Honors Thesis Proposal – International Studies
Justin Dubois
Advisor:
Reader:
Attached: Appendix 1-List of Organizations in Berlin
Appendix 2-Types of Questions for Interviews
Appendix 3-Proposed Initial Bibliography
Appendix 4-Hunt Grant Budget Proposal
Extension of national membership: an assessment of political promises,
immigrant expectations, and the impact on the foreign population in Germany
Background information
When the SPD (German Social Democratic Party -Grüne coalition took power in
the Bundestag’s September 1998 elections, replacing the Kohl-led CDU (Christian
Democratic Union government that had ruled for the previous 16 years, social reform was
essential to its agenda. Of these planned reforms, revamping the citizenship law was
especially high on the list of priorities. The 1913 law, following the ius sanguinis
principle in which the child acquires the citizenship according to the citizenship of the
parents, was thus changed in 1999 (in effect since Jan 1, 2000). In its place, the principle
of ius soli was adopted, like in most other Western countries, stating that the citizenship
is determined by the place of birth, if certain other conditions are met.1
The SPD-Grüne coalition once again extended national membership in 2004
during its second term in office with a new immigration law, hoping to counteract years
of poorly managed migrant integration and flow. This law makes residency easier for
highly skilled economic migrants and managers, for students studying in Germany, as
well as for individuals seeking a residency permit through family reunification. For other
migrant groups, however, the law had no special clauses. This step was seen by some as
necessary to attract skilled workers in certain fields and provide more labor in a country
with an aging population in order to boost economic output. Both of these acts have come
1
At least one of the parents must be a German citizen, must have lived in Germany for 8 years, or must
have an unlimited residence permit for at least three years
1
after years of debate within the country, and have the goal, among others, to improve
German society’s often problematic relationship with immigrants. However, the adopted
versions of both laws were far from the original proposals, having been watered down by
demands from the conservative political parties, namely the CDU/CSU. Nevertheless,
with the extension of national membership, Germany is officially no longer the nonimmigration country former Chancellor Kohl proclaimed the Federal Republic to be. The
past more restrictive citizenship and immigration laws have failed to effectively integrate
of the more than seven million foreigners in Germany today, of whom many feel as
second-class citizens. Have the new laws improved their situation?
Researchable question, methodology and hypothesis
The question that I am asking is: Are present immigrants in Germany satisfied
with the countries’ recent extension of its membership, as expressed by new citizenship
and immigration laws? In other words, have the laws executed what they have promised
to do within the immigration community in Germany? Ultimately, I am seeking to
discover who have been the real winners of the new laws. In order to accomplish this
task, I have established a general plan I would need to follow:
i) Looking at the literature of the definition and role of immigrants in Germany’s history.
ii)Looking at the literature/interviews of the level of satisfaction of immigrants in
Germany before the new laws (different types of immigrants-family reunification,
economic, asylum, seasonal workers-is there a dichotomy between the groups?)
iii)Looking at the official position of the Government concerning why the extension was
made, and what the results should be/should have been. (Parliamentary records as well as
the press)
iv)Looking at the literature about why Germany has extended its membership according
to non-governmental sources (including immigrants)-does it coincide with the ‘official’
position?
v)Looking at the literature from immigrants, and performing interviews/observation, with
respect to their satisfaction of the results of the new laws, and their thoughts of future
results from the laws. (Has it made it easier in everyday life (i.e. getting jobs,
integration?)
vi)Analyzing v) and determining whether the extension of membership has actually
helped immigrants in the country.
My hypothesis is that the extension of membership in Germany has helped the
2
highly skilled economic migrants2 because these are the most beneficial to the struggling
economy. In addition, the family reunification clause in the immigration law makes it
easier for this group, if a member of the family has already been in Germany for many
years. Similarly, the extension has benefited students, again for the profit of the state and
the German economy (lack of students and professionals in certain fields). Nevertheless,
for asylum seekers3 and low-level economic migrants, who constitute the bulk of
immigration,4 supposedly ‘better’ laws for foreigners have not brought the desired
results. Similarly, I suggest that the citizenship law has made it easier for certain
individuals, namely those from whom the state can benefit the most, to acquire
citizenship. For the majority, however, the new citizenship law has not improved their
situation.
