The atrocity in Solingen reveals the helplessness of the federal government when it comes to asylum and security policy, and this raises the question of whether this time there will be consequences for the terrorist attack. At least there are enough announcements: knife bans, stricter gun laws, more effective deportations - but almost no one talks about the feasibility of the measures being discussed. The sadness in Solingen is mixed with more and more anger: How could the bloodbath even happen? SPD Interior Minister Faeser and FDP Justice Minister Buschmann demonstrate unity and promise to learn lessons from the terrible incident. It is also clear that we as the federal government will now evaluate the situation together and then decide that we will also take the appropriate measures. We do this together in good exchange. It has to be this triad of decisively combating violent Islamism, the even more effective and decisive deportation of Dublin refugees, and thirdly, one can also talk about gun law if it makes a meaningful contribution in such situations. What Buschmann's FDP still doesn't want is a relaxation of the surveillance bans that have long existed abroad. Data retention , for example, or video surveillance: If I look at Great Britain or other countries, there is generally video surveillance at public events. I think this is a tried and tested method. We also see this at the subway stations in Berlin. But security is not only achieved through police measures, but also through the fact that fewer potential threats come into the country. The CDU and CSU are therefore calling for immediate deportations to Syria and Afghanistan, and at the same time a stop to accepting refugees from these countries. Anyone who goes on home leave there should lose their right of residence. Criminals who are required to leave the country should remain in detention pending deportation indefinitely. Dual nationals who support terror should lose their German passport. BSW boss Sahra Wagenknecht also sees it that way and wants to cut the money for rejected refugees: 'Those who enter illegally, who are not entitled to asylum, actually have to leave our country, and they cannot receive social benefits for years . That's the case, and the citizens pay for it, and they're also fed up with the state being taken for a ride .' In principle, it would be possible to tighten the law, even with a change to the Basic Law if necessary . Union parliamentary group leader Merz has already signaled that the CDU and CSU would work together with the traffic lights and thus ensure the necessary majority. We are now joined by political scientist Professor Werner Patzelt. Good evening. Hello, good evening. The AfD has already hijacked the attack with the slogan 'Höcke or Solingen'. To what extent do you expect that this attack could affect voting behavior in Saxony and Thuringia on Sunday, if further AfD growth is even possible, given the forecast figures of 30% plus X, and X is not exactly small? In the case of the AfD, this attack will certainly not bring the AfD numbers down, but perhaps increase them a little, especially since the statements about the attack that promised relief did not exactly indicate great energy on the part of the Union and SPD. The terrorist attack also casts a pale light on the traffic light's migration and security policy. To what extent could the division of society be further promoted if the federal government does not produce more than the usual politicians' phrases about the full severity of the law that the attackers feel? Instead of splitting society, let us say that many voters are internally rejecting the established parties. The main victims of the lack of precise and effective migration policy are the Social Democrats, the Green Party and, to a rural extent, the CDU. The Social Democrats and the Greens will certainly continue to lose votes if their own government once again fails to follow the announcements at all. And the CDU will by no means defeat the AfD, although she takes no responsibility, so to speak, for the fact that what we are currently seeing are the consequences of the German migration policy initiated under her 16-year government. So, it is not society that is splitting, but rather the party system is being reshaped in favor of the AfD on the one hand and in favor of Sahra Wagenknecht's alliance on the other. And this can be formulated all the more sharply in terms of migration policy, as no one in Germany has ever had the idea of describing BSW as a racist or crypto-fascist party. Now the CDU leader Friedrich Merz had demanded that there must be a stop to the admission of refugees from Syria and Afghanistan, with the headline 'It's enough'. How realistic is that and what does Friedrich want to achieve with it? Because it is also relatively clear to him that this will not happen in the realistic future. You could stop recruiting so-called local staff from Afghanistan; you could of course make the security checks, which have been suspended or made less effective by the Foreign Office through internal instructions , more stringent again in the case of people from Afghanistan. And refugees from Syria have long since crossed countries where they would have found protection before coming to Germany. This means that immigration of Afghans or Syrians or others can be stopped at any time if border controls are carried out at the borders in Germany. But the political will for this is precisely what is missing. And some things would also improve if rejected asylum seekers were sent back. In the case of the perpetrator in Solingen, the country responsible for his asylum procedure, namely the EU country Bulgaria, was even prepared to take this man back. It was due to the tardiness of the German authorities that the deportation was not carried out. Let's talk a little more about social democracy, because the SPD could slip below the 5% threshold in the state elections on Sunday if things go really badly. In the polls it is currently only at 6. To what extent would that be damaging to democracy, as some claim? After all, the SPD is the oldest party in the country. On the other hand, if that were the case, it would be a highly democratic process. The fact that parties disappear from parliaments is the result of free elections. But not every disappearance of every party from a parliament should be welcomed. It is simply the case that democracy thrives on change, and our democracy thrived very well on the change between Christian Democrat-led governments and Social Democrat-led governments. And if at some point a Social Democratic government is to replace a Christian Democratic government again, then there needs to be an SPD that is present in the parliaments and that is strong enough in the Bundestag that it can form a coalition again with one or a maximum of two other parties. This means that an SPD that disappears from parliament is a political disaster for Germany. Of course, one for which the Social Democrats themselves are to blame, because no one forced this party to hand over the remaining working class to the CDU and, to a rural extent, to the AfD and to commit itself to a policy only for minorities . Look, minority politics is like trying to build a bird that can fly out of plucked out bird feathers. No matter how many minorities whose interests are taken into account, they will not become a majority that can form a federal government. And no one else is to blame for this road to a dead end than social democracy itself. A very nice metaphor, Werner Patzelt, political scientist. Thank you for the classification. Thank you very much.