Talk:Immigration to Germany

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 September 2019 and 12 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dhathr.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bad edit?[edit]

On 06:54, 15 January 2016‎ an edit was mad by 79.200.208.163 adding this text: to the 1993-present paragraph. "Mainly in 2015 there has been massively wrong information especially in some african, arabic etc. media channels concerning the conditions of coming to and living in Germany. False promises of money, easy living and easy jobs were made."

It's uncited, seems biased and looks like bad wiki text. I'd remove it but I'm not sure if it's vandalism or not. Could someone with more experience check this? Hentheden (talk) 00:11, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Incorrect numbers?[edit]

According to http://www.immigration-residency.eu/immigration-to/germany/ immigration statistics are wrong. According to mentioned website it is 8% immigrants from Arab states and ~11% from within EU. I don't know which one is correct, but thought it has to be pointed out for the check in official government website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.246.140.74 (talk) 16:08, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are OUTDATED by almost a decade!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.69.194.52 (talk) 17:02, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chart[edit]

The chart in the article is useless because its in German. Not suitable for the English Wikipedia. With respect, Deliogul 17:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you click on the chart, the description text includes the translation.WhatamIdoing 01:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright Issues[edit]

67.168.65.207 seems to have a problem with stealing copyrighted material with whom he does not agree. Have let copyright holder know. (VivaBelgicaBE (talk) 23:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]


I recommend that you and your other persona/ae read Wikipedia:No legal threats all the way through and comport yourselves accordingly. Making legal threats is uncivil. (As is accusing another editor of "stealing".) --CliffC (talk) 03:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aww..come on guys, it is Christmas. Anyhow, language as badly expressed as Unlike many European countries, the standards are far more stringent.' doesn't deserve copyright.Kransky (talk) 04:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Re: Section Blank[edit]

Hi, from what I can tell, it looks like the original text was:
Relatives, like spouse or children, moving with them are allowed to work without having to get additional permits. The German scheme is similar to ones operated by other European countries. The downside is that the salary which is required is the highest of any European country with similiar work visas. For example, Austria's income requirements are around 50% less that of Germany.
The text you removed was
However, like many European countries, Germany does offer a program for highly skilled immigrants. Unlike many European countries, the standards are far more stringent. Although the determination is still based on the applicant demonstrating educational qualifications, expertise in a particular area, or a salary above a certain level, the processes in place make it extremely difficult to receive a work permit. Currently, the minimum salary is set at 85,500 € p.a."Work permits". Der Spiegel. Retrieved 2007-05-20.. Austria's income threshold is half of that."Austrian Law Regarding Work Permits" (PDF). Austrian Govt. Retrieved 2007-06-01.Despite efforts from both major parties, they've been unable to find a compromise that would make the process easier.
It presents similar information, but it's very different from text from ..., and it does include citations and so on.
Therefore I'm reverting the most recent revert, but let's discuss this on the talk page. 71.231.143.160 (talk) 23:25, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish immigration[edit]

This article could really use expansion and discussion of Turkish immigration to Germany. According to the Germany nationality law article, Turks are far and away the largest legal immigrant group in Germany today. Scarykitty (talk) 23:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I copied some stuff from the article Gastarbeiter. This section about "history" is still incompletet however.--Greatgreenwhale (talk) 16:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Horrible article[edit]

The horribleness of this article can be seen at a glance. Four lines of neutral information and then a whole section on "Difficulties on non-EU citizens". Anybody out there help? DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect legal information[edit]

I took the liberty to rewrite the article on immigration of non-EU-citizens, as it contained misinformation and incomplete information on German immigration law.

03 December 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.176.95.155 (talk) 08:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated Sources/Source Link Rot[edit]

Several of the links near the bottom of the page either link to 404 pages or to outdated information. It would be much appreciated if more current links and sources could be found to support the information in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.186.117.215 (talk) 23:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

first reference dont work[edit]

