Academic Solidarity e.V.

The migration issue in Germany is currently at a significant turning point, both in terms of the numbers and the political landscape. In 2024, Germany reached its highest level of forced returns (Abschiebung) in recent years. 20,084 people were registered as deportations throughout the year, and a new wave of deportations of 11,807 people occurred in the first half of 2025 (https://www.bundestag.de/presse/hib/kurzmeldungen-1109918). This increase is paralleled by the acceleration of voluntary returns: with REAG/GARP, approximately 10,225 registered voluntary returns were made in 2024, and more than 10,000 people left the country voluntarily through state support programs. Voluntary returns reached approximately 24,600 in the first half of the year (https://mediendienst-integration.de/flucht-asyl/abschiebungen.html). This situation reflects a policy that has been hardened by anti-immigrant rhetoric.

However, the situation is not just one-sided. The German economy faces an existential crisis in many sectors without the contribution of immigrants. The number of foreign-born employees was measured at 6.3 million by the end of 2024, accounting for approximately 16.1 percent of total employment. Institutional analyses suggest that Germany needs a net immigrant workforce of approximately 400,000 each year (https://mediendienst-integration.de/migration/arbeitskraefte.html). In other words, harsh border policies and anti-immigrant rhetoric create a serious economic dilemma. Positions filled by immigrants (care, healthcare, construction, the service sector, and many technical professions) are considered irreplaceable.

A different dynamic is at play in the political arena. The ruling party and other major parties tend to align with the Alternative für Deutschland (AfD), which positions itself as an alternative by adopting an anti-immigration approach. However, political science research shows that mainstream parties’ adoption of the radical right’s framework gives the radical right an agenda and legitimacy, ultimately creating a legitimacy effect rather than persuading voters. From this perspective, an approach that seeks to “prevent” criticism of the AfD through anti-immigrant strategies risks, on the contrary, underscoring racist and exclusionary rhetoric (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/oct/18/german-far-right-setting-agenda-as-opponents-amplify-its-ideas-study-finds).

Germany’s current situation faces a twofold problem: On the one hand, the increasing repatriation and voluntary departure rates of the immigrant population, coupled with the tightening of immigration policies, and on the other, the importance of immigrants in the economy, make it clear that their place will not be easily filled. This contradictory outlook signals a breaking point in the country’s migration and integration strategy. The ruling parties’ soft or temporary implementation of anti-immigrant policies to protect their own prestige and standing against the AfD is unsustainable, both economically and socially.

The real benefit lies in developing transparent and inclusive mechanisms for managing migration, rather than anti-immigrant rhetoric and policies. Rapid recognition processes, predictable and fair pathways for labor migration, and programs that support local integration… These can increase immigrants’ contributions to the country while ensuring their progress without undermining public safety and social cohesion (https://www.tagesschau.de/wirtschaft/arbeitsmarkt/einwanderer-mangelberufe-wirtschaft-100.html). Racist and exclusionary rhetoric makes it difficult for doctors, nurses, technicians, and educated workers from diverse backgrounds, such as Turkey, Syria, and Eritrea, to integrate. However, considering economic and demographic needs, such an integrated approach is more logical and sustainable for Germany. The critical question for Germany today is: Should we tighten immigration policies, echoing the record number of repatriations and the rise in voluntary returns, or should we restructure and transform migration into an opportunity? The answer seems clear, given the available data: tightening the levy may be a temporary response but could harm both the economy and social cohesion in the long run. On the other hand, an approach that makes migration manageable, promotes integration, and recognizes the value of labor would be both a rational and ethical choice for Germany.

Germany has implemented a relatively egalitarian system of compulsory and free primary and secondary education, with a low private school ratio compared to many other countries. Despite this, learning outcomes have been declining rapidly in recent years. Data from the 2022 PISA (Program for International Student Assessment) showed that Germany’s performance in mathematics and reading fell to its lowest level since the measurement began in 2000. The IQB (Institut zur Qualitätsentwicklung im Bildungswesen) report, published on October 16, 2025, showed that the performance of 9th-grade students in mathematics and biology, chemistry, and physics in Germany has declined significantly compared to 2018. The results confirm the decline already signaled by the 2022 PISA data (https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Laender-Regionen/Internationales/Thema/bevoelkerung-arbeit-soziales/bildung/PISA2022.html).

