Identity politics: Morality instead of pragmatism – How ideological migration debates threaten Germany's prosperity

Security as a location factor: The fatal economic consequences of a failed integration policy

The blind spot of identity politics: Why the conflict between Islamism and queer people affects us all

The debate surrounding migration and integration in Germany is trapped in a dead end of moral outrage and ideological polarization. While left-wing and progressive circles all too often portray themselves as exclusive protectors of minorities, thereby ignoring real conflicts—such as the massive tensions between radical Islamic groups and the queer community—the tangible economic and security policy consequences are overlooked. The following text deliberately takes a different approach: It examines the highly sensitive tension between diversity, order, and security through a sober, economic lens.

Germany's migration debates suffer from economic blindness: when identity politics replaces pragmatic integration economics, morality becomes a risk to the country's competitiveness. This left-wing rhetoric of protection not only jeopardizes the discourse, but also, quite literally, our prosperity.

The recent Islamist attack in Berlin clearly demonstrates how misguided tolerance and weak law enforcement not only undermine social cohesion but also create tangible disadvantages for a country's competitiveness as institutional shocks. This is a plea for a pragmatic immigration policy that enforces clear rules, consistently protects fundamental rights, and understands migration not as a moralizing identity project but as a manageable process – in the interest of prosperity, innovation, and internal security.

How Germany economically underestimates its conflicts between diversity, order and security

Obligations instead of just rights: This is why a conservative migration strategy makes economic sense – Moral polarization instead of pragmatic order

The situation described here is not merely a political or cultural problem, but has very concrete economic consequences. When certain political movements—especially left-wing or "progressive" circles—see themselves as the exclusive protectors of minorities, a symbolic politics emerges that overshadows real conflicts. Political debates then focus less on functioning rules and viable institutions, and more on moral attributions: who is "on the right side" and who is not.

From an economic perspective, this polarization has several effects. First, integration policy is decoupled from a sober cost-benefit analysis and shifted into moral categories: migration is then seen primarily as a form of protection, not as a manageable process with both opportunities and risks. Second, the willingness to openly address internal societal conflicts—for example, between Islamic communities and the queer community—decreases due to fear of being labeled "right-wing" or "racist." This, in turn, prevents targeted policies that identify and mitigate economic and security risks early on. Third, a polarization emerges in which policy positions are categorically delegitimized. This leads to the loss of those voices that are critical of migration but not extremist—voices that would be crucial for developing viable compromises that ensure both social integration and economic stability.

A modern immigration economy thrives on a clear balance: it needs openness to immigration and diversity to close demographic gaps and increase productivity, but it also needs clear rules to prevent conflicts from escalating and to maintain trust in the state and its institutions. When one side – left or right – dominates the discourse and morally defames other positions, this balance is lost. The economic costs of this shift are not immediately apparent in growth figures, but rather in long-term effects on a country's attractiveness as a business location, productivity, security, social cohesion, and the burden on public finances.

Islamist terror against the queer community: Economic and social upheaval

The attack on Berlin's Christopher Street Day in 2026 is a striking example of how identity politics and a lack of law and order can erupt into violence. A known Islamist drove a van into a crowd of people on the outskirts of the parade, killing one person and seriously injuring many others. The suspect was known to security authorities as an Islamist and was killed shortly afterward during a police operation. Such events are not only human tragedies but also have significant economic and institutional repercussions.

In the short term, they affect the local economy, particularly tourism, the hospitality industry, the events sector, and the cultural sector. Large-scale events like Christopher Street Day (CSD) are significant economic events: they attract thousands of visitors, generate overnight stays, consumption, and service revenue, and have a communicative impact that strengthens a city's image as an open, creative metropolis. An attack leads to immediate uncertainty, increased security measures, cancellations or reductions in events, and, in extreme cases, a decline in international visitor numbers if a location is perceived as unsafe.

In the long term, the effects are more complex. Firstly, the need for security infrastructure is growing: police, intelligence services, private security firms, and technical security systems must be expanded. This means higher public spending and a reallocation of budget funds – for example, from education, prevention, or social integration to repressive measures. Economically, this is by no means neutral: investments in security are important, but they replace expenditures that directly increase productivity, such as training or innovation promotion. Secondly, Islamist terrorism has a particular social explosive potential because it is religiously and identity-based. If perpetrators come from migrant backgrounds, it intensifies distrust of migration in general, including of well-integrated individuals. This can lead to discriminatory practices that reduce the employment opportunities of people with a migration history and thus, in turn, leave untapped economic potential.

