'Imported Antisemitism': How German leaders are blaming foreigners for country's woes
Germany's conservative party leaders have a problem - they're in charge now.
Under the leadership of Chancellor Friedrich Merz, the conservative Christian Union parties (CDU/CSU) are now leading the federal black-red coalition government, with many of the Federal Cabinet's positions filled by Union party politicians.
The conservatives fought hard to win back a leading position in Germany, and their success means they're tasked with solving the country's problems, and there are quite a few difficult problems to be dealt with.
Rather than keep their eyes focused on the tasks at hand, a number of conservative party leaders have made comments casting blame on others. In doing so, they've taken a page out of the populist playbook - reframing any given problem as one brought about or made worse by foreigners, and claiming they can fix it by cracking down on asylum seekers, legal migrants, and even international students.
Here are a few recent examples of CDU or CSU leaders blaming immigrants and foreigners for various issues.
'Imported Antisemitism'
The most high-profile example came during
Friedrich Merz's visit to Washington D.C. to meet US President Trump
, when the Chancellor suggested, in an interview with the right-wing television network
Fox News,
that Germany was dealing with "imported antisemitism".
READ MORE:
German Chancellor suggests immigrants have 'imported antisemitism'
'We are doing everything we can to bring these numbers down," Merz told
Fox News
. "We are prosecuting those who break the law, and frankly, we have a sort of imported antisemitism with this big number of migrants that we have within the last ten years.'
US President Donald Trump and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz (L) shake hands during a bilateral meeting in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, DC, on June 5, 2025.(Photo by Brendan SMIALOWSKI / AFP)
The interviewer had referred to a
report
by RIAS (the Federal Association of Departments for Research and Information on Antisemitism), which noted an 80 percent rise in antisemitic incidents between 2023 and 2024. While the report does note a marked increase in incidents attributed to 'foreign ideology,' it nonetheless found that the primary motive behind antisemitic crimes remained right-wing extremist ideology (48 percent).
The phrase "imported antisemitism" in German (
importierter Antisemitismus)
has previously been called out by the independent organisation
Unwort des Jahres
as a discriminatory and malicious phrase used by the far-right .
Advertisement
Education
In May, education minister Karin Prien (CDU) made a speech to Germany's largest teachers' union (GEW) in which she announced plans for sweeping reforms and said the government would 'invest billions in
Kitas
and schools.'
READ MORE:
What parents in Germany should know about the planned schools shake up
However, the implication that a relative decline in educational achievement in Germany can be blamed on the number of children who start school with a poor command of German is problematic.
While this is undoubtedly one issue facing German schools, it certainly isn't the whole story.
Social inequality expert Marcel Helbig, from Germany's Leibniz Institute for Educational Trajectories, pointed out that ... "The performance at
Gymnasien
(academic secondary schools), where there are hardly any migrant kids, has also fallen very sharply.
"It is more than just a migrant-specific problem that we are dealing with here,' he added.
Prien also talked about mandatory support for children whom the tests identify as being behind in their development. Again, the implication seems to be that recent arrivals in the country are somehow unwilling to integrate or accept support on behalf of their children.
Healthcare
The Federal Ministry of Health recently confirmed that positions for more than 5,000 general practitioners (GP) were vacant in Germany at the end of 2023.
In response, Sepp Müller, deputy chairman of the Christian Democrat (CDU) parliamentary group, told
Bild
that his party was looking at
making international medical students pay for their university tuition
if they left Germany within five years of graduating.
As of now, it seems unlikely that the idea will become government policy. Instead, it feels like yet another attempt to frame a complex healthcare problem as a problem of immigration – of ungrateful foreigners exploiting German generosity.
READ ALSO:
How foreign students contribute far more to Germany than they cost
Advertisement
A toxic tone on the topic of immigration broadly
Zooming out a bit, the Union's bigger election promise to crackdown on migration is based on an underlying presupposition that many of Germany's problems would be solved if the country had less immigrants.
Merz has never made a secret of his desire to pursue a 'migration turnaround'.
German Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt delivers a statement as he visits the border control station Kiefersfelden. Photo: Michaela Stache / AFP
On television in 2023,
he insisted that asylum arrangements in Germany needed to be reviewed. On a program on
Welt
he said, "
We need to talk about the pull factors here in Germany...'
He accused asylum seekers of "sitting at the doctor's office and getting their teeth redone, while German citizens next door can't get appointments.'
Germany's interior minister, Alexander Dobrindt, has
echoed these words recently
, describing his desire to 'reduce the pull factors' in Germany. In practice, he has suggested, this means less "compassion" and more "order".
READ ALSO:
'Scarier things to come' - How foreigners view Germany's immigration crackdown
Who is the new German minister in charge of immigration?
