started, I stopped by an 'election party for the plural democracy' in Berlin. The non-partisan event billed as a 'public screaming' took place only a few metres away from the chancellery. Gathered under the umbrella of an antifascist consensus, artists, activists, journalists and academics came together in short panels to share their hopes and fears for the coming years, while the audience was having pizza and dancing to hip-hop band the Swag's uplifting performances in between. It felt good to be among people who dressed up and left the house, instead of mourning at home. The victories of conservative and far-right parties had been widely expected, so we celebrated the small victories instead: the pro-business FDP and the anti-immigrant populist party BSW didn't make it into parliament; the Left tripled its votes since polls from December, from 3% to almost 9%.
The important conclusions of the night were: we have to organise and strengthen our resistance against the right-leaning majority, we have to spread this energy outside Berlin and we have to watch out for each other and leave all bitterness arising from intra-left conflicts aside. The priority has to be to protect our civil and human rights. None of these strategies are new, of course, but it's important to reassure each other again and again, especially after a night of results that felt like a turning point for progressive forces. And it certainly helps to do so under a giant disco ball.
Katja Hoyer
German-British historian and author of Beyond the Wall: East Germany, 1949–1990
Germany's election could almost convince outside observers that consensus politics is alive and well in Berlin. There is a clear winner: the conservative CDU/CSU, whose leader, Friedrich Merz, looks set to be the next German chancellor. The incumbent, Olaf Scholz, conceded immediately and congratulated his challenger. There were no concerns of civil unrest nor suspicions of electoral fraud.
But underneath the surface, deep cracks have torn into Germany's political landscape. After the second world war, the conservatives vowed that there must never be a successful party to the right of them. Now, it's obvious that they've failed in that ambition. The anti-immigration AfD has doubled its support from 2021, coming second with about a fifth of the vote share.
AfD leader Alice Weidel was visibly elated. Understanding that this electoral breakthrough has made her party impossible to ignore, she toldreporters: 'We're now firmly anchored as a Volkspartei' – or 'people's party', a term once used exclusively for the CDU/CSU and Olaf Scholz's SPD as the big beasts of German politics.
Weidel didn't hold back in demonstrating what will likely become the AfD's strategy: breaking down the so-called firewall that's keeping it out of power. All other parties have vowed never to work with the AfD. As Merz begins the difficult task of assembling a coalition that forces his centre-right party to turn to a centre-left coalition partner, Weidel reminds him that her door is open too, 'so that the will of the people might be implemented'.
She was alluding to Merz's election promise to restrict irregular immigration, which is something polls say the majority of Germans want. His likely coalition partner, the SPD, is very uneasy about that, not least because the AfD might vote with it, which many see as a breach of the firewall.
Meanwhile, as the main opposition party, the AfD won't have to dirty its hands with messy election results and compromise politics. It doesn't have to find answers to complicated questions. All it has to do is point to conflict between Germany's centrist parties in their quest for solutions, knowing a fifth of the German electorate lends a lot of weight to the battering ram hammering the firewall.
If there are clear winners of Germany's 2025 election, it's the political fringes.
Cas Mudde
Stanley Wade Shelton UGAF professor of international affairs at the University of Georgia
It was a typical western European election for the 21st century: the centrist parties scored historically bad results, the far right gained, and the party system fragmented further.
Although the results showed a Rechtsruck, a swing to the right, it was much smaller than expected – particularly in light of a campaign focused on immigration and the role of the far right, which is a combination that has proved to be the perfect breeding ground for recent far-right victories in western Europe, for example Sweden in 2022 and the Netherlands in 2023.
True, a small majority of Germans did vote for anti-immigration parties, but all of them underperformed. The conservative CDU/CSU won most seats but did not top 30%, its second-worst result in history; the far-right AfD came second nationally but, at just over 20%, fell short of its performance in state elections a few months ago. The left-conservative BSW failed to win enough seats to enter the Bundestag at all, despite a year of media hype about its prospects.
Rather than declaring the minority that voted for the far right to be 'the' German people, the centrist parties should accept and address the pluralism of Germany's population. With a stagnating economy and a new global reality, the country needs a strong democratic government, as the chancellor-to-be Friedrich Merz noted in his conciliatory victory speech. His government should neither cater to the far right nor define itself in opposition to it. Rather, it should constitute a broad grand coalition with the Social Democrats and the Greens, around a necessarily minimal but nevertheless positive agenda that situates Germany right at the heart of a liberal democratic Europe. Like so many centrist campaigns before, the anti-immigrant campaigns of both centrist parties (CDU and SPD) did not win over any far-right voters. Nor did they inspire their core voters. To do that, they will need their own ideas and priorities, which means looking beyond immigration (which was only the third most important issue for voters, despite the disproportionate media and political attention) and a constructive focus on socioeconomic issues (the most important issue for CDU/CSU and SPD voters), as well as ensuring peace in an increasingly hostile world (the second biggest issue for SPD voters, fourth for CDU/CSU voters).