The specific conflict between predominantly Muslim communities and the queer community exacerbates this situation. From an economic perspective, open, diverse metropolises are a locational advantage: they attract creative, highly qualified individuals and foster innovation in culture, technology, and services. However, when certain groups resort to violence against these communities or question their rights, a climate of fear arises, diminishing the attractiveness of the city for qualified queer people and other minorities—and thus weakening its human capital. At the same time, pressure is placed on the Muslim community to distance itself from extremists, which is necessary from an integration policy perspective but presents a communicative challenge. A successful strategy would have to achieve both: a clear demarcation from violence and extremism without collectively stigmatizing Muslims, and simultaneously unambiguous protection of the rights of the queer community. This balance is socially demanding but economically crucial because it determines whether diversity becomes a locational advantage or a risk to cohesion and growth.

Identity politics as a substitute for integration economics

An analysis shows that the "protector" role of many left-wing actors towards minorities can be described in terms of identity politics: groups are defined by characteristics such as origin, sexual orientation, gender, or religion, and politics is primarily understood as defending these groups against discrimination. This concern is legitimate as long as it protects discriminated-against people from real disadvantages. It becomes problematic when protective rhetoric replaces a sober economics of integration.

From an economic perspective, migration is a process that alters resource flows: human capital, demand, tax revenue, social spending, and institutional burdens all shift. A factual analysis asks: What qualification profiles do migrants bring with them? How quickly can they be integrated into the labor market? What additional burdens arise for the education system, the housing market, and social security? And how can well-designed regulations prevent differences in origin from leading to lasting social and economic inequality? This is precisely what the annual report of the German Council of Experts on Integration and Migration and economic studies point to: diversity can bring economic advantages, but only if integration policy does not simply ignore differences in origin, but actively addresses them.

Identity-politics-driven debates tend to exclude structural issues from such analyses. Instead of discussing employment rates, educational qualifications, language skills, or real barriers to integration, the focus is often on labels: "Muslims," ​​"queers," "people of color" versus "old white men." This can mobilize moral fervor, but it does little to solve concrete problems. If, for example, homophobic, sexist, or antisemitic attitudes are prevalent in certain social circles—regardless of origin—a useful question is: What measures promote a shift in values? What role do education, labor market integration, and law enforcement play? And how should sanctions be designed for serious violations of fundamental rights? A purely identity-political perspective shifts the focus to discourse control: Attention is paid to whether minorities are addressed "correctly" in language, but there is a reluctance to openly address conflicts of values ​​and norms, especially when they occur within minority groups.

This avoidance has economic consequences. First, preventative measures against extremism and violent rejection of marginalized groups—such as queer people—are implemented too late or inadequately. Studies on Islamist radicalization indicate that social inequality, lack of recognition, and segregation can exacerbate radicalization, but also that a lack of clear boundaries and sanctions against extremist groups increases the danger. Second, a narrowing of identity politics makes communication with the majority society more difficult: citizens who value order and boundaries quickly feel labeled as "enemies of minorities." This reduces their willingness to support integration measures, even though these entail financial and institutional burdens. However, a sustainable integration economy requires broad support because it demands substantial investments in education, housing, the labor market, and social equity over decades.

Rules, duties, rights: Why a regulatory migration strategy can be economically sensible

Conservative or law-and-order forces have a different vision of coexistence with migrants. This can be justified on economic grounds. Such approaches place greater emphasis on obligations, rules, and clear expectations: Anyone wishing to live in the host country should respect its fundamental order, including the rights of women, religious minorities, and LGBTQ+ people. Likewise, it is expected that people actively pursue education, employment, and language skills so that they can contribute independently to prosperity instead of remaining permanently dependent on welfare systems.

Such approaches are not only economically legitimate, but often necessary. Studies show that the degree of integration into the host country, including language and identification with core norms, is important for the economic success of migrants. Dual national identities or a strong connection to both the country of origin and the host country can even be beneficial – provided that the values ​​of the host country are accepted and not actively opposed. A policy that sets clear rules and communicates them transparently creates certainty: migrants know what is expected of them, and the host society knows which obligations it assumes (e.g., integration programs, protection against discrimination) and which it does not (e.g., special rights to disregard fundamental rights).