First reference link doesnt work--Mats33 (talk) 23:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

question about reversal of addition of unsourced text and deletion of sourced text[edit]

dear Wuerzele. i have to say that i cannot understand your recent editing of the page Immigration to Germany. i added useful and important information with more than enough source. please explain what made you undo the edit. i can absolutely not find any reason for this, except in case the source was in german. yet this is no uncummon way of sourcing. especially today it is easy to translate a comple source site via google translator if this is the case for your undoing. please explain, otherwise i will undo your undo.. wikipedia greetings and cheers--Joobo (talk) 16:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Joboo I welcomed you on your user page mentioning links that help you get a grip on this "WP business". you apparently have not read them. after quite some thinking, 15 min later at 03:39, 29 March 2015, I reverted your 11 edits made over a period of 12 days that were all without an WP:edit summary. I used an edit summary to communicate with WP:wikipedians, including you if you so care, (and you should!), which fully explains the reasons for my decision: reverting addition of unsourced text and deletion of sourced text. You apparently did not read this, or did not read the manual that explains about sourcing or reasons for deletion of sourced material. Every statement on the en:WP needs to be reliably sourced , quite unlike de:WP, so it takes quite a bit of studying to make valid edits. Hope this helps.--Wuerzele (talk) 21:00, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
BTW(by the way): Foreign language sources are fine. the Spiegel and Austrian gvt are good sources - that is no issue. FYI: I have no trouble reading German, as you suggested, am a native German, if you looked at the categories on my userpage, where you already posted.Hope this helps.--Wuerzele (talk) 21:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
dear Wuerzele! I undid your undo on the Immigration to Germany article. In case you want to change it again or change something else, i kindly ask you to come into a fruitful discussion with me, before :startiing to change everything all over agian for no actual or imediate reason. To keep WP-articles as good as possible it is importan to give the best information as possible. in case of further :disagreement with this undoing i ask you to write either here, or on the talk page of Immigration to Germany. Greetings! Joobo (talk) 16:34, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Joboo, please read WP:BRD. it's key for editing. You were bold. I reverted. next step is discussion. not re-reversion. Re-reversion is unproductive. It is the first step of WP:edit warring. the person that adds can be reverted, but then is obliged to discuss before adding more and should bnot rerevert because it doesnt communicate anything. Because these are your first WP edits, I will
flag all unsourced statements you introduced, with the inherent request to source them.
bring back the sourced statements you deleted, and you can take it from there.
Lastly, please be careful when assuming something about another editor; it's best to get an idea of who they are by looking at their user page or clicking user contributions.--Wuerzele (talk) 21:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Wuerzele, thanks for hinting to the several points you listed regarding edit wars and other wikipedia aspects. I noticed everything of it, it merely did not appear to make much sense about it. I read everything you wrote though.
now regarding this site 1. i would like to put the number of immigrants without german citizenship in the beginning, since it is a very basic information. it is not harmful or superfluous in any way. ::::2. i would delete the phrase that is telling about the comparison between percentage of refugee numbers of germany, sweden and malta. it is no important information especially if not put into further detailed context, which in this case is not needed. it even creates a certain bias, which cannot be the intention of this article. so either one deletes this phrase or it is necessary to add further explained and detailed information regarding refugees in europe and the world in general, yet this goes beyong the section of this article. Joobo (talk) 23:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let me get this straight: I spent an extraordinary amount of time to accomodate your changes, cutting you slack, not reverting you and you want to make MORE changes? you've got some work to do first (see above), or your changes WILL disappear.--Wuerzele (talk) 03:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Let me get this straight: I spent an extraordinary amount of time to accomodate your changes, cutting you slack, not reverting you and you want to make MORE changes? you've got some work to do first (see above), or your changes WILL disappear"... did you really just wrote this? you are definetly not the first arrogant person i met on wikipedia, that believes he or she is something like the "owner" of this article. this is not about how much you like it or not. this is abot if something makes sense or if it doesnt make sense. that is all. it is not how YOU regard it or I regard it. you can behave as accurate as you want but threatening me or others about something is NOTHNG that can be tolerated. i really hope you get this message or i will take other means. i started a fruitful conversation with you stating my points kindly asking for your opinion, and you dont even answer them, but instead point out to some ridiculous "arguments" regard the source or other. hereby i, refuse what you just have said, and ask you kindly again to go into a "normal" and "orderly" discussion with me regarding the points i want to know your opinion and show you mine. that is all. i dont want to know what you are cocky about or what not. you are NOT the site owner, yet you sound like it. so please rephrase your answer.Joobo (talk) 13:06, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

editwar[edit]

