Many push and pull factors drive individuals and families out of their homeland and attract them to a new national destination. These factors include displacement caused by natural disasters, war, religious or ethnic persecution, and political and economic instability. Magnets for migrants are opportunities for health, education, political asylum, business, and employment opportunities. These factors often accompany human suffering and the desire for basic survival, security, and increasing personal wealth. The seriousness of these situations is not a game to be taken lightly. Watching nation-states trying to navigate immigration policy sometimes looks like a joke. Missteps, fear, propaganda, emotional rhetoric, and competing special interests often dominate the public stage over human rights and sensible solutions. Some nations navigate these tensions better than others.

Here, I will describe some challenges and solutions to effectively managing migration by comparing the immigration policies of Germany and the United States during the last several decades. We will see evidence of what works and does not work well in balancing conflicting goals. The design of modern immigration management is an art still in progress. Here, the game is not in degrading a human experience for sport but in the effort of nation-states to find a winning strategy for better outcomes for everyone involved.

The past and future of migration

Throughout human history, migration has been a typical part of social progress, exploration, and development. Contact through trade (work in faraway places), and wars of conquest (including refugees) have transformed societies with changes in language use, the arts, adopted technologies, and choice of agricultural products. What would the culinary tastes of Europe and Asia be like without the tomatoes, peppers, chocolate, and potatoes of the Americas brought in by exploration? Migration is the historical norm of human experience. Modern globalization has increased the frequency of movement and intercultural contact with airplanes and other high-speed transport like trains and cars. Notions of illegal migrants are recent social constructions that defy the realities of historical human movements.

Before the World Wars, the lands conquered during the European Age of Exploration were the places to go to escape hardship in one’s homeland, seek religious freedom, and engage in mercantilism. First, the history of colonialism brought settlers from Spain, France, and Great Britain to Australia, Africa, and North and South America to extract wealth and resources for domineering monarchies at the expense of native populations. Slavery forcibly displaced Africans to foreign lands. Later, migrants from Ireland, Italy, and Eastern Europe fled to the United States and elsewhere in the Americas, where industrialization and urbanization were magnates to escape rural famine and political instability.

After the World Wars, migration changed. Development through economic expansion created a labor shortage in the industrialized United States and rebuilt Western Europe. The poverty of formerly colonized nations became a push for migrants seeking jobs in nation-states of shared language like their former exploiters as experienced by France and the United Kingdom. Famine and instability drove population movements from Africa to other nations. The fall of the Iron Curtain and the unification of the European Union created new opportunities for migrants seeking work in growing economies like Germany. Today, war, authoritarianism, and instability in the Middle East continue to push migrants to nearby wealthier countries seeking sources of cheap labor. Wealthy Middle Eastern states like the United Arab Emirates attract workers from Malaysia, India, and the Philippines. There is always something pushing and pulling migrants to and from destinations.

Decades of geopolitical meddling by the United States in Central and South America have created repeated waves of migrants going north from multiple nation-states. The consequences of the U.S. supporting right-wing coups, implementing crushing sanctions1, and forcing open economies with neoliberal policies of privatization and market integration2 have created social and economic shocks that ripple to the U.S. border to this day, including displacement and the violence found in the alternate economies of illicit drug and human trafficking.

Over time, nation-states have developed a distinction between regular (legal) migration flow and irregular (illegal) migration flow. Regular migrant flow is associated with permits and quotas for work and education. Irregular migrant flow is associated with asylum and refugees with the uncontrolled and undocumented entrance of migrants because of disaster, war, and other disruptive forces. Challenges for nation-states in balancing migration policy include fostering economic growth, limiting domestic unemployment, preventing the rise of right-wing nationalist backlash, preventing concentrated unintegrated settlement, honoring human rights within international legal frameworks, and balancing demands on social services such as housing and healthcare.

The socially disruptive forces of climate change point us to the need for a rapid understanding of what successful migration policy management looks like. The Earth’s coastlines hosting population centers and rice-growing regions are about to flood with a quick rise in sea level by 20503. Places like parts of India and Africa may become too hot for habitation. Nations may isolate themselves with militarized policies for both border controls and the protection of their resources. Competition may increase international conflict. Reduced living standards will exacerbate starvation and disease. The dislocation of millions of people4 in the global south will motivate them to take residence in the nations of the developed global north. The developed nation-states of the global north will see a decline in domestic birthrates and require an influx of population to maintain economic stability in GDP. For the rest of this century, it is not a question if developed nations are going to experience immigration. It is a question of how these societies will manage the inevitable regular and irregular flows.

