In my last article, Elon Musk´s Participation in Germany’s Election Debate, I explored the fundamental challenges political parties face in their campaigning efforts – challenges that arise from their organisational interest. To visualise these critical issues, I introduced a case study examining the participation of a foreign businessman, namely Elon Musk, in the German election debate. The study centered around the national-conservative party AFD, a highly polarising force within Germany’s political landscape.

Recent developments in the German election debate, particularly those surrounding the handling of the AFD, provide an insightful opportunity for an in-depth analysis of the ineffectiveness within the current political landscape and its underlying structures. This, in turn, shows the urgent necessity for policy reforms which we will unveil at the conclusion of this analysis. Therefore, I am going to examine a crucial metric in Germany’s policy debates, which is migration.

Findings: Elections are an Emotional Experience

Political parties have an inherent organisational interest in gaining and maintaining power within political structures and societal perception. In this context, power refers to their influence on the electorate – shaping perception, discourse, and debates is crucial for success. To achieve this, parties address the needs on an emotional level, as this approach proves far more effective than focusing on technocratic policymaking. Moreover, political parties emerge from distinct subgroups, primarily rooted in ideologies, and thus represent only these specific subgroups. Their primary goal is not policymaking that benefits society as a whole but rather serving the interests of their specific voter base. Therefore, it is essential that the parties, while campaigning, differentiate themselves into their inherent ideologies, creating an atmosphere in which the electorate will vote based on an individualistic perspective – questioning “which party best aligns my worldview”. This self-referential focus can lead voters to overlook the fact that parties themselves dictate debates and discourse, ultimately shaping public perspectives. A crucial consequence of this dynamic is that political debates shift away from a technical, solution-oriented approach to policymaking and instead become tools for reinforcing party narratives and discrediting opponents. The use of buzzwords and personal attacks are two prominent tactics that reveal the populist tendencies embedded within the system.

While all parties employ some degree of populist rhetoric, the AFD is particularly criticised for its populist methodology. Another key finding of my analysis is that the so-called “firewall” against the AFD – a term to illustrate the political isolation of the party – is strategically essential for other parties to strengthen their own narrative. Following their logic, strengthening a narrative of an undemocratic and autocratic party will ultimately lead to strengthening their narrative of being the keeper of democratic and western values – howsoever those terms are defined. This strategy, however, leads to the following dilemma: The AFD is verbally focusing on problems of significant concern to German society, most prominently the issues that potentially result from migration. With the firewall in place, opposing parties cannot directly engage with these issues in a meaningful way, nor can they acknowledge or support any of the AFD’s proposed solutions. The ineffectiveness of this approach became evident in a recent development: When Friedrich Merz, the Christian Democrats’ candidate for chancellor, introduced a bill to tighten migration policy, it only passed because of AFD votes – highlighting the contradictions and limitations of the current political strategy. Before we actually delve into this, it is essential to examine the broader context of migration policy and the political dynamics that shape this discourse in Germany.

Migration Policy

Migration takes place because people seek to improve their living conditions. This can happen from a privileged perspective, where individuals pursue better jobs, education or healthcare, or from a non-privileged perspective, such as fleeing war, persecution or crisis. Germany, in turn, is said to be in need of immigration for both economic and ethical reasons. Economically, Germany is said to depend on immigration to maintain its wealth and stability, as studies like the UN report Replacement Migration highlight. Due to low birth rates and an aging population, Germany relies on (skilled) workers from abroad. Ethically, as a relatively wealthy nation, Germany is expected to offer asylum to people in need. Additionally, asylum policies can act as diplomatic tools, strengthening image and normative leadership at the international stage. To evaluate Germany’s migration policy, it is important to establish clear criteria for both economic migrants and asylum seekers. A strict distinction is necessary to prevent misuse of either system, but it should remain possible for asylum seekers to transition into the labour market if they meet certain requirements. However, the conditions for economic migration must be stricter than those for asylum, as economic migrants are expected to contribute directly to the labour market.

Economic migration can be divided into two types. First, sector-specific migration targets areas with labour shortages, such as healthcare. This type of migration requires accurate labour market analysis to avoid mismatches. Second, general skilled migration focuses on attracting a broader talent pool by improving conditions for international students and professionals. Migrants should meet minimum qualification standards, but if their skills are below national requirements, they must receive access to training programs. Asylum seekers, on the other hand, must undergo a thorough case review to justify their claims. Asylum should be granted temporarily, with a clear path to either return or permanent integration. Long-term integration should follow the same standards as for economic migrants, ensuring equal opportunities and contributions to society. Importantly, integration should begin during the asylum process, based on the individual’s potential. Finally, successful migration management requires that all migrants, regardless of status, follow national laws. Migration should occur within a manageable framework that aligns with the nation’s infrastructural capacity. If a nation depends on immigration, it must invest in suitable structures to support it. Migration outcomes should be continuously evaluated, and necessary adjustments made. This includes the possibility of deporting individuals who gravely violate national laws, as compliance with regulations is essential for a fair and functional migration system.

