Naturalization by Supporting Forbidden Militant Organizations

To become naturalized means e.g. to show the German administration how much Germany has become a part of you. This article will reflect naturalization and one’s political motivation – i.e. in special consideration of terrorist parties or movements.

While still in Turkey, Ali Baba was an active member functioning as a messenger and fundraiser for PKK. During rallies, he wore their button and often carried their flag. Ali Baba also signed their self-declaration (“I also belong to PKK!”) in the summer of 2001. This self-declaration that had been signed by thousands of other persons read that the signer disapproved the prohibition of the PKK and would disobey it. This self-declaration was submitted to the authorities to persuade the authorities to permit the PKK again. At this time, PKK had an identification program running and beyond that they had implemented measures, which were disturbing Germany’s foreign affairs by use of violence. It was not visible that they turned away from violent activities in the year 2001, so that they were imposing a danger to the Federal Republic of Germany. After entering Germany, he continued his support of PKK. During the last four years and eight months before application, it could not be proved that he still actively supported the forbidden PKK. He alleged to have distanced himself from that organization.

The OVG (March 9, 2006, re 1 Q 4/06) had to decide Ali‘s case for naturalization. The court had to answer two questions: First, was the “self-declaration” also an act of support if the applicant mainly wanted to support legitimate activities, like an alleged peace policy of PKK. This means is it allowed to fight an unwanted policy with lawful means even though the organization might be criminal. Second, it was to be held what the prerequisites are to persuasively dissociate from unconstitutional associations.

The court found clues that showed he supports disapproved efforts following §11 cl. 1 no. 2 StAG. It does not matter that he did not hold a special position in the leadership and his participation following the rules of political persecution was to be considered as low profile. After so much known public commitment, it was not persuasive that Ali just said he dissociates from PKK. He has to actively show facts that his dissociation is true and fact – and not only “blah blah”. The limit to persuasion is set as high as one’s activities are and that limit will not easily be passed. An affiliation to an unlawful organization will be very wildly construed, so that easily puts you in the vicinity of such association. Understand “affiliation” as anything positively influencing the possibilities of the association. This does not require official membership – sympathy suffices. To establish “affiliation”, also a subjective component must be fulfilled. If you know you are doing something to enhance the inner structure or any kind of progression, then you have an affiliation.

When will you persuade the judges of abandonment? This will not easily be done. Ali has the burden to prove such motive. He must present facts – any kind. Just to claim that one left the organization is the least possible that you can do. Every detail put forward will be weighed for consideration. You will not be supporting an association fighting the government if you only identify yourself with humanitarian or other non-criminal goals. If you only visited permitted rallies you will not be supporting an unlawful organization. You will only be using your constitutional right of free speech.




Published on the old CMS: 2006/7/16
Read on the old CMS till November 2008: 1,305 reads