I will use two different methods to determine if there is satisfaction within the
foreign population in Germany. The first is looking at the facts: the length of the process
of acquiring citizenship or the right to immigrate now compared to before the new laws,
and in addition, compared to other countries (classic immigration countries like Canada
and Australia, as well as other EU countries); and the number of individuals that have
been naturalized and have immigrated since the new laws as opposed to prior to them
(taking into account the number of individuals that have applied for residency or
citizenship). Unemployment and income data will also be used, contrasting the data for
immigrants 15 years before the laws to the data after the passing of the laws. This should
in addition be compared, to the data of German citizens. Again, a comparison with other
countries will give a better portrait of the present-day situation in Germany.
The other method I propose to use is an interview-study. I would like to find out
what government officials, immigrants, as well as groups working with immigrants
thought of the situation before the extension of national membership, what their
expectations were prior to the adoption of the laws, what they have viewed the results to
be, and if the results have met their expectations.
2
An economic migrant is a person who voluntarily leaves his or her country of origin for economic
reasons.
3
An asylum seeker is someone seeking refugee status in a certain country, usually due to persecution.
4
Between 1990 and 2001, of the estimated 10.4 million immigrants to Germany, 2.2 million were asylum
seekers (biggest category), and circa 320 000 seasonal or restricted workers (guest workers, contracted
workers) come every year. (source: Mitteilungen der Beauftragten der Bundesregierung für
Ausländerfragen, Migrationsbericht 2000)
3
Fieldwork is essential to the research component of my project. I have been in
contact with Margot Heimbach, the head of the Secretariat of the Bundestag’s Committee
for the Affairs of the European Union where I did an internship last winter. With this
contact, I should be able to speak to some Members of the Bundestag. I have also been in
touch with contacts who have worked at centers for immigrants (see apendix 1-List of
organizations), where I would conduct interviews with individuals working with
immigrants, as well as with immigrants themselves. I will also conduct an interview with
Ludwig Georg Braun, President of the DIHK (Association of German Chambers of
Industry and Commerce), and through him hopefully, with other individuals in the
business world to gather information from this key group within German society. (See
appendix 2-Questions for Interview)
Literature
Also vital to my project is an excellent grasp of the literature. There are three
different veins of literature that I will need to explore, namely on integration, on
immigration and on citizenship. These three branches are however clearly interconnected,
in that policies in one area will influence outcomes in the other areas. Much of what is
written on citizenship has T.H. Marshall’s influential 1950 essays Citizenship and social
class as its base, looking at citizenship as being formed out the civil, the political and the
social element. Torpey and Joppke have been at the forefront of the more recent analysis
with regards to Germany and the European Union, advocating that the state is still the
dominant actor with respect to controlling who gets into the country, and who can legally
remain within the borders. In the integration vein, there exists much literature specifically
related to Germany, studying why past practices and policies, especially with respect to
the Turkish guest workers, have led to alienation of minority groups in the country.
Journals, such as German Politics and Society, and German Politics offer much
contemporary information with regards to immigration reforms, as do many German
sources, such as Zeitschrift für Ausländerrecht und Ausländerpolitik, and Migration und
Bevölkerung.
4
I have found the dominant ideas within this literature to be two-fold. To begin,
although other actors such as the business or humanitarian interest groups can play a role
in a Government’s policies, the nation-state is still the primary actor with respect to
citizenship and immigration. Secondly, Germany has not had policies conducive to
integration of its foreign population in the past; on the contrary, the Federal Republic has
pursued what they have viewed as national interest, but in doing so, has created a schism
between the citizens and the denizens. What I want to do is also two-fold. I want to
examine what pushed the Government to pass both the citizenship and immigration laws
in the last five years and not earlier. In addition, I want to determine if this extension of
national membership has helped the foreign population of the country, and if so, which
groups within the foreign population. Fundamentally, I want to see if the new
circumstances in Germany still fall within the dominant ideas of the literature.
I realize that the 2004 immigration law is quite recent; it may therefore not have
yet produced researchable results. However, examing the reasons why the law was
passed, as well as the expectations of the Government and different groups within
German society can still show me if there is a dichotomy between official Government
positions and actual results. The citizenship law of 1999, on the other hand, has had
enough time to have produced results for my study.
