24.01.2014 The Focus magazine propagates the mass exodus from Romania and Bulgaria

Dometeit/Lehmkul (2014) report from Romania. Armed with dubious facts they argue that there indeed a mass migration to Western Europe and especially Germany is taking place. They portray poorly trained Rroma in western Romania who hardly earn a living and see their future opportunities in Western Europe. According to the authors, all Rroma that have a reasonably decent life have been abroad for a shorter or longer period of time: “When the labor markets in the EU open at the beginning of the year, everyone will go”, predicts Stefan and grins. “Then we will all meet like on a huge wedding party.” The big goal: North Rhine-Westphalia. Tens of thousands of Romanians and Bulgarians migrate annually. 30’000 people from the two countries came in 2012 (comparing to 18 500 people emigrating). 2013 there will be even more immigrants, the Ministry of Labour, Integration and Social Affairs of North Rhine-Westphalia predicts.” Dometeit/Lehmkul totally ignore that the statistics, as has already been discussed several times, count seasonal workers and therefore are massively exaggerated. That all Romanians and Bulgarians living in poverty will migrate to Germany is very unlikely, as the expansion of free migration to Hungary, the Czech Republic and Poland has already shown. Masses of immigrants didn’t show up. Dometeit/Lehmkuhl provide a highly one-sided picture of Rroma. Those who have become rich are immediately associated with illegal activities: “On the so-called rose park there are palaces Roma clans have built through business in Germany. Most of them are empty, the shutters are lowered. Two or three times a year the families come to celebrate. Then the Porsches and Ferraris show up. Two years ago, the police raided some of the villas at the request of the German prosecutor’s, based on suspicions of tax evasion, money laundering and human traffeking.” Such reporting is simplistic and patronizing. Dometeit/ Lehmkuhl completely ignore that there are well integrated, upright Rroma

This one-sided perspective is shared by the Schweizer Magazin (2014). The online newspaper favors polemical generalizations and simplifications: “Sinti and Roma, as well as other social welfare benefiters from Romania and Bulgaria – the two poorest countries in Europe – are ready to flood Germany and to enrich themselves with the social benefits. Only the economy may approve, since every immigrant from these poor countries depresses the wages and thus complicates the lives of all Europeans and only increases the profits of the companies.” To designate the Rroma people generally as social welfare benefiters is racist and stupid. Much more need not being said about this.

The Baltische Rundschau (2014) strengthens fears of a mass immigration from Eastern Europe. The article is openly racist and speaks of social parasites and brown rats who are supposedly coming from Serbia to plunder the German welfare state: “After the wave of Roma who migrate as official EU citizens from Romania and Bulgaria to the German welfare state, more and more Gypsies are now coming from Serbia. However, these do not use the “privileged” status as EU citizens to flood the labour market and welfare system, but make use of the German asylum law. In 2013, the asylum applications from Serbia increased by 40 percent, almost all asylum seekers are Roma.” The Rroma Contact Point has stated very often that the prognosis of a mass immigration to Western Europe is wrong. Moreover, not all immigrants automatically become welfare cases. A reduction of the west migration to the case of the Rroma is racist and ethnicizes poverty problems.

The right-wing populist platform unzensuriert.at (2014) is even more racist. It propagates the concept of a culture war and the collapse of the German welfare state. The pretentious statements are one-sided, distorted, highly selective interpretations of the real situation. The platform forecast an additional influx of 200,000 Romanians and Bulgaria to Germany for the current year: “The city of Duisburg is paying dearly for the unrestricted immigration of Roma clans. For the year 2014, the city administration predicts additional costs of at least 12 million Euro for the “integration” of immigrant Gypsies from Romania and Bulgaria. Meanwhile, some 10,000 Roma live in the Ruhr city. Entire neighborhoods such as Duisburg-Rheinhausen are firmly in the hands of the Gypsies. Germans, but also guest workers from Turkey and former Yugoslavia living here for many years, already feel as strangers.” With such polemical statements unzensuriert.at does intellectual arson and endangers social peace. Such xenophobic statements have nothing to do with freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

A differentiated and liberal attitude towards the immigration debate is taken by Maike Freund (2013). She argues for complexity and rationalism concerning the predictions of a mass immigration: “Who goes through Neukölln in Berlin or the northern city of Dortmund, knows that such scenes or similar belong to the reality in Germany – but they are only one part of the truth. Because the numbers say: there are many highly educated immigrants, also from Romania and Bulgaria, and Germany relies on these professionals.”

Mappes-Niediek (2014) speaks of the conflicting reactions to the polemical predictions about the mass immigration from Romania and Bulgaria. Thus, ethnic Romanians and Bulgarians often separate themselves from the Rroma in response to the Western European criticism: “That’s not us, that’s the Roma: This is still the first reflex when some of the German and British debates over poverty migration spill into the Rumanian and Bulgarian public.” Mappes-Niediek criticizes that a poverty problem is turned into an ethnic problem by distinguishing between ethnic Romanians and the Rroma. After the collapse of the socialist system, the ethnic Romanians were given back the possessions of their ancestors, who had been collectivized. Since a large part of the Rroma had possessed nothing before socialism, they emerged as losers from the change of system: “Only the Roma got back nothing because their grandparents hadn’t possessed anything. They moved into the slums, from which the poverty immigrants of today emerge. This allows both the German and the Romanian public to keep the poverty problem a Roma problem – which it is not. If there were no Roma, there would not be any more jobs.” The migration debate is also dominated by a double standard: one hand, one likes to get the well-trained professionals for the German economy – especially doctors – on the other hand one wants to keep out the less well-off.

Antiziganism researcher Markus End criticizes the term “poverty migration” as being negatively charged and equated with Rroma in the public debate. The Rroma are discredited as being lazy and social parasites. End criticizes this depiction and reminds one of the integrated, invisible Rroma: “They were sweepingly referred to as lazy and welfare scroungers. It was said that they are noisy, produce garbage, and are prone to crime. People who follow the media regularly have learned that Roma are poverty immigrants. [ … ]. In the debate, Roma are represented as strangers, even though many have being living in Germany since generations. Also that there are educated and uneducated Rroma, rich and poor, is totally neglected in the debate. The term Roma is used almost synonymous with poverty, crime or waste.” Liberal journalists are also spreading antiziganist stereotypes, even though they welcome the immigration of skilled workers. A liberal journalist from Die Welt compares well-educated, ethnic Romanians and Bulgarians with criminal, antisocial Rroma, producing a value list of welcomed and unwelcomed immigrants. End comes to the conclusion that the coverage of the Rroma is the most biased of all minorities (Grunau 2014).