The IQB found a decline of approximately 24 points in mathematics compared to 2018, with similar declines in science subjects (biology, chemistry, physics). This difference equates to a learning loss of approximately one academic year. According to the report, 24% of 9th-grade students fail to meet the minimum standards for the Secondary School Diploma (MSA) in mathematics, 25% in chemistry, 16% in physics, and 10% in biology (https://www.tagesspiegel.de/wissen/lernruckstand-in-ganz-deutschland-neue-bildungsstudie-zeigt-dramatischen-absturz-in-mathe-und-naturwissenschaften-14582699.html).

Saxony and Bavaria perform best, while some states lag significantly behind the federal average. Hamburg has been the state that has maintained its relatively good results despite the nationwide decline (https://www.news4teachers.de/2025/10/iqb-bildungstrend-2024-das-ranking-so-schneiden-die-einzelnen-bundeslaender-ab/). The proportion of private schools in Germany remains relatively low. Approximately 5.3% of primary school students attend private schools, while the proportion of private schools across all school levels is around 7% (https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SE.PRM.PRIV.ZS?locations=DE). Across OECD countries, the proportion of private schools is approximately 12% at primary school, 15% at secondary school, and 20% at upper secondary school (https://www.diw.de/de/diw_01.c.453944.de/publikationen/weekly_reports/2009_29_1/private_schools_in_germany__attendance_up__but_not_among_the_children_of_less_educated_parents.html). Therefore, it can be said that Germany maintains its predominantly public school system and ranks below many comparable countries in terms of the prevalence of private schools.

The IQB-2024 results indicate that Germany’s public-based education model, which it has prided itself on for decades, has reached a serious alarming threshold. Learning losses of up to an academic year in math and science are a reflection not only of the pandemic but also of long-accumulating structural problems. Teacher shortages, curriculum differences between states, digital infrastructure deficiencies, and socioeconomic inequalities have now formed a mutually reinforcing cycle.

Plans announced at the federal level highlight increasing the teacher supply (https://www.kmk.org/themen/allgemeinbildende-schulen/lehrkraefte/lehrkraeftebedarf.html), restructuring school hours (https://www.schulministerium.nrw/presse/pressemitteilungen/iqb-bildungstrend-2024-nordrhein-westfalen-hat-einen-klaren-kompass-fuer), and support programs specifically for language learners. Some states, such as Hamburg and Saxony, have launched initiatives to increase the emphasis on mathematics in the curriculum and address learning gaps through individualized monitoring. However, for these efforts to yield lasting results, a common nationwide quality and monitoring system is needed (https://www.deutschlandfunk.de/lehrermangel-deutschland-bildung-100.html).

Germany still has one of the world’s most inclusive education systems. However, current indicators indicate that structural renewal is needed to sustain this success. From the perspective of Academic Solidarity, this decline in education is a critical signal not only in terms of pedagogy but also in terms of social equality and fairness of opportunity. Declining performance in public schools may drive more people to private schools. Bearing the social burden on Germany’s education is the shared responsibility not only of teachers but also of local governments, universities, and civil society.

The Nobel Prizes, announced each October and aimed at recognizing the greatest contributions to humanity in various fields, are once again dominating the world agenda this year. Alfred Nobel was a Swedish chemist, engineer, and industrialist who lived from 1833 to 1896. Nobel amassed a vast fortune through his explosive inventions. However, this success was often linked to the devastation wrought by explosive technologies. A French newspaper even published a false farewell announcement in 1888 regarding Nobel’s death, headlined “The merchant of death is dead” (https://www.biography.com/inventors/a45977855/alfred-nobel). It is reported that Nobel was affected by this situation and, in his will, allocated the majority of his estate to reward those who have made the greatest contribution to humanity (https://www.nobelprize.org/). Nobel Prize winners are typically individuals or institutions with a long history of groundbreaking research or action in their respective fields (https://www.britannica.com/topic/Nobel-Prize/The-prizes). Both researchers who receive the Nobel Prize in Science and activists who receive the Peace Prize can have very different backgrounds. However, the primary theme is “contribution to the betterment of the world or humanity.”

