Merz defends immigration while Blackrock is under the microscope

Merz defends immigration: «Nothing would work without them»

The German Chancellor Merz has focused on Germany's labor dependency with a message that makes many of his own political spectrum uncomfortable: "No hospital, no nursing home, no construction site, no restaurant, no hotel — nothing would work if we didn't have immigrants in Germany who have lived here for decades, who work here, who are integrated." The quote, spread on social media, has reignited the debate about who truly sustains the German labor market.

From Blackrock to the Labor Argument: What is the underlying interest?

The Chancellor’s background, linked to the asset manager Blackrock, is the first point questioned regarding a kind reading of his defense. It is argued that a fund manager does not spontaneously compose an ode to immigration: they are concerned about "labor market rigidities," meaning the availability of manual labor for low-paid jobs. The corollary, in this view, is uncomfortable. If the native worker pays taxes for the state to absorb the cost while the corporation keeps the margin, the issue shifts from being humanitarian to being about the balance sheet.

Sixty Years of German Migration Policy: From Gastarbeiter to Family Reunification

The historical precedent is the most repeated argument. According to one participant who worked in Germany in 1985, since the 60s, the country has been importing labor massively through bilateral agreements with countries of origin: the so-called Gastarbeiter (guest workers) boosted the country during post-war industrial boom. According to his version, the system remained open too long and expanded to countries of very different cultures. When it tried to close, family reunification was already underway, and later, unification and refugee crises trinc. The participant himself, who experienced this firsthand, recalls that the difference is not the migratory fact itself but its management.

Who Pays for Imported Labor?

Here the real fracture occurs. Some defend that without migrant workers, there would be no one to staff hospitals, residences, construction sites, restaurants, and hotels. Conversely, others hold that the cost is absorbed by the middle class through confiscatory taxes while the profit remains in the hands of large corporations. The Dubai model—coming to work, losing the job, and having thirty days to leave the country without benefits or family transfer—emerges as a reference point in that side of the argument. No one disputes the dependency. They dispute who keeps the margin.

The analysis gets stuck exactly there: on distribution. How many specific jobs would remain vacant without immigrant workers is a number that does not appear anywhere, and without that data, the Chancellor's defense sounds like a principle while the criticism sounds like suspicion.