Possible Challenges
The biggest challenge I will face will undoubtedly be a time limitation; the
German bureaucracy and work schedule may make it difficult to accomplish all that I
desire to do. However, I feel very confident in my ability to use my personal contacts
within the different organizations, as well as my familiarity with the city itself to be
efficient in my work.
Also due to the short period of time, my sample size for interviews will not be as
big as it could be with a longer stay; this is a limitation that I have to accept, and point
out in any results that I find.
Another big challenge will be to extract new information from my interviews.
Especially when it comes to government officials, individuals may rehash what I can find
in a broschure or on the internet. To meet this possible obstacle, I will clearly have to be
5
familiar with facts and figures in order to confront them with new information. In
addition, by asking for their perceptions of the situation, as opposed to what the situation
is, I should collect enough information for my study.
An additional aspect of my study that could pose a difficulty is getting access to
immigrants themselves for interviews. The organizations listed in the appendix should
give me more than enough information and opportunity to interact with them. I believe
that my challenge may lie in how I interact, as being too formal in some situations might
not encourage an honest discussion, whereas too much familiarity may take credibility
away from me, especially concerning my age. I cannot control how others feel. What I
can do, however, is reiterate that my questions are for an academic study, and that their
input is essential to its success. It has been my personal experience that as a non-German,
it is often easier to engage in a discourse about such issues than it would be as a German
citizen, due to the alienation that many immigrants feel.
6
Appendix 1 – List of Organizations in Berlin
Deutsches Rotes Kreuz, Kreisverband Berlin-City e.V. BACIM (German Red Cross
in Berlin, Outreach Clinic for Turkish Women)
This branch of the German Red Cross deals with issues facing Turkish women in Berlin.
They offer advice, information on social welfare, psycho-social counselling sessions, a
“senior’s” program, various courses (swimming, Yoga, belly dancing, sewing, singing,
etc.), and discussion groups. www.drk-berlin.de/kv_city/bacim.htm
Paul-Gerhardt-Heim
The Paul-Gerhardt-Heim is a home for refugees mainly from the former Yugoslavia.
English and German is taught, excursions are planned and general help is offered.
Urban Social
Urban Social is a support center and home for refugees and immigrants. The organization
supports residents (homeless German and international residents, children asylum seekers
who are unaccompanied by their parents and war refugees) in everyday life.
Europäisches Migrationszentrum (EMZ) (European Migration Center)
The European Migration Center was founded in 1978 by a staff of the Freie Universität
Berlin as a research institute exploring issues of migration and ethnicity in Europe. The
center has since expanded to encompass various organizations and projects, all dealing
with the themes of a multicultural Europe. www.emz-berlin.de
AWO Arbeiterwohlfahrt Landesverband Berlin e.V. Begegnungszentrum (National
Association for the Welfare of Workers Berlin, Meeting Center)
AWO is a politically independent, spiritually neutral organization for the well being of
workers, offering advice and help to all who come regardless of ethnic, political or
religious backgrounds. The AWO has branches all over the world. In Germany, the AWO
provides social services to families, women and immigrants, and in Berlin specifically,
there is an AWO branch in each district offering social welfare programs specifically
relevant to its location. There is an AWO Begegnungszentrum in Kreuzberg, which is a
meeting place for German and Turkish citizens.
www.awo.org
7
Apendix 2 – Types of Questions for Interviews
Section 1 – Background of individual and group the individual is representing
(Government, immigrant, academia…)
Section 2 – Familiarity with the extension of membership
-knowledge of what the situation was before the extension of membership
-knowledge of what the reforms have entailed
-knowledge of why the national membership was extended
Section 3 – Thoughts of how the situation was before the extension of the membership
-how things have-have not changed since
Section 4 – Expectations of the extension of membership
-how the individual thought it would affect his/her life, German society and the
foreign population in Germany
Section 5 – Result of the extension of membership
-if the expectations have been met, personally, within German citizens and within
the foreign population
8
Apendix 3 - Proposed Initial Bibliography
Joppke, Christian. Immigration and the Nation-State: The United States, Germany and Great
Britain. Oxford University Press, Oxford. 1999. [good comparison of cross country immigration
control and integration-thesis is national citizenship still important-Joppke is one of biggest
names in German immigration questions]
Bulmer, Martin and Rees, Anthony. Citizenship Today: The contemporary relevance of T.H.
