MOBILITY AND MIGRATION 473
Rather than focusing on Aussiedler migration, the Union parties con-
centrated on the asylum issue. They were quite successful in pushing
through this agenda, which meant that migration policy in the 1990s re-
volved around asylum regulations for the most part. The debates sur-
rounding the asylum question, which was shaped by asylum-seekers
coming from outside the country as well as the German nation itself, was
a central element in the process of self-redefi nition that took place in
Germany after reunifi cation. In these debates—as well as the discussions
over the Aussiedler—the question of who was understood to be German
and who in Germany could claim which rights was always implicitly, if
not explicitly, negotiated.
The big issue in the early 1990s was not reunifi cation, but rather the
abuse of the right of asylum. As of summer 1991, surveys indicated that
almost 80 percent of the population saw the “asylum/foreigner” issue as
the most important problem facing the country.^143 Even before 1989/90,
horror stories were bandied about in the West German press that Europe
might soon be overrun by asylum-seekers. Interestingly, however, the
refugee movement was on the rise around the world during this time, but
compared to other places, Europe was only minimally aff ected by it. The
majority of this migration driven by poverty and persecution played out in
the Global South. Yet the consciously fueled debates over asylum quickly
became more populist in tone. The term Asylant that appeared more often,
as opposed to the more politically correct Asylbewerber (asylum-seeker),
was quite derogatory. Other terms such as Asylschmarotzer (asylum
spongers) or Scheinasylanten (bogus asylum-seekers) leaned even fur-
ther toward denunciation. Not only were they used by right-wing radical
parties such as “The Republicans,” but also politicians from the CDU and
CSU spoke of the “abuse of asylum status.” The talk of Asylanten was
tightly linked to the “fl ood” metaphors that became a decisive element of
the debates. It implicitly stripped these immigrants of their individuality,
pointing to the idea that Germany could no longer take on more refugees:
“The boat is full!”—was the successful slogan of “The Republicans” who
gained ground in the elections of 1991. As a result, it was not out of
the question that a majority could be formed to push through dramatic
changes such as an amendment to the Grundgesetz.
Even at the time, people made the connection between the asylum de-
bates and the high number of racist acts of violence in the early 1990s.^144
In Hoyerswerda in 1991, as well as in Rostock-Lichtenhagen in 1992,
pogrom-like attacks were made against foreigners—asylum-seekers as
well as “contract workers”—under the watch of an applauding crowd and
without any decisive action taken by the state authorities.^145 This violence