Politics, Symbolics and Facts: Migration Policies and Family Migration from Turkey to Germany

Year 2012, Volume: 17 Issue: 2, 37 - 59, 01.07.2012

Can M Aybek

Abstract

This paper aims to combine an overview of how in the last five decades immigration policies developed in Germany with illustrations of how regulations for family migration changed in the same period. The demographic figures presented indicate that, although many political attempts have been made to restrict family migration from Turkey to Germany, the inflow of spouses and children has continued as a normal part of migration dynamics between both countries. Based on these observations, the main argument of this paper is that the political debate concerning regulating and restricting family migration to Germany that took place from the 1960s until the early 2000s contained important elements of symbolic politics that were predominantly used to highlight and preserve the idea that Germany was not an immigration country. After the adoption of the Immigration Act in 2005, this idea was replaced by a perspective that acknowledged the fact of immigration, but at the same time sought to steer and limit migration and facilitate integration processes.

Keywords

Germany, Turkey, migration, Turkish immigrants, immigration policy, policy goals, family, unification, spousal migration.

References

• I would like to heartily thank Sigrid Baringhorst from the Siegen University for her many helpful remarks on the earlier versions of this paper. Furthermore, my thanks go to the Hanse- Wissenschaftskolleg - Institute for Advanced Studies for providing me with a fellowship in the spring of 2012 during which I revised this manuscript.
• Christian Joppke, Immigration and the Nation-State: the USA, Germany and Great Britain, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1999, p. 80.
• Murray J. Edelman, The Symbolic Uses of Politics, Urbana, University of Illinois Press, 1964; Murray J. Edelman, Politics as Symbolic Action, Mass Arousal and Quiescence, Chicago, Markham Publications, 1971.
• Frank Nullmeier, “Interpretative Ansätze in der Politikwissenschaft”, in Arthur Benz and Wolfgang Seibel (eds.), Theorieentwicklung in der Politikwissenschaft: eine Zwischenbilanz, Baden-Baden, Nomos Verl.-Ges, 1997, pp. 123-124.
• Ulrich Sarcinelli, Politische Kommunikation in Deutschland, Wiesbaden, VS Verlag, 2009, pp. 132-138. 6 Ibid., p. 140.
• Thomas Faist, “The Fixed and Porous Boundaries of Dual Citizenship”, in Thomas Faist (ed.), Dual Citizenship in Europe. From Nationhood to Societal Integration, Aldershot, Hampshire, Ashgate, 2007. 8 Ibid., p. 38.
• Knuth Dohse, Ausländische Arbeiter und bürgerlicher Staat, Berlin, Express Edition, 1985.
• Karen Schönwälder, Einwanderung und ethnische Pluralität: Politische Entscheidungen und öffentliche Debatten in Großbritannien und der Bundesrepublik von den 1950er bis zu den 1970er Jahren, Essen, Klartext Verlag, 2001, p. 298 ff.
• Mehmet Okyayuz, Entwicklung und Funktion staatlicher Ausländerpolitik in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Berlin, Verlag für Wissenschaft und Bildung, 1989; Karen Schönwälder, “Ist nur Liberalisierung Fortschritt?”, in Jan Motte, Rainer Ohliger and Anne Oswald (eds.), 50 Jahre Bundesrepublik - 50 Jahre Einwanderung.Nachkriegsgeschichte als Migrationsgeschichte, Frankfurt /Main / New York, Campus-Verlag, 1999; Simon R. Green, The Politics of Exclusion, Manchester, Manchester University Press, 2004.
• Christoph Rass, Institutionalisierunsprozesse auf einem internationalen Arbeitsmarkt: Bilaterale Wanderungsverträge in Europa zwischen 1919 und 1974, Paderborn, Schöningh, 2010, p. 416.
• Mathilde Jamin, “Die deutsche Anwerbung: Organisation und Größenordnung”, in Aytaç Eryılmaz and Mathilde Jamin (eds.), Fremde Heimat - Yaban, Sılan Olur: eine Geschichte der Einwanderung aus der Türkei - Türkiye’de Almanya’ya Göçün Tarihi, Essen, Klartext-Verlag, 1998, p. 153.
