Let me explain: “them” means Russian Germans (as all people from the former Soviet Union are called). And “our own”, that is, those who have such questions, are German Germans.
Except for the brief period of the 70s and mid-80s of the last century, when German resettlers in the FRG were greeted almost with orchestras, bouquets of flowers and red carpets at airplane gangways, these “whys?” - whether quieter or louder - are heard in private conversations, in the press, and in election speeches of politicians of various levels. Public opinion is inclined (or maybe it is being inclined?) to the conclusion that Russian Germans are a burden for Germany. After all, according to the widespread opinion, resettlers from the former USSR are poorly educated, prone to alcoholism and drug addiction, and crime is high among them. And the dissatisfaction of the average German is growing, spilling out in a generalizing question: why do they just keep coming and coming, and Germany keeps accepting and accepting them?!
Why do they come?
In Germany, as is known, there is no “Znanie” society, whose lecturers, along with the mass media, as best they could, educated the population on all questions of existence. I will return to the mass media, but regarding the absent “Znanie” society, I will say that here, it seems, the church successfully replaces it. In any case, booklets with the title “Late Resettlers. Can They Be Hated? Arguments Against Prejudices” were published and distributed by evangelicals. Unlike the activists of “Znanie”, they carry their word solely out of conviction, not for “checkmarks” or payment. And answering the first question: “Why do they come?” - they clearly explain to the reader that, according to Article 116 of the FRG Constitution, Spätaussiedler are Germans. Further from the context it follows: late resettlers are not foreigners in Germany, although their entry into the country is regulated by quotas and other mandatory conditions. But they come here not to visit, but to their homeland. Moreover, Russian Germans directly belong to those who suffered as a result of the Second World War - they were subjected to total deportation, their property was completely taken away, they were falsely accused of aiding the fascists, etc.
And so, step by step, with references to current legislation, the authors of the booklet carefully examine other “painful” questions. Why, for example, do Russian Germans who have not worked a single day in Germany receive pensions here? Precisely because they are citizens of the FRG, therefore they are subject to pension provision (although the amount of their pensions is significantly lower than that of their peers - local Germans). Do Spätaussiedler take jobs away from locals? Not at all. In a number of sectors of the country's economy there is a constant shortage of specialists, who, I recall, were invited even from India. In addition, one must not forget the unfavorable demographic situation in Germany, and through the admission of Aussiedler this problem is somehow being solved. And what is especially important, in my view, is that the booklet contains figures that debunk all sorts of speculation and rumors. For example, it says, citing official sources, that Russian Germans under the age of 45 made up 71.2% of their total number in Germany in 1998. For locals, this figure was 56.6%. And those over 45 among Russlanddeutsche were 28.8%, and among locals - 43.4%. This is to the discussion of who will pay pensions to whom in ten to fifteen years.
As for “gifts” in the form of funds for building or buying housing, exactly the same “Geschenke” in the form of low-interest long-term loans can be received by absolutely all people permanently residing in Germany. Including emigrants. In accordance with the terms of the special housing construction program adopted by the government back in 1989, anyone with a low income can count on state assistance - in particular, parents with many children or families with a disabled child.
A few words about the media
I think I will not discover America by saying that the German mass media report about Russian Germans mostly biasedly, with mockery, with maxims like: “We will not allow Germany to be turned into a colony of Kazakhstan!”
I remember, last year, a colleague from a local newspaper, trying to refute this assessment of mine, referred to a very positive, in his opinion, piece that talked about the Hannover Cultural and Educational Society and its female activists. The piece indeed was not of a denigrating nature. Next to a huge (at least half-page) photograph of the characters was a narrow column of text, where the society's own activities were mentioned casually - they say, it exists. But the table at which the reporter's conversation with his interlocutor took place was described far more colorfully: there was vodka in a misted decanter, and pancakes with caviar, and other delicacies. I ask my colleague: wouldn't it be more useful for readers to know, for example, what the society does, what its members are famous for? “No,” he confidently replies, “the reader needs either this kind of ‘à la russe’ color, or some spectacular stories.” For example, about the Russian mafia, I innocently continue the line he has built. “Well yes,” the interlocutor smiles, “the newspaper will immediately buy such material, but positive - well, who is interested in that?”
On the topic of the “Russian mafia”, I spoke with many of those who, to one degree or another, shape public opinion. Among them were press service workers from various departments, officials responsible for integration, and politicians. And all of them, answering the question “Why does the German press mostly give negative information about Russian Germans?” replied, albeit in different words, but in principle the same thing: “We provide the press with comprehensive and objective information, but in a democratic country such as Germany, it itself decides how, what, and about whom to write.”
