Die britische Zeitschrift „The Economist“ widmet in ihrer aktuellen gedruckten Ausgabe (January 5th-11th 2008) mehr als 14 Seiten dem Thema Einwanderung. Das Fazit sei vorweggenommen: Die Volkswirtschaften der westlichen Länder brauchen sowohl quantitativ wie qualitativ noch weit stärkere Einwanderung, wenn sie ihren Wohlstand sichern wollen. Zu diesen Volkswirtschaften gehören ohne jede Einschränkung die Bundesrepublik Deutschland und die anderen EU-Staaten. Der Economist wirft den Politikern fast aller westlicher Länder eine grundsätzlich viel zu zögerliche Haltung bei der Öffnung der Grenzen und eine zu geringe Bemühung bei der Integration der Zuwanderer vor.
Es lohnt sich, diese Positionen des Magazins mit den Stellungnahmen der Spitzenverbände der deutschen Industrie, also etwa des BDI, zu vergleichen. Ergebnis: Weitgehend identisch mit den Empfehlungen des Economist! Die deutsche Wirtschaft hat sich stets für eine weitestgehende Öffnung der Grenzen, sowohl für Menschen als auch für Kapital, ausgeprochen. So fordert sie seit langem ein flexibleres Zuwanderungsrecht. So lehnt sie aber auch den jüngsten Beschluss des CDU-Parteitags zur Beschränkung ausländischer Investoren ausdrücklich ab. Es tut (mir mindestens) gut, derartige vernünftige Stimmen in aufgeregten Wahlkampfzeiten, wo viele wild durcheinander gestikulieren und aufeinander einschlagen, zur Kenntnis zu nehmen.
Lesen Sie nachstehend Auszüge aus dem Leitartikel des Economist im Original. Ich halte ihn nach Inhalt, Stil und sprachlicher Gestalt für vorbildlich.
Jan 3rd 2008
From The Economist print edition
Keep the borders open!
The backlash against immigrants in the rich world is a threat to prosperity everywhere
ITALIANS blame gypsies from Romania for a spate of crime. British politicians of all stripes promise to curb the rapid immigration of recent years. Voters in France, Switzerland and Denmark last year rewarded politicians who promised to keep out strangers. In America, too, huddled masses are less welcome as many presidential candidates promise to fence off Mexico. And around the rich world, immigration has been rising to the top of voters‘ lists of concernswhich, for those who believe that migration greatly benefits both recipient and donor countries, is a worry in itself.
As our special report this week argues, immigration takes many forms. […]
History has shown that immigration encourages prosperity. Tens of millions of Europeans who made it to the New World in the 19th and 20th centuries improved their lot, just as the near 40m foreign-born are doing in America today. […] Letting in migrants does vastly more good for the world’s poor than stuffing any number of notes into Oxfam tins.
The movement of people also helps the rich world. Prosperous countries with greying workforces rely ever more on young foreigners. Indeed, advanced economies compete vigorously for outsiders‘ skills. […] It is no coincidence that countries that welcome immigrantssuch as Sweden, Ireland, America and Britainhave better economic records than those that shun them.
Face the fears
Given all these gains, why the backlash? Partly because politicians prefer to pander to xenophobic fears than to explain immigration’s benefits. But not all fear of foreigners is irrational. Voters have genuine concerns. Large numbers of incomers may be unsettling; economic gloom makes natives fear for their jobs; sharp disparities of income across borders threaten rich countries with floods of foreigners; outsiders who look and sound notably different from their hosts may find it hard to integrate. To keep borders open, such fears have to be acknowledged and dealt with, not swept under the carpet.
[…]
Politicians in rich countries should also be honest about, and quicker to raise spending to deal with, the strains that immigrants place on public services.
It is not all about money, however. As the London Tube bombers and Paris’s burning banlieues have shown, the social integration of new arrivals is also crucial. The advent of Islamist terrorism has sharpened old fears that incoming foreigners may fail to adopt the basic values of the host country. Tackling this threat will never be simple. But nor would blocking migration do much to stop the dedicated terrorist. Better to seek ways to isolate the extremist fringe, by making a greater effort to inculcate common values of citizenship where these are lacking, and through a flexible labour market to provide the disaffected with rewarding jobs.
Above all, perspective is needed. The vast population movements of the past four decades have not brought the social strife the scaremongers predicted. On the contrary, they have offered a better life for millions of migrants and enriched the receiving countries both culturally and materially. But to preserve these great benefits in the future, politicians need the courage not only to speak up against the populist tide in favour of the gains immigration can bring, but also to deal honestly with the problems it can sometimes cause.
