The Boom in Welcome Culture

Willkommenskultur (culture of welcome) has become one of the most popular words in Germany in the context of immigration and integration. Just as there are trends in children's names, the same is true of political terminology. Maximilian and Sophie are the two most popular children's names in Germany at the moment, while Willkommenskultur is the most popular word in politics. 

Today the word is everywhere. In every corner of Germany, Willkommenskultur is discussed at conferences and repeated ad infinitum in politicians' speeches. This new culture of welcome is reflected in the countless citizenship ceremonies that are being held all over the country. Willkommenskultur: it is as if using and relishing this word as often as possible wipes away all the misery of policies directed at foreigners and asylum seekers over recent decades and makes us forget that the infamous riots of Rostock, Solingen and Hoyerswerda ever happened. 

But rhetoric is not enough particularly when this kind of rhetoric of welcome (as heard in the everyday politics of 2014) is no more than the chives that garnish the soup of prejudice. There is clearly a sense of institutionalized mistrust towards people from Eastern Europe – not only in terms of refugee laws, but also in general laws on immigration and labour. Workers who move to Germany from Romania and Bulgaria are often accused of only coming in order to claim unemployment and other benefits.

At the turn of the year 2013/2014, the conservative Bavarian CSU introduced this kind of campaign into politics. The CSU is a party that is very rooted in tradition. But it is a bad tradition to call people 'abusers' – abusers of asylum rights, welfare rights, legal rights. Most of the time, the CSU views refugees as abusers, and in election campaigns they are often referred to as 'asylum cheats'. Over the past year, politicians have found a new target for their campaigns: workers from Romania and Bulgaria. "Who cheats is out", is the CSU's slogan in its attacks on Romanian and Bulgarian immigrants. Unfortunately, the German federal government has played a part in this campaign by passing new laws in the Bundestag.

Workers who move to Germany from Romania and Bulgaria are often accused of only coming in order to claim unemployment and other benefits.

In the event of the alleged abuse of rights, EU migrants are forbidden to return to Gerconmany for a certain period of time. A tax number is required in order to prevent duplicate child benefit claims. This is all designed to prevent 'welfare abuse'. This drastically reduces freedom of movement for workers within the European Union. The new laws have a particular impact on migrants from the poorest EU states. By removing their welfare rights and benefits, the government is making them even more vulnerable to exploitation, low wages and exorbitant rents.

Just one year ago, at the end of 2013, when the campaign against poverty migrants was in full spate, my editorial colleague at the Süddeutsche Zeitung, Roland Preuss, made the following apology: "At this time, we should extend a hand to our Romanian and Bulgarian colleagues, if we have any, and bid them welcome once again. We should take the opportunity to tell them that we don't believe they are here in Germany to claim child benefit, but because they are looking for a good job.“ That would be only fair. Because the current debate obstructs our view of these people, of the positive consequences of their right to freedom of movement."

This had to be said out loud before the problems could be discussed. Because far removed from all the uproar about low wages and alleged welfare cheats, freedom of movement has caused and is still causing a number of problems. These are hard to ignore in cities such as Duisburg, Dortmund and the inner-city Neukölln area of Berlin, where people are falsely claiming to be self-employed while marketing themselves as day labourers. Others try to survive by begging or claiming child benefit. At the bottom end, there is cut-throat competition for places in homeless shelters, accommodation and emergency medical care.

The campaign against East Europeans basically accuses all migrant workers from Eastern Europe of only coming to Germany in order to claim benefits and other social services. This is clearly not true. It is based not on statistics but on prejudice. In fact the opposite is true. As a percentage, Bulgarians and Romanians in Germany claim fewer benefits than other foreigners in Germany. Only one in ten Romanians and Bulgarians claim Hartz IV unemployment benefits, and these are generally people who have to supplement their wages because they are so badly paid.

