12.03.2014 Talking to each other instead of about each other: German visit in Bulgaria

Plück (2014) reports about the visit of the German FDP deputies Alexander Graf Lambsdorff and Joachim Stamp in Plovdiv, where 50,000 Rroma are living in mostly precarious conditions. Lambsdorff states that the aim of the visit is to talk with the people concerned and to thereby get rid of the one-sidedness in the debate on Rroma. Unfortunately, there isn’t really anything new to hear in Plück’s article: Bulgaria is said to be an economically weak country that is plagued by severe corruption. Because of nepotism, EU funding programs are very poorly implemented. The Rroma representative Anton Karagyozov meanwhile confirms stereotypical notions of clan structures, widespread crime and misery: “He reported plainly of the financial support for children whose fathers are dead or sitting in jail and whose mothers have left them in Stolipinovo to earn money with prostitution in Western Europe. He reports from the strict clan structures, such that a woman can be “stolen” by a man if she does not want to marry him. In plain language this means rape and a subsequent wedding.” Such stories may be useful for obtaining support funds. But they do not contribute at all to the successful integration of the Rroma. Rather, they nourish the clichéd notions that are mentioned again and again in the debate on “poverty immigrants”. Plück’s article does not change any of these misconceptions.

Merkelt (2014) meanwhile reports on a cultural event in Duisburg. In an old fire station, a Rrom sang “Gypsy Songs” for the visiting Gadje. Author Rolf Bauerdick read from his controversial book, trying to counteract cliché ideas in his own way, even though he inevitably confirms many stereotypes. As he only portrays already visible Rroma in his book, most of which live in economic misery, he does not really confront the public image with new ideas.

Scherfig (2014) complements the theme with a report on the integration project “Harzer Strasse” in Berlin-Neukölln. In 2011, the Aachen housing company bought three mostly inhabited by immigrant Rroma and massively overcrowded apartment buildings, and renovated them. The adult residents almost exclusively work and try to improve their language skills. The housing complex “Harzer Strasse” is considered a showcase project, as it demonstrates the possibility of successful integration, based on promotion and simultaneous demand: “Since the first of January 2014, the free movement of persons is valid for Romania and Bulgaria. [ … ] Critics fear the “immigration into the German social system.” […] However, almost all Roma in the Harzer Strasse have been working for several years and also pay into the social system. […] According to the federal employment agency, Bulgarians and Romanians only make up 0.7 percent of Hartz IV recipients.”

Another aspect of the immigration debate are immigrants from former Yugoslavia. Blasius (2014) reports on the sharp rise in the number of asylum procedures by immigrants from Serbia, Macedonia, and Bosnia-Herzegovina, many of them are said to be Rroma. Almost all applications for a permanent residency permit are rejected because the citizens of the former Yugoslavia are not recognised as political refugees: “Despite the often miserable living conditions, Roma are not recognized as political refugees from former Yugoslavia. Unlike Roma from the EU-countries Bulgaria and Romania, they have no permanent right to stay.” In response to this, Blasius states, many of the rejected just file new applications, as they are entitled to under the law. Therewith, the flood of applications can be explained. The German grand coalition meanwhile plans to classify Bosnia, Macedonia and Serbia as safe countries of origin in order to enable accelerated deportations. The classification will be done at the expense of the immigrants who get no voice in the process, but de facto are affected by precarious conditions in their countries of origin. While the proponents of deportations rely on country analyses, which declare no or very minimal discrimination against minorities in countries like Serbia, the proponents of the asylum seekers state the exact opposite. Subjective experiences, which can rarely be proved with documents, are usually neglected in favour of official country analyses that assess the social situation in a country.