Gastarbeiter Migration Revisited: Consolidating Germany’s Position as an Immigration Country

9.3.1 Demographic Overview: 2012

In 2012, 15.3 million people, i.e. 19.1 % of the entire population in Germany, had apersonal parental history of migration.¹ Of those, 10.0 million were first-generation migrants born abroad, another 5.2 million had at least one parent born abroad, i.e. belonged to the second generation. 42.4 % of the migrants and their children were foreign nationals. Of the working-age population, 20.6 % were first generation migrants or their children. About 1.1 million working-age migrants, i.e. 2 % of the 15–64 years old men and women, arrived between 2007 and 2012.

Migrants living in Germany differ from the native population in terms of age, qualifications, and labour market integration. Overall, migrants are on average younger than the German population. For first generation migrants this is not the case, however, for Aussiedler and for immigrants born in Northern and Western Europe or the former guest worker countries. In terms of labour market perspectives, the age structure among recent migrants has become more favourable: in 2012, migrants’ average ages varied from 28.6 (new Turkish migrants) to 34.8 (new migrants from Western and Northern Europe), indicating that in recent years Germany has succeeded in attracting young people.

In recent years, Germany has attracted a younger and more highly skilled workforce. Of the migrants who have come to Germany since 2007, 29.6 % are highly skilled. 32.6 % of the recent Southern EU migrants have a university degree. In the latter group, Spaniards have the highest qualifications, regardless of period of migration. These data confirm the results of an analysis of the qualification profiles of EU nationals living in Germany that was carried out by the Expert Council on Integration and Migration. It shows that Germany has profited considerably from the freedom of movement in the EU as a result of the better qualified and younger migrants – on average 10 years younger (SVR 2013: 17–18).

9.3.2 Labour Market Integration

Occupational attainment,² however, is much stronger among recent migrants – most notably among the Southern Europeans – which hints at a possible trend towards polarisation in the sense that the highly-skilled are more successful than average, while less qualified newcomers experience more problems than the group average. Labour market outcomes of Western and Northern Europeans are, however, less influenced by length of stay, allowing for the conclusion – strongly supported by the high shares of managers and professionals among them – that it is rather the pull factors that attract migrants who have good labour market perspectives from these countries. On the other hand, a high incidence of non-standard employment, in particular the high rate of temporary jobs, among the other recent migrants highlights the importance of push factors for migration to Germany.

Not reflected in the descriptive data, but uncovered by multivariate analyses, is the fact that migrants often work in jobs for which they are overqualified, in Germany as well as in many other destination countries (Friedberg 2000; Kogan 2003; van Tubergen 2006; Chiswick and Miller 2008). In Germany, disadvantages in occupational attainment are most pronounced for non-EU migrants, but are also substantial for EU-10 and Southern European migrants (Kogan 2011; Fleischmann and Höhne 2013; Höhne and Schulze Buschoff 2015).

Labour market indicators show that many migrant groups are still unemployed at higher rates and have more precarious employment conditions than German citizens. Lower education levels play a key role, although part of the gap can also be explained by language deficiencies and job-qualification mismatches.

9.5.1 Integration

The current recruitment of Southern Europeans cannot thus be seen in isolation, but must be examined against the backdrop of the ongoing discussions of about the integration of post-war migrants and their children. When Gastarbeiter recruitment ended in 1973, the era of family reunification, and with it the integration of Ausländer, or foreigners, started, albeit in fits and starts – illustrated by an examination of the evolution of the terminology used to refer to non-German citizens living in Germany. A succession of terms has been used and discarded, reflecting the evolving discussion on integration and demonstrating the shift from “reluctant land of immigration” to confirmed immigration country. Over time, the term Gastarbeiter became seen as inaccurate and even offensive, given the clear settlement of migrants in Germany. It was far less common by the early 1980s and was last used in Bundestag documents in 1994.

