A Farce at the Expense of Germany’s Poor
In the farce that is German immigration policy, a recent episode puts the spotlight on the ensuing cutthroat competition at the bottom of the social hierarchy. The reactions of leading politicians were distasteful, and the country is still avoiding the necessary discussion about what large-scale unskilled immigration means for the indigenous poor.
This article is part of the "Politics of Hunger" series, in which the blog will examine policy issues surrounding food poverty in different contexts.
Foodbanks and the proliferation of poverty in Germany
1.5 Million people in Germany are regular customers of foodbanks, of which there are now over 930, up from 480 when Angela Merkel came to power in 2005. These foodbanks (“Tafeln”) are private charities that attempt to fill the gaps left by the welfare state. 60.000 volunteers help to distribute food donations to people who would otherwise fail to make ends meet – school kids and pensioners, single parents and migrants, and the long-term unemployed. The ongoing migration crisis led to a predictable escalation of the situation. The labour market integration of migrants with often no language skills and no formal job market qualifications is – unsurprisingly – difficult, so that many became reliant on foodbanks. The amount of food donations, however, did not keep pace with the sudden increase in demand.
An emergency break
As a result, the Tafel in the large Western German city of Essen now serves 75% migrants. The increased competition among the poorest had some obvious losers: mainly older and female Germans who no longer feel welcome in a hostile climate dominated by foreign young men. Against this background, the Essener Tafel introduced what effectively amounts to a quota for needy Germans: until further notice, new memberships will only be issued for applicants with a German passport, to prevent a further crowding out of remaining German customers. Existing customers without a German passport will continue to receive food. One should think that this would be considered a measured response in a situation where the alternative is to accept a Darwinian logic at the expense of one very clearly defined group, namely (older) women. Alas, not in Germany.
Comments from the Berlin bubble
Once the issue was picked up by the media, the virtue signalling routines of German politics played out. Without having acquainted themselves with the situation on the ground, members of the major left-wing parties, journalists on public service broadcasters, and Angela Merkel herself weighed in on TV and Twitter, accusing the German poor of xenophobia and the Essener Tafel of racism. Merkel, with her customary nondescript rhetoric, declared that such categorisations were “not good”. The irony that the Essener Tafel’s decision was a direct consequence of a policy they all supported and still defend, namely opening Germany’s borders to almost unconstrained immigration regardless of the country’s capacities, seemed lost to them. Yet, Jörg Sartor, the head of the Essener Tafel and himself a retired miner unsuspected of far-right leanings, refused to back down as criticism mounted and the foodbank’s office and delivery vans were vandalised. This is a novelty in the German arena where such accusations usually result in social ostracism and not seldom violence that few could withstand.
"Nazis" is written on one of the delivery vans of the foodbank in the German city of Essen. Source: Youtube Screenshot (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCGYDdLv1fA)
Politics 101: Don’t alienate those who clean up your mess
Indeed, this time may be different. Merkel may have committed a strategic mistake that could alienate important groups of people that so far prevented her disastrous migration policy from outright implosion. Civil society actors have since the opening of the borders taken over many functions from state institutions, which could not cope with the sheer number of people. Their idealism and altruism is chiefly responsible for the fact that Merkel’s “We can do it!” wasn’t immediately debunked as a rubber cheque. In a widely shared article, one of the editors of the influential FAZ newspaper posed the rhetorical question: “Who should Jörg Sartor vote for?”, implying that the distasteful treatment he has received from mainstream party figures leaves him with little choice but to vote for the far-right AfD. Yet, he has been backed up by a wide range of civil society actors, none of whom could plausibly be accused of xenophobia.
It’s time to talk about what unskilled immigration means for the poor
This story illustrates a wider point that is as intuitive as it is often neglected. Regardless of whether immigration is good or bad overall, all else being equal, unskilled immigration is unambiguously harmful for the indigenous poor. At least temporarily, it leads to increased competition over finite resources, as labour market integration proceeds slowly at best. Charities such as foodbanks, unlike the state, cannot tax or deficit-spend their way out of this dilemma. An immigration policy that disregards the needs of the indigenous poor in a blatant and arrogant manner as in the German case, will inevitably trigger a backlash. It is therefore no wonder that anti-immigration parties perform so well among former voters of far-left parties.
In the present case, the policy alternatives are to increase social spending to cover up conflicts over resources and make foodbanks superfluous – a strategy of questionable political feasibility in the country with the second-highest implicit tax rate for average earners in the OECD – or a sensible immigration policy that takes into account the limits of what can be achieved without disrupting the social fabric. It remains to be seen whether the new government will finally acknowledge this reality.
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect any editorial policy.
About the author
Matthias Haslberger is a DPhil student at the Department for Social Policy and Intervention, University of Oxford. His current research investigates how technological and institutional change jointly influence wage inequality. He is a member of Nuffield College and his research is funded by the Barnett House-Nuffield Scholarship.
Comments