In other words, they should govern for the 80% who voted for liberal democracy rather than for the 20% who voted against it.
Mariam Lau
Political journalist with Die Zeit
In a somewhat sombre mood, Germany's Christian Democrats celebrated their victory on Sunday night after a country in turmoil had, in huge numbers (an 83% turnout, unmatched since German reunification), gone to the polls. Even though their own score was underwhelming – the CDU had expected a solid third of the votes, and got only 28.5% – Friedrich Merz is set to fulfil a life-long dream: at the age of 69, after three failed attempts, he is expected to become chancellor of the Federal Republic.
A business lawyer who has done quite well for himself during a decade outside professional politics, Merz has never actually governed. But even without that experience, the future chancellor knows what challenges he faces. The country, though still the world's third-largest economy, is in the third year of recession. Political tensions have mounted, in particular after a succession of bloody mass killings in public places in which the suspects were refugees or Islamists. The AfD, Germany's far right, has now doubled its strength and will sit to Merz's right in the German Bundestag with a mind-boggling 152 seats, reflecting the votes of about 20% of the electorate. They, not the Social Democrats, came in second.
Merz, a cultural conservative and a liberal in his economics, has often expressed his personal disgust vis-à-vis members of the AfD. He does not greet them, even when caught alone with one of their midst in an elevator. And yet the chancellor-to-be recently granted them an unnecessary triumph when bringing a motion into parliament concerning migration that would only be passed with the AfD's consent.
Merz's CDU finds itself in a quandary: while the Social Democrats (whom he will have to govern in coalition with) paint him as a rightwing populist who is paving the way for the far right, the AfD recently yelled at him in the Bundestag: 'We are the future, Herr Merz! Follow us if you still have any strength left.' Many in the CDU fear that this will be their last chance: 'If the centre parties don't manage to solve our country's problems, the next elections will be lost,' Merz said at many campaign stops. 'And the elections after that will be those of 2033. Imagine that.'
But the central pitch of his campaign has been a global one. Merz, a staunch transatlanticist and pro-European, sees Germany at the forefront of the worldwide clash between democracies and authoritarians. It was a shock for him and his party to see how Elon Musk, the US president's right-hand and owner of the platform X, blatantly interfered with the elections in favour of the AfD, a party with many anti-American instincts. Merz openly vented his anger and annoyance at JD Vance's Munich intervention in the same vein. It is this – the palpable and existential difference between Conservatism and authoritarianism – that will mark his reign, one way or the other.
Tarik Abou-Chadi
German political scientist and professor of European politics at the University of Oxford
In many ways, it was a relatively normal election. With an incredibly unpopular government and dire economic outlook, voters decided to support opposition parties instead of those that made up the previous coalition. All members of the outgoing coalition made up of the SPD, Greens and FDP lost votes – with bigger losses for the SPD and FDP than for the Greens. The conservative opposition CDU/CSU came out on top.
However, even in this relatively normal election, some things stand out. Above all, the dramatic electoral success of the far-right AfD, which almost doubled its vote share and came out with more than 20% of the vote. The AfD has massively benefited from immigration being the dominant issue in the campaign. Over recent years, nearly all other parties have moved further to the right on immigration. As we know from extensive research on this phenomenon, such accommodation normalises and legitimises the far right.
As in many other European countries, the behaviour of the mainstream left and mainstream right has strongly contributed to the success of the far right in Germany. Only a few weeks ago, the CDU/CSU tried to pass a law with the support of the AfD – a historic precedent in the Bundestag. This clearly did not help the CDU/CSU electorally. It lost close to a million voters to the AfD. But this strategy has moved the AfD from the fringes to the centre of German politics. While the AfD will very likely not be part of the next German government coalition, this election and the behaviour of other German parties have lifted them into a new position of power.
The second remarkable result comes from the leftwing Die Linke. It had been written off as a dead party that was very likely not to make it into the Bundestag again after Sahra Wagenknecht broke away to form her own movement. However, the Linke strongly increased its support in the last weeks of the campaign. Many believe that the party managed to attract progressive voters who were alienated by the SPD and Greens, especially on migration and Gaza.
While many progressives turned their backs on the SPD a long time ago, the Greens seemed like the natural home for these voters. However, as part of a government that pushed through draconian measures against asylum seekers, and running a campaign strongly focused on the centre, the Greens did not manage to gain these voters' support. Their biggest losses were among younger voters – their former stronghold. Die Linke saw huge gains among these voters and it has also come out as the strongest party in Berlin.
It should be a lesson for left and progressive parties in Europe that moving right can be a costly strategy as progressive voters will look for a new home.
Paul Taylor
Senior visiting fellow at the European Policy Centre