Government documents and speeches shifted as early as 1976 to the use of the term Ausländer – many of whom were born in Germany. This term gradually became the predominant term, and remained so until the late 1990s. Ausländische Mitbürger, or “foreign fellow citizens” (Boehm 1999), first used by German Chancellor Helmut Kohl in 1987 (Bundesregierung 1987), expressed these individuals’ formal non-citizen status, yet captured their social inclusion.

Although ausländische Mitbürger is still used, above all by municipalities, together with Zuwanderer, or migrants, the current predominant term is the unwieldy phrase Menschen mit Migrationshintergrund (“people with a migratory background”; perhaps best translated as “individuals of migrant origin”). It was first used in the 2005 Microcensus, when this group was first defined to include both citizens and non-citizens, referring to any person born outside of Germany after 1949, or born in Germany to at least one parent who was him- or herself born abroad. It thus – significantly – includes both individuals of non-German origin as well as Aussiedler – ethnic German migrants – and their children (Destatis 2013: 6). This term includes all of those who have migrated to Germany, whether German or non-German, representing a significant step forward in the inclusion of migrants and their offspring.

Despite Germany’s clear shift to seeing itself as an immigration country, there are, as in all immigration countries, still challenges. In 2014 and 2015, there were in Germany, as across Europe, protests against so-called Islamisation, led in Germany by Pegida (Patriotische Europäer gegen die Islamisierung des Abendlandes, or Patriotic Europeans against the Islamisation of the West) (Spiegel Online 2014b; Braden et al. 2015). At nearly every protest, counter-protestors outnumbered the Pegida supporters. Nonetheless, Dresden’s high-tech industry was concerned that Pegida protests might deter their much-needed foreign highly skilled workers (El-Sharif and Schultz 2015). Chancellor Merkel clearly condemned the demonstrations in her 2015 New Year address, noting that migration “benefits us all” (Bundesregierung 2014). Germany’s status as an immigration country was, once again, clearly acknowledged and supported by the Chancellor. Germany is also the largest receiving country in Europe for Syrian refugees, with clear leadership from Chancellor Merkel, despite some opposition. In addition to over 200,000 asylum-seekers who filed a claim in Germany in 2014 (BAMF 2015b) and nearly 500,000 in 2015 (BAMF 2015d), Germany led the EU response to Syrians in 2015, accepting 31,000 of the 120,000 to be re-located within Europe (BMI 2015) and accepting 30,000 Syrian refugees from first countries of asylum; nearly two-thirds of the overall European pledge (UNHCR 2015). In short, Germany, like the classic immigration countries United States, Canada and Australia, has clear family, labour and humanitarian streams of migration.

9.5.2 Country of Immigration

German politicians famously stated for many years that Germany was “not a country of immigration.” A turning point was the Independent Migration Commission’s 2001 report which noted that “Germany is, in point of fact, a country of immigration” (Unabhängige Kommission “Zuwanderung” 2001: 1).

This statement reified what had been strongly indicated in 2000 by the passage of a heavily revised Citizenship Act introducing jus soli. Following this Act, children born in Germany to non-citizen parents, at least one of whom had lived for at least 8 years in Germany, received German citizenship at birth. Although naturalisation had long been possible in Germany, and was facilitated in 1990, 1993 and 2000, it often required relinquishing the original citizenship (after 2000 only in about 50 % of the cases), which was shown to be one factor inhibiting naturalisation for non-EU citizens (Böcker and Thränhardt 2006). Taking effect 1 January 2005, a new Immigration Law was another important step in Germany’s transition to an immigration country. The Immigration Law effectively introduced highly skilled migration, which became regulated by law, rather than government ordinances such as the Green Card.

