Dear CDU, CSU, FDP, Greens, The Left, SPD, et. al. Reform in Integration Policy needs to Really Protect Family Unification not Force Seperation

TO:  All Political Parties Represented in the German Bundestag 2009-1010

SUBJECT: Need for the BundesInnenministerium and Foreign Affairs Office to Develop newer and better questionnaires and monetary calculations to use when deciding whether a spouse earns enough or receives enough money to take care of my family in Germany.  In my case, though today, nearly 55- or 60,000 Euros is not enough for family unification—and I don’t even have any children, just a wife.  This forced separation from Spouse as is the case to date appears to be a national eugenics experiment.

Dear CDU,  CSU, FDP, Greens, The Left, SPD, et. al. represented in the parliament.

I am a tax payer in Germany and I have had to suffer a forced seperation from my wife for nearly a year due to the fact that the criteria officially sanctioned by the Bundesinnenministerium is fairly incomplete and verging on ractist and nationalist in its blindsided application.

I contacted Herrn Schaeble’s office in late June 2009 about this problem.  The Innenministerium then told me to contact the Hessen Bundestag.

By the middle of July 2009, I had already asked the Hessen Bundestag in a Petition  to check into the wanting-methodology which had led the Wiesbaden Integrationsamt to deny my wife entry into Germany on the 23rd of June 2009–despite the fact that I earn over 30,000 euros per year and receive an annual inheritance in 2009 from my father of 15- to 25 thousand dollars.  (With the denial for my wife to enter Germany, I had been told by the Wiesbaden Integeration Office that I earned 148 Euros too little per month.)

I have since researched the matter and have found the fact that neither I ((USA) nor my wife (Philippines) have been handled fairly or equally through the fairly incomplete Visa and Auslaenderbehoerder application processes we have faced thus far in 2009.

I have also discovered that even UK and Canadian residents with Asian wives have faced similar discriminations since at least 2006–leading to many fleeing to Canada to start over.

In short, it is Bundesinnenministerium numbers-racket (with fixed winners and losers) when it comes to considering what is adequate for a spouse to take care of a family in Germany.  Because the numbers are skewed and in some ways so terribly arbitrary that the process appears to be racist and xenophobicin many case.

Here are a few articles that I have written on the matter since spring 2009 on this topic:

Recently a lawyer at Caritas said to my sachverarbeiter that this whole issue has to do with bad policy from Berlin and the Innenministerium–as well as bad foreign policy as practiced out of certain German Embassies around the globe.

This is why I am writing the Bundestag and all its parties to force a  house cleaning and a new calculus of what is needed for reunion of families in Germany.  This current smells of simple eugenics.

Kevin Anthony Stoda

Oranienstr. 62


p.s.  If anyone wishes to write in support of a big reform in the out-of control situation with numbers and facts at the Bundesinnenministry which adversely affect integration in Germany, make contact here in Berlin at this website..


About eslkevin

I am a peace educator who has taken time to teach and work in countries such as the USA, Germany, Japan, Nicaragua, Mexico, the UAE, Kuwait, Oman over the past 4 decades.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Dear CDU, CSU, FDP, Greens, The Left, SPD, et. al. Reform in Integration Policy needs to Really Protect Family Unification not Force Seperation

  1. eslkevin says:

    Here is a quote from an article about the need for the new CDU-CSU/FDP government in Berlin to relook at many of the integration and anti-multicultral laws in Germany. The article is called

    “”Super, dass du für Deutschland spielst”

    and it ends as follows

    “Die Integration macht Fortschritte – man muss sie nur sehen wollen
    –Zehn Jahre sind eine lange Zeit in einem Einwanderungsland. Seit dem ersten Versuch 1999, die doppelte Staatsbürgerschaft einzuführen, hat sich viel getan. Die Deutschen sehen ihr Land als eines der lebenswertesten in der Welt an, die Wiedervereinigung ist fast verdaut, und spätestens seit der Fußball-WM schwenken wir deutsche Fahnen ohne schlechtes Gewissen. Die deutsche Identität hat sich konsolidiert. Sie ist reif, um andere Formen von Identität anzuerkennen, ja gelassen mit ihnen umzugehen. Und auch die Integration macht messbar Fortschritte. Man muss sie nur sehen wollen. Die Migranten-Milieu-Studie des Sinus-Instituts, das mehr als 2000 Türken zu ihren Auffassungen befragt hat, zeigt es: Nahezu unbemerkt hat sich eine türkischstämmige Mittel- und Oberschicht etabliert, deren Angehörige gern in Deutschland leben (73 Prozent), sich stark mit Deutschland verbunden fühlen (75 Prozent) und davon überzeugt sind, dass man als Zuwanderer unbedingt die deutsche Sprache beherrschen muss (84 Prozent). Sie vertrauen dem Staat, seinen Gesetzen und Institutionen mehr als die hier geborene Bevölkerung. Warum fangen wir nicht an, die Vorbildfunktion der Firmengründer, Mandatsträger und Abiturienten zu würdigen und für die Unterschicht herauszustellen? Klar: Arbeitslosigkeit, Importbräute, Zwangsheirat, Gewalt in der Familie und Bildungsferne bestimmter Gruppen sind reale Probleme und müssen gelöst werden. Aber es sind nicht allein die Probleme von Zuwanderern. Es sind deutsche Probleme, weil auch die Zuwanderer Deutsche sind. Wer dagegen den Doppelpass als Hürde für echte Integration darstellt, zementiert ein Bild von Deutschland, das von der Wirklichkeit überholt ist.
    Nach bisheriger Überzeugung der Union soll die Optionspflicht Identität stiften und Loyalitäten klären. Man zwinge schließlich niemanden dazu, so Innenminister Wolfgang Schäuble, Deutscher zu werden. Auch ohne deutschen Pass könne man mit allen Rechten und Pflichten in Deutschland leben – abgesehen von politischer Teilhabe allerdings. Doch ist das nur eine Kleinigkeit? Und ist es in einer globalisierten Welt denn so undenkbar, dass es Menschen gibt, die neue Identitäten entwickeln – und doppelte Loyalitäten? Was etwa Türken abverlangt wird, bleibt EU-Bürgern erspart. Bereits heute erfolgt etwa jede zweite Einbürgerung in Deutschland unter Beibehaltung der früheren Staatsangehörigkeit: Italiener, Franzosen oder Dänen dürfen ihre Verbindung zur alten Heimat offiziell weiter bekunden.”

  2. eslkevin says:

    Woops, I forgot the link to the aforementioned news article.

  3. eslkevin says:

    Submitted on 2009/10/17 at 7:15am

    Talk about bureaucracy! I am fighting the same battles with that monster. We need to eliminate J-1 visa restrictions as a first step! Any ideas on how to make our so-called ‘representatives’ listen?

    Read more on my blog here at wordpress: acrossthebigpond


  4. eslkevin says:

    Submitted on 2009/10/17 at 7:28am

    Well, we seem to be in back of all of everyone’s fears in times of terror and economic turmoil–more people.

    Naturally, that is the narrow view. Everyone knows that the real matter is that new families bring joy and economic support to the countries they come to. In short, advantages ouweigh disadvantages in dozens of ways.

    At the end of WWII, the United Nations under the drive of Eleanor Roosevelt and the likes of her, set out a document called the DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS, which should fully support labor emigration worldwide. We have got to get the employees of the world to be unified in this. If corporations can move, so can people–Basta.

    Article 13.

    * (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
    * (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

    ^ Top
    Article 14.

    * (1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
    * (2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s