For the past twelve years, the organization Amaro Foro has documented anti-Roma incidents in Berlin through its Dokumentationsstelle Antiziganismus (DOSTA/MIA Berlin). Its most recent annual report (for which we provided a guest contribution), published in April 2026, recorded a new all-time high in reported incidents for the second consecutive year. Through our own courtwatching work at Justice Collective, we likewise continue to observe how deeply anti-Roma racism remains embedded within German public institutions and intertwined with broader structures of exploitation and exclusion. To better understand these dynamics, we spoke with Valerie Laukat of DOSTA/MIA Berlin at Amaro Foro e.V.

Justice Collective (JC): In April 2026, you published your new annual report documenting anti-Roma incidents in Berlin during 2025. In the foreword, Violeta Balog writes: “Despite the many successes of anti-discrimination work, we now find ourselves fighting the same struggles we fought ten years ago.” What specific struggles is she referring to?

Valerie Laukat, DOSTA/MIA Berlin, Amaro Foro (AF): These struggles refer to the fact that we are currently witnessing a worrying normalization and growing societal acceptance of anti-Roma racism. One indication of this is that openly discriminatory terms, such as the racist slur, are once again being used more frequently in public discourse. At the same time, there is often a lack of social solidarity and clear public opposition to such developments. This is particularly evident in certain public statements made by politicians in the Berlin House of Representatives, as well as in inflammatory election campaigns that exploit anti-Roma prejudices without facing any significant social or political consequences. Parts of the media also continue to reproduce anti-Roma stereotypes and narratives.

These developments are especially alarming because they recall debates and conditions that we were already fighting against ten or even fifteen years ago. Despite important advances in anti-discrimination work, we see that fundamental struggles over recognition, protection, and societal solidarity must once again be fought.

JC: The number of anti-Roma incidents recorded by your organization has reached a new record high for the second consecutive year. In 2025, the number increased significantly once again compared to the previous year. How do you explain this development?

AF: The renewed increase in recorded incidents can be explained, first, by current political and social developments. For years, we have observed a pronounced shift to the right, resulting in racist and anti-Roma positions being expressed more openly and becoming increasingly normalized. This directly affects the everyday lives of Roma and Sinti people.

At the same time, the increase is also related to the fact that we have been able to expand our network of reporting sources. As a result, more incidents are reaching us, and more affected individuals know where they can turn for support.

Nevertheless, we continue to assume that there is a very high number of unreported cases. Many people affected by anti-Roma discrimination still face considerable barriers to reporting incidents, whether due to fear of stigmatization, lack of trust in institutions, or previous experiences of having discrimination dismissed or ignored. The actual number of anti-Roma incidents is therefore likely to be significantly higher than the documented cases.

“For years, we have observed a pronounced shift to the right, resulting in racist and anti-Roma positions being expressed more openly and becoming increasingly normalized. This directly affects the everyday lives of Roma and Sinti people.”

JC: In your report, you write that a broader “societal shift in public discourse” can increasingly be observed with regard to anti-Roma racism. Could you elaborate on this with an example?

AF: A broader societal shift in discourse becomes visible when anti-Roma statements and stereotypes are expressed more openly and become socially normalized – not only at the margins of society, but also in everyday interactions, public institutions, and among political actors.

A particularly clear example is the case of Berlin CDU parliamentarian Timur Husein. On social media, he used a racist slur and simultaneously linked Sinti and Roma communities to allegedly “illegal” migration. We see this as highly problematic because it reproduces centuries-old anti-Roma stereotypes and lends political legitimacy to racist narratives.

What makes this especially serious is that these statements come from an elected representative and therefore contribute to their normalization in society. We would also point out that the term he used is historically closely tied to the persecution and murder of Sinti and Roma under National Socialism and is therefore retraumatizing for many affected individuals – a fact that should be well known to the party’s commissioner for combating antisemitism.

JC: The focus of your current annual report is labor exploitation. Why did you choose this particular topic?

