AGGRESSIVE NATIONALISM, IMMIGRATION PRESSURE, AND ASYLUM POLICY DISPUTES IN CONTEMPORARY GERMANY
Jürgen Fijalkowski
with comment by
Jeffrey M. Peck
erschienen 1993
Preface
THIS
PUBLICATION presents the results of a symposium held at the German
Historical Institute on February 5, 1993. The
decision to organize a symposium on the topic of current aggressive
nationalism and xenophobic attitudes in Germany was a response to the
events of the summer and fall of 1992. During this time, the newly
unified country was shaken by an unexpected and extensive wave of
violence directed at foreigners—particularly asylum seekers—and
minorities, accompanied by an increasing number of anti-Semitic
incidents, such as the desecration of Jewish cemeteries and the use
of Nazi symbols in graffiti.
The newspapers had to report, on a daily basis, right-wing extremist
hate crimes that occurred throughout the country. Even while the
international community perceived events at Rostock, Hoyerswerda, and
Mölln as indicative of the resurgence of neo-Nazism, neither German
politicians nor the police effectively brought an end to these
excesses. However, in many German towns and cities, a determined
citizenry staged mass grassroots demonstrations against xenophobia,
hatred, and violence in an effort to contain the attempts to
undermine the democratic and human rights traditions. …..
Hartmut
Keil Dietmar
Schirmer
May
1993
Aggressive
Nationalism, Immigration Pressure, and Asylum Policy Disputes in
Contemporary Germany
Jürgen
Fijalkowski
VIEWED
FROM THE OUTSIDE, the recent wave of aggressive hostility against
foreigners in Germany, a society of eighty million people in the
center of Europe, must be very alarming. It must be of serious
concern that the perpetrators, if they tried to justify their
atrocities at all, did so with the slogan "Germany for Germans!
Foreigners out!" One wonders whether this development is a
reenactment of the systematic attacks on Jews by the Nazis that began
in 1938.1
As a German, one can only feel ashamed by these outrages and regard
the spontaneous candlelight vigils against Ausländerfeindlichkeit
und Fremdenhaß (aggression
toward and hatred of foreigners) as welcome signs of good will, but
no more than that.
However,
it is true that the German constitutional proviso for asylum seekers,
a reaction to the persecution under the Nazis, is unique in
international law. Furthermore, not all asylum seekers in Germany are
persecuted or have to fear for their lives and freedom in their
countries of origin. It is also true that Germany, with 44 percent of
the total, took in more asylum seekers than any other European
country over the past decade.
…......In
1992, there was a backlog of about 400,000 pending cases in addition
to 450,000 new applications for asylum. This situation provides the
background to the demand by some politicians for a modification of
German asylum regulations that would accelerate the decision-making
process and exclude applicants arriving from a third country in which
they were already safe ….....
…..............In
1988, the year before German unification, the balance of in- and
out-migration of any kind in West Germany amounted to 550,000
persons.8 In 1989 and 1990, the figures doubled to nearly a million
in-migrants due to the fact that the borders were opened and waves of
citizens of the German Democratic Republic and ethnic Germans from
Eastern Europe were allowed into West Germany. In 1989, 344,000
Germans from the GDR and 377,000 ethnic Germans from Eastern Europe
came to West Germany; in 1990, the figures were 197,000 and 397,000,
respectively. Since 1991, the year of the official unification of
Germany, the migration from the former GDR to West Germany no longer
constituted transnational migration but became domestic in character
and thus disappeared from the statistics of border-crossing
movements. The number of ethnic German resettlers from Eastern Europe
was reduced again to about half in both 1991 and 1992 (220,000 people
a year). As to the balance of in- and out-migration of officially
invited guestworkers and their families and of citizens of the EC,
the figure is at a similar level of less than 200,000. The asylum
seekers thus constitute only one of several in-migrating categories,
and they are but one group that needs housing, jobs, language
training, etc. To be sure, local authorities, in particular, are
confronted with immense difficulties in providing shelter and
instituting measures for the integration of new in-migrants upon
their arrival. However, these problems are caused by all kinds of new
immigrants, not just by the asylum seekers. Nevertheless, it is a
fact that both the absolute figures and the proportion of asylum
seekers among the total flow of border-crossing in-migrants are
rising rapidly. In the past few years, they have increased from
one-fifth to about one half of the total number. In 1988, a total of
103,000 people applied for asylum in Germany. Over the next four
years, the figure increased to 121,000, 193,000, 256,000, and
450,000, respectively. …......
….......The
migration potential of North Africa and the Middle East is similar,
and its effects are felt mostly in the countries along the northern
coast of the Mediterranean and particularly in France. In the long
run, the migration pressure from the South could be even more lasting
than that from Eastern Europe and the Balkans. Demographic pressures
in this part of the world are far greater, since its population grows
seventeen times more rapidly than that of the northwest European
countries......