Marshall.UCL Press, London. 1996. [Different essays look at how citizenship plays in different
aspects of civic life (social rights, social responsibilities, income, jobs]
Torpey, John. The Invention lf the Passport: Surveillance, Citizenship, and the State. Cambridge,
2000. [Argues that developed Nation-states are still the biggest actors in controlling their borders]
Christian Dornis, “Zwei Jahre nach der Reform des Staatsangehörigkeitsrechts – Bilanz und
Ausblick,” in Migrationsreport 2002, ed. Klaus J. Bade and Rainer Münz (Campus Verlag,
2002). [Good overview, evaluation]
Elçin Kürşat-Ahlers, “Die Bedeutung der staatsbürgerschaftlich-rechtlichen Gleichstellung und
Antidiskriminierungspolitk für Integrationsprozesse,” in Einwanderungsland Deutschland, ed.
Ursula Mehrländer and Günther Schultze (Dietz, 2001). [Argues that the impact of the
citizenship reform vis-à-vis integration will be minimal in lieu of an anti-discrimination law]
Günter Renner, “Was ist neu am neuen Staatsangehörigkeitsrecht?” Zeitschrift für Ausländerrecht
und Ausländerpolitik VOL. 19, No. 4 (1999): 154-163. [Good overview from a lawyer’s
perspective]
Kay Hailbronner, “Citizenship Rights for Aliens in Germany,” in Citizenship in a Global World:
Comparing Citizenship Rights for Aliens, ed. Atsushi Kondo (Houndmills: Palgrave, 2001).
[Good overview]
Simon Green, “Beyond Ethnoculturalism? German Citizenship in the New Millennium,” German
Politics VOL. 9, No. 3 (December 2000): 105-124. [Argues that the changes are too limited]
Andreas M. Wüst, Wie wählen Neubürger? Politische Einstellungen und Wahlverhalten
eingebürgerter Personen in Deutschland (Opslden: Leske und Budrich, 2002). [Explores voting
patterns of naturalized immigrants]
Heike Hagedorn, “Einbürgerungspolitik in Deutschland und Frankreich,” Leviathan VOL. 29,
No. 1 (March 2001): 36-57. [Argues that naturalization rates and patterns in Germany and France
are converging]
Hakki Keskin, “Der Kampf für Bürgerrechte muß fortgesetzt werden,” in Deutsche Türken –
Türkische Deutsche? Die Diskussion um die doppelte Staatsbürgerschaft, ed. Andreas Goldberg
and Faruk Sen (Münster: Lit Verlag, 2000). [_Expression of dissapointment with new citizenship
law by longtime activist]
George Tsapanos, “Was heißt denn hier Fremd? Staatsangehörigkeit zwischen Ethnizität –
Identität – Nationalität,” in Staatsbürgerschaft in Europa: Historische Erfahrungen und aktuelle
Debatten, ed. Christoph Conrad and Jürgen Kocka (Hamburg: Edition Körber Stiftung, 2001).
[Defence of new law by official in Federal Interior Ministery (who is also son of migrants)]
9
Veysel Özcan, “Deutschland: Einbürgerungszahlen 2002,” Migration und Bevölkerung,
July/August 2003, 1-2. [Nice summary of naturalization rates since passage of new law]
Imke Kruse, Henry Edward Orren and Steffen Angenendt, "The Failure of Immigration Reform
in Germany," German Politics VOL. 12, No. 3 (December 2003): 129-145
Riva Kastoryano, Negotiating Identities: State and Immigrants in France and Germany, trans.
Barbara Harshav. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2002.
Zafer Senocak, Atlas of a Tropical Germany: Essays on Politics and Culture, 1990-1998, trans.
and ed. Leslie Adelson. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2000. [prominent player in
German politics, and his essays as a Turk seeing the changes during the 90s.]
Roger Karapin, “Explaining Far-Right Electoral Successes in Germany: The Politicization of
Immigration-Related Issues” in German Politics and Society (Issue 48, Vol.16 Fall 1998) (New
York: Bergham Books.)
