Germany and SB1070
Sorry that I didn’t continue my tales from Germany. Each day ran 15 hours long and exhaustion set in. Last week we had the SB1070 oral argument. But as things settle, I think it may worth to continue my entries about Germany. SB1070 ironically provides an interesting platform for my next blog. One of the core questions in the case is what powers the states have vis a vis the federal government. This question is quite foreign to many countries, including it seems Germany. It was explained to me that following the war, the allies wanted to make sure that power in Germany would not be concentrated in one party or one individual. This evolved into a governmental structure where the states have much say and control over their affairs and where the central administration has little power to mandate action even between ministries.
I observed this during my meeting with representatives from different German governmental agencies that handle immigration issues. When we met with the immigration service at the interior ministry we learned that although the agency helps to writes proposed immigration legislation for vote by the Parliament, it is the state governments that implement the laws–including immigration laws. Therefore it is possible that one state may interpret the immigration law differently from another. Such discrepancy is discouraged, but there appears not to be systems to force consistency. Even the power of the purse may not be enough. For example, the immigration service indicated that they don’t partake in community education programs. The Chancellery later told us that the immigration service received funding to provide community education programs, but that it could redirect the funds if it wanted without much say from the Chancellery. This confounded us since we were all used to the U.S. Congress using federal funds to force states to carry out certain actions.
Germany is a small and new player in the immigration world, with roughly 650,000 immigrants per year. Moreover, their immigration system is rather new. So this lose structure may not be problematic. But I immediately wondered if it may become an issue in the future. Yet maybe central to that assumption was my belief that a centralized immigration system is better because that’s comfortable for me-the American lawyer. Also, it may be that given their years of practice with decentralized systems and strong desire to avoid a repeat of the past, Germany will find a happy medium we cannot phantom. Regardless, my visit to Germany brought a new dimension to my observation of the SB1070 arguments–leading me ask not whether a decentralized immigration system can work, but rather whether a decentralized immigration system is the appropriate approach given our history and values. EQ