New study reveals racism in government agencies

The results of a large-scale InRa study by the Research Institute for Social Cohesion (FGZ) are now available, and they paint a picture that deeply concerns us as a law firm specializing in visa law. The question is no longer whether The issue is not whether racism exists in German institutions , but how deeply it is rooted in the structures of immigration authorities, the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF), and the Federal Police. As experts in migration law, we see daily how crucial the objectivity of state action is – and how dangerous it becomes when this objectivity is undermined by institutional prejudices.

Between discretionary power and discrimination

A key finding of the study, which directly impacts our daily work, concerns the role of discretionary powers . German administrative law grants case workers considerable leeway in many areas. However, the InRa study makes it clear that this is precisely where the risk of discrimination lies . When decisions are no longer based solely on objective legal requirements, but are influenced by the "organizational culture" or the individual "everyday knowledge" of the officials, the principle of equality enshrined in Article 3, Paragraph 3 of the Basic Law is jeopardized. In practice, we repeatedly observe that applications from individuals from certain regions of origin are scrutinized more critically, or that the requirements for cooperation obligations (§ 82 of the Residence Act) are set disproportionately high. The study now empirically confirms that such patterns are not coincidental, but rather a structural risk .

The legal loophole: Why the General Equal Treatment Act (AGG) often fails to deliver results

Particularly critical from a legal perspective is the gap in the legal framework highlighted by the researchers. While the General Equal Treatment Act (AGG) offers clear protection in the private sector – for example, in the labor market or when searching for housing – it has thus far had little effect on the relationship between citizens and state authorities. Paradoxically, anyone who feels racially discriminated against by an immigration office or the Federal Police cannot invoke this central anti-discrimination law. Instead, we often have to resort to the arduous process of official complaints or declaratory judgment actions under Section 113 Paragraph 1 Sentence 4 of the Administrative Court Procedure Act (VwGO) to have discrimination legally established . We therefore expressly support the InRa study's demand to extend the AGG to state institutions. A clear legal basis is needed not only to identify institutional racism but also to effectively sanction it.

Language barriers as an instrument of exclusion

Another critical area highlighted by the study is the handling of language. In our firm's consulting practice, we often hear that clients are turned away by government agencies because they don't speak perfect German , even though this isn't legally required for the specific application. The study documents that assistance with application procedures varies considerably. While proactive support is actually part of the administration's duty to advise ( § 25 VwVfG ), the language barrier is often used as a pretext to delay procedures or discourage those affected . When the right to be heard and the right to a fair trial depend on whether a case worker demonstrates "goodwill," the rule-of-law promise of neutrality is broken. We see a direct link here between the social climate and administrative practice: The agency doesn't operate in a vacuum, but rather reflects societal tensions .

A look inside: The questioning of federal authorities

For the first time, the study also provides data from within government agencies, including the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF) and the Federal Police . The results of the survey of approximately 13,000 employees paint a complex picture. While the agencies do not exhibit a uniformly higher level of racist attitudes than the general population, the figures are higher in sensitive areas—for example, the rejection of refugees by the Federal Police . We find the phenomenon of self-censorship particularly worrying: Indirect measurement methods revealed significantly more racist prejudices than direct questions. For our clients, this means they often encounter an " invisible wall ." An official may appear formally correct, but the decision made behind the scenes is influenced by deeply ingrained prejudices. The fact that even employees with a migration background complain of discrimination within the agencies underscores the urgent need for fundamental cultural reform.

Conclusion: It's time for real reforms in visa law.

The InRa study is a wake-up call that we, as experts in visa law, must take seriously. It proves that racial discrimination is not an isolated phenomenon , but rather resonates within the routines and structures of our administrative system. For those affected, these experiences have serious consequences – ranging from psychological distress to a complete loss of trust in the rule of law. From our perspective, it is essential to implement the researchers' recommendations: We need to extend the General Equal Treatment Act (AGG) to include government actions, establish independent complaints bodies, and increase transparency in administrative decisions . As long as an individual's rights are affected by their origin or skin color, the principle of equality before the law remains mere lip service.