Alfred Nobel’s most famous invention is dynamite: he introduced an explosive substance like nitroglycerin into a safer and more stable form. However, this invention also became particularly useful for war and destruction. It is reported that the feelings Nobel suppressed about these negative uses of his inventions and the public perception he developed profoundly affected him (https://www.sciencehistory.org/education/scientific-biographies/alfred-nobel/). Ironically, given that these explosive inventions may have been directly or indirectly linked to the deaths of millions of people, the inventor of a weapons technology funds the Peace Prizes.

Nobel Prizes are awarded in Physics, Chemistry, Physiology or Medicine, Literature, and Peace. This year’s Chemistry Prize was awarded to three individuals for their groundbreaking work on metal-organic frameworks (MOFs): Omar M. Yaghi, Susumu Kitagawa, and Richard Robson (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2025/10/08/nobel-prize-palestinian-omar-yaghi-chemistry/). Yaghi is the son of Palestinian refugees. Given the destruction Israel has wrought in Palestine in recent years, this distinction is a powerful symbol for a scientist of refugee origin to receive one of the most prestigious awards.

This year’s Peace Prize went to Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado for her “tireless efforts to defend the democratic rights of the Venezuelan people and her struggle for a just and peaceful transition from dictatorship to democracy.” Meanwhile, Donald Trump’s Nobel Peace Prize nomination and his self-proclaimed “peace ambassador” on the White House website have generated considerable controversy. Trump claims to have stopped wars in six countries, but a statement has been released stating that the award committee relies on objective criteria (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/oct/10/trump-nobel-peace-prize-reaction).

As an organization working on the themes of academic solidarity, migration, academic exile, and forced migration, this year’s Nobel Prize results convey several important messages. Scientists with refugee backgrounds can also receive the most prestigious awards. This is invaluable for positive examples of migration and academic integration. Furthermore, it is quite significant to see that a global emphasis on rewarding democracy, human rights, and peace remains prevalent in a world where political oppression and authoritarian regimes are on the rise.

Like the rest of the world, AI technologies are rapidly becoming widespread in healthcare in Germany. The picture seen at the DEGAM congress (https://eventclass.it/degam2025/online-program/), held from October 1–3, confirms the transformation that has been accelerating in Germany for some time: Artificial intelligence (AI) is now embedded in a range of workflows, from patient communication and billing to ultrasound diagnosis and clinical documentation.

321 MED’s “Online Reception” solution (https://321med.com/de) digitizes and automates existing practices’ processes. It includes modules such as chatbot messaging, a telephone AI assistant, appointment/reminder, e-prescription and referral, forms/anamnesis, and patient portals. The installation is customized to the clinical workflow and provides web-telephone integration.

In Germany, physicians bill the public health insurance company after each patient consultation. Simba n³ – Dr. Clever analyzes data from the physician’s computer for KV/EBM-compliant billing, generating personalized checklists for erroneous records, documentation gaps, and additional billing opportunities. The goal is to both reduce the risk of regress (deduction) and make revenue leaks visible (https://www.nhochdrei.de/branchen-und-bereiche/gesundheitswesen/ambulante-abrechnung-dr-clever/).

The rise of AI in diagnostic imaging has also reached the field. Philips announced the integration of AI-powered measurement and flow capabilities in cardiac echo into its product line. The goal is standardization, speed, and quality (https://www.philips.de/a-w/about/news/archive/standard/news/2024/202408-philips-integriert-ki-in-echokardiographie-technologie.html). Meanwhile, the deepcOS platform promises to integrate more than 60 regulatory-approved AI applications into clinical PACS/RIS with a single installation (https://www.medica.de/de/media-news/erlebniswelten-magazin/digital-health/floy-ki-start-up-verbessert-auswertung-bildgebung).

“AI medical scribe” solutions like Heidi capture the examination from ambient sound and generate notes in SOAP/epicrisis letter formats. This aims to reduce administrative burden and increase physician-patient time (https://www.heidihealth.com/de-de).

While promising concrete gains in the areas of appointment-communication, income security, diagnostic quality, and physician burnout, it is imperative not to compromise on the principles of data protection and clinical responsibility.