Migration Situation in Germany

A detailed examination of all indicators is neither necessary nor feasible within this analysis. However, public perception already reflects dissatisfaction with Germany’s migration policy, as seen in political debates and election campaigns. Politicians increasingly voice criticism, which can be quantified through key metrics indicating trends and the current state of migration policy.

Migration Numbers

Germany has experienced significant migration inflows since the 2010s. During the guest worker period (1968–1973), annual migration averaged about 380.000. The second major wave occurred in the 1990s, driven by migration from the former German Democratic Republic (hereinafter: the GDR) and the Yugoslav Wars, although numbers remained below the guest worker era average. Since 2010, migration has surged again, with record net inflows of 1.156.962 in 2015 and 1.545.503 in 2022. The average net increase since 2010 is about 610.000 annually, totaling approximately 8,5 million migrants. This is largely due to refugee movements from conflicts such as the Syrian Civil War and the Ukraine War, highlighting humanitarian-driven migration.

Education and Economy

Germany’s educational performance, reflected in the 2022 PISA study, has continuously  declined since 2012 across the subjects mathematics, reading and science. Migrant students especially perform poorly compared to their non-migrant peers and other migrants in industrialised nations. For instance, first-generation migrant students scored an average of 398 points in mathematics, far below the 495-point average for students without a migration background, which is comparable to students (without migration background) from Costa Rica, North Macedonia or Thailand, nations that have, in comparison to Germany, far less economical power and, in turn, fewer resources to develop their education system.

Educational outcomes correlate with economic participation. According to the latest education report, migrants who arrived before the age of three achieve similar higher education rates (24%) to non-migrants (25%). However, after the age of three, the chances for similar educational success decrease significantly. Those arriving between the ages 14 and 18 show lower university graduation rates (9%) and higher rates of low formal qualifications (50%). On the other hand, among migrants who arrived after age 18, 38% have no vocational qualification, while 25% hold a university degree. This trend shows that the longer migrants are integrated into the education system, the closer their outcomes align with national averages. However, late-arriving migrants (above 18) are either overrepresented in low-skilled sectors or into relatively well-educated migrants (similar to non-migrant students in Germany). These educational disparities directly impact labour force participation. In 2022, 89% of highly educated individuals aged 25 to 65 were employed, compared to just 65% of low-skilled individuals. Long-term data reveals that individuals with higher education maintain stable employment over 20 years, while those with lower qualifications face higher risks of long-term unemployment.

Germany is also a significant destination for international students. According to the Federal Statistical Office, about one-third of non-EU international students remain in Germany for employment a decade after graduation, a relatively high retention rate within the OECD. Monitoring these figures in the coming years will be crucial to assess whether Germany can maintain its appeal to international talent amid economic challenges.

Crime Statistics

Inefficient integration structures can foster subcultures, reflected in differing social norms, values, and attitudes toward state authority. Crime statistics, when compared to population data, can provide insights into the effectiveness of integration efforts. Between 2010 and 2023, total annual crimes ranged from 5.310.621 (2020) to 6.330.649 (2015), remaining consistent with pre-2010 levels. However, the proportion of crimes committed by immigrants has steadily risen. While the immigrant population grew from 7.198.946 (2010) to 12.108.988 (2023), the percentage of crimes attributed to immigrants increased from 21,9% (2010) to 41,1% (2023). Thus, 14,5% of the population accounted for 41,1% of crimes in 2023 — a significant discrepancy indicating a potential crisis.

Further analysis reveals that while the immigrant population increased by about 65%, crimes committed by immigrants rose by approximately 85%. In 2010, 8,8% of the population (immigrants) accounted for 21,9% of crimes, showing that crime rates among immigrants were disproportionately high even before the recent waves of migration. The faster increase in crime rates relative to population growth suggests systemic issues within the immigration and integration system. Additionally, the rising volume of migration could be contributing to the influx of individuals with criminal tendencies. 

On the other hand, existing sociological theories suggest that crime rates remain relatively stable within a society. Émile Durkheim’s theory of “normal crime” argues that crime is a natural and constant part of any society, and sociology provides ongoing explanations that societies have a certain tolerance threshold for crime, meaning that if some crimes decrease, others may take their place. Another idea is the “hydraulic model”, which suggests that crime shifts rather than disappears, adapting to new circumstances. These theories are validated by the consistency of crime rates before increased migration, despite peaks in 2015 and 2022, after which crime levels returned to the average.