AF: We deliberately chose to focus on labor exploitation because we have documented a significant increase in such cases in recent years. What’s more, our analysis of cases from previous years showed that precarious employment conditions and exploitation appeared frequently as the backdrop in incident reports in other areas. We compared these findings with the expertise of Amaro Foro’s advisory center for EU citizens and with existing academic literature, leading us to conclude that Roma are disproportionately affected by precarious employment and labor exploitation.

Another reason for this focus was the ongoing political discourse surrounding the alleged “abuse of social benefits” by people from Bulgaria and Romania, as well as debates about possible restrictions on social welfare provisions. In our view, these discussions distract from the actual problems.

Many migrant workers are employed under extremely precarious conditions in low-wage sectors from which large parts of the German economy have benefited considerably since the enlargement of the EU. It was therefore important for us to emphasize that labor exploitation is not the result of individual failure on the part of those affected, but rather a structural problem closely linked to racism and social inequality.

“In Germany, many migrants from Southeastern Europe find themselves working in sectors characterized by precarious and informal employment structures. Employers often exploit existing dependencies and precarities.”

JC: In court, we repeatedly observe that people perceived as Roma are blamed for their own precarious employment conditions. Judges frequently question whether citizens from southeastern Europe have work permits, even in the absence of any indication that this might be the case. What are some of the structural barriers in the labor market and specific dynamics of exploitation that migrants from southeastern European countries face in Germany?

AF: In Germany, many migrants from Southeastern Europe find themselves working in sectors characterized by precarious and informal employment structures. Employers often exploit existing dependencies and precarities. We repeatedly document dubious job offers and recruitment practices based on false promises regarding wages, working conditions, or accommodation. Many affected individuals are unfamiliar with their labor rights in Germany or face language barriers and limited access to legal advice, making it difficult to assert their rights. This significantly facilitates exploitative practices. Roma workers in particular are recruited for especially precarious and poorly paid jobs. Anti-Roma stereotypes frequently serve to legitimize their mistreatment.

The cases we document often involve serious violations of labor rights, including unpaid or reduced wages, lack of workplace safety protections, excessive working hours, and arrangements that tie employment to housing. The latter creates strong dependencies because losing one’s job may simultaneously mean losing one’s accommodation.

Particularly alarming is the fact that exploitation in some cases is accompanied by intimidation, threats, or even violence by employers. Many affected individuals are afraid to defend themselves or report incidents because they fear being criminalized or not being taken seriously.

“Instead of focusing on exploitative employers and labor structures, suspicion is frequently directed toward those affected themselves.”

These difficulties are compounded when courts and public authorities routinely question the legitimacy of their employment. Over the years, DOSTA has documented countless cases involving disproportionate inquiries, administrative measures, or dismissals of claims or complaints, all of which further reinforce structural disadvantage. Instead of focusing on exploitative employers and labor structures, suspicion is frequently directed toward those affected themselves.

JC: In January 2026, the federal government adopted a reform concerning the designation of so-called “safe countries of origin.” In the future, these countries are to be designated by government ordinance rather than through parliamentary legislation. Why do you consider this change problematic, and what disadvantages arise from such classifications?

AF: From our perspective, the proposed reform is highly problematic because it would allow the federal government to designate so-called “safe countries of origin” much more easily and quickly through executive decree rather than through legislation requiring approval by both the Bundestag and Bundesrat. This would weaken parliamentary oversight and make such far-reaching decisions more susceptible to political instrumentalization. Critics such as PRO ASYL therefore raise constitutional concerns. The German Expert Council on Integration and Migration (SVR) has likewise expressed significant criticism of the proposed reform in a legal opinion.

People originating from countries designated as “safe” face substantially less favorable conditions during asylum proceedings. Deadlines for legal appeals are shortened, appeals generally do not have suspensory effect [pausing the enforcement of a ruling or decision, JC], and deportations can be carried out more quickly. Additional restrictions include stricter residency requirements and work prohibitions during the asylum process. These measures make it considerably more difficult for affected individuals to exercise their rights and challenge potentially erroneous decisions.

