Samenvatting

As an essential basic principle of the European Union, the free movement of workers has
been on everyone’s lips with the European Enlargement of Romania and Bulgaria in 2007.
With the complete abolishment of the restrictions on the free movement of workers for
Romanian and Bulgarian citizens in Germany in January 2014, critics feared an increased
poverty migration and misuse of the German social welfare system. Amongst critics,
especially CSU (Christian Social Union in Bavaria) party members fostered the hysteria and
panic mongering by linking the Article 45 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European
Union to the increased migration of Romanian and Bulgarian citizens and referred to “social
tourism”. With this term selected as unword of the year in Germany in 2013, the discussion
reached its peak in the end of the year.
The research question, “to what extend is the fear of poverty migration and the misuse of the
German social welfare state by Romanian and Bulgarian citizens due to the removal of
restrictions regarding the free movement of workers in Germany legitimate” provided the
framework of a detailed gathering of statistical data from a variety of sources and qualitative
research and furthermore the basis for an analysis and a critical discussion of the topic under
study.
The paper reveals the misinterpretation by critics regarding the influx of Romanian and
Bulgarian migrants and their demand on the German social welfare system. As often
misunderstood by critics, Germany does not come as first choice for Romanian and Bulgarian
migrants. During research, the hypothesis of increased poverty migration comes to the fore,
on which the European Commission and the German Government as well as migration
experts counter argue. The research draws attention to the influx and duration of stay, in
which Romanian and Bulgarian citizens are not the dominant nationalities. The integration
process is by means of critics unsuccessful and leads to high-unemployed numbers of EU-2
migrants. The findings conclude this argument with emphasising that Bulgarian and
Romanian migrants are in general well integrated. Although, there appeared to be an
accumulation of unemployed Bulgarian and Romanian citizens who burden the communal
services in big cities such as Berlin, Dortmund and Duisburg as a result of a lack of
integration.
The data regarding the demand for social benefits by Bulgarian and Romanian migrants is
misinterpreted, since statistical data from a variety of sources evidence, that EU-2 migrants
demand less social benefits than other migrants inhabited in Germany.
The theory of poverty migration is out of question since EU-2 migrants are better qualified
than other Eastern European nationalities and in general four/fifths of EU-2 migrants in
Germany are employed. The number unemployed Bulgarian and Romanian citizens are
marginal and in spite of the fact that they are eligible to demand social benefits, the amount
of social welfare recipients does not endanger the German social welfare system. Although
Germany’s good reputation and especially its robust economic situation will lead to an
increase of migrants, profits arise due to the fact that migration is fundamental to boost the
pension scheme, foster and stabilise the health- and private nursing insurance and secure
the economic growth.
The paper evaluates and analyses the gathered information carefully and conclude that the
fear of poverty migration and misuse of the German social welfare state by Romanian and
Bulgarian citizens due to the removal of restrictions regarding the free movement of workers
in Germany is not legitimate. Compared to previous European Union member states, such as
Poland, the fear of poverty migration and the misuse of the social welfare system in Germany
are compared and the interview concludes a differentiation of the fears.
In order to avoid similar fears on new European member states such as Croatia, the report
recommends statements and evidences which disprove the expected fears of critics. Political
actors such as governmental bodies and politicians as well as organisations and migrant
experts should intervene in an earlier stage in order to decrease the panic mongering and
hysteria towards migration in Germany. Moreover the paper recommends the adaption of
paragraph 7 of the German social security code to European law, since the paragraph
declares that EU migrants are not eligible to receive certain social benefits. Experts argue
that this paragraph is not in accordance with the European Unions aquis communautaire and
the paper recommends the adaption.