There it goes – the last straw. Up until the end, when asked about the prospect of two impending electoral victories for the right-wing populist AfD in the states of Saxony and Thuringia, many politicians from the current government pointed out that these were just polls. Since Sunday evening, that's no longer the case. The votes have confirmed the polls. In Thuringia, the AfD has emerged as the strongest party, and in Saxony, the ruling CDU managed to retain a slight lead. Together with the Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance (BSW) and Die Linke, the majority of citizens in both states have voted for protest parties. And this occurred with a significantly higher voter turnout than five years ago.

All of this is depressing enough, especially in economically challenging times. Many businesses in the East warned against voting for the AfD in the weeks leading up to the election. They rely on foreign skilled workers. Yet, the business community has once again been shown that its voice seemingly doesn't matter at the ballot box – despite its enormous importance to the country's prosperity.

Even more problematic, however, seems to be the initial post-election analysis. During the evening talk shows, there was a wide-ranging debate on whether there should now be a halt to accepting Syrians and Afghans or at least a tougher migration policy. Indeed, in the ZDF exit poll, the topic played the biggest role in the voting decision for 35% of Saxons and 34% of Thuringians. The next most important issue was schools/education. The AfD is seen as having the greatest competence in the first area, while the CDU (followed by the AfD) is seen as most competent in the second. The parties of the coalition in Berlin are seen as almost completely incompetent on these issues.

The biggest problem is that the parties do not seem to recognize the fundamental issue. Immigration has existed in Germany for a long time. But the way it has been managed over the past decade seems to have deeply frustrated people. The number of refugees is only part of the problem. Far more problematic is the inability to find a solution for those who are already here. How can people traumatized by war be integrated into society at all? Why does bureaucracy make it so difficult for integration-minded refugees and companies to connect? Instead, the state primarily focuses on providing benefits to people or keeping them dependent on such benefits. This applies not only to immigrants, but also to long-established citizens receiving social welfare.

In the United States, the old dream of „rags to riches“ has suffered greatly in recent decades, enabling the political rise of the populist Donald Trump. Here in Germany, this dream was always less prevalent. But an education policy that demands less and less over the years while producing more and more top graduates with perfect scores will do little to change that.

For immigrants, it is even more challenging. Recognizing a professional qualification from abroad for non-EU foreigners who do not come from Switzerland or other Western countries is a bureaucratic nightmare, as many Ukrainians who fled here have also found out. A doctor fleeing to Germany from a war-torn country does not have to fear the reverse American dream (from riches to rags), thanks to the good social safety net. But he could easily go from being a urologist to an Uber driver.

Yet, there is hardly anything that would counteract the AfD and the shift to the right more effectively than well-integrated immigrants. However, with each political success of the right-wing populists, the chances of a policy that promotes integration decrease. The AfD will never support such policies. After all, those who thrive on a problem have no interest in solving it. What is needed is a new basic consensus among politicians, trade unions, and businesses: getting people into work is more important than upholding the „purity law“ of German vocational training. Unlike the deportation of 28 highly criminal refugees, this would be more than a symbolic act.