….......The
other side of the story is that, in some European countries, a
long-term demand for immigration actually exists. For example, in the
medium-range perspective, Germany, its current unemployment problem
and housing shortage notwithstanding, needs at least 300,000 to
500,000 immigrants a year to compensate for its low birth
rate...........
…......As
a result of the dominant German tradition and in accordance with the
jus
sanguinis rule,
the basis for the German citizenship law, a person is only considered
a German if he or she has at least one German parent.13 Acquisition
of German citizenship through naturalization, rather than by birth,
is excluded in principle. …..
….....Since
ethnic Germans are privileged, non-German residents are kept at a
distance, and non-persecuted asylum seekers are excluded, a policy of
social integration that attempts to eradicate the roots of aggressive
nationalism must be based on a new understanding of citizenship.
Therefore,
with regard to the principal questions, it is crucial for Germany to
implement an all-encompassing immigration policy that has to be based
on such a new understanding of citizenship......
…......Germany
presently houses about half of the 775,000 officially recognized
refugees living in the European Community; during the last decade, it
took in more than half of the two million in-migrants who applied for
asylum in Western Europe.18 This means that, in 1991, there were 3.1
asylum seekers per one thousand inhabitants who were permitted to
stay at least temporarily. In Great Britain and France, the figures
were 0.8 per one thousand; in the Netherlands, 1.4; in Belgium, 1.5;
in Sweden, 3.1; in Austria, 3.6; and in Switzerland, 6.1.19 In 1992,
there were about 5.7 asylum seekers per one thousand inhabitants in
Germany. …......
Comment
Jeffrey
M. Peck
Fijalkowski's
essay is a singularly important contribution to the current
discussion on foreigners, refugees, and asylum seekers in Germany and
the aggression directed toward them. Fijalkowski presents a
well-informed and balanced perspective that is grounded in empirical
data and interpretive analysis. His arguments contradict the
generalities and clichéd answers used to explain and often excuse
the aggressive nationalism of right-wing groups and those who stand
by and applaud such violence. This study, published in English by the
German Historical Institute, should be of interest not only to
Americans but also to Germans, whose spokespersons often resort to
facile comparisons drawn between the events of today and those of
1938. The specificity of Fijalkowski's analysis based on scrupulously
gathered data historicizes the two epochs. It reminds us that, while
some links are obvious, rigorous research shows that injustice
perpetrated against one group cannot be crassly compared to that
committed against another. In short, the Turks are not necessarily
the "new Jews."
I
do not find it incidental that, as a paper published and presented at
the German Historical Institute in Washington, D.C., Fijalkowski's
article begins by situating the events in Germany in the perspective
of those outside. Journalists in American newspapers reported daily
about attacks on foreigners and asylum seekers with a frequency
unknown since German unification. Not surprisingly, Fijalkowski
associates the "aggressiveness against foreigners and
heterogeneous minorities" with nationalist ideologies and, more
importantly, with "deficiencies of its understanding of national
identity and citizenship." There is no question that German
unification contributed to what Fijalkowski refers to as
"ethno-nationalism," a concept of national identity based
on blood rather than territory, jus
sanguinis versus
jus
soli,
which serves as the basis of German citizenship today.
Fijalkowski
is right to the point when he targets the question of nationality and
citizenship as central to the debate. His new definition
of "citizenship in a civil society" is what he terms
―post-ethno-national ‗nationality.‘‖ It is ―conceived
mainly as a result of a continuous identification with a common res
publica,
whereby the idea of national citizenship rests on the conscious will
of individuals and is directed toward the future, not determined by
the past and dependent on ties of blood.‖ This more Western
European (and American) understanding of citizenship, as new as it
might be for the Germans, is the basis for changing the structure of
the traditional German notion of national identity. …....
…...Serious
transformations in German society will not come from changing the
asylum law nor from candlelight demonstrations,
no matter how important the latter are for demonstrating that the
Germans do indeed have civil courage (Zivilcourage).
There is more at stake than just Germany's image abroad. The
future of German society regarding "foreigners" will
require structural change, a multi-tiered approach that will address
long-term rather than only short-term goals, such as instituting
immigration laws with quotas, changing the citizenship law from
"blood to territory," granting
dual citizenship and local voting rights, educating all citizens
about difference, intolerance, and discrimination. With
time, I would hope that the image (Bild)
of the German body politic might be changed from exclusively white
and Christian to brown, yellow, and black, Muslim and Jewish.
In short, the conception of German identity must be transformed and
become more porous, flexible, and inclusive.......