Setting up the pitch; What the competing German and US-American idea teams look like

Modern Germany, post-World War II, did not see itself as a nation of immigrants. It was a nation of Germans, with a shared cultural and linguistic heritage as part of a core identity. By the mid-20th century, economic growth in Germany ran into a labor shortage. It turns out, that as nations develop and modernize, there is a tendency for domestic birthrates to fall. For economic growth to continue, policymakers created a guest worker program to attract affordable labor from a former ally, Türkiye.

Labor donor nations like Türkiye benefit from worker remittances and a reduction of population in restless young men because of unemployment and instability in their homelands. Guest worker programs can be a win-win for both the host and donor nations as a symbiotic relationship. The intention of German policy was for the workers to eventually return home, back to Türkiye. However, they did not return to Türkiye. Discrimination and restrictive policies in Germany encouraged clustered non-integrated and permanent settlement of Turks. German Social resentment against Turkish workers ran high as separate settlements became an attraction to friends and family for more migration from Türkiye to Germany. This changed in the 2000s when Germany began an intensive and still ongoing analysis and renovation of its immigration policies to shift from migrant social exclusion to social inclusion.

In contrast, the United States is a nation built on settler colonialism and immigration. The folklore of opportunity surrounds the national mythology of freedom, and the Statue of Liberty welcoming migrants to the shores and cities of the United States to build a new life. This changed in 1929 with the development of the concepts of legal and illegal immigration. No longer would the border between Mexico and the United States be as open as walking across the street. No longer would Lady Liberty welcome settlers into New York Harbor. Barriers and fortifications rose over decades.

This resulted in the militarization of border controls by President Clinton in the 1990s. These authoritarian policies continued to expand under Presidents Obama, Trump, and Biden. Such measures encouraged migrants to settle permanently instead of traveling in a circular flow for temporary work. The communities of migrants then attracted additional friends and family as places where more migrants could look to settle in established social networks. The exclusionary migrant policy was born out of the fears that the growing number of migrants would negatively affect crime rates and jobs for the domestic host population.

Germany and the United States have taken different approaches to managing migrant flows. Let’s compare the recent historical record to evaluate which nation-state does a better job of managing immigration policy. Let the game begin.

Challenge 1: respecting international law and the human right to asylum

The war in the Middle East is a major driver of migration to Europe. Players on the chess board include the United States, Syria, ISIS/DAESH, Iraq, Iran, Türkiye, Kurd separatists, and more. The influx of refugees from Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq through Türkiye nearly overwhelmed the European Union. Under the direction of Angela Merkel, Germany stepped forward when other nations refused to say, “We can do this” and worked to bring tens of thousands of refugees into the country for asylum to forestall a humanitarian crisis.

In contrast, the militarization of the immigration policy of the United States has resulted in creating a humanitarian crisis. Human trafficking complete with rape and exploitation has appeared as an illicit industry to navigate gaps in border wall controls. U.S. government policies have resulted in the forced separation of families5, the deportation of vulnerable LGBT populations the illegal denial of the asylum process under international law, caged children, long detention, forced sterilization, drowned migrants, and seized property. Each administration criticizes the other while implementing variations of the same policies in a vicious cycle of exclusion and denial. Candidate Joe Biden’s promises of not building President Trump’s border wall resulted in President Biden building more border wall. Resulting score: Germany 1, USA 0.

Challenge 2: deflecting the rise of far-right-wing nationalism

Despite the decades of anti-Turkish racism in Germany, the rise of the far right in Germany has hit a blockage to wide acceptance because of the integrative policy reforms that brought migrants into German society. Reforms sent migrants to work quickly, minimizing reliance on welfare. It included German language education, access to housing, and healthcare while distributing migrant populations evenly throughout Germany instead of in concentrated areas. After CDU Angela Merkle’s “We can do this” initiative and the arrival of over a million migrants, the far-right Afd party in 2021 lost voter share in Germany as the even more left-leaning Social Democrat-Green government sought policies to streamline migrant pathways to citizenship. In 2024, tens of thousands of protestors showed up against the far-right anti-immigration Afd party in Berlin for several weeks.

In contrast, both major parties in the United States, the Republicans and the Democrats continue to become more and more right-wing on immigration with more and more border militarization. What Democrats perceive as immoral and dysfunctional policy under Republicans then continues and becomes solidified policy under Democrats when they are in power. This includes seizing border property, continuing to build the border wall, denying asylum, mass deportation, the caging of kids6, and stationing of migrants in detention just outside of the United States. The anti-migrant rhetoric of the second Trump campaign for president in 2024 is not showing signs of decline or weakness. Resulting score: Germany 2, USA 0.

Challenge 3: fostering domestic economic development

Studies have shown that in non-recessionary times, large-developed economies can absorb migrant workers without hurting domestic workers. It is the waves of migrants themselves that compete as newer skilled migrants displace earlier arrived lesser-skilled migrants in the labor force. This permits the domestic economy to grow without challenging the wage stability of domestic labor. In times of recession, adjustments to policy can act as a migrant labor flow valve to adjust to the national economic needs of the moment.