Key Findings

Combining both objects leads to the assumption that Germany has critical issues within their integration infrastructure. The educational analysis reveals that first-generation immigrants In Germany have the lowest scores in the PISA studies in comparison to states with a similar economy. Furthermore, the chances for higher level education decreases with the ongoing age of the immigrants. After the age of three, the chances of reaching a similar level of education decrease significantly, and especially the chances of becoming an undergraduate increase. This will affect the potential benefit for the German economy because undergraduates have a 35% chance of becoming long-term unemployed, or will have relatively lower income than individuals with higher levels of education. While this is a structural issue that is not causal to migration, due to the decreasing chances for immigrants to reach a certain level of education, they are affected primarily.

The divergence between the growth rates of the migrant population (65%) and crimes committed by migrants (85%) could indicate that increasing migration, when not sufficiently restricted or controlled, could lead to a higher proportion of crime-prone individuals. However, sociological theories emphasise the structural stability of overall crime rates, indicating that migration may influence crime distribution rather than causing a fundamental rise in total crime levels. This leads to the finding that the overrepresentation of migrants in crime statistics primarily occurs from structural problems within the integration process, rather than an actual increase in crime in the society. Now that we have a brief overview of the migration policy in Germany, we can understand how the approach of Merz fits into the discourse and the infusion of ideology.

Friedrich Merz Plan for Migration

The plan of the chancellor candidate of the christian-democrats included the following aspects:

  1. Permanent border controls.
  2. Rejection of all attempts at illegal immigration, especially for people without valid documents.
  3. The number of deportations must be increased significantly.
  4. The federal government should provide stronger support to the states in enforcing the deportations.
  5. Persons obligated to leave the country and potential threats should be placed in indefinite departure custody.

This approach to developing immigration solely addresses the minimum security efforts a government must take to safeguard the sovereignty of a state. It does not address any methodologies to develop the necessary infrastructure for sustainable migration. This plan is of a reactive nature and focuses on short-term actions of fighting the symptoms, but not effectively confronting the root causes. As this would not change the problems that Germany has with migration in general, as we could see in the key findings that the problems only intensify with increasing migration, Merz is not providing a sustainable solution, nor is he providing an alternative that potentially would make migration unnecessary at all. This leads to the assumption that Merz’s plan is indeed a reaction to the media presence of problems within the migration policy, and the causal connection of increasing popularity of the AFD, which is focusing on strict migration policy, with the intention of signaling that a change in the migration policy is also possible with the Christian-democrats. Nonetheless, his plan would be an approach addressing the reinforcement of the sovereignty of the German state and, therefore, should not be categorised at this point. While this plan has received support from the AFD, but also from an economic-liberal, and a social-liberal party, the established parties of the social-democrats and the socialist-environment party, as well as the sole socialist party, have demonstrated critical opposition to this approach, especially because of the support of the AFD, and the narrative of the earlier mentioned firewall. 

This is, in fact, another approach of populistic methodology, which is a profound example of how the ideological narratives of the parties hinder technical policymaking. While both parties, the social-democrats and socialist-environmentalists are claiming for a stricter migration policy as well, they refused to support the approach of Merz according to the necessity of keeping the firewall in place. Thus, refusing to take an approach that correlates with the most basic methods of domestic security policy, is not just out of reason – as the safeguarding of the people is the state’s duty -, but it is clearly oppositional to the official data. However, the parties used this event, to frame the CDU and personally Merz, to correlate with the AFD, and therefore accepting undemocratic and dangerous approaches to reach his goal setting. The plan ultimately failed because of decisive votes within the CDU, whose decisions were – influenced by the pressure of the narrative of the firewall – against Merz’s draft. 

Policy Solutions

As long as success within political structures is driven by emotional influence on the electorate, policymaking will remain guided by party interests and ideologies rather than reason. While every individual holds some degree of bias, policymaking becomes more effective when it is increasingly — ideally solely — based on analysed data. Achieving this requires structural changes. However, Essydo Politics focuses on advancing evidence-based policymaking and developing strategic approaches that contribute to more effective and objective political outcomes. In this context, we also present a potential approach for improving migration policy.

