“Chancellor’s Scholz’s Germany-Kenya deal fails to address these core issues, and with Kenyan skilled workers favoring English-speaking countries, it may not even alleviate Germany’s skilled labor shortage. Nevertheless, it represents a step in the right direction, as it has German interests at heart.”
Amid crescendoing calls to tighten immigration, it seems paradoxical that German Chancellor Olaf Scholz would strike a migration deal with Kenya, inviting Kenyan workers to come to Germany. As the BBC recently reported, “Immigration is a huge issue in Germany at the moment, following the rise in popularity of the far-right anti-immigration party, Alternative for Germany (AfD).” So, what is the rationale behind Chancellor Scholz’s approach?
Incidents like the recent Islamist knife attack at a city festival in Solingen had centrist politicians bending over backwards to assure voters that they would crack down on “irregular” immigration. Yet most acknowledge that Germany still needs immigration to address its skilled labor shortage. Complicating matters further, deporting migrants without legal status has proven difficult, as many countries of origin are unwilling to take them back.
Chancellor Scholz’s deal with Kenyan President William Ruto aims to address these challenges by allowing controlled, targeted migration. This benefits Kenya as well, as the country faces difficulties in providing employment and adequate income for its young professionals—a problem more pressing than potential concerns about “brain drain.” The agreement will also streamline the process for Germany to repatriate Kenyans residing without legal status. Chancellor Scholz has called it a “win-win situation.”
While such agreements aim to curb overall immigration, it is clear they will fall short. Immigrants from countries where these deals are feasible are hardly the main concern. In 2023, fewer than 500 people from Kenya applied for asylum in Germany, representing only about 0.1% of all asylum seekers that year. The vast majority of applicants came from Syria, Turkey, and Afghanistan, with Syrians alone accounting for over 50% of asylum applications in 2024. It is difficult to envision a mutually beneficial and morally justifiable immigration agreement with criminal regimes such as Bashar al-Assad’s or the Taliban’s.
Not only is there a significant disparity in numbers, but there are also considerable cultural differences. While Kenya, like Germany, is predominantly Christian, Islam, which plays a dominant role in Muslim migrant communities, presents a substantial challenge to integration. It often clashes with liberal democratic values such as secularism, individualism, and equality. Moreover, young Muslims are far more likely to join radical Islamist groups, such as those advocating for a caliphate in Germany, or even to commit acts of jihadist terrorism.
Embedded in religious and cultural infrastructures such as Islamic centers and mosques across Germany, these dangerous groups and individuals are often difficult to neutralize. To make matters worse, young men awaiting deportation—often for years—become potential recruits with little to lose and no future prospects in Germany. Nor has it been helpful that, for years, multiculturalists and Islamist apologists have accused anyone highlighting these problems of “Islamophobia,” which has only played into the hands of the far-right.
Chancellor’s Scholz’s Germany-Kenya deal fails to address these core issues, and with Kenyan skilled workers favoring English-speaking countries, it may not even alleviate Germany’s skilled labor shortage. Nevertheless, it represents a step in the right direction, as it has German interests at heart. While there are valid humanitarian reasons to accept a manageable number of genuine refugees, any immigration policy that overburdens the public or compromises their safety is bound to backfire.
Gerfried Ambrosch is an author and writer and holds a Ph.D. in literary and cultural studies. He can be found on X @g_ambrosch