As Donald Trump rushes to carve up Ukraine with Vladimir Putin over the heads of the Ukrainians and Europeans, Europe urgently needs a stronger Germany to give its voice more weight. Berlin has been largely absent from diplomacy over the future of the EU and Nato because its government was weak and divided long before it collapsed last year, and its economy is in the doldrums after two years of recession. With France also in political crisis, there is a power vacuum at the heart of Europe just when strong leadership is vital.
Conservative Friedrich Merz, who will be the next chancellor after his party topped Sunday's poll, is determined to provide that leadership. He sounds bolder and less cautious than the outgoing Social Democratic chancellor, Olaf Scholz. On Sunday night, Merz said his absolute priority would be 'to strengthen Europe so that we can achieve step-by-step real independence from the USA', adding that it was not clear 'whether we will still be able to talk about Nato in its current form' after Trump's rapprochement with Russia. The lifelong Atlanticist has said Europe can no longer rely for sure on American protection, and called for talks with the UK and France on sharing their nuclear deterrent with Germany and Europe.
Yet it remains unclear how far Merz will be able to overcome Germans' deep-seated aversion to all things military, boost defence spending substantially by loosening the country's borrowing straitjacket, or agree to borrow jointly with European partners to procure key defence systems. Sunday's result gives him a chance to form a two-party coalition with the Social Democrats. He should have sufficient votes in parliament, including from the Greens, to reform the constitutional debt brake if he can swing his own party behind that choice. However, it will take two months to form a new government, and as Merz put it, 'the world will not wait for us, but Europe is waiting for Germany'.
To give the ailing EU a new impulse, the conservative leader has pledged to restore Germany's strained relations with Paris and Warsaw, and to draw Britain into a security partnership with the main European powers. It will take skill to surmount tensions with France over German support for more EU free trade agreements, notably with South America, and with Poland over its longstanding demand for reparations for destruction dating back to the second world war.
Germany's voice will be crucial in shaping how far the EU pauses or slashes energy and environment regulations in its quest to restore economic competitiveness. German conservatives also lead the European Commission (Ursula von der Leyen) and the largest group in the European Parliament (Manfred Weber of the European People's party), so Merz is well placed to press his deregulation agenda. However, von der Leyen was the architect of the EU's Green Deal legislation to fight climate breakdown and she may resist a drastic rollback.
The new chancellor faces daunting challenges in Europe, but his partners are yearning for a more proactive Germany.
Dominic Schwickert
Executive director of the independent thinktank Das Progressive Zentrum
Yes, the result is certainly not a good one for progressive forces. As in most industrialised countries, the population is massively dissatisfied with the current federal government. Furthermore, the centre-left alliance was far too often preoccupied with internal disputes even before its collapse in November. As a result, the conservative CDU/CSU and the far-right AfD have been stable leaders in the polls for more than a year. Progressive forces, meanwhile, find themselves in an unfamiliar position: instead of being in favour of change, the SPD and Greens are currently generally perceived as being in favour of extending the status quo – which the majority does not want.
And yet: Friedrich Merz and his party do not have a strong mandate. Given the high level of dissatisfaction with the coalition government, the CDU/CSU cannot be satisfied with a meagre gain of four percentage points and the second-worst result in its history.
Either way, Merz does not have much time to form a stable government – which is what is needed now, taking into account the global political situation. The CDU/CSU's ideal scenario – only needing one partner and being able to choose from two – has not materialised. The CDU/CSU is dependent on the SPD.
The good news: if a black-red coalition (CDU-SPD) is formed, Germany will have a stable, centrist government – with a strong Green party in the opposition. However, as a junior partner, the SPD would once again be faced with the difficult task of ensuring stability in the country through compromises with the CDU/CSU – and at the same time renewing itself. The Greens, who have lost the least among the coalition forces, are facing a crucial analysis: is Robert Habeck's course, which has brought the Greens out of their niche as an ecological party, still the right one – or did it cost them more votes in the leftwing milieu than could be won in the centre? This question will determine the internal party discussion over the next few weeks.
What is important for the next federal government in terms of its agenda? The top priority must be for Germany to expand its defence and security policy capabilities even more decisively and, in close coordination with Poland and France, to assume a leading role in a Europe that must defend itself against Russian imperialism and the anti-western course of the Trump administration. This requires an end to small-mindedness in fiscal policy: a reform of the debt brake to enable urgently needed investment in German defence capabilities, competitiveness and infrastructure. Finally, the new federal government must manage to bring the migration debate back to an objective level and find a face-saving solution for all parties involved; contrary to what Merz suggested during the election campaign, this can only be a European policy solution.
That's why it's good that the election campaign is finally over. This is precisely why the coalition negotiations must be finalised quickly – so that Germany does not continue to deal with itself, but with its new role in Europe in view of the changed global political situation. So that Europe is self-confident and capable of acting in the battle of the great powers and is not shredded amid them.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

