In an Instagram post, Luisa Neubauer points out the problems associated with the language and metaphors used about people with a refugee background. (See here)

The law proposed by the CDU in the Bundestag is called the "Zustrombegrenzungsgesetz” (Influx Limitation Act). In her video, Luisa Neubauer highlights that far-right circles tend to describe refugees using "hydraulic language," employing language such as “The boat is full”, “The dams have broken”, or “Waves of refugees.” Such language completely strips away the human dimension of migration and portrays it as a force of nature: “The influx is coming – we must control it, just as we must control nature and minorities, stand against them, and contain them.”

However, these metaphors are not just problematic because they dehumanize people; they are also a deliberate tool of manipulation. The images evoked by such linguistic choices are designed to simplify complex issues while triggering precisely the emotions that suit a particular political agenda. By framing migration as an uncontrollable force of nature, even extreme state actions can be presented as necessary and without alternatives—while the public is reduced to passive spectators who can only wait, watch, and hope for the best.

Language is never neutral. When we use metaphors, we immerse ourselves in what we are discussing in the broader context of collective experiences shaped by tradition and usage. Such fusions between extralinguistic references and accumulated meaning occur constantly in speech. However, in political discourse, metaphors are often used in ways that deliberately steer the audience’s emotions in a specific direction. They impose a particular perspective on reality that we do not always consciously recognize.

The power of politically successful metaphors lies in their ability to consolidate and amplify widely shared experiences and thought models. They make complex and often incomprehensible issues seem suddenly plausible by breaking them down into simple, familiar images. Their reach is vast, and their effect is often subconscious.

At the same time, the connotative charge that linguistic signs carry in current usage is always a blend of long-established meanings and newly attached references. In the realm of political rhetoric, there is no clear boundary between literal and metaphorical meaning—the transitions are fluid. Before our eyes, the connotations of terms like reform are constantly shifting. What makes an expression appear metaphorical is not its imagery alone but its deviation from an already established, and thus largely invisible, pattern of usage.

We all know how powerful language and its semantics are. The fact that today, metaphors originally used to describe natural disasters are still applied to people who are forced to leave their homes due to existential hardship is discriminatory—and it must stop.

Even more insidious is the attempt to exploit people's legitimate fears about climate change to stoke fear of refugees. Using language that unconsciously evokes images of floods and tsunamis is utterly irresponsible!

Something must be done about this. We must continuously examine these types of metaphors for their semantics and, when necessary, call them out. These metaphors are not just problematic, they are often inherently violent. They constitute a form of linguistic violence deliberately directed against people. This kind of violent communication must be critically reflected upon and challenged.