Here’s What A Centrist — And Honest — Immigration Policy Looks Like

On Wednesday, the German Parliament approved a new set of immigration laws aimed to curb illegal immigration, which included permanent border checks with fellow European Union countries: something that is seen by many as a clear violation of EU law. The most controversial aspect of this parliamentary vote is that Friedrich Merz’s center-right CDU pushed it through parliament with the support of the far-right AfD party, breaking a taboo the German media referred to as the“Brandmauer” (the firewall) in which the political establishment refused to work with AfD.

As the debate sinks, ever more into extremism, Die Zeit’s editor-in-chief Giovanni di Lorenzo and senior correspondent Bernd Ulrich seek a new way to approach the high-stakes debate, which could be applicable far beyond Germany.

-Analysis-

HAMBURG — It would be a great step forward if the toxic debate surrounding migration could break free from the usual left-right ideological trenches. This would mean moving beyond insinuations, omissions, prejudices and extreme demands, which too often serve only to pit opposing sides against each other.

Instead, it’s time to foster at least a minimal political consensus on the facts and challenges at hand. One thing is clear here in Germany: our country is one of the main global destinations for migrants. Among industrialized nations, only the United States has a higher number of foreign-born residents. With around 20% of its population born outside its borders, Germany even surpasses the U.S. in relative terms.

In the past decade alone, more than three million refugees have arrived in Germany, including nearly five percent of the Syrian population and 1.24 million Ukrainians. This influx has brought undeniable challenges: strained social infrastructure, overwhelmed education and healthcare systems, increased competition in the housing market, and, time and again, crimes committed that send shockwaves through the country, such as the recent stabbing attack in the central German town of Aschaffenburg. Clearly, our country faces a serious integration issue, and every possible helping hand and pragmatic solution is needed to address it.

But the reaction pattern — despite the many admirable people who still volunteer — is discouraging. Many leftists believe that the less one talks about the problems, the less people care. Even raising the issue is seen as right-wing propaganda. And when crimes occur, the German public infrastructure system is not innocent — because, for example, it does not provide enough therapists and social workers. Moreover, any attempt at regulation is seen as a legal minefield, constrained by both European and German law. And so, the conversation often ends there.

Three big contradictions

Meanwhile, the right seizes upon every migration-related issue, especially crime, to paint immigration as the root of all problems. For the far-right AfD party, the fight against migration is central to its identity, blurring any distinction between regular and irregular immigration.

More establishment conservative politicians, when they do address the issue, often resort to tough rhetoric about limiting and deporting migrants. Yet, their follow-through is usually limited, making it appear more like political posturing than serious action.

In the midst of all this is a concerned and often bewildered public, increasingly convinced that nearly everyone who crosses the border is allowed to stay and that many criminals are not deported. A recent survey commissioned by Die Zeit found that 82% of Germans favor stricter migration policies—including a majority of Green Party voters. More than 90% support the deportation of foreign criminals.

At the same time, however, a large majority still believes Germany should continue accepting and assisting those fleeing war or political persecution. It seems clear: if effective measures are not taken, social peace itself might be at risk.

There is the painful contradiction between humanitarian principles and national security.

And the conservative CDU leader (very likely to be the next chancellor) Friedrich Merz has made his move with some very harsh rhetoric on migration. Predictably, the usual reflexive reactions have followed. The tricky part is that both his critics and his supporters have valid points. Blanket judgments won’t help. What is needed is a clear-eyed view of an immensely complex reality.

The interwoven challenges of flight, asylum and migration will (like other major issues) never be completely resolved. There are at least three fundamental contradictions. An aging economy such as Germany cannot maintain its prosperity without immigration and at the same time feels that this prosperity is threatened by unregulated immigration. The second conflict lies in the fact that borders in a globalized economy must be as permeable as possible, while uncontrolled immigration must be prevented at those same open and permeable borders. Finally, there is the painful contradiction between humanitarian principles and national security.