• Virginie Guiraudon, “Citizenship Rights for Non-Citizens: France, Germany, and The Netherlands”, in Christian Joppke (ed.), Challenge to the Nation-State. Immigration in Western Europe and the United States, Oxford, Oxford Univ. Press, 1998.
• Karl-Heinz Meier-Braun, Integration und Rückkehr?, Mainz, Grünewald, 1988, pp. 133-134.
• Jan Schneider, Modernes Regieren und Konsens: Regierungskommissionen und Beratungsregime in der deutschen Migrationspolitik, Wiesbaden, VS Verlag, 2010, p. 124.
• Klaus J. Bade, Migration in European History, Malden, Mass, Blackwell, 2003, p. 232.
• Heinz Kühn, Stand und Weiterentwicklung der Integration der ausländischen Arbeitnehmer und ihrer Familien in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Bonn, 1979.
• See also Bernhard Nauck, “Zwanzig Jahre Migrantenfamilien in der Bundesrepublik”, in Rosemarie Nave-Herz (ed.), Wandel und Kontinuität der Familie in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Stuttgart, Enke, 1988, p. 285.
• Sonja Haug, Soziales Kapital und Kettenmigration: Italienische Migranten in Deutschland, Opladen, Leske + Budrich, 2000, pp. 177-178.
• Karl-Heinz Meier-Braun, Deutschland, Einwanderungsland, Frankfurt/Main, Suhrkamp, 2002, p. 45.
• Green, The Politics of Exclusion.
• Rita Kantemir, “Die Vorreiterrolle Lummers in der Ausländerpolitik”, Vorgänge, Vol. 78, No. 6 (November 1985), pp. 24 - 27.
• Motte, “Gedrängte Freiwilligkeit”, in Motte, Ohliger and Oswald (eds.), 50 Jahre Bundesrepublik - 50 Jahre Einwanderung.
• Christian Joppke, “The Legal-Domestic Sources of Immigrant Rights”, Comparative Political Studies, Vol. 34, No. 4 (May 2001), 339–366.
• Elmar Hönekopp, “Rückkehrförderung und Rückkehr ausländischer Arbeitnehmer”, in Elmar Hönekopp (ed.), Aspekte der Ausländerbeschäftigung in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Nürnberg, 1987, p. 329.
• Axel Kreienbrink and Stefan Rühl, Familiennachzug in Deutschland, Nürnberg, Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge, 2007, p. 15.
• Ulrike Davy, “Integration of Immigrants in Germany: A Slowly Evolving Concept”, European Journal of Migration and Law, Vol. 7, No. 2 (2005), 123–144; Schneider, Modernes Regieren und Konsens, pp. 113-140.
• Exempted are citizens of the following countries: member states of the European Economic Area, Australia, Canada, Israel, Japan, New Zealand, Switzerland, and the US.
• Laura Block, “The Legislative Framework of Spousal Migration and the Political Debate”, in Can Aybek (ed.), Marriage Migration from Turkey to Germany – A Qualitative Longitudinal and Dyadic Perspective, Siegen, University of Siegen, 2011, pp. 22-23.
• Maren Borkert and Wolfgang Bosswick, Migration Policy-Making in Germany - Between National Reluctance and Local Pragmatism (IMISCOE Working Papers; 20), Amsterdam, IMISCOE, 2007, p. 15.
• Adrienne Windhoff-Héritier, Policy-Analyse: Eine Einführung, Frankfurt/Main, Campus, 1987, pp. 56-57.
• Huber Heinelt, “Do Policies Determine Politics?”, in Frank Fischer, Gerald J. Miller and Mara S. Sidney (eds.), Handbook of Public Policy Analysis: Theory, Politics, and Methods, Boca Raton, CRC Press, 2007, pp. 110-111.
• Thränhardt, “Migrations- und Integrationspolitik”, pp. 167-168.
• Presse- und Informationsamt der Bundesregierung, “Bundesregierung will Integrationserfolge wissenschaftlich messen”, at http://www.bundesregierung.de/nn_924486/Content/ DE/Archiv16/Pressemitteilungen/BPA/2008/06/2008-06-04-bundesregierung- integrationserfolge.html [last visited 20 April 2012].
• For examples of this public debate see Speigel Online - Panorama - 18.07.2003; Spiegel No. 47 (2004); Spiegel, No. 5 (2009); Süddeutsche Zeitung, 11 April 2005.
• Karen Schönwälder, “Politikwandel in der (bundes-)deutschen Migrationspolitik”, in Ulrike Davy and Albrecht Weber (eds.), Paradigmenwechsel in Einwanderungsfragen.Überlegungen zum neuen Zuwanderungsgesetz, Baden-Baden, Nomos, 2006.
• Ines Michalowski, “Liberal States – Privatised Integration Policies”, in Elspeth Guild, Kees Groenendijk and Sergio Carrera (eds.), Illiberal Liberal States: Immigration. Citizenship and Integration in the EU, Farnham, Ashgate Gower, 2009, p. 272.