The terrible treatment of poor migrants cannot be laid solely at the door of ruthless exploiters. Unfortunately it is also brought about by a policy of low wages which certainly makes 'us' world leaders in terms of exports but which is not good for Europe's economy. It creates and perpetuates the conditions that produce poverty migration. Immigration must not be used to keep wages low, for example those of care workers in retirement and nursing homes. Immigration must not be used to drive the cost of training people in the specialist skills that are sought. Immigration must not be used to fuel low wages. It must not mean we save on training here at home and transfer the costs to the countries of origin.

So we have to be careful when we support the pro-migration argument that Germany has a shortage of skilled workers, an argument that is so popular in business circles. The German Institute for Economic Research advises great caution when handling information on the skills shortage, stating: "Experts agree that Germany currently does not have a blanket skills shortage, but it only exists in certain occupations."

The majority of workers who come from Eastern Europe are certainly not 'abusers', but all too many of them are abused.

Karl Brenke, an expert on the German labour market, comments as follows on the often-mentioned shortage of engineers: "The fact that we can't buy one litre for one euro doesn't mean we have a petrol shortage." If companies want to find engineers, they have to offer them something. Attempts to attract foreign engineers via a blue card at a minimum wage of €33,000 are improper attempts to buy petrol for one euro.

Let's return to the legislation against poverty migration: the law against poverty migration that was passed in the German Bundestag last November did not turn out to be quite as draconian as was called for by the campaign. Instead, it has tightened up and strengthened some existing clauses. But this is still bad enough, because the German government is using it to dignify prejudice towards workers from Eastern Europe, and the grand coalition is supporting the campaign in terms of its overall direction and outcome, if not in its details. I believe this is a very dangerous step. Romania and Bulgaria have been members of the EU since 2007, but they were only granted freedom of movement at the beginning of 2014 after a long period of transition. Now the law on preventing welfare abuse is pouring cold water on the people who are using this right to freedom of movement. That is not good. It discredits labour migration – one of the cornerstones of the EU – and turns it into welfare tourism. That is anti-European. 

Surely we should be giving these forgotten peoples a future? They are often referred to as 'travellers', as if migrating is part of their DNA. But their insecure gypsy life has never been fun. These travellers are always on the move because they are still unwelcome in every corner of Europe. In the Balkans, they are forced to keep moving because of the harsh realities of poverty, pogroms and daily violence. Here in Germany, they are subject to strict deportation laws. The future of these people does not lie in asylum. We all need to work together to turn Europe into a home for the Sinti and Roma. The new law on safe countries of origin will do nothing to create this.

Welfare tourism is merely a perception. According to an EU report, the percentage of EU migrants in the countries studied who receive benefits is in the low single digits.

In the past, people used to take their washing off the line when the gypsies arrived. Today they stuff it in the dryer. But the prejudices against the Sinti and Roma remain, in Germany and across Europe as a whole. The above-mentioned study showed that the Sinti and Roma in Germany are treated more harshly than other asylum seekers, more harshly than Muslims.

We can rail against the persistence, tenacity and vigour of prejudices. But this kind of generalized lament changes nothing. It also does not change the fact that the Sinti and Roma are treated worse than any other minority in Europe. They are Europe's forgotten people. The cruel persecution that they suffered at the hands of the National Socialists has largely been forgotten. This fact has not been altered by the speech given by Holocaust survivor Zoni Weisz in the German Bundestag, nor by the dedication in 2012 of a memorial in Berlin to the Sinti and Roma who were murdered by the Nazis. Politicians across Europe treat this minority like pariahs and harass them at every turn. It is demonstrated by the strict rules on their deportation. No-one wants anything to do with them, as is reflected in surveys. 

Dead Sinti and Roma – those killed by the Nazis – now have their own memorial, dedicated to them two years ago on 24 October 2012 in Berlin. But living Sinti and Roma have almost nothing – no work, no housing, no protection and no help. In Southeast Europe they are harassed and persecuted; in Germany and France they are forced into barracks and deported – back to the countries where they are harassed and persecuted. This is not a glorious chapter for Europe.

