The following text was translated by Hellequin GB from a PDF document posted at the official website of the German Bundestag. The translator sends this explanation:

This is a proposal by the Traffic Light Coalition* to build another Wall by refusing travel documents to people they deem dangerous dissidents.

I’m trying to translate this bureaucratic balderdash into understandable English, and I’m pretty sure that, since I don’t really understand the convoluted syntax of that “language”, there will be mistakes. But the gist should be clear to all.

The translated proposal (the translator’s comments are in square brackets):

June 7, 2023

Application

The parliamentary groups of the SPD, BÜNDNIS 90/ DIE GRÜNEN [Greens] and the FDP to a resolution of 4th Committee of the German Bundestag

— Committee on Home Affairs and Homeland —

Passport refusal when participating in foreign events, when their content is contrary to the principles of the liberal democratic basic order of the Basic Law

I. The Committee on the Interior and Homeland of the German Bundestag notes:

In the past there have been prohibitions of events of the right-wing extremist spectrum within the Federal Republic of Germany under the general norms of legal powers to avert danger. Among these were, for example, martial arts events aimed at empowering the participants and to teach them fighting techniques to use in the fight against the libertarian basic democratic order and towards people with different opinions. [And they aren’t doing this? Yeah, right. Hypocrites.]

The consistent and sustained approach to such events had, as a result, shifted these increasingly abroad and thus access by the domestic authorities was removed. To prevent German nationals taking part in right-wing extremist events abroad, we were able to refuse departure and passport, based on §§ 7, 10 Passport Act (PassG) against any participants, made by the competent authorities. Some of those affected persons contested this before the courts.

The administrative courts decided often, within the framework of temporary legal protection, that the respective exit and passport refusals were likely to be unlawful. In particular, they pointed out that the authorities did not put forward sufficient factual basis, according to which the assumption of a specific endangerment for the international reputation of the Federal Republic of Germany and thus any other significant concern of the Federal Republic of Germany within the meaning of Section 7 Paragraph 1 number 1 variant 3 PassG is recognizable. In these cases they granted the applications of participants in such events.

Taking into account this decision-making practice of the administrative courts, the necessity to provide the authorities with further information for the interpretation of Section 7 Paragraph 1 Number 1 variant 3 PassG is a given. Because if you participate in extremist events abroad, whose contents are contrary to the free democratic basic order, it thus is a threat to the international reputation of the Federal Republic Germany and another significant concern.

At the same time, the described decision-making practice of the administrative courts shows that only if there is a sufficient flow of information from the security authorities to the passport authorities can they create a solid factual basis that can lead to definitive exit and passport refusals. So, in another case, a German national, who wanted to travel to Afghanistan to be able to carry out activities in their non-profit association located there, lost the right to travel. In two instances, their lawsuit against the ban on their departure and the restriction on the area of validity of their passport to the Federal Republic of Germany was refused. Because the passport authorities had always obtained an up-to-date assessment of the risk situation from the security authorities. Based on the detailed information from the security authorities it could be proven that the fear that the passport holder could be kidnapped in Afghanistan and the Federal Republic would be forced to pay a ransom.

II. Against this background, the Committee on Home Affairs and Homeland for the German Bundestag calls on the Federal Government:

1.		To work towards specifying the passport administration regulation insofar as that if you intend to participate in extremist events abroad, the content of which contradicts the principles of the free and democratic basic order of the Basic Law, and are a threat to the international reputation of the Federal Republic of Germany and thus one other significant concerns of the Federal Republic of Germany within the meaning of Section 7 Para. 1 No. 1 Var. 3 PassG is to be accepted.
		and
2.		work towards an improved and increasing the flow of information from the security authorities to the passport authorities, so that when deciding on a passport refusal, provides the passport authorities with a sufficient factual basis in order to be able to refuse a passport in a way that will stand up in court.

Afterword from the translator:

All I can say to this is: Erich Mielke is soooo proud of you guys, and sends his regards from Hell.