The Return of the Authority – a law between past and present: A critical look at the Emigrant Protection Act

The state emphasizes with emphasis that it wants nothing to do with the German Empire and has detached itself from every authoritarian tradition. But of all things, the Emigrants’ Protection Act shows that this distance is a facade. As one is neatly parted from symbols and concepts of old times, a thinking is continued in the depths of legislation, which strongly affects thatepoch in which the state watched over the individual’s personal decision and dressed them in paternalistic care.

Protection as a pretext for control

It is explained that the law serves to protect the emigrants, to obtain objective advice and to protect them from wrong decisions. But this alleged protection is nothing more than a fig leaf that hides distrust of its own citizens. The state actually presents itself as a well-meaning guardian who pretends to protect its citizens from the dangers of the world, indeedbut their personal responsibility in chains. Anyone looking for information or advice may only contact official bodies who have received the blessing of the authorities. Anything else is forbidden, under threat of serious consequences. The responsibility for one’s own life is so elegantly withdrawn and handed over to a bureaucracy that declares itself to be the benchmark of objective truth.

Arbitrary as a principle

The admission of so-called officially recognized consultants resembles a bureaucratic maze, the outcome of which remains deliberately hidden. No one can say exactly what experience or expertise is required to obtain this admission. The contradiction lies in the structure: Experience is required that can only be acquired through an activity that is illegal without admission. on this oneWisely, a closed circle emerges that systematically excludes independent voices. In this way, the state becomes the sole Deuter who will be allowed to talk about emigration in the future – a monopoly that can hardly be underestimated in its political impact.

The appearance of transparency

Officially, one speaks of clear procedures and verifiable criteria, but the more closely one looks, the more clearly it becomes apparent that transparency is only claimed. The examinations of the counseling centers follow standards that are so vague that they can be interpreted at any time at their discretion. This is veiled, not shared. Citizens should believe they areProtected while in truth, at the mercy of a system that regulates your actions in detail. This form of control disguises itself as care, but its core is a deep distrust of individuals’ independence.

A modern step backwards

While it is officially emphasized that modern states are free, self-determined and responsible, this law penetrates a mental attitude that is more reminiscent of official administration than democratic diversity. The citizen is not seen as a responsible actor, but as a potentially misguided being that requires supervision. The law writesThis attitude in official form and replaces trust with control, advice through questioning, freedom through approval. If you want to emigrate, you are not only facing geographical borders, but also in front of administrative barriers that are harder to overcome than any national border.

Hidden intention

The political intention behind the protective rhetoric is to prevent people from leaving the country. The advice that is supposed to provide orientation looks like a filter that chooses more than explained. Instead of making information accessible, they are concentrated, channeled and regulated. The effect is a subtle psychological pressure that discourages the individual. who thePlanning a step into another country, quickly senses that he is mistrusted, that his motivation is to be questioned and his decision should be controlled. This gives the impression that the state does not want to lose anyone – not out of care, but out of thinking of possessions.

An echo of old times

If you look at the entirety of this set of rules, the thought arises that a spirit that has long since seemed overcome is alive. The state, which pretends to act modern and progressively, uses the same mechanisms as the old one, who wanted to steer its citizens in an orderly manner. He speaks of protection, but means surveillance; He calls for responsibility, says obedience.In the name of security, a corset is created that prevents individuality and degrades freedom to a formalist vocabulary. The Emigrant Protection Act is therefore not a sign of progress, but the echo of a thinking that has its roots much deeper in history than one would like to admit.