UK issues unusual 'rising tensions' warning as US orders diplomatic evacuations
UK issues unusual 'rising tensions' warning as US orders diplomatic evacuations

Daily Mirror

time2 hours ago

  • Daily Mirror

UK issues unusual 'rising tensions' warning as US orders diplomatic evacuations

The Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO), a British maritime security agency, has taken measures following Donald Trump's move to issue evacuation orders for non-essential personnel The UK has issued an "unusual warning" to its commercial ships in the Middle East amid "rising tensions". The Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO) fears "an escalation of military activity" is on the cards across the region, and believs security may be at risk. It says vessels must use the Arabian Gulf, Gulf of Oman and Straits of Hormuz, all of which pass Iran, with caution for the forseeable future. ‌ Iran publicly threatened to attack US military bases in the Middle East if they were attacked first. Donald Trump added fuel to the fire yesterday, crassly stating the country will never have a nuclear weapon whether a deal is reached or not. ‌ 'UKMTO has been made aware of increased tensions within the region which could lead to an escalation of military activity having a direct impact on mariners. Vessels are advised to transit the Arabian Gulf, Gulf of Oman and Straits of Hormuz with caution," the UKMTO said today. The Trump administration has issued evacuation orders for non-essential personnel at the US Embassy in Iraq, and its diplomatic facilities in Bahrain and Kuwait. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth also told FOX News there would be voluntary departure for dependents of military personnel serving in the Central Command (CENTCOM) area of operations across the Middle East. This discourse led to the UKMTO advisory today as regional tensions surged. Iranian officials appeared to be responding to calls from hawks in the US to dismantle Iran's nuclear program by force if necessary. But Mr Trump was pessimistic when interviewed earlier this week. The US President said: "I don't know. I'm less confident now than I would have been a couple of months ago. Something happened to them, but I am much less confident of a deal being made." He spoke on the podcast Pod Force One on Monday, which explored in depth the tense situation across the Middle East. Meanwhile, suspected US airstrikes on Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen killed at least three people recently. Yemeni rebels said they shot down a £25m Reaper attack drone during April's onslaught, which indicated a possible US attack on Iran. It happened after the US moved six of its prized B-2 Strategic Stealth bombers to the secretive Indo-Pacific island base of Diego Garcia. Hours after the surprise announcement of the Washington-Tehran talks, Iran's foreign minister said the conversation in Oman would be "indirect" but could be "as much an opportunity as... a test." Mr Trump - who pulled the US out a 2015 nuclear deal between Iran and world powers during his first term - said discussions would be at "very high level," as he delivered his warning to Tehran.

Imperialism still overshadows our intellectual history
Imperialism still overshadows our intellectual history

