Introduction
The concept of comparative politics entails a scientific idea applied in the study of political science. It is employed to explore various political units within nations, highlighting how differently they manage their political affairs and subsequently noting the resulting variances. The two nations selected for this essay are the United States (US) and Germany.
The research question is: What political factors have led to the development of different approaches regarding immigration policy? Thus, different policy mechanisms have led to distinct approaches to immigration in the US and Germany. The paper structure presents an introduction, followed by case selection, then explanatory variables, and a conclusion. The paper explains how democracy and the federal system influence the immigration policies in Germany and the US.
Case Selection
I selected the two countries, the US and Germany, because their governments have similarities and differences. Both countries adhere to a federal form of government, although in Germany, it is not associated with power separation as in the US (Perju, 2020). In Germany, municipalities, states, and the central government have varied activities and partially overlapping areas of responsibility, governed by a complex system of checks and balances. In the US, federalism facilitates political participation and economic equality across the nation and accommodates diverse views at multiple levels of government (Hess & Renner, 2019).
However, democracy in these two countries does not give people any insight into a state’s performance due to excessive freedom. In a democratic system, everybody has a right to include all kinds of selfish individuals who care nothing for others but are only interested and inspired by their personal desires to gain power (Colagrossi et al., 2019). Hence, Germany and the US are different nations, as they have political units and systems that differ in how essential processes operate.
Germany is a Federal Republic structured as a federal state within a parliamentary democracy. It is a sovereign state that draws its principles from the European Union (EU) constitution (Floridi, 2020). Immigrant policy incorporation has been decentralized to empower Länder, while contributing to a sub-nationally devised, notwithstanding regionally distinctive set of administrative practices and policies (Schmidtke, 2021). Therefore, the electoral branch and the executive in Germany may respond to public pressure to reduce immigration, even though EU limitations must be considered.
The US is a sovereign state with a federal president elected through the democratic process. Democracy is cultivated when the public can articulate their interests and have their voices heard by selecting the leaders they need, as in the case of the two countries. The US Federal Government comprises three branches: legislative, executive, and judicial (Chittenden, 2020). In terms of democracy, the US has a representative democracy in which leaders are elected to represent the public at the local level, in Congress, and in the National Senate (Hess & Renner, 2019). The US democratic system is based on citizens voting for the two key parties, the Republicans and the Democrats (Dippel, 2022).
In the US, the federal regime has a monopoly over the policy of immigration, and it superintends the country’s single immigration administration bureaucracy. Immigration law is an exclusive federal domain managed by uniform policies and rules. However, American federalism has implied that localities and states have contributed to shaping policy across history, mainly through deliberate resistance to the federal regime (Gonzalez-Sobrino & Goss, 2020). In the US, the legislative branch reacts to public pressure to reduce immigration, focusing on its interests and expression, and on governmental factors to shape the nation’s immigration policy as a dependent variable.
Explanatory Variable
Democracy
The US is a representative democracy, meaning its government is chosen by citizens who vote for their leaders. Consequently, officials must represent public concerns and ideas in government (Graham and Svolik, 2020). The public can express their voices and interests by selecting the leaders of their choice. Modern US politics is shaped by two main parties: the Republicans and the Democrats (Chittenden, 2020). The parties have been dominant in US politics since 1856, taking leadership of the country over the years (Alsan et al., 2020). Hence, they are well-known to have once held power in any given election.
However, Germany exhibits a distinct political system when compared to the US. It practices parliamentary democracy, in which citizens elect representatives to make laws. It has adopted British state laws for its operations, while adhering to regional principles. The German political system is centered on the parliamentary egalitarianism context. Germany is a constitutional nation, unlike the US, and therefore, enjoys a multiparty system of legislative and state practices.
Although the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), the Christian Social Union (CSU), and the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) are the largest parties, Germany also has minority parties. These comprise the Free Democratic Party (FDP), the Greens, the Alternative for Germany (AfD), and the Left (Göhrs et al., 2022). Just as the other dominant parties in Germany, the minority parties have remained relevant in the country, creating a different image than those in the US.
Federal System
In the US, the federal regime is the country’s national government, headquartered in Washington, DC, the capital city. The power is shared between the state governments and the federal government. The federal system comprises three different branches: Executive, legislative, and judiciary, with their powers enshrined in the President, the Congress, and the Federal courts. However, Germany is a federal and democratic parliamentary republic in which federal legislative authority is vested in the parliament (the Bundestag) and the regional states (the Bundesrat) (Klaus, 2020).
Germany and the US government share similarities and differences, as both nations’ federal systems feature a central power with several supporting local governments, typically referred to as states in the US and Länder in Germany (Wijaya & Nasran, 2021). In both nations, the central or federal government has massive power and is responsible for national issues, including immigration, as well as the integrity and security of local administrations.
Further, regarding the judicial processes of the two nations, it is important to note their differences and similarities. The judicial systems are similar in that Germany’s system comprises several federal courts at the Länder level, equivalent to the US federal courts in various states. Nonetheless, Germany is shown to have a single federal court rather than the US Supreme Court, both of which have enormous power (Wijaya & Nasran, 2021). It has been noted that Germany adopted an egalitarian form of leadership for many years.
The model of leadership benefits the public greatly by supporting social amenities and steering economic multiculturalism and economic freedom. Hence, Germany emphasizes social equality, including gender and income equality, which involves inclusivity and individual rights (DiabatĂ© et al., 2023). Germany’s political system is democratic, leading to a considerate immigration policy that allows EU citizens to enter the country directly (Hertner, 2021).