There remain significant concerns within Germany about the poorer-than-wished-for integration of Menschen mit Migrationshintergrund, as discussed in Sect. 9.3 above. Their chances of achieving higher education, work commensurate with their education, and employment overall remain lower than those of their native German peers (see Tables 9.5 and 9.6), although numerous policies and programmes are undertaken to address these shortcomings. In 2006, Chancellor Angela Merkel developed a National Integration Plan and introduced the annual Integrationsgipfel, or Integration Summit. Dismissed by some as “nothing more than Kaffeeklatsch” (Conrad 2005), others promoted the event while Chancellor Merkel noted that previously disregarded but important issues had been raised (Conrad 2005).

Recent German government policy vis-à-vis those of migrant origin – recent migrants, long-term residents and their children – is markedly and explicitly more inclusive than at any point in post-war German history. Chancellor Merkel’s 2013 statement “It is not enough to be a country with a high migration rate; we also have to become a country of integration” (Die Welt 2013a) is illustrative. Challenges – perhaps even the hallmark of an immigration country – remain, such as opposition in some quarters over welcoming nearly 500,000 asylum-seekers in 2015, but they are recognised and steps are taken to address them.

9.5.3 Post-Accession Migration

Post-accession migration from Eastern and Central Europe has been significant (see Table 9.1), despite restrictions placed on EU-8 migration until 1 May 2011. Above all, the migration of Romanian and Bulgarian citizens to Germany, whose freedom of movement restrictions expired on 1 January 2014, raised the question of so-called “welfare migration” or “poverty migration” – the claim that individuals migrated to Germany only to claim benefits. The Institute for Employment Research found that only a minority of Romanian and Bulgarian migrants in Germany were claiming child benefits (16.7 %) (Spiegel Online 2014a), yet widespread impressions of exploitation of the system remained.

Municipalities in Germany were permitted to place restrictions on access to Hartz IV social assistance, a decision contested by a Romanian woman. The case was heard before the European Court of Justice, which decided that EU citizens did not have a right to social assistance during the first 3 months of their stay in another EU country and that countries may deny social assistance to EU citizens who move for the sole purpose of acquiring that assistance (Spiegel Online 2014c; Curia 2014). The deregulation undertaken prior to increased net migration thus continued. The decision does not affect EU citizens who have never worked in Germany nor those who come to Germany to work.

The post-accession migration, coupled with ongoing discussions about integrating the children and grandchildren of the post-war Gastarbeiter and later refugees and other migrants, is another element of the context in which contemporary Southern European migration must be seen.

9.5.4 Highly Skilled Migration in Germany

Post-war Gastarbeiter migration was the result of bi-lateral national-level recruitment of low-skilled individuals, needed in the booming post-war economy. The more recent shift toward the recruitment of highly skilled migrants – whether EU citizens or not – can be traced back to concern which emerged in the 1990s over the Fachkräftemangel particularly in the IT industry (Neubecker 2014). Chancellor Gerhard Schröder’s unexpected announcement at the 2000 computer fair CeBIT that a programme to cover a labour shortage for IT workers, the so-called Green Card,³ would be implemented immediately (Astheimer 2010), was the first policy reflection of this concern. The CeBIT announcement sparked debate, sometimes rancorous, as to whether further immigration to Germany was needed, but the Green Card was implemented (Spiegel Online 2000), just as Germany was shifting to a self-recognition as an immigration country. The concern over lack of skilled workers continues to be reflected today in recruitment from Southern Europe and further.

Nearly 15,000 non-EU nationals (primarily Indians, Russians and Romanians) took advantage of the Green Card programme by mid-2004, a number acclaimed by some, but which prompted others to call it a failure – not all 20,000 annual spots were filled (Kolb 2005, Creutzberg 2013). Above all, however, the programme re-introduced the argument that immigration could be a positive force in Germany (Astheimer 2010) and led to positive debate on the need to reform immigration in Germany (Kolb 2005). Although intended for Third Country Nationals, not EU citizens, and later subsumed into the Immigration Law passed in 2004, the Green Card played a key role in indicating both the willingness of Germany to recruit skilled workers as well as demonstrating the needs of the economy.