Advertisement
It appears that Merz and Dobrindt's habit of talking about criminals and people who want to exploit Germany's generosity has rubbed off on many of their colleagues, even when they are discussing topics that have little to do with immigration.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Int'l Business Times
2 hours ago
- Int'l Business Times
Trump Stokes Fox News Feud Fires After 'The Five' Host Reports Low Polling Numbers: 'People Like Jessica Tarlov Make MAGA Absolutely Hate Fox!'
President Trump attacked Fox News anchor Jessica Tarlov in a Truth Social post shared Friday. President Donald Trump escalated his feud with Fox News, claiming that anchor Jessica Tarlov is the reason many in the MAGA movement have turned against the once-favored network. In a Truth Social post shared Friday evening, the president blamed "failed TV personality" Tarlov of "soiling" "The Five," a roundtable discussion led by five rotating Fox News personalities. "Her voice, her manner, and above all else, what she says, are a disgrace to television broadcasting," wrote, before sharing a series of polls showing him with a favorable majority, including Rasmussen, Insider Advantage, "and many others." Trump went on to claim that he won the 2024 presidential election by a "landslide," winning all seven swing states, which is true, and the "Popular Vote by millions, with records broken everywhere!" The Republican candidate became the first of his party in 20 years to win the popular vote, which he secured with more than 2 million votes more than Kamala Harris. — Gunther Eagleman™ (@GuntherEagleman) June 20, 2025 The president praised anchors and other "The Five" regulars Jesse Watters and Greg Gutfeld as "terrific" before once again criticizing Tarlov's demeanor and career. "Nobody can stand Tarlov! She lies over and over again, and MAGA is complaining, BIG LEAGUE, that she's all over Fox," Trump continued. "Watch their ratings go down by keeping her on the show — nobody wants to listen to her." "Why doesn't she talk about the fact that I had ZERO illegal aliens come into our Country last month, whereas Sleepy Joe Biden allowed 62,000 people in, many from prisons, mental institutions, and gangs," Trump added. "People like Jessica Tarlov make MAGA absolutely hate Fox!" Originally published on Latin Times © Latin Times. All rights reserved. Do not reproduce without permission.
Local Germany
4 hours ago
- Local Germany
Survey shows majority of Germans in favour of return to conscription
A total of 54 percent of those polled by research institute YouGov for the German Press Agency (DPA) advocated for reinstating compulsory military service in Germany. Thirty-six percent support conscription for both men and women, while 18 percent thought that only men should be called up, as was the case in the past. Only 40 percent of the 2,212 responders believed that military service should remain voluntary. Six percent did not provide an answer. READ ALSO: German military sees Russia as 'existential risk' to Germany and Europe: report Compulsory military service in Germany was suspended after 55 years in 2011 by the then CDU/CSU and FDP coalition government because the "permanently changed security and defence policy situation" at that time could no longer justify the encroachment on people's fundamental rights. However, in light of the growing threat from Russia, conscription is once again a hot topic. Conscription for men is still enshrined in the country's basic law ( Grundgesetz ), but for this to be extended to women by way of an amendment, a two-thirds majority would be needed. This means the CDU-SPD coalition would need the approval of the Greens and the Left Party. However, the Left Party is fundamentally opposed to conscription. READ ALSO: German army struggles for fresh recruits as conscription threat grows Sixty-eight percent of CDU and CSU voters are in favour of reintroducing conscription, according to a YouGov survey. Among SPD voters, it's 64 percent, 55 percent of AfD supporters and 51 percent of Green Party voters. But a majority of Left Party voters oppose compulsory military service – 69 percent support maintaining voluntary military service. Perhaps unsurprisingly, older people are more likely to be in favour of conscription, the survey results showed. Advertisement Only one in three (35 percent) in the 18-29 age group support it, but two-thirds of respondents over 70 (66 percent) are in favour. In their coalition agreement, the CDU and SPD agreed on military service "that is initially based on voluntary service." But defence minister Boris Pistorius later stated that the Bundeswehr needed to be expanded by 50,000 to 60,000 soldiers to meet the growing threat from Russia. Currently, there are just over 180,000. READ ALSO: Germany 'has three years' to overhaul military The CDU/CSU is now pushing for its coalition partner, the SPD, to make a quick decision on whether this troop strength can be achieved through voluntary military service alone. "We don't have time to wait until doomsday," said Chancellor's Office Chief Thorsten Frei in an interview with the German Press Agency. The CDU-SPD coalition must make a clear agreement "on when we need to change our strategy so that we can achieve the goal that everyone recognises as necessary."
