A significant rift has emerged within Germany’s governing coalition over proposals to grant permanent residency rights to all working and well-integrated migrants, regardless of their initial asylum status. Leading figures within the conservative Union bloc (CDU/CSU) have fiercely opposed the initiative championed by the Social Democratic Party (SPD), raising concerns about undermining existing immigration regulations and placing an undue burden on taxpayers.
Günter Krings, parliamentary group vice-chairman of the CDU, voiced strong opposition, arguing that the SPD’s broad demand would “torpedo the painstakingly rebuilt order in immigration law”. He emphasized the need to maintain distinct criteria for humanitarian and labor-market migration, warning that blurring the lines would compromise carefully constructed rules governing skilled worker immigration. Krings specifically pointed to the potential for exploitation of existing asylum pathways, where individuals could circumvent established processes by securing employment or training to obtain permanent residency.
Alexander Throm, the CDU’s domestic policy spokesman, echoed this sentiment, acknowledging existing pathways toward permanent residency for skilled Syrian workers, but stressing the critical importance of “sustainable integration without welfare dependency over a long period”. He highlighted the current situation of 470,000 Syrians receiving citizen’s income (Bürgergeld), arguing that such reliance on social welfare is “absolutely unacceptable” to taxpayers and questioning the basis for continued support. Critically, Throm noted that even those in employment can qualify for Bürgergeld if their income falls short of basic living expenses, complicating the narrative of economic contribution.
The SPD, however, defended its position, arguing that the German economy is reliant on immigration and that retaining valuable contributors is essential. Sonja Eichwede, SPD parliamentary group vice-chair, told “Welt” newspaper that individuals who work, undergo training and contribute to the country’s success and in whom local businesses have invested, deserve a secure legal status. “It’s simply inexplicable” she stated, “when people who are pulling their weight and are well-integrated are ripped from those structures and not allowed to stay.
SPD interior policy expert Hakan Demir pointed to existing legislative frameworks like the Chancenaufenthaltsrecht (Opportunity Residency) and prior “toleration” permits for employed and trainees as evidence of a consistent approach, arguing that those who work should be allowed to remain. He warned that in an aging society, the ability to secure prosperity would be jeopardized by the deportation of individuals contributing positively to social cohesion.
The debate highlights a fundamental clash in philosophies regarding migration policy – one prioritizing controlled and delineated pathways versus a more pragmatic approach focused on retaining economic contributors, even if their initial entry into the country did not conform to established legal channels. The disagreement also underscores the ongoing tension between the perceived need for fiscal responsibility and the recognition of Germany’s dependence on immigrant labor. The implications for future immigration policy and the stability of the governing coalition remain to be seen.