Germany’s rapidly growing physician shortage is making doctors from abroad an indispensable part of the healthcare system. According to 2024 statistics from the Bundesärztekammer, the number of foreign-born physicians in the country has been increasing for years; 5,383 physicians registered for the first time in 2024 alone, and the proportion of younger generations in the total number of physicians is directly linked to emigration. The agency emphasizes that without this immigration, the number of physicians would decrease by approximately 2,000 people annually (https://www.bundesaerztekammer.de/baek/ueber-uns/aerztestatistik/2024). Furthermore, detailed 2024 physician statistics show that the share of foreign physicians in the total has reached approximately 15% (https://www.coliquio.de/content/aerztliches-leben/zahlen-fakten-zu-deutschlands-aerztinnen-und-aerzten-51692). However, obtaining equivalence (Approbation) and actually starting to practice has become a bureaucratic ordeal for many international physicians, spanning years. Fragmented application processes across states, limited quotas for the Fachsprachprüfung (C1 medical language exam) and Kenntnisprüfung (competence/adaptation exam), and waiting times for appointments and evaluations are lengthy. In recent years, waiting times of up to 15 months to three years, particularly for physicians from Ukraine, have been the subject of harsh public criticism (https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article252822286/Bilanz-verheerend-Deutsche-Buerokratie-bremst-gefluechtete-ukrainische-Aerzte-aus.html).

A recent report by DER SPIEGEL provides detailed examples of how physicians from Turkey are being “disprofessionally disqualified” in Germany due to long waiting times, repeated exams, difficulties with document verification, and differing practices across states. The report emphasizes that, despite the physician shortage, bureaucratic bottlenecks are costing both immigrant physicians and patient care (https://www.spiegel.de/panorama/tuerkische-aerzte-in-deutschland-warum-sie-hier-keine-zulassung-erhalten-a-0719e52d-2a9a-4604-a568-451a393abca4?sara_ref=re-xx-cp-sh). These findings align with the healthcare system’s experience in the field: While small towns and provincial hospitals struggle to fill positions, physicians awaiting equivalency are losing time in temporary jobs or non-clinical positions. The German Medical Association and physician recruitment platforms also confirm that foreign physicians keep the healthcare system afloat, but that paperwork and examination processes are a “bottleneck” (https://aerztestellen.aerzteblatt.de/de/redaktion/deutschland-arbeiten-woher-kommen-auslaendische-aerzte).

A 2024 study by Zekeriya Aktürk and colleagues from the University of Augsburg compares the pre- and post-migration professional/economic situations of healthcare professionals who left Turkey. The findings indicate that push factors (professional uncertainty, security, and merit concerns) and pull factors (stable employment, advancement, and training opportunities) are both influential. The same article and related datasets also report a significant increase in the number of Turkish immigrant physicians in Germany after 2012 (https://ijmshr.com/uploads/pdf/archivepdf/2024/IJMSHR_398.pdf).

Two facts are clear: Germany struggles to maintain the level of service in the field without foreign physicians; dependence on external resources is particularly strong in rural areas and small hospitals. Equivalence and language exam processes are unpredictable, inconsistent, and slow across states, leading to long waits for qualified physicians to be excluded from the system.

The data is clear: International doctors are filling Germany’s physician shortage; however, the fragmented and slow equivalence mechanism is harming both physicians’ careers and the system’s capacity. Spiegel’s fieldwork and the academic literature converge: a fast, standardized, and fair recognition process for doctors in Germany must be established as soon as possible.

In this regard, we believe the following recommendations would be beneficial:

1. A standardized and transparent “national core procedure”: Aligning application, document verification, and exam schedules with minimum standards at the federal level; transparently announcing state differences.
2. Increasing capacity and accelerating it: Regular and frequent slot scheduling for Fachsprachprüfung and Kenntnisprüfung; migrating the digital application and appointment infrastructure to a single portal. 3. Bridging programs: Making the waiting period clinically valuable for physicians awaiting equivalence through supervised clinical rotations and modular training packages.
3. Safeguarding against abuse and illegal registration: Minimum wage/mentoring standards and corporate responsibility principles for physicians during the waiting period.
4. Purpose-oriented language skills: Practice-oriented exam content and targeted language courses that measure clinical communication proficiency while maintaining the C1 medical language standard.