International corporations have recognized this opportunity. In a survey conducted by leading global recruitment firm Hays AG, the overwhelming majority of respondents said they employed foreigners because: "Intercultural competence is important for our business". Cost-savings are of lesser importance. The survey also reveals that migrants who come to work in another country have a reputation for being flexible, intelligent, open, resilient, articulate and willing to take risks.

It also shows that migrants can contribute to social progress in their home countries. By returning home with their new experiences, they can help turn the original brain drain into a brain gain, an increase in experience, knowledge and money.

This is good to know, but an immigration policy based on circular migration is a delicate one if its focus on migrants returning home affects their integration. A recent study by the German Foreign Office (I am now moving away from the area of internal European migration) shows that most migrants from Africa and the Middle East are members of the educated middle classes. Indeed, it is increasingly the case that migrants are more highly qualified than the domestic population. In Germany, 29 percent of migrants are academics, whereas the proportion in the general population is only 19 percent.

Global economic institutes have long been arguing for migration and mobility to be viewed as an opportunity, not a problem. And not because they are a source of cheap labour. During one of the events at the 2014 new year conference sub organized by Germany's public broadcaster, Das Erste, Dilip Ratha, Head of the World Bank's Migration and Remittances Unit said that migrants were among "the key investors of our time, because they want to build something".

It is increasingly the case that migrants are more highly qualified than the domestic population. In Germany, 29 percent of migrants are academics, whereas the proportion in the general population is only 19 percent.

Articulate, cross-cultural, mobile and active – wonderful! Turks are a prime example of this. According to German cultural expert Claus Leggewie, the migration of hundreds of thousands of Turks to Central and Northern Europe has resulted in "highly mobile cohorts who move between Turkey and Europe without quite giving up their national identity". One thing is clear: these cultural 'converters' enrich the cultural sector and society in general. In cultural, social and business circles, there is a feeling that it is time to start viewing migrants as potential entrepreneurs rather than as day labourers. And it is time stop talking about migration and start talking about mobility.

When I read these wonderful, substantive analyses of the value of mobility, it brings to mind a cartoon that hangs in my entrance hall at home. It shows refugees whose boat is helplessly adrift in the Mediterranean. A rescue vessel approaches, and someone calls out to the shipwrecked, asking: "Any IT specialists or engineers?" It is a bitter image of European realities beyond all the fine words and studies. The EU is still sealing itself off, despite all these beautifully illustrated findings. The full, cruel power of this isolation is being played out in the Mediterranean. In any case, in the medium term the firewall being erected by Frontex and Eurodac will not be able to withstand the pressure of migration. 

History shows us that people will migrate if they have a good reason to do so. And in Africa and Asia in particular there are plenty of reasons for emigration, many of which are rooted in the trade policies of the industrialized nations. But the rich countries restrict themselves to pumping money into the South in the form of development aid, a paternalistic form of assistance that is becoming less and less welcome. 

There is already one way of improving conditions in the migrants' home countries: fair trade. As long as European butter is cheaper in Morocco than local butter, as long as French poultry costs less in Niger than the local poultry, as long as floating fish factories catch everything that wriggles, we should not be surprised about the exodus from Africa.

There is already one way of improving conditions in the migrants' home countries: fair trade.

EU policies on subsidies also create reasons for people to flee their homes. They ensure that the Nobel prizewinning EU has some stains down its shirtfront. New walls and refugee reception camps along the coasts are no solution to bad policies. They simply give the illusion that we can continue subsidizing European exports of food with no obligation to share out Europe's wealth. In Max Frisch's play The Chinese Wall the emperor built his wall "to hold back the future". Today, this emperor has his commissioners in Europe.

We propagate an open society, and I do it too. There are plenty of people in Germany who are afraid of this because it makes them feel vulnerable, as if they are losing control of their destiny. What kind of security does a society need in order to be able to accept immigration? It is dangerous when migration is instrumentalised to justify policies of surveillance rather than social policies. Good integration policy is an element of social policy.

