Schwerin says no to the migration advisory board - a step backwards for integration!

Transparenz: Redaktionell erstellt und geprüft.
Veröffentlicht am

Schwerin rejects migration advisory board: decision affects 11,000 migrants, despite legal requirements for integration.

Schwerin says no to the migration advisory board - a step backwards for integration!

In Schwerin, the decision of the city council of not introducing a migration and integration advisory board caused great excitement. On December 9, 2024, a majority of AfD, CDU and other parties practiced their voices against the foundation of this advisory board, which affects the approximately 11,000 people with a migration background in the city. This happened one day before the international day of human rights, which further fueled the discussion about integration policy, as already EAMV.de reported.

The new law on youth participation and integration of people with immigration history, which has been in force since April 2024, stipulates that larger municipalities such as Schwerin should found advisory boards. However, the decision against the advisory board was made on various reasons, including the demand that only German citizens should be on the advisory board. Critics fear that the waiver of an advisory board is a step backwards for integration; There is therefore no unimpeded exchange between the migrant community and urban politics. At the same time, other cities such as Rostock and Greifswald are still exemplary on the move with migrant representatives, while Schwerin adheres to the development of integration policy or even falls back, how ndr.de noted.

The central question remains how the migrants' voice will be done in the city. Citizens like Serife Gedik who have been living in Schwerin for years and who want to contribute to society to actively require a mouthpiece for their concerns. Your hope is that not only your opinion will be heard, but also that you are included in the political decision -making. While Schwerin's mayor Rico Badenschier criticizes the decision, he sees no legal reason to contest the decision, which further increases the frustration among the advisors of the advisory board.