| |
Contributions from
the Column
Focus
“Evolving transnational communities”
Development work with the diaspora
Permanent right of abode
A reluctant immigration country
Turkish diaspora in Germany
10/2004
|
|
Permanent right of abode
Migrants link cultures. In the best case, they stimulate growth in their (new and former) home countries, they enhance international understanding and they side against fanaticism. If immigrants know they can stay, integration, language acquisition and the children’s success in school are achieved more easily. Frustration and disappointment in the diaspora, on the other hand, lead to problems.
[ By Tarek Al-Wazir ]
On the 1st of January 2005, after almost five years of heated debate, Germany’s new Immigration Law will come into effect. Primarily, it brings about changes relating to the integration of migrants already residing in Germany as well as some minor improvements for the protection of refugees. The reform also incorporates several measures for the immigration of highly qualified personnel to Germany. For instance, foreigners who obtain an academic degree in Germany will have one year’s time to find work in their field of expertise. If they succeed, they will be allowed to stay. However, the new law changes hardly anything in the field of labour migration. Currently, there is no political or social majority in Germany for opening the labour market, even though that will eventually be necessary for demographic and economic reasons.
In spring 2000, German chancellor Gerhard Schröder suggested introducing a “Green Card” due to the lack of skilled personnel in the computer industry. The German Green Card was not to be compared with the USA’s permanent residency permit because it only allowed short-term stays. Nevertheless, it set in motion a debate on migration to Germany. The debate will find its imperfect conclusion when the Immigration Law comes into force.
For many, Schröder’s suggestion was an eye-opener. The majority of Germans were surprised to learn that there are specialists in developing countries whose skills are needed in Germany, despite our high unemployment levels. This discovery lead to the total collapse of ideas many had cherished according to which the Federal Republic was developed and the Third World under-developed. Accordingly, people kept asking whether it was all right to headhunt skilled people from developing countries of the South and transition countries of the East. The Green Card came regardless. On the one hand, interests of the domestic economy tend to prevail over other considerations. Above all, however, it was obvious that the sought-after specialists would, in doubt, not remain in India or Rumania but rather move directly to the USA, for example. That migration had become a global phenomenon a long time ago, was yet another important discovery for Germans. No country can stay detached.
Aside from “brain drain” issues, the questions of whether migration creates opportunities for the countries of origin and how these might systematically be taken advantage of did not play any role in the domestic debate. Nonetheless, it is absolutely necessary to utilise these opportunities. We have to help diaspora communities to benefit their old homeland as well as their new. For instance, they could play a key role in the fight against religious fanaticism.
Bridging cultures
Diaspora communities can serve as bridges between different societies. This is particularly so in times in which fundamentalists of all countries and religions proclaim the “clash of cultures”. Millions of people of Arab descent live in western countries. In our era of fear and terrorism they are perceived as a potential threat – if at all. But precisely this group could, in the best case, convey understanding in the West for the specific characteristics and feelings of the Arab world and, at the same time, present a more discerning picture of Western Europe and North America in their countries of origin. For this to happen, the Arab diaspora has to feel welcome in the countries of residence. But they also have to assume this responsibility.
One positive example is the recent dissociation of French Muslims from radical-Islamic terror. While they continued to demand a repeal of the ban of religious symbols (including headscarves) in public schools, they also declared themselves unequivocally against the hostage-takers in Iraq, who threatened to kill two journalists if the French government adhered to the ban. With heavy hearts, young French women of Algerian origin uncovered their hair at school. They preferred this to being instrumentalised by the terrorists. This republican attitude is setting the right tone. The French Muslim who, wearing her headscarf, demanded that the hostages be released and explained the French “laicism law” on Arab television, probably did more for Arab understanding of the West than all state-funded cultural programmes of the last three years.
Unfortunately, this does not go without saying. Migrants who feel unwelcome, excluded and discriminated against can just as easily contribute to the escalation of fundamentalist attitudes. The experiences with some Maghreb immigrants in France, Turks in Germany or Pakistanis and Bangladeshis in Britain prove this. Therefore, it is an obligation of the respective governments to deal more carefully with immigrants. Hopefully, the latest developments suggest that the majority of French people of Arab background wholeheartedly appreciate the advantages of the democratic and pluralistic lifestyle. It is in our best interests that migrants spread this sort of message among their friends and relatives back home. Compared with that, it really doesn’t matter whether immigrants wear headscarves or not.