For politicians:

First of all, the primary goal of policymaking must be the overall advancement of society and its members. To achieve this, it is essential to create an environment that prioritises rational decision-making. However, current political systems often shift the discourse into an ideological sphere, where decisions and perceptions are largely shaped by emotions and ideals. Rational decision-making requires using data and reason to evaluate situations and address emerging issues. For society to progress, politicians must detach from emotional influences and avoid making emotional appeals a political advantage. Instead of emphasising ideological differences, they should embrace a fact-based, analytical approach in their efforts. One potential measure would be restructuring the media presence of politicians, such as by incorporating visualised data as the starting point of discussions during television appearances. Debates should focus on the methodology and interpretation of data rather than ideological rhetoric. Media platforms that refuse to adopt such approaches should be critically questioned and, if necessary, avoided. The same principle should apply to politicians’ social media presence. As representatives of society, their focus must be on fostering a well-informed and rational public discourse. If improving society’s perception of politics and policymaking is not the objective, it reveals that the pursuit of power is placed above the well-being and development of the population.

Migration policy:

A comprehensive plan for restructuring migration policy and strategically implementing measures would be extensive enough to preserve a separate policy paper. Therefore, at this point, I will only examine fundamental approaches to improving migration policy, based on the principles discussed above.

The most essential step is to evaluate, based on data, the capacity of Germany’s infrastructure regarding integration and to determine which types of economic migration are crucial for the nation. Key questions must be raised and examined from multiple perspectives. These could include metrics such as fertility, mortality, economic progress and productivity per employee to assess whether the German economy truly depends on migration or how the society would develop if it aligned with the economies of other European states after its boom phase. Furthermore, if the data shows that migration is crucial for economic growth and stability, the analysis must also include the location factors and the possibilities for improvement.

Following this, it is crucial to evaluate the capacities required for integration — from entry into the country to full inclusion in society. Since education and vocational training are the key metrics for successful integration, their capacity must be thoroughly analysed. If capacities are limited, migration must be limited accordingly, or capacities must be expanded. Special programs and incentives should be introduced, particularly for asylum seekers. The goal for asylum seekers, despite their often unpredictable and urgent reasons for entry, must be to contribute to society during their stay. Immediate inclusion in the labour market should be pursued for both types of migrants, along with prerequisites vital for societal integration, such as language courses. Additional benefits beyond basic support for asylum seekers — since economic migrants are expected to contribute directly to society — should be tied to measurable progress. Such progress could be supported through mentorship programs (which again requires sufficient capacity) and rewarded based on milestones, such as improvements in language courses, participation in further education programs, or securing employment. Successful integration must be incentivised: after their asylum status has expired, asylum seekers who meet the standards of economic migrants should be integrated into society.

On the other hand, it is crucial to monitor, document and continuously evaluate migration. The success of implemented strategies must be measured. Migrants — regardless of their migration category — who show no effort to integrate, as measured by progress, or who, even worse, violate the authority and sovereignty of the state through criminal offenses, must face appropriate consequences. Depending on their integration progress, this should either lead to deportation or placement in stricter integration programs. Ultimately, successful migration policies require not only an evaluation of economic necessity but also an understanding of societal perceptions. Regulated migration also requires creating an environment where migration is genuinely welcomed. This goes beyond data-driven decision-making to include qualitative and social factors. While data offers a strong foundation for policymaking, a comprehensive approach must acknowledge factors that numbers alone cannot capture. For instance, biases – both conscious and unconscious – shape public perception and fuel structural discrimination. The perception and integration of migration are shaped by cultural narratives, historical experiences and social dynamics. The rhetoric of the political discourse can foster openness or deepen resistance, while economic concerns and fears of changes that affect the cultural core often add to public concerns. If these deeper influences go unaddressed, even well-designed policies will face opposition or fail in practice. Migration must align with the cultural core of the society, or at least, any evolution of the cultural identity should follow a path that the society is willing to embrace. A society’s acceptance of migration is deeply connected to its sense of cultural continuity and cohesion. Therefore, sustainable migration policies should balance societal values with integration efforts, fostering a cultural evolution that feels inclusive rather than imposed.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this analysis highlights how structural issues within Germany’s political landscape, particularly the dominance of ideological narratives and populist tactics, hinders effective policymaking. The structural issues that come along with the political party system conclude in prioritising emotional approaches and ideological contrasts over data-driven, solution-oriented discourse. The firewall strategy against the AFD shows how political narratives can ignore objective policy needs, using complex issues to ideologically undermine the standing of political enemies rather than fostering meaningful debates. As long as parties rely on ideological conflicts for electoral gain, policy outcomes will remain hypocritical and reactionary. Overcoming these structural barriers requires a shift toward evidence-based discourse, where political success is measured by the quality of solutions and the improvement of society rather than ideological victories.