From "being German" to "becoming German": the challenges of the migration crisis may create conditions for a win-win situation
Some will stay because the way back to their home country is closed, others because they have "put down roots" during their stay.
As Deutschland.de writes, a political dispute has erupted in Germany over attitudes toward these people, with two sides sharply opposed. On one side are those who stand under the banner of "Culture of Hospitality" and demonstrate their willingness to help these people. On the other are those who did not want to let them into the country at all and think only about how to expel them as quickly as possible. And in the middle is a huge mass of those who have mixed feelings—from concerns about the aggressive discourse of some to doubts about the confidence of others in the possibility of integrating all migrants.
And so German society is again discussing its identity and debating the question: "Who are the Germans and who do they want to be?"
For those who think in terms of predetermined ethnic identity, of course, there can be no "new Germans." For them, one is German from birth and cannot become one. For those who define "being German" through culture, it is entirely possible to become German, but on condition of overcoming a very high barrier of cultural assimilation. As a rule, the culturalist definition of being German conceals an anti-Islamic effect. The subtext is: a Muslim cannot become a German. Thus, the ethnic and culturalist definitions boil down to a discourse of exclusivity. Their main goal is to set the barriers to entering Germany as high as possible and keep them that way as long as possible.
But there is one problem in Germany, namely a very low birth rate. The country needs immigration if it intends to maintain its position in the global economy, its level of prosperity, and all the benefits of the welfare state. In such cases, one speaks of social reproduction filling gaps in biological reproduction.
There is nothing new in this: since the late empire in the late 19th century, when Germany was transforming from an agrarian to an industrial country, along with strong internal migration, the inflow from outside constantly increased. Moreover, it came in waves, growing with each new political crisis—after World War I and especially after World War II, then in the 1960s the influx of "guest workers," and finally after the collapse of the "Eastern Bloc."
The assertion that Germany is not a country of immigration is a common untruth of the Republic that it has come to believe. In fact, "new Germans" existed in the past, and it was thanks to them that the country was rebuilt and its prosperity grew. And many of them were not prevented from becoming Germans by either ethnic or culturalist definitions of "being German."
Modern societies must not give up the idea of national solidarity. However, they must replace the exclusive definition of the nation with an inclusive one. An inclusive concept of the nation and an open, flexible, future-oriented society go perfectly together. Moreover, they complement and support each other.
Five criteria of "being German" in modern society can be named. Two of them are socioeconomic in nature. Usually it is assumed that a person is able to support himself and his family through his own work. Naturally, social insurance systems exist, but they are needed only as a last resort and are not intended to make life easier for people.
Furthermore, this work ethic corresponds to the opportunity for social mobility. Not only because this is a sign of an open society, but, above all, because it prevents strong stratification in society, where migrants would be forced to stay at the bottom of the social ladder due to their origin, name, skin color, religion, or gender—even when social advancement begins in childhood.
In addition to the two socioeconomic criteria, two sociocultural criteria of "being German" can be identified. First and foremost, it is the conviction that religious faith is a private matter and has no power in determining the social and political order. This does not preclude that each person can participate in German society based on the principles of his faith. And another sociocultural criterion: everyone is free to live their life according to their own ideas, without being guided by the prescriptions of their family.
And finally, one cannot "be German" or "become German" without recognizing the binding nature of the Basic Law.
It is possible that some people who have lived in Germany for a long time do not meet some of these criteria. But then it turns out that these criteria are not some kind of "face control" on the path to citizenship, but rather a "turning point" in the revitalization of society. This revitalization must also include those Germans who feel cut off within society, because the growing disparities between prosperous cities and depopulating rural regions make them feel superfluous.
The importance of such revitalization is often underestimated, and yet, without it, the self-assertion of democratic societies is impossible. In this sense, what at first glance seems like a burden on German society—namely, hosting, providing for, and ultimately integrating refugees who have come to Germany—may turn into a revitalization project that will allow Germans to strengthen their political and economic stability for decades to come.
The integration of 1.5 million people into German society cannot therefore be some kind of 'measure' or 'administrative act' undertaken by state bodies – it is a long-term process in which the state, the labor market, and civil society must actively interact. This process will inevitably be accompanied by setbacks and disappointments, since most of those who have come here do not necessarily have the prerequisites necessary for the German labor market. Consequently, it is necessary to 'invest' in these people, to put money into their language training, into education.
The point is to reach as many people as possible with these programs, and in the course of this 'empowerment' not to succumb to the influence of the legal 'sorting machine' of German state bodies, i.e., to avoid the legal classification of 'persons in need of subsidiary protection', 'recognized asylum seekers', and 'tolerated persons'. But if people stay and no investment is made in them, they will ultimately cost German society much more.
The project of turning refugees into 'new Germans' follows the imperative to turn the dramatic situation of the migration crisis into a situation where everyone benefits – both refugees and society itself. But fundamental rejection and hatred generate exactly what they want to prevent – the disintegration of a society that is no longer able to fulfill the common tasks facing it.