The debate on the migration law is a discussion about Germany's future
The conservative parties CDU and CSU were terrified of acknowledging that migrants come to Germany for permanent residence, that is, forever. They did not want to scare voters. Today, even without statistics, it is clear that Germany is the second country after the United States in terms of the number of migrants. This is obvious at a glance at the people on the street. And no serious politician any longer claims that Germany is not a country of immigration.
And yet, many still do not see the difference between stating the actual state of affairs and the desirability of this situation. Acknowledging that Germany is a country of immigration does not at all mean acknowledging that it should be that way. Politicians and industrialists advocate for migration and have already moved on to the next question: what kind of migrants do we need? This question should have become the subject of broad discussion long ago.
Other countries formulated admission criteria much earlier than Germany and apply them. A global competition for skilled labor has flared up. Germany is lagging behind. The reasons often lie in bureaucracy, the language barrier, but also in politics. The fact that Germany did not want to admit that it is a participant in this competition also plays a certain role.
But if we want an open discussion, we must also consider the possible consequences. First, by saying who we need, we also imply those who are not needed. And in this regard, many lump together the attraction of labor and the admission of asylum seekers, where the economic interests of the state should not matter.
Clever politicians and lobbyists quickly realized that among those seeking asylum there are also valuable personnel for industry. They just need to be given work permits as quickly as possible. And whether they have grounds for asylum is a secondary question. But what about the others? It turns out that the value of a refugee, the value of a person is determined solely by their professional qualification.
Second, it must be taken into account that in the global competition for the smartest and most talented, there are not only winners but also losers. Poor countries lose talented people, brain drain reduces their chances of achieving prosperity. And rich countries can choose from a whole army of relatively low-paid but willing workers.
Recently a report appeared in the media: in the British city of Manchester alone, more doctors from the African country of Malawi work than in Malawi itself. One may doubt the data, but the problem is obvious. The paradox is that European charitable organizations, using donations, send European doctors to Malawi to at least partially compensate for the shortage. And inequality between individual countries is becoming entrenched in Europe. How is Greece supposed to get back on its feet if the most talented young people are fleeing the country? This is not an argument to restrict freedom of movement within the European Union, but the problem must be taken into account.
And finally, we must take into account a factor that may be the most important: society's readiness. German employers complain about a shortage of skilled personnel. But in doing so, they pursue not public but their own interests. Industry wants to acquire as many personnel as possible who have been educated by other states and who are typically willing to work for lower wages than German specialists. But just as 'Gastarbeiter' came and stayed, so too will specialists remain in Germany even if the demand for labor falls.
But if we truly want to fill the labor shortage, we are talking about more than 10 million migrants in the coming years. Who guarantees that society is capable of integrating them? Moreover, nobody knows whether a developed economy will need that many workers in the future. But people cannot simply be sent away.
However, these arguments do not contradict the discussion on the migration law. On the contrary, it is high time to have it, and seriously. It is about setting milestones that will determine important changes in Germany for years to come. So better to think seven times before cutting once.
Christoph HASSELBACH,
Deutsche Welle.