Constitutional scholars are raising concerns regarding recent proposals for the deportation of individuals with dual nationality convicted of crimes. The debate stems from comments made by Nikolaus Kramer, a leading figure within the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, following the death of a police officer in Saarland.
Kramer initially called for the deportation of “criminal multi-nationals” citing the incident as justification. He argued that individuals who attack security forces forfeit their right to remain in Germany and should be deported to their second country of citizenship.
Following reporting on his statements, Kramer clarified his position. He stated his focus now centers on expanding the grounds for revocation of citizenship for dual nationals to include serious offenses, particularly attacks on law enforcement.
However, legal experts argue that such proposals are likely unconstitutional. Professor Markus Ogorek, Director of the Institute for Public Law and Administrative Science at the University of Cologne, emphasized the incompatibility of Kramer’s initial demand with fundamental legal principles. Professor Volker Boehme-Neßler, specializing in public law at the University of Oldenburg, concurred, labeling the suggestion as definitively unconstitutional.
Ogorek further explained that the broadened scope of offenses Kramer now suggests-including resisting officers during demonstrations or simple assault-would render any such law invalid under the German constitution. He pointed out that stripping citizenship based on such broad criteria risks violating core principles of legal certainty.
Boehme-Neßler argued that allowing the revocation of citizenship based on criminal activity would create a system of “second-class citizenship” which is not recognized under the German constitution.
While former Federal Constitutional Judge Peter Michael Huber, currently a professor at Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, suggested that the law governing citizenship could be amended to allow revocation in cases of capital offenses, he stressed that attacks on security forces, broadly defined, would be too vague to serve as justification. He indicated that extending such a provision to include minor offenses would be inappropriate.