Transcript Migration from Poland to Germany

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 Miera
European 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 EUcitizen (1992-1995 and 2005)
IV Conclusion
I Background
I.1 Post War period
Migration regime
Poland
• Restrictive emigration and
return policies
Germany
• Encouraging immigration
Migrant typology
• Ethnic Germans (Aussiedler)
• Political Refugees
 Predominately permanent migration
I Background
I.2 The 1990s
Migration regime
Poland
• Open borders
Germany
• Restriction of long term
settlement
• Recruitment scheme for
temporary labour
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 Background
I.3 Since Poland‘s EU-accession (2004)
Migration regime
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 EUcitizens
•
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)
I Background
I.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 Aussiedler
II.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 Aussiedler
II.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 Aussiedler
II.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-citizen
II.3 Met nodal point and social networks
• Legal possibility to settle as a self-employed EUcitizen
• 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.