When I was a law student, we discussed the problems arising from the paragraphs on theft in the criminal code. With reference to a thief who steals food and eats it straight away, my professor used a very apt phrase: "Die Insichnahme ist die intensivste Form der Ansichnahme" (putting something inside you is the most intensive way of appropriating it). If this sentence were also true of our immigration society, we would be much further down the road. Immigration should not be an issue that only shows its face in hotels, restaurants and residents' registration offices. Immigration has a different face: in schools, in all kinds of educational curricula, in school textbooks, in theatre repertoires and in the many different ways that we talk about integration.

The turnover of foreign restaurants and snack bars in Germany is not a good measure of integration. Integration means much more than the number of kebab shops in German pedestrian zones. Integration is more than stuffing yourself with things that taste good; more than accepting services that you need. Integration means giving migrants a new home and – from the migrants' point of view – finding a new home. Migrants are not single-cell organisms. They may have children, they have families, they need to feel, know and experience the fact that they are welcome.

Do we want a Europe where everything is about performance, market value, where the value of people is only measured in economic terms? In today's economy, the image of man is that of homo faber mobilis. A pure homo faber is a thing of the past. These were the people of the modern era. In our post-modern era, it is clearly not enough to be simply homo faber, a person who simply works. It is now necessary to be homo faber mobilis, someone who is highly flexible, mobile and adaptable. 

The reality of life in individual countries and the EU as a whole is of course somewhat more limited. Unlike snails, people no longer carry their houses on their backs. And because, unlike snails, they are not hermaphrodites, they have other social needs: finding a life partner, starting a family, being involved in a sports club or choir, sending their children to school and cultivating friendships. All these factors present obstacles to being totally mobile, constantly available and always ready for action. 

When we are talking about migration and arguing for an open society, we cannot and must not assume that we are talking about people with no children, family or social ties. Migration must not lead to a permanent uprooting and a sense of having no home. Any evaluation of migration must not forget the need for roots, the sense of being settled and having continuity. In other words, Europe should not become a continent of people with shallow roots. Flexibility and mobility are not ends in themselves. Green cards and blue cards may be important; and it is important to dismantle the bureaucratic hurdles that impede migration. It is also important to have a simple system for recognizing foreign professional qualifications. But people's professional lives should not be turned into a new form of nomadism. People need a home, even when times are volatile. This is the meaning and the aim of integration.

More than 80 years ago, the writer Joseph Roth mourned the fall of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, a union of many peoples, when he wrote: "If one uses the same yardstick for peoples, it implies that they seek in vain for national virtues, so-called, and that these are even more questionable than human virtues. For this reason I hate nationalism and nation states. My old home [...] was a great mansion with many doors and many chambers, for every condition of men. This mansion has been divided, split up, splintered. I have nothing more to seek for, there. I am used to living in a home, not in cabins."

At a time when we are building the house that is Europe and the various heads of go vernment are discussing its interior design, it is remarkable how more and more parties are going to elections in France, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Belgium, Holland, Italy and Germany proclaiming their pride in the fact that they still live in their old cabins. Europe should be a great mansion, a house for many different peoples, religions and cultures; a house that has room for its violent history and where this history serves as a warning.

Migration must not lead to a permanent uprooting and a sense of having no home. Any evaluation of migration must not forget the need for roots, the sense of being settled and having continuity.

Shortly before his death in 2004, I spoke with the elderly and wise Viennese Cardinal Franz König. It was a time of particularly fierce agitation against foreigners and immigrants during Austrian election campaigns. In this interview, Cardinal König said some words that should be part of the EU's agenda: "We have so many different cultures on our home soil. 

This wealth must not be steamrolled; it must shape a unified Europe.” Sometimes even a cardinal is completely, categorically and undisputedly right. The wealth of languages, cultures, traditions, religions and people – this wealth must be embraced in Germany and in the European Union. This is a culture of welcome. This is modern democracy. This is Europe. This is what brings peace and prosperity. This is what makes Europe a home.