We should not ignore the fact that for the past two or threernyears, parallel to the dam-breaking flood of hundreds of thousandsrnof asylum-seekers and illegal immigrants, the crime raternhas been increasing at a worrying pace. In many Germanrnstates the crime rates are increasing 80 or 100 percent annually.rnAlthough the foreign population in Germany is only aroundrn8 percent, every third criminal act involves a foreigner, and hererntoo asylum-seekers are disproportionately represented. Thernworse the crime, the higher the representation of foreigners—rnfor muggings, 43 percent; for murder, over 50 percent; forrndrug trafficking, over 70 percent. Naturally the street rabble dornnot see that the asylum-seekers are not responsible for the situation.rnThe problem lies in the criminal negligence of the partyrnpoliticians in Bonn, who are so notoriously distant from thernneeds of their people that they no longer notice them.rnHere is the heart of the problem. From a pragmatic, hardheadedrnunderstanding of politics, it is impossible even forrna German well acquainted with this situation to understandrnwhy the state and the parties do not respond to these problemsrnand attack them at their root. How can foreigners understandrnthe confused dawdlings of the German political elite?rnThe root cause of the impotence of German politics is thernpresence of a power elite in the public institutions, especially inrnuniversities, schools, and the media, that is animated by thernspirit of 1968. This attitude is a mere fad in the United States,rnbut in Germany this group aims at permanent revolution, presentingrncitizens with social goals that are not desired by the majorityrnof the people.rnAfter the March attack in Solingen there were days of Turkishrnprotests, in Solingen itself and in countless other Germanrncities. Politicians and journalists in Bonn demanded easier naturalizationrnprocedures for foreigners. Chancellor Kohl himselfrnsuggested that German citizenship be granted to every foreignerrnwho has lived in Germany for five years. The most absurdrnassertions were made, in Germany and abroad, about thernGerman law of citizenship. For instance, it was supposed to berna law of “blood and soil,” which opponents denounce as fascist.rnSuch assertions are striking for highlighting the pitiful state ofrnthe education of the people who make them and not for anyrnlight they throw on the situation. In fact, the law of jus sanguinisrnin Germanv, as in many other countries, has as much torndo with the Nazi period as does the /us soli system of citizenshiprnprevalent in the United States. It is a case of two equallyrnjustified methods of regulating citizenship, which have differentrnhistorical developments as their explanation.rnGerman law, which emphasizes descent from German parentsrnas the basis of citizenship, has to be seen against the historicalrnbackground of the absolutist tendencies of the princesrnof the small German principalities to increase as much as possiblernthe number of their subjects. Considering the small sizernof German states before the foundation of the Empire in 1871,rnit was comparatively easy for a state to claim as its “subject” arnbaby who was born there by the accidental presence of a pregnantrnwoman from a neighboring ‘illage, even against the willrnof the parents. The law was simple. A German was someonernborn of German parents, people who held German citizenshiprnthemselves. The development in the United States, of course,rnwas different. In a country that had no homogeneous ethnicrnpopulation, all children of immigrants received citizenship uponrnbirth in U.S. territory, since there was no common ancestryrnand the population consisted of a community of immigrants.rnBoth conceptions of citizenship have their different histories asrnwell as their advantages and disadvantages.rnClearly, the debate over citizenship is a pure charade, meantrnonly to distract attention from the real question. Should Germanyrnbecome a country of immigrants? If the answer is “yes,”rnthen naturalization should be made easier. If the answer isrn”no,” then there is no reason to change the present law. I wantrnto suggest most emphatically that the answer must be “no.”rnConsidering that the United States has only some 27 inhabitantsrnper square kilometer even with its current immigrationrnpolicies, it is downright absurd to clamor that overpopulatedrnGermany, with its 224 inhabitants per square kilometer, shouldrnaccept new waves of immigration.rnThe most important point, however, is what the Germanrnpeople want, and there is no doubt that the majority of thernpopulation is against a transformation of their nation into arn”multicultural society.” This is the banner under which thernimmigrants and their political allies march. The leadership ofrnthe movement is the generation of 1968, the real establishmentrnof Germany. They are not restricted to parties such as thern”Greens” and the socialist opposition. Heiner Geissler, longtimernchief ideologue of the ruling Christian Democrats, isrnone of the most significant proponents of the multicultural society,rnas are his fellow Christian Democrats Rita Sussmuth,rnwho, as president of the German parliament, holds the secondrnhighest office in the state, and labor minister Norbert Blum.rnTheir goal is to remake Germany after the model of the Americanrn”melting pot,” a peaceful if motley society whose membersrncome from every different culture, complementing one anotherrnlike the colors of the rainbow. This naive conception hasrnlittle to do with reality.rnIf one thinks of the racial unrest in Los Angeles in 1992,rndoubts arise about the peaceful character of multicultural societies.rnThe United States is, after all, a society composed ofrnmany different peoples and races, all living together under thernabstract ideal of “the pursuit of happiness.” When a societyrnthat has slowly evolved this way does not function, what chancernfor success will the ideal have in a land inhabited mainly by arnhomogeneous population according to jus sanguinis when itrnhas to handle the swift and artificial introduction of otherrngroups?rnEvery society strives to preserve its own customs and mores.rnAnyone who wonders yvhat a multicultural society will be likernhas only to glance at the evening news, at the pictures of Sarajevo,rnTadzhikistan, or Beirut. There is the reality of people ofrndifferent cultures and religions living together. That will be thernfuture of German-Turkish relations, in spite of their previouslyrnpeaceful nature, if uncontrolled immigration is not ended.rnFor Turks and Germans are friends as long as Turks live inrnTurkey and Germans live in Germany, each nation enjoying itsrnwealth of traditions and unique characteristics. Mixing producesrnonly uncertainty and anxiety.rnThe irritations are already there, and they will only get worsernunless we start thinking and speaking clearly. The Turkish examplernis instructive. With 1.8 million people, they representrnthe largest foreign colony in Germany. They also have the mostrnproblems. Their way of life is very different from that of WesternrnEurope because it is distinctively Islamic. They have littlerncontact with Germans and live in voluntary segregation fromrnGermans in their own ghetto-like quarters of the cities. Theyrnattribute no value to integration, which would mean acceptingrnthe German way of life, because they have their own deeplyrnNOVEMBER 1993/21rnrnrn