Germany continues to be one of the world’s most attractive countries for international students. The number of international students in Germany during the 2023/24 winter semester reached 379,900. This figure represents a 3% increase compared to the previous year and makes Germany a true student attraction (https://www.daad.de/de/der-daad/kommunikation-publikationen/presse/pressemitteilungen/2024/deutschland-ist-die-weltweite-nummer-2-fuer-internationale-wissenschaftlerinnen-und-wissenschaftler/).

The majority of international students in Germany come from Asia. India is the largest group with approximately 49,000 students; China follows with approximately 38,700 students (https://www.studying-in-germany.org/germany-international-student-statistics/).

This rise has accelerated dramatically in recent years, particularly for India—historical data shows that the number of students from India nearly doubled from 28,900 in 2020/21 to 2023/24.

Turkey constitutes the third-largest international student group in Germany, with 18,100 students. This represents a 22.7% increase compared to the previous year.

Austria, Iran, Syria, and Russia are also important source countries. Approximately 15,400 students come from Austria, and 15,200 from Iran. The number of students from Syria is approximately 13,400, while that from Russia is around 10,600.

Multiple factors contribute to Germany’s rise as an international student hub: free or low-cost university education, post-graduation work rights, and a stable education system. In addition to these dynamics, steps to increase academic solidarity are critical.

As Germany grows more attractive to international students, this demographic is not only characterized by academic success but also by cultural richness and future potential. Supporting this diversity through academic solidarity is crucial for both global scholarship and inter-societal understanding.

For many years, the US has been the most attractive educational destination for international students. However, the visa restrictions recently implemented by the Trump administration have begun to rapidly change this situation. It has been announced that student visas will no longer be granted for the duration of their programs, but for a maximum of four years. Furthermore, visas issued to exchange programs and members of the press will also be time-limited. Furthermore, the newly introduced “visa integrity fee” has increased application costs to as much as $442. These regulations have thrown uncertainty into the future of not only students but also universities. Leading institutions like Harvard have been accused of suspending international student admissions, putting thousands of applications at risk, shaking up the academic landscape in the US (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/aug/29/trump-immigration-visa-restrictions).

These tightening restrictions have caused significant losses in the US education sector and accelerated the flow of students to Europe. Germany, in particular, stands out with a nearly 20 percent increase in students from India and currently hosts more than 60,000 Indian students. Political stability, affordable costs, and post-graduation work opportunities are making Germany increasingly attractive. While applications to business schools like ESCP and HEC Paris are increasing in France, Germany and other European countries are also seeing significant interest from American students (https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/education/study-abroad/germany-welcomes-more-from-india-while-student-arrivals-to-the-us-plunge-the-new-geography-of-indian-ambition/articleshow/123472306.cms).  

The European Union plans to capitalize on this trend. In Brussels, parliamentarians called for the further expansion of programs like Erasmus+ and Horizon Europe for international students disadvantaged by US policies. Thus, Europe could become a stronger alternative for international academic leadership in the long term (https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar771dc3dc).  

The United States’ decline in its traditional appeal is reshaping not only students’ individual plans but also global academic balances. These developments signal that Europe could assume a central role in international student mobility.

The ongoing blockade and attacks in Gaza have become one of the worst humanitarian disasters in modern history. The deprivation of 2.3 million people of food, medicine, fuel, and education is considered a serious violation of international law and the conscience of humanity.

Historical analogies further illustrate this picture. During the siege of Leningrad in World War II, hundreds of thousands of civilians lost their lives to starvation, cold, and bombardment. Jews were among the victims of that tragedy. Today, the fact that people who have historically endured similar oppression impose a similar siege on another ethnic and religious group, or remain silent in the face of it, is met with shock and profound sadness.

The United Nations and humanitarian organizations have repeatedly warned: Starvation in Gaza has become a systematic weapon. This situation contradicts the most fundamental principles of international law.

The blockade in Gaza directly targets not only the fundamental right to life but also the right to education. Universities are being bombed, libraries are being destroyed, and students are being forced to abandon their education. Thousands of university students and academics have either lost their lives directly or been forced into exile. This threatens the region’s academic future.

