Even with a single visit to Germany a year ago and regular
reviews of data about its economic and social policies, that country has
generally struck me as having the most enlightened economic policy but
being too timid regarding social policy choices.
In the
last week, Germany has shown that it is truly intent on being a leader
for Europe in a way that put its dithering European peers to shame.
This
one act involved the very difficult decision by Chancellor Angela
Merkel’s government, and it redefined immigration policy by allowing
800,000 refugees from the Middle East and other parts of the world to
attain refugee status in the country this year.
This
political decision will have weighty political and economic consequences
for which this nation deserves credit. To my mind, this is the biggest
act of magnanimity that German politicians have achieved since the
reunification with the weaker economy of East Germany after the
implosion of socialist regimes.
Credit is due because
other countries within the neigbourhood of the European Union are using
sectarian rhetoric to avoid rising to help helpless human beings
escaping conflict and poverty from other parts of the world.
Although
it’s true that many smaller countries in the Middle East and
Mediterranean region have accepted many more of the Syrian, Iraqi and
even Pakistani refugees, Germany stands out because this approach is new
and challenges its neighbours in EU to do the morally correct thing
even while acknowledging that it is difficult.
Citizens
will have to accept short term social and economic adjustments that
arise from having immigrant numbers equal to 1 per cent of the existing
population.
Should this grand gesture matter for a
Kenyan? First, while Kenya prides itself as a regional economic leader,
its immigration policy has recently taken on a hardline nativist tinge.
Consider the ultimatums issued to the refugees in camps located in the
north and northeastern borders of Kenya. Like Germany has realised, when
a regional crisis occurs, the largest economy must lead with the more
realistic and humane solutions.
Construction of a wall
is not the most sensible solution because it victimises refugees a
second time. Granted that Kenya’s economy is several times smaller than
Germany’s, this situation called for both economic and moral strength
and Germany decided to offer both. Kenya should act the same way.
Immigration
policy is difficult because nationalism naturally creates the sense of “
foreigners versus the sons and daughters of the soil”. It is difficult
in this situation to sell the liberal entry of foreigners under the
pluralist reason of “good for the economy and social environment”.
More
likely, the rhetoric will be that foreigners will steal the jobs of
locals and repatriate money to their countries. This view is politically
potent, but reflects a common fallacy of the economics of immigration.
To
start with, it assumes that a refugee leaves a familiar home in the
search for an easy life at the expense of taxpayers, which is refuted
because it would be odd for a person to travel a thousand miles from
home simply to retire in a new land.
Studies carried
out in Europe and the United States confirm that immigrants are positive
contributors to the countries to which they find new homes.
The
willpower and positive guile of a person who risks danger in coming to
Kenya’s borders, for instance, signals an impressive work ethic. It
makes no sense for this person to risk injury and death just to retire.
Given
the opportunity to do so, many immigrants are very eager to work and
take care of themselves. The argument here is not for allowing any
person irrespective of their background into Kenya, but to be alert to
the tendency for the rhetoric to overplay the risks and drive a fear of
foreigners who have been victims elsewhere.
Acceptance
of 800,000 people from different countries with different social
attitudes is a risk for the German people. For Kenya, the equivalent of
that number would be the assimilation of nearly 430,000 people into the
country, all in one year.
Kenya’s lesson is that
Germany has planned to offer language lessons, ensure that the young go
to school and that those with skills are allowed to use them as quickly
as possible. There is no confinement in camps, with restrictions to
movement that merely delay assimilation.
May this
example embolden Kenya to accept that we may be peacekeepers, yes, but
that when it matters, we will not be governed by nativist rhetoric, and
therefore fail to protect and help immigrants.
Kwame
Owino is the Chief Executive Officer of the Institute of Economic
Affairs (IEA-Kenya), a public policy think tank based in Nairobi.
Twitter: @IEAKwame
No comments :
Post a Comment