Economically, a positive dynamic emerges when rights and obligations are balanced. People who work, pay taxes, and abide by the rules are generally better integrated, less susceptible to radical ideologies, and more readily perceived as part of society. Employment is a key lever in this process: it generates income, recognition, and social connections, and is often a prerequisite for permanent residency or naturalization. A regulatory policy strategy that consistently prioritizes labor market integration reduces the long-term burden on social security systems and increases productivity. At the same time, it reduces the likelihood of parallel societies developing their own norms that conflict with fundamental rights.

Conservative economic policies are often criticized for being perceived as "exclusionary." Indeed, they can have an exclusionary effect if they fail to differentiate between individuals and groups and categorically label migrants as a problem. However, where they clearly individualize—that is, sanction behavior, not origin—they can provide a stable foundation for integration. For economically sustainable migration, both are necessary: ​​a judicious selection and management of immigration and a consistent expectation that all those who remain will actively participate in social and economic life and not infringe upon the rights of others.

When values ​​clash: The economic dimension of norm conflicts

The conflict between radical Muslim circles and the queer community is not only culturally but also clearly economically relevant. In many European countries, it is evident that some religiously conservative or fundamentalist groups have significant problems accepting homosexual, trans, and other queer lifestyles. This is more pronounced where traditional gender roles, patriarchal structures, and strong religious authority are dominant. In Germany, this conflict is particularly visible when it comes to public visibility—for example, at events like Christopher Street Day (CSD) or in educational content on sexual diversity.

This is economically important because the rights and safety of queer people are directly linked to location factors. Queer people are disproportionately represented in many sectors, particularly in creative, cultural, and knowledge-intensive fields. A city or region where queer people can live openly and safely is often more creative, innovative, and attracts international professionals who prefer open environments. If these rights are threatened, the likelihood increases that qualified individuals will emigrate or not settle there in the first place, which in the long term reduces human capital and weakens innovation.

At the same time, the Muslim population is an integral part of the German economy. Many people with a Muslim background work in skilled trades, caregiving, manufacturing, commerce, or own their own businesses. They contribute to the gross domestic product, the provision of services, and the stability of the social security system. A view that categorically labels "Muslims" as a problem would be economically short-sighted: it ignores the productive contributions already being made and prevents the realization of further potential.

The real economic conflict arises where values ​​diverge: When a segment of Muslim communities rejects or opposes the fundamental rights of queer people, this contradicts the rule of law not only culturally but also institutionally. State institutions must then clearly signal which norms are binding. A pragmatic integration economy therefore requires a clear normative framework: freedom of religion, yes, as long as it is compatible with fundamental rights; no freedom to deprive others of their rights, to inflict violence upon them, or to systematically discriminate against them. If such norms are not consistently enforced, unsafe spaces emerge in which extremism or radical rejection of minorities can spread. The consequences are rising security costs, declining attractiveness to skilled workers, and an erosion of trust in the rule of law.

A sustainable long-term strategy would need to operate on three levels. First, on the level of education and values: working with young people and communities to strengthen an understanding of fundamental rights that is compatible with religious beliefs without dominating them. Second, on the labor market level: promoting employment and entrepreneurial activity for people with a migration background so that they become economically independent and strengthen their position in society. Third, on the legal level: clear sanctions for hate crimes, threats, or violence against queer people—regardless of whether the perpetrators come from majority German or migrant backgrounds. This creates a credible order in which no one should believe they have the right to commit violence based on religious or cultural motives.

Industry focus areas: B2B, digitalization (from AI to XR), mechanical engineering, logistics, renewable energies and industry

More information here:

• Expert Business Hub

A thematic hub offering insights and expertise:

• Knowledge platform covering global and regional economies, innovation and industry-specific trends
• A collection of analyses, insights, and background information from our key areas of focus
• A place for expertise and information on current developments in business and technology
• A hub for companies seeking information on markets, digitalization, and industry innovations

When origin becomes a risk factor: The costs of failed integration policies

A key economic question is: Are differences in origin actively utilized or passively accepted in Germany? The Expert Council on Integration and Migration states the goal that differences in origin should not lead to lasting social and economic inequalities. This is ambitious, because reality shows that people with a migration background are disproportionately affected by unemployment, low incomes, precarious employment, and segregation. This increases the risk that segments of the population will remain permanently on the margins of prosperity and become more susceptible to identity-based or religious mobilization.