This is a test case for the global academic community. To end this persecution, we must speak out, establish solidarity networks, create scholarships and research opportunities for students and academics exiled from Gaza, international academic institutions (e.g., Scholars at Risk, Scholar Rescue Fund) must launch more visible support campaigns, and universities must stand with the victims instead of remaining neutral in humanitarian crises, adhering to the principle of “not remaining silent.”

After World War II, the phrase “never again” became a common mantra for humanity. However, the events in Gaza demonstrate that this promise has been forgotten. The Jewish people, who felt the pain of the siege of Leningrad most deeply, remain silent in the face of the persecution in Gaza today, a bitter irony of history.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2025/aug/22/famine-benjamin-netanyahu-palestine-gaza-israel-war-latest-updates

https://www.ft.com/content/90aaed53-027b-4eed-be93-89632f0d2ea5

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/weaponisation-food-gaza-constitutes-war-crime-un-rights-office-says-2025-06-24

US Surgeon General Robert F. Kennedy Jr. made headlines with his July 2025 opinion piece requesting the retraction of a study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine. The study, based on an analysis of data from 1.2 million children, demonstrated that aluminum in vaccines was not linked to autoimmune, allergic, and neurodevelopmental diseases in children. Kennedy called the study a “propaganda stunt” (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/aug/14/robert-kennedy-jr-vaccine-study-retraction).

The journal’s editor, Dr. Christine Laine, rejected the retraction call and emphasized that there were no scientific irregularities in the study (https://www.thedailybeast.com/rfk-jr-slapped-down-by-medical-journal-over-vaccine-study-retraction-request/). The study’s lead author, Anders Peter Hviid, stated that most of the criticisms were reasonable methodological arguments. He explained that criticisms, such as the lack of a control group, were due to legal and ethical principles, not a lack of data due to Denmark’s high vaccination rates (https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/medical-journal-rejects-kennedys-call-for-retraction-vaccine-study-2025-08-11/).

To understand why anti-vaccine advocates (and groups perpetuating anti-science conspiracy narratives in general) persist with their claims despite such compelling scientific evidence, we’ve listed the dimensions of the phenomenon:

1. Distrust and the Perception of “Big Pharma”
   • Anti-vaccine advocates, citing the multi-billion dollar size of the pharmaceutical industry (Big Pharma), claim that the “profit-driven system” prioritizes profit over health.
   • The global vaccine market exceeded approximately $70 billion in 2023; a massive market emerged after COVID-19. This figure easily provides fodder for conspiracy theories when there is a lack of transparency.
2. Cultural and Political Identity
   • Anti-vaccine sentiment often becomes not just a scientific stance, but an identity and ideological stance. Opposition to authority, the claim to protect individual freedom, and distrust of government institutions fuel this identity.
   • Therefore, instead of being persuaded by scientific data, scientific evidence can be perceived as “manipulation” by authority.
3. Cognitive Biases and Emotional Power
   • People can prioritize a single negative anecdote (e.g., “My child developed autism symptoms after being vaccinated”) over thousands of safety data points. This is known in psychology as availability bias.
   • Furthermore, fear, anxiety, and the feeling that “my child might be harmed” have a much stronger impact than abstract statistical data.
4. Information Pollution and Social Media
   • Thanks to echo chambers on social media, misinformation is constantly repeated and perceived as “evidence.”
   • RFK Jr. Political figures like these use these echo chambers as political capital.
5. Historical Factors
   • Pharmaceutical company scandals in the 1970s (e.g., the thalidomide incident) created a lasting distrust of the pharmaceutical industry.
   • Because most vaccines are administered under government mandate, the concept of “mandatory” triggers a backlash against authority.

In conclusion, the persistence of anti-vaccine sentiment is not solely due to a lack of scientific evidence. Economic size, historical distrust, ideological identity, emotional biases, and social media influence also need to be considered. The lack of transparency within the large vaccine industry further strengthens this foundation. While RFK Jr.’s harsh criticism of scientific studies on aluminum-containing vaccines has been dismissed as invalid by the credible scientific community due to its fundamental illogicalities, such initiatives contribute to the erosion of confidence in vaccines.