A plea for a future-oriented migration policy

Following the European elections, the ruling parties are intensively engaging on the future course of migration and asylum policy. There have been strong calls for a continuation or even an intensification of the restrictive course of late. This development harbours risks for Germany as a country of immigration, the international norm-based order and for the ruling parties themselves. It would be appreciated, if the government would return to an evidence-based and opportunity-oriented migration policy with a long-term outlook.

Implementing the coalition agreement despite enormous challenges

The overarching logic of the Ampel coalition agreement is to better organise refugee and migration movements and to turn irregular migration into regular migration. That is an important goal, but one which is not easy to achieve, as displacement and migration movements can only be controlled to some extent. Refugees’ and other migrants’ aspirations and ability for independent mobility are largely ignored in migration policy. One-dimensional normative demands, such as that refugees are not allowed to choose their place of protection, do not stand up to a reality check. Refugees often overcome violent and increasingly unlawful state defence measures. Some of the driving factors encompass the need to obtain protection, to live together with relatives or to find prospects beyond precarious conditions in transit countries.

The fundamental goal to better manage migration is by no means new and has been part of almost all government programmes for years. In contrast to the migration policy of previous CDU-led governments, however, at the start of the legislative period the Ampel parties placed greater emphasis on the opportunities associated with immigration, on respect for (human) rights, including at the EU’s external borders, and on pragmatism in lieu of a parochial dogmas of migration control. It is a good government programme with a long-term perspective.

Shortly after the Ampel government took office, the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine led to a change in priorities and to less room for manoeuvre. The admission and provision of around one million refugees from Ukraine was an enormous effort, which – similar to 2015 – was relatively well managed with great support from civil society. Having said that, far more refugees have been coming to Germany from other countries since 2022, which has greatly burdened the reception capacities of many municipalities.

Despite these challenges, the Ampel government has implemented legislative projects from the coalition agreement: the Opportunity Residence Act, the further development of labour migration and the citizenship reform are among the most important. At the same time, an intensified migration diplomacy has been initiated, some migration agreements have been concluded and negotiations are being held on others.

It remains to be seen how precisely all these measures will be effective in achieving migration policy goals. This is because the administrations responsible for implementing these new laws are still under strong pressure. The new rules on labour migration are tantamount to a minor revolution and the complexity of migration policy rules continues to increase. Nevertheless, the fundamental goals are expected to be achieved. A larger workforce from third countries will immigrate, many people will get permanent prospects via the Opportunity Residence Act and more people will obtain citizenship rights. That is good for those concerned, but also for German society as a whole.
 

A toxic policy field, CDU as a sounding board for right-wing ideas

Real challenges presented by refugees from Ukraine and the overburdening of municipalities were accompanied by the CDU/CSU’s determined campaign against refugees. In addition to verbal provocations, this campaign also includes increasingly radical demands, culminating in the abolition of individual rights of asylum in Europe. When it comes to refugee policy, there are now hardly any apparent differences between the CDU/CSU and the far right. It is doubtful whether the CDU/CSU could implement these demands if it were to be in government again, and it has been unable to win back votes from the AfD in this way. It was, however, successful in shifting social discourse to the right, exerting pressure on the Ampel government and bringing about a change in direction.

For a while, the Ampel coalition responded defensively to calls for restriction. The government then changed its strategy in the course of 2023: greater emphasis was placed on restrictions both in terms of communication and legislation. This became clear, for example, with the unconditional support of the GEAS Reform, the introduction of stationary border controls, the drastic tightening of repatriation policy, the reduction of social benefits for refugees or the payment card designed as an instrument of control. Time and again, the debate shifted into post-factual territory. Scientific findings and strong objections from human rights organisations were largely ignored when making decisions. Short-term electoral considerations, in which messages of control played a key role, guided actions. Long-term strategies faded into the background.
 

Where do we stand now?

Since the end of 2023, we have observed a dramatic reduction in asylum applications and a certain easing of the situation in the municipalities. The proportion of labour migration from third countries is on the increase, as is the number of deportations. The salience of the topic also noticeably decreased following its peak in October 2023, but has recently slightly increased again. In principle, these are reasonable prerequisites in order to return to a more objective debate and future-orientated policy. But then came the European elections, in which the SPD, Greens and FDP did not fare well, whereas parties that stand for a more restrictive migration policy gained votes.

Concluding from this that the shift to the right should be continued or even intensified, is problematic, however. Many studies show that the centre-left parties do not benefit from such a strategy. A reference to the success of the Danish Social Democrats does not stand up to a closer empirical analysis. If, like the conservatives, the centre-left parties adopt a restrictive narrative and decisions, this cements a social discourse in which immigration is primarily perceived as a security problem or as a burden. This is precisely the trend that we have observed over recent months.
 

Do not lose sight of the long-term impact

The impact of demographic change is becoming increasingly clear. The Federal Government is pursuing a dual strategy when it comes to labour migration. It is intensifying legal liberalisation and attempting to tackle challenges in implementation – e.g. issuing visas. Parallel to this, there are intensive recruitment efforts in third countries. The last months have demonstrated just how tough this process is. Studies show that Germany is not at the top of the list of preferred destination countries for many potential migrants. At the same time, many migrants in Germany feel less and less protected and are making plans to emigrate, as analyses by the DeZIM reveal.

Demographic change is affecting many industrialised countries at the same time and the competition for labour is increasing rapidly worldwide. Greece has just introduced the 6-day week. India is concluding migration agreements with a whole array of European countries. The shortage of labour is becoming a game changer in migration policy. The earlier states recognise this, the better. As well as significantly improving the migration and integration infrastructure, a positive immigration narrative is essential. Even if toxic migration debates primarily focus on refugees, they permeate the entire immigration debate. However, the debate should not overlook the fact that it is not just about economic arguments, but also about the defence of an open society, in which diverse lifestyles have their place. The same applies to the consistent adherence to human rights, also at the EU’s external borders. These are not a luxury that we can simply set aside during bad times. They are a key component of a rights- and norm-based world order, for which the Federal Government cannot advocate strongly enough.

Social democratic decision-makers should categorically reject narratives and policy proposals that portray migration and people seeking protection exclusively as a threat or a burden and in which human rights merely become a façade, and return to a narrative more strongly focused on opportunities. What is more, they should implement open points from the coalition agreement. It is not clear whether the new efforts in labour migration can attract enough people to come to Germany who also want to settle here over the long term. Against this background, it seems reasonable to give a second chance to those who came to Germany on their own and whose asylum application has been rejected, for example. The Opportunity Residence Act is a good approach, but is probably not enough. Existing labour bans should finally be lifted. Training programmes should be expanded. Such approaches seem to be especially compatible with a social democratic view of humanity, in which social justice and opportunities for advancement play a key role. The SPD, in particular, should seize this opportunity.