Spectator

time3 hours ago

  • Spectator

Imperialism still overshadows our intellectual history

Peter Watson begins his survey of the history of ideas in Britain with the assertion that the national mindset (which at that time was the English mindset) changed significantly after the accession of Elizabeth I. His book – a guide to the nature of British intellectual curiosity since the mid-16th century – begins there, just as England had undergone a liberation from a dominant European authority: the shaking off of the influence of the Roman Catholic church and the advent of the Reformation, and the new opportunities that offered for the people. He describes how a culture based largely on poetry and on the court of Elizabeth then redirected the prevailing intellectual forces of the time. This affected not just literature (Marlowe, Shakespeare and Jonson) but also helped develop an interest in science that grew remarkably throughout the next few centuries. The 'imagination' of Watson's title is not merely the creative artistic imagination, but also that of scientists and inventors and, indeed, of people adept at both. The book is, according to its footnotes, based on secondary sources, so those well read in the history of the intellect in Britain since the Reformation will find much that is familiar. There is the odd surprise, such as one that stems from the book's occasional focus on the British empire and the need felt today to discuss its iniquities. Watson writes that the portion of the British economy based on the slave trade (which must not be conflated with empire) was between 1 per cent and 1.4 per cent. He also writes that for much of the era of slavery the British had a non-racial view of it, since their main experience of the odious trade was of white people being captured by Barbary pirates and held to ransom. While this cannot excuse the barbarism endured by Africans shipped by British (and other) slavers across the Atlantic, it lends some perspective to a question in serious danger of losing any vestige of one. Watson does not come down on one side or the other in the empire debate, eschewing the 'balance sheet' approach taken by historians such as Nigel Biggar and Niall Ferguson; but he devotes too much of the last section of his book to the question, when other intellectual currents in the opening decades of the 21st century might have been more profitably explored, not least the continuing viability of democracy. Earlier on, he gives much space to an analysis of Edward Said, and questions such as whether Jane Austen expressed her antipathy to slavery sufficiently clearly in the novel Mansfield Park. But then some of Watson's own analyses of writers and thinkers are not always easily supported. He is better on the 18th century – dealing well with the Scottish enlightenment (giving a perfectly nuanced account of Adam Smith) and writers such as Burke and Gibbon – than he appears to be on the 19th. He gives Carlyle his due, but cites an article in a learned American journal from 40 years ago to justify his claim that Carlyle's 'reputation took a knock' in 1849 with the publication of his Occasional Discourse on the Negro Question. Watson says readers were offended by the use of the term 'Quashee' to describe a black man. They may well, if so, have been unsettled by the still less palatable title that the Discourse was subsequently given, which was The Nigger Question: it appeared thus in a 1853 pamphlet and in the Centenary Edition of Carlyle's works in 1899. That indicates the Discourse did Carlyle's reputation no lasting harm at the time, whatever it may have done since. In seeking to pack so much into fewer than 500 pages of text, Watson does skate over a few crucial figures. Some of his musings on empire might have been sacrificed to make more space for George Orwell, for example. A chapter in whose title his name appears features just one brief paragraph on him, about Homage to Catalonia, and later there is a page or so on Animal Farm, which says nothing new. Of Orwell's extensive and mould-breaking journalism there is nothing – somewhat surprising in a book about the British imagination when dealing with one of its leading exponents of the past century. Watson emphasises scientific discovery and innovation, and the effect on national life and ideas caused by the Industrial Revolution. These are all essential consequences of our intellectual curiosity, and he is right to conclude that the historic significance of Britain in these fields is immense. He includes league tables of Nobel prizewinners by nation in which Britain shows remarkably well. But these prizes are not the only means by which the contribution to civilisation and progress by a people are measured. There are notable omissions. Although Watson talks about the elitist nature of 'high culture' – such as Eliot and The Waste Land – he does not discuss how far the British imagination, and the British contribution to world civilisation, might have advanced had we taken the education of the masses more seriously earlier. We were, until the Butler Education Act of 1944, appalling at developing our human resources, and have not been much better since. It is surprising that there is no discussion of British music, one of the greatest fruits of the imagination of the past 150 years. And there is no analysis of the role of architecture, which, given its impact and its centrality to many people's idea of themselves as British, surely merited examination. The book shows extensive and intelligent reading, but trying to cram so much information and commentary into one volume has not been a complete success, or resulted in something entirely coherent.

Has deporting illegals become illegal?
Has deporting illegals become illegal?

Spectator

time3 hours ago

  • Spectator

Has deporting illegals become illegal?