Barbara Schmitter Heisler, “Immigration and German Cities: Exploring National Policies and
Local Outcomes. ” in German Politics and Society (Issue 49, Vol.16 Winter 1998) (New York:
Bergham Books.)
Brett Klopp, “Integration and Political Representation in a Multicultural City: The Case of
Frankfurt am Main” in German Politics and Society (Issue 49, Vol.16 Winterl 1998) (New York:
Bergham Books.)
Dietrich Thranhardt, “Between State and Market: Local Governments and Immigration.” in
German Politics and Society (Issue 49, Vol.16 Winter 1998) (New York: Bergham Books.)
Rainer Muenz and Ralf Ulrich, “Immigration and Citizenship in Germany.” in German Politics
and Society (Issue 53, Vol.17 Winter 1999) (New York: Bergham Books.)
Stephen Kalberg, “The Far Slower and More Conflict-Ridden Path to German Social
Integration: Toward a Multicausal, Contextual, and Multidirectional Explanatory Framework.”
in German Politics and Society (Issue 53, Vol.17 Winter 1999) (New York: Bergham Books.)
Rainer Baumann, “The Transformation of German Multilateralism: Changes in Foreign Policy
Discourse since Unification.” in German Politics and Society (Issue 65, Vol.20 Winter 2002)
(New York: Bergham Books.)
10
Appendix 4 – Hunt Grant Budget Proposal
Flight
From Saskatoon, SK to Boston, Tuesday, January 4, 2005
Air Canada 270
One way $330.04 (CN dollars) - $261.58 USD
Depart Saskatoon 6:45am (stop in Toronto)
Arrive Boston 2:49pm
From Boston to Berlin
Return $425
Departure: Tuesday, January 4, 2005
Northwest Airline 38
Depart Boston 6:20pm (stop in Amsterdam for 2hours)
Arrive Berlin 10:50am
Return: Thursday, January 27
KLM 1828
Depart Berlin 6:30am (stop in Amsterdam for 4 hours)
Arrive Boston 4:15pm
Flight total
261.58 +425=686.58
+
Taxi and shuttle
10+37=47
+
Public Transportation
98.76
+
Transportation total =
$832.34
(I contacted Hewins in Waterville, STA in Saskatoon, looked
at Air Canada.com, Orbitz.com, Cheapflights.com,
www.travelnow.com)
Shuttle (Subway starts running too late for the 6am bus) from
Airport to bus station - $10
Greyhound from Boston to Waterville (next morning-sleep in
Airport) $40
Travel in Berlin
Month public transportation ticket 79.50 Euros - $98.76 USD
(www.bvg.de)
Taxi from and to Airport – 2 x 15 Euro – 30 Euro - $37 USD
Food
17 Euros (appr. $20) x 23 days=391 Euros - $484.60 USD
Lodging
7 days with Andrea Pomerance -former Colby graduateandreapomerance@yahoo.com
Zionskirchstr. 48, 10119
I suggest a Colby Cotton Exchange Ladies' White Hooded T-shirt
from the Colby Bookstore as a thank you - $25
I can then rent a room (for cheap!) from Elizabeth Gaerner
(Raaberstr. 14, 10405), a woman with whom I stayed for my
first semester while in Berlin – 150 Euro - $217 USD
Food Total : 484.60
Lodging Total:
25+217=242
Fees for library – 10 Euro for use of Staatsbibliothek
(looking specifically at Migrationsberichte (migration reports)
11
(http://www.sbb.spk-berlin.de/) and estimated 10 Euro for
photocopies – 20 Euro - $24.84 USD
Phone use – It will be essential for me both to be able to
phone the organizations and for them to reach me to set up
interview times (if it is not already done) and inform each
other of changes. I am able to rent a handy (cell phone) for a
month for 45 Euros – I assume using 10 Euros of Guthaben
per week (costs of calls are between 29-49 cents a minute,
depending on the time of day). 45 + 30 = 75 Euro - $93.15
USD
Computer use – 1 euro per hour – Estimated 1 hour a day-23
Euros – $28.57 USD
Thank you cards to the organizations – 20 Euro – $24.84
USD
Office Total:
24.84+93.15+28.57=
146.56
Other: 24.84
Grand Total=$1730.34
12