The fact that these fundamental contradictions exist, however, cannot mean that we should accept all the grievances with a shrug of the shoulders. On the contrary: precisely because these challenges persist, they must be addressed with both pragmatism and determination. And this is where the outgoing federal government led by Social Democrat (SPD) Chancellor Olaf Scholz has made a crucial misstep. It has created the impression that migration policy is only adjusted reactively — after high-profile crimes or under pressure from the AfD. But if the broader public perceives that politicians are unwilling to tackle these problems seriously, they will eventually lose faith in the political mainstream altogether.

No perfect blueprint 

That moment of reckoning has now arrived, and CDU candidate Friedrich Merz appears to have sensed it. His assertion that a new migration policy must begin on day one of his chancellorship is essentially correct — though it comes with a certain Trumpian bombast. His asylum proposal faltered when he chose to threaten the SPD and Greens with total inflexibility while simultaneously showing a new willingness to cooperate with an AfD that voted alongside him.

Merz has yet to demonstrate the strategic foresight and tactical discipline necessary to shake up the political center without tearing it apart. And while it is true that a radical rightest party like the AfD should not be allowed to dictate legislative agendas, it would be equally troubling if Merz’s proposal were to pass with votes from the AfD. That would not bring unity but rather deepen polarization.

This all begs the question of whether a middle ground on asylum and migration is possible. No one has a perfect blueprint for universal migration policy. However, some clear lessons can be drawn from the past 10 years.

It is far more effective to be tough on criminals than to treat all migrants as potential threats.

One major flaw in the current system is that criminal behavior is not punished sufficiently, while successful integration is not rewarded enough. Foreign criminals often face little risk of deportation. Meanwhile, well-integrated migrants who have built lives and careers in Germany sometimes find themselves at risk of expulsion after years in the country. Both of these dynamics need to change. It is far more effective to be tough on criminals than to treat all migrants as potential threats.

However, achieving this requires Germany to abandon its fear of creating a “pull factor.” The longstanding approach of making life as difficult as possible for refugees — driven by the belief that this will deter others — doesn’t just affect potential illegal immigrants. It also harms the very workers Germany urgently needs, from Indian doctors to less-skilled laborers.

Boldly but not recklessly

At the same time, a constructive and integrative migration policy must also ensure better control over who enters the country. Migration must be managed and, when necessary, limited.

Of course, setting quantitative limits on migration inevitably conflicts with the principle of humanitarian protection. This is perhaps the most difficult trade-off of any centrist migration policy: the painful reality that full protection of this human right may not always be guaranteed.

However, insisting on its absolute enforcement has often resulted in widespread enforcement failures — leading to what is, in practice, hollow and ineffective law. The legal framework for distributing refugees within Europe exists, but it is not implemented. The third-country regulation is in place, yet it is inconsistently applied. Many who lack asylum status under either the Geneva Convention or German law — and who neither work nor are allowed to work — remain in legal limbo, unable to be deported. If a human right is consistently undermined by enforcement failures, both the rule of law and public trust in it erode.

A misguided belief: offering less support will discourage migration.

Germany has a long and rich history of immigration and integration — something it should take pride in. Yet, because it has often failed to fully embrace its identity as a country of immigration, it lacks the necessary infrastructure: too few language schools, too few psychologists with relevant language skills, too few personnel in immigration offices, too few police officers, and even too few prison cells. This neglect is compounded by the misguided belief that offering less support will discourage migration. In reality, failing to invest in integration squanders the many opportunities migration presents.

What is unfolding now in Germany is, of course, an election campaign. By the end of the week, no political firewall will have collapsed, nor will any new border wall be erected. Yet, this moment is part of a much larger shift. The political center must come together on asylum, refugee, and migration policy — boldly but not recklessly, pragmatically but not inhumanely, always with the understanding that, waiting at our borders, there will always be humans in need.