The circus around Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia – whose full name the New York Times likes to trot out as if citing an old-school English aristocrat – speaks volumes about the immigration battle roiling the US. Our friend Kilmar is what we fuddy-duddies insist on calling an illegal immigrant. The Salvadoran crossed clandestinely into the US in 2012. As for what he's done since, that depends on whom you ask. According to his GoFundMe page, Kilmar is a 'husband, union worker and father of a disabled five-year-old'. Left-wing media portray 'the Maryland man' – a tag akin to Axel Rudakubana's 'a Welshman' – as an industrious metalworker devoted to his family. His wife has rowed back on the temporary protective order she once requested, claiming she'd been over-cautious. Yet according to the Trump administration, Kilmar is a member of the notoriously violent street gang MS-13 who's derived his primary source of income from smuggling hundreds of illegals over the southern border for several years. Choose A or B. In 2019, Kilmar was arrested for loitering along with three other men, one a suspected MS-13 member. He was carrying marijuana, for which (of course) he wasn't charged. From his clothing, tattoos and, more persuasively, a 'past proven and reliable' confidential source who verified he was an active gang member using the moniker 'Chele', police adjudged that Kilmar was a gangbanger, for which (of course) he wasn't charged. He was turned over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement – whose acronym, ICE, reinforces its rep as cold-hearted – which moved to deport him. Kilmar (of course) contested his removal. The immigration judge hearing Kilmar's case concurred that the defendant was indeed a gang member and deportable; the Salvadoran (of course) appealed the decision, which nevertheless was upheld. Kilmar (of course) then filed for asylum, as well as for a 'withholding of removal'. A subsequent immigration judge stayed his deportation to his home country, where his wellbeing might be endangered by local gangs. Now, you might suppose that putting yourself in the way of other famously rivalrous gangs would come with the territory when you join one yourself. Like, inter-gang violence seems a natural hazard of this line of work. But it's not only British immigration judges who are soft touches. Only mass round-ups and swift group trials could effectively address the millions of gate-crashers Kilmar (of course) remained in the US. In 2022, he was pulled over for speeding while driving eight other Hispanic men of uncertain immigration status in an SUV altered to add a third row of seats for extra passengers. The officers suspected human-trafficking; Kilmar's driving licence had expired; a run of his number plate through the database turned up a federal note on likely membership of MS-13. Yet when the patrolmen contacted the feds, ICE (of course) declined to pick him up. So Kilmar was (of course) released without charge. Even so, his claim that he was merely transporting construction workers between jobs did not, under investigation, hold up. Fast-forward to 2025 and why this otherwise obscure Salvadoran who is or is not a thug merits such a detailed lowdown. Meaning (of course) that this case has to do with Donald Trump – whose evil minions in March flew more than 230 purported criminals to a Salvadoran prison, including none other than Kilmar, whom ICE did finally pick up (no 'of course' there). The flights' timing was judicially dodgy. The planes did or didn't take off after a federal judge ruled that the flights could not proceed until the deportees were given the opportunity to challenge their removal. The administration appealed to the Supreme Court, which directed Trump to 'facilitate' Kilmar's return to the US. Because, remember, there was only one country to which he could not be deported because of that credulous 2019 decision: his own. Hence the Justice Department's acceptance that Kilmar's deportation was an 'administrative error'. During this proxy war with Trump, Democrats have pretended to hair-tear over poor Kilmar, mouldering away in a nasty foreign prison and deprived of due process. But the story I just laid out has due process, not to mention leniency or even dereliction on the part of the authorities, up the wazoo. Meanwhile, after slyly getting their jurisprudential ducks in a row, last week Trump and co finally got Kilmar flown back to the US, only to arrest him immediately for human-trafficking – with every intention of convicting the guy and then deporting him right back to El Salvador. What do we make of this farce? The American commentariat has focused on a potential showdown between Trump and the judiciary, claiming to fear a flat-out executive refusal to follow court orders but secretly rather hoping that Trump does defy the courts and thus reveals himself as an unconstitutional tyrant. I view this absurd tale through a different lens. All these trials and flights for a lone illegal alien are expensive. The amount of 'due process' the American justice system affords every single illegal makes deportation at any scale impossible. There isn't enough time and money and there aren't nearly enough judges to make any but a token gesture toward the mass deportation of illegals that Trump has promised. That amounts to a victory not just for Democrats but also for disorder. I'd assess the odds that Kilmar is a thug at about 90 per cent. But proving membership of unofficial allegiances in court is a bastard. If every individual deportation case must be adjudicated according to exacting evidentiary rules and appeal procedures, America's drastic, undemocratic demographic change will proceed inexorably. Only mass round-ups and swift group trials could effectively address the staggering ten million gate-crashers during the Biden administration alone. What are the chances of that? In New York at the weekend, ICE raids were impeded by LA-style crowds of righteously indignant protestors screaming: 'Let them go! Let them go!' The officers just doing their jobs looked beleaguered, tired, numb and pre-defeated. After all the ICE agents' thankless labours, what proportion of their detainees will still get to stay in the country in the end? I'll take another stab at 90 per cent.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store