This is particularly problematic in relation to anti-Roma racism. Many of the countries affected – including Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, North Macedonia, Serbia, and Moldova – may officially be designated “safe,” yet Roma frequently experience severe discrimination, social exclusion, and structural anti-Roma racism there. Such realities are often obscured by blanket classifications. As a result, people who genuinely require protection have fewer opportunities to have their individual persecution recognized. The German state and its institutions, including law enforcement agencies, bear a particular responsibility toward this minority. The federal government should not only implement the right to remain for Roma in Germany that Amaro Foro has advocated for many years, but also ensure that state authorities become aware of this responsibility and adopt anti-racist practices. This requires both a historical reckoning with anti-Roma policing and mandatory training for all public officials.

JC: As you’ve already mentioned, labor exploitation is closely connected to the structural discrimination experienced by people perceived as Roma when accessing social benefits. The persistent myth of widespread “welfare fraud” has long become an anti-Roma dogwhistle. At the same time, certain administrative practices actively reinforce this myth and criminalize people perceived as Roma. Could you shed some light on these practices?

AF: The myth of widespread “welfare fraud” among Roma is a central anti-Roma narrative that has been reproduced in political and media discourse for years. Particularly troubling is the fact that these prejudices are reflected in administrative practices and thereby contribute to structural discrimination.

Criticism has focused especially on internal guidance documents issued by the Federal Employment Agency that specifically target people from certain Eastern European countries of origin. Practices that have long been criticized by DOSTA frequently place people perceived as Roma under generalized suspicion. These practices include blanket rejections of benefit applications and systematic demands for irrelevant or excessive documentation that goes far beyond what is legally required. Applicants are often forced to repeatedly submit evidence even when the relevant legal requirements have already been met. Procedures are thereby unnecessarily complicated and delayed.

“The myth of widespread ‘welfare fraud’ among Roma is a central anti-Roma narrative that has been reproduced in political and media discourse for years. Particularly troubling is the fact that these prejudices are reflected in administrative practices and thereby contribute to structural discrimination.”

Other practices include particularly intensive monitoring, unannounced home visits, and routine assumptions of fraudulent employment relationships or benefit fraud. Individuals are not treated as applicants in their own right but are criminalized on the basis of their perceived origin or language. In the case of EU citizens from southeastern Europe in particular, authorities often appear to operate from a position of fundamental distrust rather than conducting neutral assessments. Criticism from civil society organizations therefore makes clear that these are not isolated incidents but structural manifestations of anti-Roma racism within state institutions.

JC: You have now been engaged in documentation work for twelve years. What do you see as the major challenges or limitations of this work? Beyond documentation, what strategies against anti-Roma racism do you consider particularly important or promising for achieving transformative change?

AF: One central challenge is that anti-Roma racism often operates structurally and remains deeply embedded in society. For years, our reports have shown that discrimination occurs most frequently in interactions with public authorities, within educational institutions, and in everyday public life. This means that the issue is often not merely individual insults or discriminatory incidents but institutional exclusion, generalized suspicion, and routine forms of disadvantage. At the same time, all DOSTA reports point to a substantial number of unreported cases. Another limitation is that documentation alone does not guarantee change. Visibility is an important prerequisite, but it does not automatically lead to political accountability or institutional consequences. Indeed, in recent years we have observed an increasing normalization of anti-Roma narratives.

For this reason, documentation must be accompanied by structural and transformative strategies. Long-term awareness-raising efforts and institutional reforms in public administration, schools, media organizations, and social services are particularly important. Equally crucial are empowerment and the strengthening of self-organized Roma and Sinti organizations. Change is achieved not only through measures implemented for affected communities but, above all, through the active participation of Roma and Sinti in political, media, and institutional decision-making processes.

Ultimately, transformative change requires recognizing anti-Roma racism not as a marginal problem of individual prejudice but as a structural form of racism. This demands political responsibility, sustainable funding for monitoring and counseling structures, and the systematic integration of anti-Roma perspectives into education, public administration, and memory culture. For more than a decade, DOSTA’s work has contributed to this effort by making visible what often remains invisible and by providing a foundation for demanding social and institutional change.