Furthermore, foreigners who enter the EU may begin working immediately, even while their qualifications are pending approval. In addition, employees and their dependents can remain on leave for up to 3 years, provided they acknowledge they can support themselves (Schultz, 2020). Thus, the country needs to consider its immigration plans in light of its internal rules and EU limitations set by its legislative and electoral branches.
On the other hand, federalism is seen as one of the major tools for the development of constitutionalism. Thus, American democratic and political culture might be illustrated as per Elazar’s theory (Dinan, 2019). According to Lopez (2022), the model holds that the political systems of the US are separated into distinct cultures comprising individualist, moralistic, and traditionalistic.
The framework conveys the political system of the US as moralistic, where the federal and state governments are seen to be mechanisms that cater to the public by guaranteeing the welfare of citizens. This implies any public pressure to increase the number of immigrants in the country. The legislative branch will have to respond to this matter by decreasing it to meet the plights and voices of the people (Wang & Inbar, 2020). This moralistic culture of politics in the US helps improve honesty and transparency to Americans, which are the main pillars of democracy.
Moreover, there is a broader issue of diffusion and concentration, specifically the power-sharing in social and political systems, which leads to individualism. According to Elazar et al. (2022), the US system of government may be experiencing an individualist political culture. It is a culture in which the government is portrayed as the tool that addresses and resolves the public’s issues, such as immigration (Marginson & Yang, 2021).
Hence, the government needs to provide healthcare, education, and good working conditions to vulnerable citizens. The root cause of frontier culture is the imposition of selective migration, along with the causal impact of frontier exposure on individuality, mostly in New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania (Bazzi et al., 2020). Generally, the culture highlights the persistent legacy of the frontier of illegal immigrants in individualism.
Further, some states in the US display a traditionalist political culture that augments bias against other races, ethnicities, and regions while they perpetrate white supremacy. This has led to demonstrations that criticize how police officers are treating black Americans and other immigrants (Elazar et al. 2022). It prioritizes white dominance while discriminating against African Americans, Latinos, and other immigrants in the country.
Conclusion
Comparative politics is vital to political science because it enables them to understand other nations’ political affairs, which is critical for benchmarking political processes. The research shows that comparing political processes globally is essential, as it helps identify areas where people are not doing well and nurture or boost democratic systems (Graham and Svolik, 2020). There are different political systems in the US and Germany regarding immigration policy. The systems have been compared based on the federal government and democracy, focusing on political parties, principles, rules, and other aspects.
References
Bazzi, S., Fiszbein, M., & Gebresilasse, M. (2020). Frontier culture: The roots and persistence of “Rugged Individualism” in the United States. Econometrica, 88(6), 2329–2368.
Chittenden, W. T. (2020). Political parties in power and U.S. economic performance. SSRN.
Colagrossi, M., Rossignoli, D., & Maggioni, M. A. (2019). Does democracy cause growth? A meta-analysis (of 2000 regressions). European Journal of Political Economy, 61.
Diabaté, S., Grunow, D., & Braack, M. (2023). A step to the left? Gender ideologies and political party identification in Germany. European Sociological Review 39(6), 992–1004.
Dinan, J. (2019). Editor’s note: Publius at 50 years. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 50(1), 1–2.
Dippel, C. (2022). Political parties do matter in US cities … for Their Unfunded Pensions. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 14(3), 33–54.
Elazar, A., Alhama, R. G., Bogaerts, L., Siegelman, N., Baus, C., & Frost, R. (2022). When the “Tabula” is anything but “Rasa:” What determines performance in the auditory statistical learning task?. Cognitive Science, 46(2).
Floridi, L. (2020). The fight for digital sovereignty: What it is, and why it matters, especially for the eu. Philosophy & Technology, 33(3), 369–378.
Göhrs, M., Krott, M., & Hubo, C. (2022). Political parties as allies for the forestry sector: A case study from Germany. Forest Policy and Economics, 138.
Graham, M. H., & Svolik, M. W. (2020). Democracy in America? Partisanship, polarization, and the robustness of support for democracy in the United States. American Political Science Review, 114(2), 392–409.
Hertner, I. (2021). Germany as “a country of integration”? The CDU/CSU’s policies and discourses on immigration during Angela Merkel’s Chancellorship. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 48(2), 1–21.
Hess, D. J., & Renner, M. (2019). Conservative political parties and energy transitions in Europe: Opposition to climate mitigation policies. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 104, 419–428.
Klaus D. (2020). Germany (Federal Republic of Germany). Springer EBooks, 167–180.
Marginson, S., & Yang, L. (2021). Individual and collective outcomes of higher education: A comparison of Anglo-American and Chinese approaches. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 20(1), 1–31.
Perju, V. (2020). Identity Federalism in Europe and the United States. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, 53, 207.
Schmidtke, O. (2021). Policy formation and citizenship practices: Germany’s regions as laboratories for immigrant integration. Journal of International Migration and Integration, 22, 1349–1368.
Schultz, C. (2020). Ambiguous goals, uneven implementation – How immigration offices shape internal immigration control in Germany. Comparative Migration Studies, 8(1).
Wang, S.-Y. N., & Inbar, Y. (2020). Moral-Language use by U.S. political elites. Psychological Science, 32(1), 14–26.
Wijaya, A., & Nasran, N. (2021). Comparison of judicial review: A Critical approach to the model in several countries. Jurnal Legalitas, 14(2), 85–106.