DW
6 hours ago
- DW
Iran: The dangerous dream of regime change – DW – 06/21/2025
The longer Israel's attack on Iran goes on, the greater the speculation about the possibility of overthrowing the government in Tehran. But regime change has historically had disastrous consequences in the region. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu openly told the US broadcaster Fox News on Sunday that regime change in Iran "could certainly be the result" of Israel's operation there, because, he said, the government in Tehran was "very weak." US President Donald Trump has meanwhile sent out contradictory signals. "We know exactly where the so-called 'Supreme Leader' is hiding," he announced on his personal social network, Truth Social. "He is an easy target, but is safe there — We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now." It remains unclear how long "for now" might last, however. The longer the conflict between Israel and an Iran goes on, the more tempting it might appear to Israel and the United States to get rid not just of the Iranian nuclear program, but of the Islamic Republic as well. "It's extremely doubtful that it would be possible to bring about a regime change like that from the outside, with the push of a button," warns Eckart Woertz, the head of the German Institute of Global and Area Studies (GIGA) in Hamburg. "If it did come to that, whether things would then go in the right direction is a whole other question." Foreign-imposed "regime change" is a highly controversial concept. Under international law, it is a clear violation of the sovereignty of the affected state. Often, it is not democratically legitimized, and it frequently leads to a power vacuum or violence and instability. Newly installed governments often find themselves unable to cope with the challenge of resolving the country's problems, and this results in further crises and conflicts. This is was what happened in Afghanistan. After the terrorist attacks on New York on September 11, 2001, NATO invoked the mutual defense guarantee contained in Article 5 of the NATO Treaty for the first and (so far) only time. A Western military alliance led by the United States resolved to topple Afghanistan's Islamist Taliban regime, and fight the terrorist organization al-Qaeda. Initially, it was quite successful, and by the end of 2001 the Taliban had been driven out of Kabul. But various parties to the alliance disagreed on a number of things, including how military, political and development aid should cooperate. And so, for 20 years, the security situation remained extremely precarious. The country was devastated by attacks as the Taliban launched repeated counteroffensives. Between 2001 and 2021 around 3,600 Western soldiers and almost 50,000 Afghan civilians were killed. The Afghanistan mission cost a total of almost $1 billion (€868 million). After the chaotic withdrawal of the US and its allies in the summer of 2021, the Taliban returned to power. Since then, they have rolled back almost all the progress made over the past 20 years. Afghanistan is isolated and desperately poor, with 23 million people dependent on humanitarian aid. The US once armed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, who was in power for more than two decades. In 2003, however, it decided to overthrow him, with help of a "coalition of the willing," but without a mandate from the UN Security Council. Washington justified the decision with the assertion that Saddam Hussein was supporting al-Qaeda and was in possession of weapons of mass destruction — claims later proven to be false. "Saddam Hussein was overthrown not because he possessed weapons of mass destruction, but because he did not possess them," the Middle East expert Eckhart Woertz says today. And, at the time, Iran took note. Once Saddam Hussein had been toppled, the Americans installed a transitional government, which was later heavily criticized for mismanagement and lack of knowledge of the country. Existing enmities between Iraq's different religious groups deteriorated into a situation akin to civil war between Sunni and Shia Muslims. Deadly attacks were an almost daily occurrence. Soldiers discharged from the Iraqi army started fighting the US troops who had previously toppled Saddam. Twenty years after the American invasion and the attempted regime change in Iraq, the situation has improved. Violence has died down, and the next round of parliamentary elections is due to take place in November. Nonetheless, Iraq remains a country in the process of change. Libya is also still suffering the consequences of an attempted regime change, which came from within and was flanked from abroad. In the wake of the Arab Spring, a civil war there began in 2011 with protests against the rule of longtime dictator Muammar Gaddafi. When attempted to put down the uprisings with bloodshed, NATO intervened militarily in the form of a no-fly zone to protect the civilian population. The regime held on for a few months. Then on October 20, 2011, Gaddafi was killed. But a government acceptable to the entire country was never established. Instead, there have been years of further conflict between rival militias. The state has virtually disintegrated, with two different governments fighting for control since March 2022. The human rights situation remains extremely precarious. Aside from these cautionary examples from recent history, Eckart Woertz sees another problem: Ultimately, ground force would be required to force a change of government in Iran. "I don't see a massively strong rebel movement within Iran that could topple the current regime," says Woertz. And from outside? "While there was a successful regime change in Germany once, at the end of the Second World War, that required a ground invasion," says Woertz. "And then you need a transition backed by local people. It helps if there is a common external enemy — like the Soviet bloc after 1945 — which glosses over the differences. But regime change has never happened with aerial bombardment alone, and I don't think Iran will be an exception now."