Despite massive inbound migration flow, Germany’s GDP projection continues to grow into 2028 while projections show unemployment will continue to fall. Economists see the German economy as dynamic and able to produce positive outcomes for both migrants and Germany itself.

The USA continues to resist legitimate labor migration flows more legalized work permits and continues to experience stagnant economic growth while enabling dangerous migrant child labor. Resulting score: Germany 3, USA 0.

Challenge 4: promoting social inclusion and harmony

Germany has welcomed asylum seekers and migrant labor into society by reforming exclusionary policies into policies of inclusion. This features access to work, housing, healthcare, and German language courses. This has resulted in migrants being seen as part of a functioning society, working, and living together.

Border state governors in the United States, gather, bus, and dump migrants7 found in their states to other states without a concern for their safety, housing, healthcare, or work. Providing English language instruction at taxpayers' expense in an individualist culture is unthinkable. USA policymakers see migrants as unwanted competitors for jobs and as a drain on financial resources. Former sanctuary cities like Chicago and New York City are now expelling migrants from temporary shelters after 60 days8. Othering migrants as needing less than human requirements for survival permits a rise in racism, discrimination, violence, and far-right political rhetoric. Resulting score: Germany 4, USA 0.

Challenge 5: adapting policy to new conditions over time

When Germany recognized its guest worker program was not functioning as envisioned, it began a process of self-reflection and analysis. Germany brought many stakeholders to the national discussion and began a series of policy reforms in the 2000s to create more circular migration flows and pathways to social integration and harmony. Over the years, policies are re-evaluated and tweaked again and again. In the 2010s When the waves of refugees from Syria and Iraq passing through Türkiye flooded the EU, policy was adapted to switch the emphasis from meeting economic needs to humanitarian needs. Now that the refugee crisis is subsiding, Germany is again revising policy in 2023-24 to shift to an inclusive economic migrant labor model while shifting away from asylum protection needs9. This is a well-managed, proactive policy formation.

The U.S. continues to double down on policies of migrant exclusion with each decade becoming more hostile than the previous. A lack of political consensus continues to block reflection and reform. President Biden assigned Vice President Kamala Harris to study the root causes of migration, but she has turned up little evidence of causes nor viable proposals to enable real solutions. When modest reform looks close, Democrats and Republicans remain unable to pass meaningful legislation on migration10. U.S. policymakers are unwilling to reflect, study, and pass sound immigration policy reforms to react to the changing labor, humanitarian, and now environmental conditions. For decades, leadership in the United States remains ineffective on migration policy. Resulting score: Germany 5, USA 0.

The coming reality

In the game of managing immigration policy for optimal outcomes, it is clear Germany is managing policy formation better than the United States with a comparative analysis score of 5 to 0. This is something developed economies can note for modernizing their policies for changing conditions. As the world heads into environmental, and social turmoil with the rise of climate change, falling birthrates will create challenges for economic growth in developed economies. Human migration will be a part of our future as much as it has been a part of our past. It may not be possible to play a perfect game of migration policy management, but we can find things that work and don’t work well by comparing the paths taken by Germany and the United States to honor human rights and international law, deflect far-right nationalism, promote economic development, promote social inclusion and harmony, and finally to adapt to changing circumstances over time with continuous reflection and improvement. Human migration is a normal part of our history since the first humans migrated out of Africa to populate the world. Let’s be ready for it now and in the future.

References

1 The Hill. (2019, January 8). Mexico president blames US sanctions on Cuba and Venezuela for migrant surge.
2 Cohen, P. (2017, February 9). NAFTA helped U.S. corn farmers, but may have boosted illegal immigration. CNN Money.
3 Lu, D. (2019, October 29). Rising seas will erase more cities by 2050, new research shows. The New York Times.
4 Zurich Insurance Group. (2022). There could be 1.2 billion climate refugees by 2050. Here's what you need to know.
5 Kilpatrick, B. (2018, June 15). Separation of immigrant families part of deportation under Obama, now Trump expanding practice. Shadowproof.
6 The Arizona Republic. (2014, June 18). First glimpse of immigrant children at holding facility. AZ Central.
7 The Texas Tribune. (2022, December 25). Texas Gov. Greg Abbott criticizes feds for busing migrants to D.C. on Christmas Eve.
8 The Guardian. (2024, March 19). Chicago migrant evictions.
9 German immigration policy whats changing in 2024.
10 William A. Galston. (February 8, 2024). The collapse of bipartisan immigration reform: A guide for the perplexed. Brookings.