The labour unions are traditionally on the political left, yet remain economically closed to migration. Yet, Merkel insisted that immigrants would not be considered ‘until we have done all we can to help our own people become qualified and give them a chance’ (Connoly: 2012). The DGB (German Confederation of Trade Unions) have been apprehensive about accepting immigrants due to the failed migration policies of the past, which resulted in the permanent settlement of migrants. Legislation reforms under 1999 citizenship law change represented a historic shift from jus sangunis (citizenship by descent) to jus soli (citizenship by birth in the territory) (Martin: 2004), which could be explained by to the social ties which has been forged across
…show more content…
A fallback from a policy introduced by the centre right party in Germany decades earlier, which later led to the government allowing citizenship by birth. However, this was only introduced under a particularistic notion of citizenship – one that does not allow dual citizenship on the grounds of integration (Martin: 2004). For example, German Universities have encouraged training Turkish imams to lead prayers in German as well as English, as many of Germany’s imams speak no German (Daily Post, 2010). Thus, traditional political groups of ‘left’ and ‘right’ are not enough to define whether politicians will be ‘open’ or ‘closed’ towards migration in the case of Germany. This can help explain the gap – while Merkel is talking to the business elite who are open to migration, she is also talking to the nationalist right who are culturally closed to migration. This can help explain the gap, as within the conservative party there is an open and closed faction. Germany too faces a gap between rhetoric and reality in migration …show more content…
This is best explained by comparing the inconsistency between political talk and political action. The ‘gap’ arises due to the contradiction in ‘open’ and ‘closed’ political factions within ‘left and right’ political groupings. While France’s socialist party is culturally open to migration, they are traditionally aligned with the worker’s unions who are economically closed towards migration. And while Germany’s conservative democrats are economically open to migration in line with the interests of the business elite, they remain culturally closed to migration due to fears loss of national identity. Thus, gaps in policy rhetoric and realities in the left and right stances towards migration can be predicted on theoretical grounds. ‘The goal of a theory of immigration policies is to account for the similarities and differences in the policies of immigration receiving states and to explain the persistent gaps between the goals and effects of policies as well as the related but non-identical gap between public sentiment and the content of public policy’ (Freeman, 2002:
A fallback from a policy introduced by the centre right party in Germany decades earlier, which later led to the government allowing citizenship by birth. However, this was only introduced under a particularistic notion of citizenship – one that does not allow dual citizenship on the grounds of integration (Martin: 2004). For example, German Universities have encouraged training Turkish imams to lead prayers in German as well as English, as many of Germany’s imams speak no German (Daily Post, 2010). Thus, traditional political groups of ‘left’ and ‘right’ are not enough to define whether politicians will be ‘open’ or ‘closed’ towards migration in the case of Germany. This can help explain the gap – while Merkel is talking to the business elite who are open to migration, she is also talking to the nationalist right who are culturally closed to migration. This can help explain the gap, as within the conservative party there is an open and closed faction. Germany too faces a gap between rhetoric and reality in migration …show more content…
This is best explained by comparing the inconsistency between political talk and political action. The ‘gap’ arises due to the contradiction in ‘open’ and ‘closed’ political factions within ‘left and right’ political groupings. While France’s socialist party is culturally open to migration, they are traditionally aligned with the worker’s unions who are economically closed towards migration. And while Germany’s conservative democrats are economically open to migration in line with the interests of the business elite, they remain culturally closed to migration due to fears loss of national identity. Thus, gaps in policy rhetoric and realities in the left and right stances towards migration can be predicted on theoretical grounds. ‘The goal of a theory of immigration policies is to account for the similarities and differences in the policies of immigration receiving states and to explain the persistent gaps between the goals and effects of policies as well as the related but non-identical gap between public sentiment and the content of public policy’ (Freeman, 2002: