Yes to jobs, no to anti-immigrant laws
'Employment Promotion' law they are legally discriminated against in relation to Germans.
Among immigrants, the rate of unemployment has reached 15 per cent and even 18.5 per cent for Turks and Kurds as against around 10 per cent for Ger-
Nationals from other countries
In the spring 1983 elections for the Bundestag (the German parliament),
Chancellor Helmut Kohl announced that his government was seeking to halve the number of foreigners resident in West Germany between now and 1990. At the same time, the report of the Joint Commission of national government and the states on 'legislation pertaining to the status of immigrants' was made public by the Minister of the Interior.
port recommended very strict measures aimed at preventing temporary immigrant workers from acquiring permanent residence status on West
In addition, neofascists were threatening Turkish workers with terrorist action if they did not leave West Germany before August 1983. Thus is Frankfurt, a Turkish shop caught fire after an incendiary bomb was
The slogan on the front of the house read Foreigners - go home' (Auslaender raus!).
The number of attacks on foreigners has grown rapidly and is now beyond the thousand mark, compared to 120 in 1980.
lence against immigrants are only the tip of the iceberg. Xenophobia is encountered everywhere and is not a new phenomenon.
Everyone knows that it was only because of a campaign by the government and the employers in the past that immigrants got a fairly friendly reception. In 1965, most Germans preferred to work one hour more per day if that meant that it would be possible to do without immigrants, according to a survey of the period by the Wickert Institute.
Friedrich MUEHLEISEN
The whole history of the employment of immigrants in West Germany cannot, of course, be taken up in this
But some of the highlights can
Second World War, West quest of foreign markets was based on prevailing wage rates lower than those in other imperialist countries. Such relatively cheap labour was in turn the result of the influx of some ten million refugees from Europe and East Germany.
With the slowing down of the flow of refugees from the East and the rapid acceleration of economic growth, Federal
Germany had an ongoing need for labour which could not be met without introcelebrated 'Gastarbeiters'
('guest workers' or immigrants) brought the economically backward regions of the Mediterranean.
sequently, a series of bilateral agreements were concluded to this end with Italy in
1955, Greece and Spain in 1960, Turkey in 1961, Morocco in 1963, Portugal in
1964, Tunisia in 1965 and Yugoslavia in
Up until the first economic recession experienced, in
1966-67, immigration into Germany was immigration of workers only.
stagnation in the German economy, 300,000 immigrant workers left the country. But with the economic upturn that followed not only did the number of immigrants rise to about four million, but a change became apparent in This was marked by the settling down in West Germany of these workers' families
West Germany had thus become a country with a pattern of immigration, something that the government had always wanted to avoid
During the 1973-74 crisis, the LiberalSocial Democrat coalition government decided to 'put a stop to immigration' by ordering, among other things, that further entry visas be granted except to
The aim of the authorities was to keep the numbers of immigrants from rising, and if possible to reThe government attacks immigrants
In fact, the opposite ensued because the number of immigrants was approaching 4.66 million in 1983 as against 4 million in 1973. By contrast, the number of immigrants in work had decreased from 2.6 million in 1973 to 1.7 million
These figures show that the structure of the immigrant population is tending more and more to come into line with that of the German population as a whole. Today in West Germany, it is possible to of a real multi-national working class, with, of course, that immigrant workers and their families are subject to discrimiantion in all spheres.
within the European Economic Community (EEC) are the only ones to benefit from the guarantee of freedom of movement incorporated into the European treaties, immigrants from the Third World countries clearly consitute the majority of the immigrant
Out of 1.59 million Third World immigrants, 1.23 million come from and 350,000 from Kurdistan (figures for September 1983). This is the reason why the notorious problem of foreigners is seen simply as a Turkish directed primarily against coming concentrated more heavily in certain sections of the big
These are being simultaneously vacated by the Germans. This phenomenon has resulted in the last five years in the construction of virtual immigrant ghettoes, such as Berlin Kreuzberg or the Gallus quarter in Frankfurt
It is important to point to the plight of young immigrants who have grown up in West Germany, who have received very poor schooling (two thirds leave school without any qualifications) and who have no chance of finding a job, never mind an apprenticeship (only twenty per cent managed to get apprenticeships in 1981). In West Germany, they have no recognised status, and the countries their parents from are foreign to them, just place to go for holidays. They are at the receiving end of hostility and aggression from young Germans of their own age. All this creates a most explosive situation.
Immigrant women also suffer a particular oppresion - as women, as for eigners and as workers. As women, they are victims of the specific oppression of women in their country of origin and women in the Federal Republic. foreigners, they are part of their husband's resident's permit, so, effectively they have no right of their own to stay. As workers, they are at the bottom of the
Faced with a deep capitalist crisis, the turn the government and the ruling class in Germany have to take essentially involves inflicting a sharp enough defeat on the working class to enable them to stabilise the system. Given the current state of the class struggle, a frontal attack on the bastions of the workers is, for the
International Viewpoint 30 July 1984
----- pull-quotes on this page -----
GERMANY.
imposing a long-lasting separation of some 250,000 young people from their families.
Limitations the entry of on spouses of second- and third-generation
Turkenreus time being, unthinkable. Therefore, the bourgeois government intends to prepare for this confrontation by attacking the working class at its weak points. In fact, all the measures which they have taken go in this direction - attacks on abortion rights; campaigns to push the idea that women should stay in the home and to oppose women's liberation; reduction of unemployment benefits; cuts in the welfare sector; attacks on protective legislation covering young workers; reduction in pensions. All this in preparation for a direct confrontation.
The measures against immigrants are at the heart of this strategy. Effectively, by creating insecurity amongst immigrants, by threatening deportation, the government is seeking to divide and weaken the working class. It is most certainly no coincidence that this offensive was launched at the same time as large-scale preparations were getting underway for the campaign on the 35-hour week (with no loss of wages and parallel recruitment).
The government has, so far, taken up the following measures:
Allocation of repatriation fees within a certain time scale; all nationals of EEC non-member countries can obtain in case of unemployment or partial unemployment of six months or less, a grant of 10,500 marks (about £3,700) on condition that they leave Germany within four weeks of the application. This scheme is designed to reduce the number of unemployed Turkish and Kurdish workers in West Germany and to offer a handle for demagogically accusing all those remaining of being parasites. This system undermines the position of the working class because it leaves an important section of workers in a permanent dilemma as to whether 'to go or stay
A draft reform of the legislation dealInternational Viewpoint 30 July 1984
'Turks out!' Racist graffiti in West Germany (DR) ing with resident aliens has been drawn up by the Minister of the Interior. The main lines of this were already laid down by the Liberal-Social Democrat coalition during the 1970s but never put into practice.
THE IMMIGRANT POPULATION IN WEST GERMANY (in millions) 1973 1983 Variations in % Total 3.99 4.66 + 16 Men 2.10 2.00 Women 1.10 1.40 + 27 Children 0.70 1.30 + 86 Economically Active with a 2.60 1.70 - 35 Job
LENGTH OF STAY ON OR BEYOND TEN YEARS Italians 50% Yugoslavs 50 % Greeks 66% Turks and Kurds* 33% * In West Germany the official figures never make a distinction between Turks and Kurds.
It consists of the following: integration of foreigners actually living in West Germany; a halt to immigration; aid for repatriation. By the term integration, the government means adaptation by immigrants to German norms. aliens are supposed to obey German laws in an exemplary fashion in order to prove their willingness to be integrated.
To stop further immigration, the following steps may be taken:
- Setting six years as the maximum age at which children would have the right to follow their parents, thereby immigrants, which could mean the break up of thousands of marriages (about 300,000 according to the Ministry of the Interior).
All these measures also take into account the need of industry for a reserve supply of immigrant labour upon which whole sections of industry, public utilities (water, gas, electricity) and services depend. In fact it was for these workers that the notion of integration was conceived. All those people, on the other hand who, according to the employers, are a drain on the social welfare budget and therefore detrimental to the country's interests must be rejected, deported, driven out.
These proposals would in effect legalise the current practice of the authorities. There would be no point in making complaints, appealing to tribunals, since the existing arrangements would acquire the force of law.
It was in the autumn of 1982 that these proposals were made public. From the first they aroused huge protests, to begin with from the traditional organisations working on behalf of the immigrants - the social services, the churches and other religious bodies — but also from the political organisations, such as the Falcons (school-student members of the Social Democratic Party), as well as numerous immigrant organisations. The unions, on the other hand, remained aloof from this mobilisation, their leaderships having nothing against limiting the immigrant population. Insofar as the protests got underway, they were restricted to putting out information and making press releases. A new organisation to defend immigrants
A joint organisation, however, was formed in March 1983 to work out how to actively resist the government's proposals. The participants, apart from certain organisations already mentioned, were political groups like the revolutionary Turkish organisation Dev Yol and other Turkish and Kurdish groups; the Kommunistischer Bund (a centrist group in West Germany); the Socialist Youth (Jusos); and the International Marxist Group (GIM - German section of the Fourth International). At the head of this initiative was, most notably, the Association of German Women with Foreign Husbands (IAF). Founded in 1972, this group has acquired an excellent reputation as a leading authority on all questions of immigration policy because of their active work in this sphere.
The front which was set up started to discuss the calling of a Tribunal against government policy on immigration. For its part the GIM hoped that out of this tribunal would come a national structure for all the different groups which exist to fight racism. It also hoped that a political
19
platform in opposition to the immigration policy of Kohl and the bourgeoisie would be elaborated at the local and national level
The Tribunal was renamed 'Congress on Government Policy on Immigration and Against the Attacks on Human Rights. It was held June 3-5, 1983 in Frankfurt, and a thousand people participated from all over West Germany and from Berlin. For three days they discussed the problems of immigrants in Germany and many decisions were taken:
Support was given to the Frankfort Appeal demanding the withdrawal of government proposals; total freedom in the right to asylum; social, legal and political equality between Germans and immigrants.
- A coordinating committee based in Frankfurt was set up to coordinate initiatives against racism.
- The committee was to prepare a march on Berlin.
-men was also to be prepared. make a preliminary balance sheet of this congress. In certain towns the appeal became part of the platform of the movement. Towns like Hamburg, Cologne and Young second generation immigrants (DR)
RESI
7. Juni 4.Juli 5.Sept.
Großkonzerte des Glasorchesters 1911
Gr. Frühkonzert mit dem Britzer Blasorchester 20
Berlin, among others, saw some major activity around this. The campaign so far
Up until now the march has not taken place, because the necessary organisation has not been built up It was for this reason that a Week of Action was organised over March 10-17, which gave the opportunity to attack government policy on the right of asylum and immigration, as well as racism as a whole. Under this rubric regional demonstrations took place in three cities - Stuttgart (with 2,500 participants), Cologne (with 1,800 participants) and Berlin (with 3,000 participants).
Despite the small number of demonstrators, this event can be considered a success because it was the first time that a mobilisation had occurred simultaneously around the country and achieved so much publicity. A spokesperson for the government even felt obliged to defend Kohl's policy by pointing out that the campaign could only harm the immigrant population by giving too much publicity to the problem.
The GIM played a leading role in this mobilisation, both nationally and locally. This was reflected in particular by the speeches of GIM militants at the rallies in both Cologne and Berlin.
The immigrant women's conference took place at the end of the March 23-25 week of action in Frankfurt. Once again, GIM members, immigrant women amongst them, took part in building this confer ence. Unions must take a stand
The main problem at the moment in resisting the government's proposals is essentially a political one. In most political organisations, work on immigrants is considered one task amongst many and not seen as vital for everyone. This is particularly true in the unions.
Initially, the DGB (German Confeder ation of Unions) was openly hostile to the employment of immigrants for fear that this would undermine wage levels. Because of this attitude they managed, with or without enthusiasm, to obtain equal pay for immigrants. hostility continues, mainly in the idea that it was the companies that went looking for the immigrants, in their home countries, so it must suit the bosses to have Turks.'
Over the years, the DGB have backed government policy on immigration, and even today are still in favour of reducing the employment of immigrants. Even though in the last few years, immigrants have been in the forefront of industrial struggles, they are still thought of as mere paper members (their rate of unionisation is, nevertheless, in some cases higher than for Germans). The fight for the 35hour week with no cut in pay and new hiring to take up the slack is the most important struggle to be waged in Germany since the Second World War. It illustrates well the errors committed by the union leaderships in relation to immigrants. Because of these mistakes the immigrant workers are wary of this demand and feel that there is nothing in this fight for them.
The unions have taken some positive positions. In certain sections of the DGB, they even support the demand for the right of immigrants to vote. But at the same time they have paid no attention to the facts of legal discrimination from which immigrants suffer and the effect of this in weakening the unions' fighting capacity.
This is why revolutionary Marxists sought to focus the week of action against racism on these questions and why, when they put forward the demand for equal rights for immigrants, they are in fact fighting to strengthen trade-union struggles.
Today, the anti-immigrant proposals are gathering dust in the Ministry and the coalition government remain divided on the issue. To stop the bill it is essential to mount a campaign against racism in general and the unions have to be a driving force in it.
International Viewpoint 30 July 1984