Sometimes in politics, decisions are made which, on the one hand, can at best be described as “little revolutions” in terms of their reform potential – but which on the other hand have what it takes to change the society in question in the long term. The plan now approved by the Federal Cabinet to liberalize the right of residence is not the great turning point in immigration policy that many in Germany are hoping for and some fear. But maybe that’s actually a good thing for the cause.
Even if Germany took in a million people in one fell swoop in 2015, it has basically remained a country that is rather difficult to immigrate to. This is not only experienced by refugees at the increasingly fortified EU external borders. Both people with residence permits in this country and explicitly recruited and “wanted” specialists, scientists or IT specialists can tell about this. Outdated, opaque procedures, deadlines and regulations are congealing into an immigration culture under the motto “Please stay out, that makes it easier for all of us”.
A particular specialty is the so-called chain tolerance: year after year, the poverty of perspectives for people who do not receive a residence permit under the current asylum law, but who cannot simply be deported back to their countries of origin under the current reality. They are the last to be entitled to work – and so find it difficult to find their own apartment. If they have children here, they too may face deportation. Their trainers and employers always have to reckon with their people being taken to the deportation center overnight.
This society could do with a little more incentive to train and build something here
Nevertheless, many tolerated people manage to gain a foothold. The Opportunity Residence Act presented by Home Secretary Nancy Faeser rewards such commitment after five years. So it mainly makes it a bit easier for people who are already good at grabbing even the smallest of opportunities, it’s pretty performance-oriented. The Union criticizes that incentives would be created here. But this society could do with a little more incentive to train and build something here. The fact that a “pull effect” for illegal migration can be expected is at best unrealistic: The push effects are so strong worldwide that a small immigration reform or not is hardly important.
However, the criticism of the CDU domestic politician Alexander Throm hits a sore point very well: The reform leads the right to asylum ad absurdum, if a rejected application for asylum could eventually become a residence. This can only be remedied by speeding up the procedures. Anyone who knows that he or she will not be granted asylum can then try to get a chance to stay – although a shorter period of time than five years would be more philanthropic.
Anyone who has a household knows the problem: standing in front of chaos, you can either curse the chaos and then close the door in front of it, or you just clean up a bit. The traffic light has now started. The fact that she doesn’t even try to do everything in one fell swoop may seem discouraging to some. But it lowers the likelihood of big backlash, and that’s worth a lot. A door opens. For many individuals, this can mean more than any revolution.