Migration from Poland to Germany

Presentation prepared for the European Science Foundation Exploratory Workshop

„Where Migration Policies Meet the Migrants: Comparing European and North American Experiences“

Athens (Greece), 2-4 October 2008

Frauke MieraEuropean University Viadrina, Frankfurt/Oder

Contents

I Background: Migration regimes and migrant typologies

II Case I: Katarzyna – German Aussiedler (1988)

III Case II: Beata – from an undocumented commuter to a registered self-employed EU-citizen (1992-1995 and 2005)

IV Conclusion

I BackgroundI.1 Post War period

Poland• Restrictive emigration and

return policies

Germany • Encouraging immigration

Migration regime

Migrant typology• Ethnic Germans (Aussiedler) • Political Refugees

Predominately permanent migration

I BackgroundI.2 The 1990s

Poland• Open borders

Germany • Restriction of long term

settlement• Recruitment scheme for

temporary labour

Migration regime

Migrant typology

• Undocumented commuters and long term migrants • Marriage migration/family unification • Legal temporary labour migrants (‚guest workers‘)• Double passport holders (legal commuters or long term migrants)

Increase of temporary / commuter migration

I BackgroundI.3 Since Poland‘s EU-accession (2004)

Poland• Open borders

Germany As before (until 2011):• Restriction of long term settlement• Recruitment scheme for temporary

labour

New:• Legal self-employment

permanent residence for EU-citizens

• Cross-border provision of services within the EU (firms based in Poland are permitted to send employees to Germany to fulfil a particular service order)

Migration regime

I BackgroundI.3 Since Poland‘s EU-accession (2004)

Migrant typology

As before:• Undocumented commuters and long term migrants • Marriage migration/family unification • Legal temporary labour migrants (‚guest workers‘)• Double passport holders (legal commuters or long term migrants)

New:• Legalisation of former informal practices by registering as self-employed or cross border services

Temporary / commuter migration and permanent settlement (to be investigated more in depth)

II Case I: German AussiedlerII.1 Met nodal points and social networks

• Encouraging German immigration policies• Restrictive Polish re-entry regime • Decisive source of support and information:

Social / family networks

Nodal point which was met by the migrant and her husband in their decision to emigrate and to permanently stay in Germany

II Case I: German AussiedlerII.2 Met and missed nodal points: the role of gender relations

• General supporting legal framework for integration of Aussiedler

Actual nodal point

• But: Gender specific division of responsibilities within the family and absence of gender sensitive integration policies

Katarzyna could not finish her German course: missed nodal point

II Case I: German AussiedlerII.3 Indirect nodal point: migration policies as an opportunity structure

• Liberalisation of the Polish migration regime and possibility of commuting

• Katarzyna’s wish to make an independent decision and to keep in touch with her relatives in Poland

Indirect nodal point: open borders as an opportunity structure for her individual emancipation from her husband’s decision

III Case 2: From an undocumented commuter…III. 1 Ignored nodal point

• Overstaying a tourist visa or working as a tourist is not legal

• Socio-economic and individual factors determine the migrant’s decision to migrate

• Open borders facilitate the decision • Main source of support and information: Social

networks

Ignored nodal point

III Case 2: From an undocumented commuter…III.2 Absence of nodal points

• Absence of welfare policies for undocumented migrants

Beata’s decision to return to Poland (after having had an accident)

III Case 2: …to a self-employed EU-citizenII.3 Met nodal point and social networks

• Legal possibility to settle as a self-employed EU-citizen

• Well informed informal social network Met nodal point: Beata’s decision to return to

Berlin

• Experts report that this level of being informed is quite exceptional and misinformation about raising a business in Germany often result in missed nodal points.

Conclusion

• Prohibitions or restrictive migration policies do not prevent people from migrating but push them into an insecure and vulnerable position.

• Social networks are hugely important for information, support and for dealing with misleading information.

• Institutions are not sufficiently able to substitute or correct missing or false information.

• The lack of intercultural competence in the bureaucracy and a lack of gender specific integration measures hamper existing ‘general’ integration policies.