13.12.2013 Rroma from South Eastern Europe: Economic Migrants or Refugees?

The Welt (2013) reports currently on practices against migrant Rroma in Hamburg. The responsible Minister of the Interior Michael Neumann wants to continue the deportations of asylum seekers from South Eastern Europe, despite the massive criticism from Greens, the Left and the FDP. This does not mean, according to the Interior Minister that the deportations were not individually critically examined. Again, one must be amazed that migrants from Southeast Europe are held from the outset for Rroma, although this fact is not recorded in the statistics. Many immigrants from the Balkans are members of other ethnic groups. However, it is true that Rroma are particularly affected by exclusion. Radio Dreyeckland (2013) rightly criticised that the protection rate of asylum applications from Serbia, Montenegro, Macedonia and Bosnia-Hercegovina fixed at 5% is too low. Many Rroma in these countries are discriminated against and should not therefore be treated as pure poverty refugees. This is also criticized by Jelpke (2013): The asylum applications of immigrants from the Western Balkans are being processed in shorter and shorter periods. This is due to the coalition agreement between the CDU and the SPD. This document plans to declare the western countries of South Eastern Europe to be “safe countries”. This makes it increasingly difficult for migrants from these countries to get a successful asylum application. A protective claim is still just awarded 0.1 to 0.6 percent of applicants from Serbia, Macedonia and Bosnia-Herzegovina.

The federal states of Schleswig-Holstein, Bremen and Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, meanwhile decided a deportation moratorium for the winter months (Carini 2013).

Haug (2013), in his article, points to the discrepancy between integration efforts communicated by the State and the real experienced exclusion. Rroma deported to Serbia mostly find there an income on the edge of society or live on welfare. Against the official statement of Serbia, that Rroma are not persecuted in the country stand in contrast to the misery and hopelessness: “Where it can be, they are marginalized, the victims reported. You get no jobs and are not informed of your rights. Even for food the meagre money barely suffice. […] “On paper, there are now many measures to end discrimination against these people,” says the lawyer. The trip did however convinced him that: “In daily life the affected ones feel little of it””

The President of the German Association of Cities Ulrich Maly goes against simple explanations in connection with immigrants from Southeast Europe. The migrants are often discriminated against and are hoping for a better life in Germany. He appealed to the historical responsibility of Germany in dealing with minorities and argued against a policy of isolation, as demanded by several parties. Rather, one must promote the integration in Germany and in the countries of origin: “These are not people who come and go with open hands to the administration. They come for other reasons. Because they are oppressed at home, perhaps even feel persecuted. They come because they believe that they will find a better life with us. These are reasons that one initially must respect.” Maly therefore goes against an alliance of politicians and citizens fearing a “social tourism” on the German social welfare system from the beginning of 2014. Bulgarians and Romanians will then be able to search unrestricted fro work in the European Union, thanks to the European free Movement Agreement (Kusicke 2013).

Leber (2013) sees the debate about immigration marked by varying degrees of coverage in social systems. The “general principle of European free movement” meets various forms of social welfare. That, however, this is not necessarily a contradiction in a polemical debate, however, it is often forgotten. Instead, it is dominated by a politics of fear, which flattens the heterogeneity of migration phenomena and propagandises the immigration of unskilled problem cases. It is this utilitarian thinking is criticized by Koch (2013) in his account of the problem. It means a ranking of people on questionable, inhuman principles.