Wuerzele, it seems as it is not the first time you get into an edit war. you dont go into any conversation, but instead doing your thing without any logical reason. the "reasons" to change and edit the page of "immigration to germany" are utterly ridiculous and dont follow any logic. there arent any more sources needed since there is more than enough sources. it is neither the reason to change my edits only because i didnt make a description about the edit nor because i edited more than one thing in one edit. all of this is only a pretense of you to "verify" your edits, which in the end is NOT. if you want to get into any trouble it is on you. but i cant stand people like you that believe they, somehow, stand above rules or other people and are so arrogant they dont see to do anything wrong. maybe you are too "afraid" to go into an discussion, until now i did not get an answer on the talk page of the article.Joobo (talk) 11:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment moved from talkby Joobo (talk • contribs) — Preceding undated comment added 20:35, 2 April 2015
i wrote on your page due to the fact that you did not went into discussion with me, yet just edited this page in particular aspects again, though i spoke about certain points directly to you. you are free to discuss. It iis merely not acceptble that users of WP go ahead and do their "own thin" without regards to logic or oter Wp user opinions. this is no accusation but merely a notice.Joobo (talk) 20:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are OUTDATED by almost a decade!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.69.194.52 (talk) 17:01, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Number of immigrant groups[edit]

Hi Joobo, instead of decreasing the number of immigrants represented in this article, it should rather be expanded. Wikipedia is supposed to give the detailed insight here, not external websites (going offline sooner or later, anyway). The full number set of foreign backgrounds is provided at such articles for a number of reasons, see e.g. Immigration to Canada. If you've got a serious issue with this, care to explain. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 08:42, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since I suspect you were bothered by a "lengthy" first section of the article and since guidelines prefer history parts to come first, I changed the layout to have the tables at the end of the article. Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 08:47, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
i can understand your purpose fully. the length was my issue. at least it seems a bit more better now, though i still would prefer to put the list in the first part and just mention the lets say 20 first nations. quite frankly nobody needs to know that 12 nauru people live in germany... Joobo (talk) 13:14, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Nauru: Sure that. Other cohorts are quite close together though. And the communities above 20'000 are definitely important in Germany, be it Danes (Schleswig), Japanese (Düsseldorf) or Vietnamese ("only" #24, but the major non-European group in most of Germany's East). We can leave it here imho. Cheers! Horst-schlaemma (talk) 13:29, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image caption[edit]

The caption "Police intercepts refugees and potential Illegals at Munich Central Station" is problematic for two reasons:

1) It is ungrammatical, since "police" in this context is being used as a plural noun, and "Illegals" is being used as a noun (and it is capitalised, which is not English-language convention).

2) The use of language like "potential Illegals [sic]" is quite problematic from a NPOV standpoint. Just calling them refugees skirts around these issues.

I have tried to amend this caption, but I have been reverted. What do others think? Archon 2488 (talk) 17:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Immigration to Germany. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:45, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

generations of guest workers[edit]

If the child of guest workers born in germany，Will the baby born with german nationality?（in 1960s-70s）

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Immigration to Germany. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:51, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Data on immigration from Russia.[edit]

It is grossly incorrect to assume that all Russian-speaking population of Germany came from Russia. There was a significant (millions) influx of Germans from Kazakhstan, who are majority Russian speakers. The number of immigrants from Russia is to be obtained from German statistical data recording citizenship of immigrants and ethnic Germans moving to Germany, starting from 1991. Unfortunately, the statistic is in German only, and I don't speak the language It would be good if somebody who knows the language did the job. Thank you in advance. 158.106.71.40 (talk) 14:42, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gatestone Institute[edit]

Gatestone Institute:
During the first six months of 2016, migrants committed 142,500 crimes, according to the Federal Criminal Police Office. This is equivalent to 780 crimes committed by migrants every day, an increase of nearly 40% over 2015. The data includes only those crimes in which a suspect has been caught. --89.204.153.124 (talk) 18:06, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Immigration to Germany. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:31, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Immigration to Germany editing help needed[edit]

Hello. My apologies about being a bother, but I might get topic-banned soon, so I would appreciate if somebody could please add the following references to this article, if they are deemed appropriate. Thank you. My apologies if I have misunderstood anything.