Economically, this means that when people have less access to education, employment opportunities, or housing due to their background, society is wasting productivity. Qualifications acquired in their country of origin remain unused; talents are not nurtured; children grow up in contexts where education is less accessible. This reduces overall economic growth potential and simultaneously increases the costs of social security, healthcare, and internal security, as social inequality has been proven to correlate with higher rates of crime and radicalization.

Identity politics can paradoxically contribute to perpetuating these inequalities. When groups are primarily defined by their experiences of discrimination, a discourse emerges that offers little room for personal responsibility and merit-based thinking. At the same time, structural factors—the quality of schools, access to high-quality jobs, discrimination in personnel selection—are rhetorically named but not consistently addressed. In practice, much remains at the level of projects and symbolic politics, while key levers—such as improving the quality of daycare and schools in socially disadvantaged neighborhoods or greater recognition of foreign qualifications—are not implemented with sufficient vigor. This creates milieus that are both economically and socially marginalized, and in which identity-based ideologies, including religious fundamentalism, can more easily take root.

A strategic integration economy, rather than focusing on identity politics and self-affirmation, would need to formulate concrete, measurable goals: for example, aligning the employment rate of people with a migration background with that of the rest of the population, reducing educational disparities, increasing the number of businesses founded by migrants, or noticeably reducing residential segregation. Achieving these goals would simultaneously reduce the risk of conflicts between different minorities—for example, between Muslim communities and queer people—developing into structural divisions. This is because economic equality and social participation reduce the need to define oneself through cultural or religious superiority.

Between prevention and repression: What the rule of law must provide

Attacks like the Islamist attack at Berlin Pride make it clear that security and integration policies are closely intertwined. The perpetrator was known to the police, had a history of criminal activity and Islamist leanings, yet he still managed to carry out a deadly attack on a key event for the queer community. This raises questions about how well radicalization processes are recognized and how consistently potential threats are monitored and punished. In economic terms, this is referred to as security economics: the relationship between the resources spent on prevention, surveillance, and repression and the damage caused by terrorism, violence, and crime.

The state must act in several ways. First, in preventing threats: observing, analyzing, and intervening preventively where radicalization and a willingness to use violence become apparent. This requires well-equipped security authorities, intelligent data analysis, and close cooperation with civil society actors, such as municipalities, schools, and social institutions. This work is costly, but significantly less expensive than the damage caused by successful attacks—not only to human lives, but also to trust, the country's image, and economic activity.

Secondly, the state must draw clear normative lines. Violence against queer people or other minorities, motivated by religious or ideological reasons, must not be relativized. Equal treatment is crucial: Islamist-motivated violence against queer people is just as reprehensible as right-wing extremist or homophobic violence from mainstream German circles. Unequal treatment—for example, greater attention to one type of extremism and a comparatively muted response to others—undermines trust in the state and reinforces the feeling that some groups are "above the law." In the long run, this leads to a fragmentation of legal consciousness, in which different groups follow different norms.

Third, the state should adopt a clear economic perspective. Every form of militant extremism—whether Islamist, right-wing, or left-wing—reduces a country's attractiveness as a business location, increases security costs, and weakens trust in institutions. At the same time, excessive or indiscriminate repression is also harmful because it can create fear, stifle innovation, and stifle legitimate criticism. The challenge lies in consistently combating enemies of the constitution without unnecessarily curtailing citizens' civil liberties. A sound security economics approach relies on differentiated, data-driven risk assessment, transparent communication, and a clear prioritization of dangerous actors.

How discourse frameworks influence location decisions

Media and political narratives shape how citizens and external observers perceive a country or city. The Berlin Pride attack demonstrates how quickly an act can be instrumentalized—either to incite hatred against Muslims or to downplay the violence in order to avoid negative stereotypes about migrants. Representatives of the queer community have explicitly warned against using the attack to sow division and incite hatred against Muslims. This appeal is correct from a civic perspective because collective stigmatization does more harm than good. At the same time, it illustrates how sensitive the framework of public discourse is.

From an economic perspective, such narratives play a crucial role in location decisions. Investors, companies, and qualified professionals pay attention to whether a country deals with conflicts rationally or whether emotions, populist messages, and identity politics dominate. Is violence, for example, always attributed to specific groups, or is it consistently treated as an attack on the fundamental order—regardless of the perpetrators' origin? Are real problems openly addressed, or are they concealed for fear of controversy, which later leads to larger, difficult-to-manage crises? A country that soberly analyzes its conflicts and addresses them transparently is perceived as a reliable place to make long-term investments.