I have no intention of entering into a discussion on this matter, either then or now. I will give just one example. In the first four months of this year, five premeditated murders were committed in Hanover. In the first case, a man from Sicily was shot; in the second, a Turkish businessman was killed. Then two Kosovo Albanians were shot. And so far the last on this sorrowful list is a Turkish married couple - they were sadistically stabbed to death right in the premises of a warehouse they owned. So, in none of the reports (and for each of these incidents the entire Hanoverian press wrote for two or three days running) was the word “mafia” used even once. I can imagine what epithets would have adorned these materials if one of the suspects had been a Russian-speaker!
At the same time, I in no way idealize our young people and those who are at odds with the law, but why tar everyone with the same brush? And if the German reader is not interested in the successes achieved in Germany by our schoolchildren, students, athletes, workers, engineers, doctors and representatives of many other professions, isn’t it the fault of the German media themselves, which have discouraged consumers of their information from the “reasonable, good, eternal”? Or is it considered a priori that such categories do not apply to Russian Germans?
I have more than once had to hear two mutually exclusive judgments. The first comes from activists among the Russian Germans. “We,” they say, “take on any work, including that which locals turn away from; we pay more into pension funds than is paid out from there to our elderly; no one gives us money ‘for nothing’ — we take it on credit with interest.” The second judgment, in various versions, is voiced by officials of the departments responsible for integration. “Since Russian Germans are granted German citizenship almost immediately upon arrival in Germany,” they declare, “and there is no separate statistics on late resettlers, all talk on this subject is therefore non-specific.”
But in that case, permit me to ask: on what basis do the press and the same officials talk about a “disproportionately high percentage of offenders among late resettlers”? Perhaps they are fantasizing? Or perhaps they are trying to scare someone? But whom, and why?
There are such statistics
While the total number of unemployed in Germany reached 10.7% in 2000, 10.3% in 2001, and 10.8% in 2002 (and among foreigners it was even higher – 17.3%, 17.4%, and 19.1% respectively), unemployed resettlers accounted for 9.1% in 2000 and 9.8% in 2001. Moreover, if we take 1997 as the starting point, when the number of unemployed Russian Germans amounted to 150,970 people, there is a clear trend toward a substantial reduction in this indicator. Thus, in 1998 there were already 126,035; in 1999 – 99,659; in 2000 – 77,377; in 2001 – 64,770; and in 2002 – 59,367 (source: Federal Labor Office, Nuremberg, 2003).
Statistics impartially testify: Russian Germans contribute considerably more to the state treasury than has to be spent from it on payments to this category of German citizens. In 1989-1990 alone, expenditures exceeded revenues by 4.9 billion DM, including 0.9 billion DM for pension funds, 1.2 billion DM for health insurance funds, and 2.8 billion DM for unemployment benefits. But already since 1991 the picture changes radically. In the period from 1991 to 1995, the excess of income over expenditures amounted to 8.1 billion DM; in 1996-2000 – 49.6 billion DM; and the expected figure for the period 2001-2005 will be,
as experts claim, no less than 22.3 billion euros! Of this amount, pension funds will receive 16.5 billion euros more than planned payouts; health insurance funds – 1.9 billion euros; and the unemployment assistance fund – 3.8 billion euros more. In total, to date Germany has about 42 billion euros of net profit from the results of the labor activity of Russian Germans, of whom, since 1989, more than 2.2 million people have arrived in the country (source: Institute of the German Economy).
The Federal Administrative Office also provides data on the age structure of the population of Russian Germans in Germany, comparing them with the same categories of the indigenous population. Judging by them, the advantage is with the resettlers. Thus, in 2001, their age group from 6 to 18 years in percentage terms was 6.99%, compared to 5.80% for locals; from 18 to 20 years – 22.11% and 13.41%, respectively; from 20 to 25 years – 4.14% and 2.24%; from 25 to 45 years – 32.35% and 31.42%; from 45 to 60 years – 14.03% and 19.32%; from 60 to 65 years – 3.99% and 6.45%; and over 65 years – 6.29% and 15.92%.
Regarding the last two proportions, I cannot help but note one nuance. The press is circulating the following passage: “The demographic situation in Germany is developing very unfavorably. The share of the population over the age of 60 is growing. This is largely facilitated by the achievements of modern medicine and the high standard of living in the country.”
And this is repeated so often that one can’t help but catch oneself thinking: what are German scientists and politicians doing! Just imagine, they have stretched out the lives of their citizens! If it weren’t for our old people, who lived their lives in a country of ‘developed socialism’ and therefore die here as soon as they reach retirement age, Germany would have withered away completely. And so, with our modest support, perhaps it will at least improve its demographic indicator. Therefore, it is completely wrong to consider Russian Germans a burden. I state this with full responsibility and without the slightest fear of being declared an anti-democrat.