A new study, assembling evidence from thousands of articles published in German media about the immigration crisis in 2015, has found that it largely systematically lied about the situation and published propaganda:

https://www.thelocal.de/20170721/german-media-failed-to-report-refugee-crisis-honestly-study-claims

The German government has created very extreme laws of censorship for social media such as Youtube, Facebook, and Twitter. Accounts that break the rules have to immediately be shut down, or the companies will have to pay 50 million Euros in fines:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-10-23/germany-full-censorship-now-official

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/06/30/with-new-law-germany-tells-social-media-companies-to-erase-hate-or-face-fines-up-to-57-million/

David A (talk) 09:35, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

no No action Not a legitimate COI edit request.  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ  21:12, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regions with significant populations[edit]

"Regions with significant populations" is a completely meaningless phrase. The list should be called "Source countries of immigrants to Germany". I would have changed it myself but I couldn't acess that section to correct it. Strambotik (talk) 10:38, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate tables[edit]

It seems to me somewhat redundant to include both the "demography of Germany" table and the "Immigrant population in Germany by country of birth." I'm guessing the first one is intended to list German residents by ancestry, while the second one is only the foreign-born population. I think we should take out the first one - it's a confusing table to encounter directly after the lead, since this article is about immigration to Germany. (Case in point - the comment immediately above this one seemed to think that table referred to the foreign-born population.) While a discussion of how the descendants of immigrants have shaped Germany is certainly relevant to the subject matter, it's secondary; granular ancestry data really belongs in the Demographics of Germany article. --Tserton (talk) 07:26, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Done. --Tserton (talk) 23:49, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On closer inspection, the data contained in the "Immigrant population in Germany by country of birth" table is actually the number of foreign nationals residing in Germany, not the foreign-born population. In addition to being more accurate to the title of the table and the section, I think the foreign-born population (available e.g. here) would better represent the scope of the article. It might seem like splitting hairs, but those are far from the same thing, since not all foreign nationals are, strictly speaking, immigrants (for example if they were born in and grew up in Germany but, for one reason or another, never become German citizens), and not all immigrants are foreign nationals (e.g. if they take on German citizenship). Of course, the foreign-born population is also an imperfect proxy for a range of reasons (for instance, I don't know if it includes the foreign-born children of German citizens who move back to Germany later, and who wouldn't really be considered immigrants), but I'd argue it's less imperfect than foreign nationals. We could keep both tables, but juxtaposing two tables like that would be confusing.--Tserton (talk) 03:36, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead[edit]

I've added a few sentences to the lead to make it less specific to the present day. I know my addition sums up a huge amount of pretty heavy history very quickly, so if it sounds flippant please do modify or remove it. Also, it would be good to cover pre-1945 immigration to Germany (a good source to start with might be "Migrations in the German Lands, 1500–2000" by Coy, Poley and Schunka). I'll do so bit by bit when I can find the time, and of course anyone else can help or give feedback :) --Tserton (talk) 21:44, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On a second reading, the first paragraph is now too history-focused with my additions. I still think a brief historical overview makes sense to have in the lead, but probably not as the very first paragraph. I'll try to reorganize the lead so it flows more naturally from a general introduction to the topic to specific aspects like history. --Tserton (talk) 08:32, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reorganization of History section[edit]

I think it would make sense to organize the "History" section according to the changes in Germany's territorial and sovereign status. A logical option would be pre-1945 (which might also further demarcated, perhaps by the creation of the German empire in 1871, if there's enough information on that period), 1945-1990, and 1990-present. The last period could also be split into 1990-2010 and 2010-present (since 2010 marked a significant, and so far ongoing, increase in immigration numbers). Each of these periods could then be subdivided into specific waves or causes of immigration (guest workers, expulsion of ethnic Germans from Eastern Europe, refugees from East Germany, EU freedom of movement, etc.) This isn't exactly a controversial edit but it could potentially be a significant reorganization of the history section, so I figured I'd explain my logic here on the talk page before carrying it out. --Tserton (talk) 11:14, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Crime as a category?![edit]

Why do we have a section on crime in the wikipedia on immigration to Germany? It seems biased and criminalizes immigration, even though immigration is usually completely legal in Germany. It just seems way out of placed and inappropriate. 193.175.54.224 (talk) 21:43, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Data for graph[edit]

Immigration to Germany, 1991–2020[1]

As the Graph extension is still down and will probably be down for a while yet (and possibly for good), I'm going to replace the autogenerated graph on this page with a static one from Wikimedia commons. A dynamic graph is obviously preferable since it can be updated each year, so in case the extension is ever re-enabled, I'm posting the data and code used to generate the graph here. (Only visible when viewing the page source, of course.) Tserton (talk) 19:31, 4 August 2023 (UTC) [reply]

References

  1. ^ "International Migration Database". destatis.de. Federal Statistical Office of Germany. Retrieved 2021-04-20.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Immigration_to_Germany&oldid=1212541967"