Why does the Germany’s political language call immigrants and their children “migrants” or “people with migration background”?
Because plans for their/our emigration (or deportation) are already being made. It would be cruel to call us em>immigrants and thereby make us believe we’re here to stay. This is German humanism.
Why are legal migrants from the imperialist nations not discussed as a problem?
They don’t just take German jobs and apartments, they buy the whole company and the whole house (the poorer ones just buy the bar in Neukölln). They’re more like absentee migrants. Who is and who’s not a migrant is a class issue. An exiled prince is not (mis)treated like his peasant compatriot, Rassismus hin oder her.
Why is counting “minorities” in good jobs a meaningless criterion for inequality?
Because many of those “migration backgrounders” in good jobs were already privileged in their former countries. Discussing the social question as a “racial” issue promotes the racialization of class.
For example, looking at the university enrollment of working class children of all nationalities and at the wage difference between academics and non-academics leads to a more fundemantal critique than talking about racism within academia.
Comparing my social situation as a “swarthy” male from a middle class family to the social situation of an East German welfare recipient tells me more about society than any heated kitchen table discussion with my white middle-class flat mates. With my flat mates I can joke about our imagined “differences,” with my social inferiors I can’t.