Karl-Josef Laumann: “There is a split in our society right now”

Karl-Josef Laumann is considered a down-to-earth guy. The author of this text had no doubt about this, but was certainly surprised that he had to call the CDU politician on his home landline for the conversation. Then the statement: The number is on his MP website. Visible to everyone, accessible to everyone. In any case, you catch the NRW Labor Minister at home in Hörstel-Riesenbeck on a Tuesday afternoon. Basically, you only want to know one thing from him: What happened on Saturday?

Mr. Laumann, your statements on migration policy were praised across practically all parties and camps. How do you explain that?

The positive reactions show that all parties are aware that things cannot continue like this. Solutions are urgently needed to limit immigration to Germany. We are at the end of our resources in many areas. I wanted to point that out. But it was also important to me to focus attention on those affected. The vast majority of refugees do not leave their homeland for frivolous reasons, but rather because of a lack of prospects and poverty.

Your objective and constructive tone was particularly well received.

The response gives me hope that we can achieve joint action by all democratic parties on this matter. I also think that is necessary. We must send a clear signal that politics is capable of not only describing problems, but also finding common solutions. Even when it’s difficult.

The CDU had invited people to the Konrad Adenauer House and wanted to use it to bring the “active pension” into the national headlines. But then Laumann was asked about his party leader’s dentist statement. Could he confirm his party leader Friedrich Merz’s description of the situation for North Rhine-Westphalia, according to which rejected asylum seekers had their teeth remade at state expense, while Germans waited in vain for appointments? The North Rhine-Westphalia Labor Minister went far. His nuanced answer should be the only thing that sticks after the press conference.

When asked by a journalist, you spent six minutes describing the situation in your state, what concerns there are, what fears are circulating. The topic is obviously close to your heart, and possibly even on your heart. What’s on your mind?

I am a social politician by training and not an expert in all these international legal issues. But as the largest country in Europe, we must maintain our internal stability. I see them in danger.

Why?

Citizens have the feeling that things cannot continue as they are now. To them, politics appears incapable of action. My big concern is that people will soon no longer differentiate between our liberal asylum law, for which there are very good reasons, and the many people who come to us.

What do you mean?

We can be very proud of the right to asylum that our forefathers wrote into the constitution. They were contemporary witnesses of the Nazi regime and experienced persecution for political, religious and other reasons. I believe that we must act now to preserve the core of our right to asylum for future generations. There is this saying: The jug goes to the well until it breaks. We must not allow him to break us on this issue – i.e. to change the mood and fundamentally question our right to asylum. That’s why action needs to be taken when it comes to the number of immigrants.

Laumann said in the press conference that “the systems are already being overwhelmed.” However, when it comes to the matter with dentists, he cannot speak of it as a “big problem”. Laumann wanted to “move away from the example of dentists” anyway: He reported on high immigration numbers and a NRW refugee minister who had to see how she could “manage it somehow”. Of course you love every child, said Laumann. They will “do everything to ensure that they get a good daycare place and do well at school.” But teachers don’t grow on trees, daycare and school space would become scarce. “We have reached the limits of our capacities in many areas,” said Laumann.

There is a hard fight for possible solutions and the debate is very heated. How should migration policy be discussed and what tone is important?

We should always keep in mind that we are talking about human destinies here. These are mainly people who came to us from a difficult situation. These people go to the Mediterranean, in danger of their lives, because they are looking for a better perspective. And not for fun and foolishness, as we say in North Rhine-Westphalia.

Has politics – including your party – always struck this respectful tone?

Many Christian Democrats are very committed and are doing everything they can locally to ensure that the integration of asylum seekers is successful and that the situation for children is good. I would therefore like to see that we do not conduct this debate in a way that pits one against the other. That doesn’t help.

The situation is tense and the tone in the migration debate is becoming harsher. The FDP shoots against the Greens (“security risk”), the Greens shoot back (“lower limit of decency”). The Union accuses the traffic light of total failure (“Germany debacle”), the traffic light suspects immoral motives (“pathetic populism”). In contrast, Laumann’s more thoughtful words provided a counterpoint, even against the constant excitement of others. The Greens praised a “constructive, wrestling” tone and – a slight aside – that Laumann gave reason to hope “that there are still voices in the CDU that are not limited to divisive resentments.”

In a recent television interview, your party leader Friedrich Merz could be understood to mean that rejected asylum seekers would take away Germans’ appointments at the dentist. CDU General Secretary Carsten Linnemann then spoke of an escalation that an opposition leader should be entitled to. How do you see that?

When I say that I don’t believe in pitting one against the other, I’ve said everything about it.

Christian Bäumler, your deputy at the CDA, criticized the statements as a “derailment” that had nothing to do with the Christian view of humanity. He called on Merz to withdraw his statements or to forego the Union’s candidacy for chancellor.

I consider the statements made by Mr Bäumler, whom I otherwise have great respect for, to be exaggerated.

Laumann, 66, is a Christian Democrat through and through. He has led the social wing of his party (CDA) since 2005 and has been Minister of Labor in North Rhine-Westphalia since 2017. For the second time. He has been in the party leadership for much longer, for almost two decades. His opinion has weight in the CDU. Laumann is considered loyal and wonderfully direct. He has already proven this with possible Corona state aid for the meat manufacturer Tönnies (“So I can screw myself”). His answer to the question of how he would feel about schnapps on election Sunday is also almost legendary: “Tonight there is Pils because I have to take a plane to Berlin at 6 a.m. tomorrow.”

There is currently no solution in the migration debate. What do you expect from the federal government, the traffic light coalition and also from your party?

The traffic light and the Union must now agree on a common line of march in order to turn the adjustment screws that we can turn at the national level. All parties are therefore well advised to listen to local politics, where the problems become concrete. A solution at European level is just as important. I think Wolfgang Schäuble’s proposal to introduce comparable standards for asylum seekers across the EU is clever and practical. The differences are currently big. This is also why immigration to Germany is increasing.

And if the alliance doesn’t work out?

There is a division happening in our society right now. Between those who don’t want to have the right to asylum and foreigners – and those who would prefer to welcome everyone. We therefore urgently need to find the right balance. There is immigration that our labor market needs and immigration for which our asylum law was originally designed. We need solutions that are well ahead of the European elections in June 2024. Otherwise, I am very worried that the winner of a non-solution will be the AfD. A party that is incompatible with our way of life, our values ​​and our past. Not everyone who votes for the AfD shares their views. But protest voters also have reasons why they are protest voters.