Basically, it is true of all diaspora communities that they can reduce conflicts by providing better understanding of other cultures. Of course, this will not work in every single instance. In view of the worldwide threat of terrorism, however, it is a serious shortcoming not to specifically make it happen.
Unfortunately there are still relevant sections of the population who would prefer to close borders rather than to open them. People in immigration countries will have to realise that migration is not an unusual and temporary phenomenon. It is a normal aspect of the globalised world of today and tomorrow. For this reason, legal certainty for immigrants has to be granted in Germany and other countries, which – unlike classical immigration countries – have not already designed their law for permanent permits of residence. Doing so does not increase problems. Rather, it reduces them.
Language acquisition, social contacts, children’s success in school and the like are essential for integration in the host country. All this is achieved easier and faster once immigrants have a permanent right to stay, should they so desire. The best solution is to grant them this right form the very start.
To a large extent, German problems with the integration of presumed “guest workers” and their families, who arrived in the 1960s and 1970s, stem from the fact that it had not been clear to any of the concerned that the immigrants were coming for good. The example of the first German Green Card holder, mobile communications expert Harianto Wijaya from Indonesia, similarly highlights the necessity of legal certainty. This summer, Wijaya, whose Green Card is now on display in Bonn’s Museum of History, was about to leave Germany for the USA. Four years after his document had first been issued, he still had no prospects of permanent residence. Only the political agreement on the new Immigration Law has given Wijaya, who has, by now, spent eleven years in Germany as a student and expert, a long-term perspective. He now assumes that he will stay – at least for the time being.
Legal certainty for immigrants not only eases integration into the host country, but also enables migrants’ new connections in their country of origin. This applies, for example to financial transfers. According to estimates, work migrants sent around 90 billions dollars to their countries of origin in 2003. These financial flows are important in several respects – from the support of relatives in need, to the stimulation of business activity, to spending on family homes, right up to huge investments in companies. As is generally known, capital transfers from ex-patriate Chinese play a crucial role in the economic boom in the People’s Republic.
Such economic activity also benefits the host countries, although, at first glance, the money is diverted from the domestic economy. However, rich nations generally profit from higher economic activity in developing countries, because they export investment goods as well as high quality consumer items. What is more, it is evident that migrants tend to establish business contacts between the nations they know. Therefore, immigration enhances export opportunities.
For economic activities not to be hindered, however, the flow of money must be made as straightforward as possible. Again, it is in the industrialised countries’ interest that migrants can transfer money to their nations of origin without high transaction costs or wasting time for bureaucratic procedures. In this sense, some measures after September 11, 2001 were not only ineffective in the fight against terror but even counterproductive for development.
A further task is to adapt citizenship and residency laws to the globalised reality. In most countries, these rules date back to a time when mass-scale migration with all its concomitants was still a rare phenomenon. The permanent integration of immigrants on the one hand and lasting ties with the country of origin on the other make it necessary to make dual citizenship legally possible rather than viewing it as an exception to be prevented at all costs.
Residency laws need updating
The residency laws also have to be adapted for migrants who do not want to become citizens but are well integrated just the same. In many countries, the permanent residence status expires if the migrants spend a certain amount of time out of the country. In Germany, this period will normally remain six months. However, immigrants who want to set up a company in their homeland require more time. Furthermore, the time limit prevents companies from employing the specific skills and knowledge of migrants in their countries of origin. Immigrants who can offer German companies language and culture competence at home will only accept such assignments if they do not jeopardise their residency status in the Federal Republic. For immigrants’ skills were to be put to use in this way, German law would also have to permit “shuttle migration”, living alternately in several countries.
Perhaps it is appropriate to replace the terms “brain drain” and “brain gain” with the term “brain circulation”. Of course, the migration processes of the 21st century imply a host of problems and do not automatically have a positive impact. However, since these processes take place as a matter of course in the globalised world, a responsible policy geared towards the long-term should do everything to make sure this process generates the greatest benefit possible for the migrants themselves as well as all nations involved.
Tarek Al-Wazir
chairs the Green Party in the State Assembly of Hesse.
t.al-wazir@ltg.hessen.de
|