The media bear a dual responsibility in this regard. On the one hand, they must provide rapid and accurate information when attacks or serious crimes occur. On the other hand, they should avoid falling into short-sighted outrage economies where attention is rewarded regardless of how distorted the portrayal is. Journalistic practice that carefully contextualizes violence from extremist circles, investigates the background, and gives a voice to various affected groups contributes to the stability of public discourse. This has an indirect economic effect: citizens are more likely to trust institutions, and international observers perceive the country as resilient in the face of crises.

For economic policy, this means that narratives should be consciously shaped. The goal cannot be to downplay problems, but rather to communicate them in a way that makes them appear solvable. If migration is described solely as a burden or solely as an enrichment, one overlooks part of reality in each case. Balanced communication that acknowledges both opportunities and risks creates the foundation for a pragmatic economic and integration policy that bases its priorities on data, not dogma.

Pragmatic framework for diversity: Economic guidelines

From an economic perspective, the goal is clear: Germany needs a migration and integration policy that utilizes diversity as a resource, regulates conflicts, and consistently limits extremism. To achieve this, some guiding principles can be formulated that are viable across ideological divides.

First: People, not groups, are at the center. Instead of defining entire groups as a "problem" or as "always in need of protection," individuals should be judged by their behavior: Those who work, respect laws, and accept the fundamental rights of others are partners in a prosperous community. Those who perpetrate or promote violence must face clear consequences—regardless of origin or religious affiliation. This relieves the debate of collective attributions and reduces the risk of stigmatization.

Secondly: Fundamental rights are non-negotiable. The rights of queer people, women, religious minorities, and those with differing opinions are an integral part of the free and democratic order. An inclusive economy acknowledges that normative tensions exist, but it does not compromise fundamental rights to protect religious or cultural sensitivities. This also means that education and integration programs must clearly communicate that the acceptance of these rights is part of the consensus required to live and work in Germany.

Thirdly: Employment is the central axis of integration. People with a migration background who are integrated into the labor market are less economically vulnerable, better socially integrated, and less politically susceptible to radical ideologies. Therefore, skills development, language support, recognition of foreign qualifications, and targeted labor market programs should be central to integration policy. In this way, migration becomes an economic factor that mitigates demographic challenges instead of exacerbating them.

Fourth: Data instead of ideology. Decisions about immigration, integration programs, security measures, and social transfers should be based on empirical findings. Which groups have what employment opportunities? Where do real barriers to integration exist? Where do conflicts of norms affecting fundamental rights occur most frequently? Political measures must be verifiable and adaptable, instead of clinging to identity-political dogmas. This applies, incidentally, to the entire political spectrum.

These guidelines outline a perspective in which diversity and order are not opposites, but rather a field of tension that can be shaped constructively. Migration is then neither solely a risk nor solely an opportunity, but a process that, through sound rules, economic reason, and clear norms, is guided in a direction that increases prosperity and security for society as a whole.

Between justified criticism and productive positioning

The unease surrounding a political self-presentation that sees itself as the exclusive protector of migrants and minorities can be understood analytically from an economic perspective. It is generally directed less against protection itself, but rather against a selective, morally exaggerated rhetoric of protection that ignores or glosses over concrete conflicts—for example, between radical Islamic circles and the queer community. The result is a policy that is powerful on the level of symbols and moral self-affirmation, but often weak on the level of economic and institutional reality.

Such an economically grounded position advocates for a policy of order that does not romanticize migration but regulates it, and that addresses conflicts openly without resorting to blanket rejection. It aims neither for unregulated openness nor for absolute isolation, but rather for coexistence with clear structures and predictability. This perspective is valuable for the economic debate because it more precisely addresses the necessary rules and burdens associated with successful integration.

At the same time, arguments based on economic policy carry risks if they are not formulated precisely, either linguistically or politically. It can quickly create the impression that the argument is about a general rejection of migrants or about a hierarchy of value between different lifestyles. A productive economic argument avoids this pitfall by consistently distinguishing between behavior and origin. In this way, a robust economic policy can be formulated that serves as a pragmatic framework for a diverse yet stable prosperous society – beyond sweeping extremist rhetoric or polarizing identity politics.