Working Papers Global Migration: Consequences and Responses Paper 2020/51, June 2020 Integration Policies, Practices and Experiences Germany Country Report J. Eduardo Chemin & Alexander K. Nagel Georg-August-Universität Göttingen © Chemin & Nagel Reference: RESPOND D5.3 This research was conducted under the Horizon 2020 project ‘RESPOND Multilevel Governance of Migration and Beyond’ (770564). The sole responsibility of this publication lies with the author. The European Union is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at: eduardo.chemin@uni- goettingen.de or [email protected] This document is available for download at www.respondmigration.com RESPOND: Multilevel Governance of Migration in Europe and Beyond (770564) 2 Contents CONTENTS 3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 4 GLOSSARY AND ABBREVIATIONS 5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6 INTRODUCTION 9 1. LEGAL, POLITICAL AND INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK 13 2. LABOUR MARKET 21 3. EDUCATION 33 4. HOUSING AND SPATIAL INTEGRATION 45 5. PSYCHOSOCIAL HEALTH AND THE ROLE OF RELIGION 53 6. CITIZENSHIP, BELONGING AND CIVIC PARTICIPATION 64 7. CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS 78 BIBLIOGRAPHY 82 APPENDICES 85 3 Acknowledgements We wish to thank our colleagues Miriam Schader (Max Planck Institute for the Study of Religious and Ethnic Diversity, Göttingen), and Work Package #5 leaders Naures Atto (Faculty of Asian and Middle Eastern Studies, University of Cambridge) and Önver Cetrez (Department of Theology, Uppsala University) for critical and insighful comments. Furthermore, we would like to thank Ryan Korri, Carna Brkovic and Hatice Pinar Senoguz who supported us in conducting many of the micro-level interviews. Ultimately, we wish to express our thanks to all interlocutors who were willing to take part in in-depth interviews and for the valuable insights they have shared with us despite their often difficult circumstances. 4 Glossary and Abbreviations AnkER Center for Arrival, Decision Making and Return | Zentrum für Ankunft, Centre Entscheidung und Rückführung Centre where registration and security checks take place prior to Arrival Centre distribution to a federal state | Ankunftszentrum Arrival Certificate received upon arrival in the arrival centre, attesting registration Certificate of the intention to apply for asylum | Ankunftsnachweis Initial Reception centre where a branch office of the Federal Office for Migration Reception and Refugees is located and where asylum seekers are generally Centre assigned to reside for up to six months | Aufnahmeeinrichtung Initial reception centre hosting asylum seekers for a period of up to 24 Transit months, in application of Section 47(1b) of the Asylum Act. | Centre Transitzentrum AIDA Asylum Information Database AfD Alternative for Germany | Alternative für Deutschland Federal Office for Migration and Refugees | Bundesamt für Migration und BAMF Flüchtlinge Christian Democractic Union of Germany | Christlich Demokratische CDU Union Deutschlands CEAS Common European Asylum System CJEU Court of Justice of the European Union DRK German Red Cross | Deutsches Rotes Kreuz EASO European Asylum Support Office Initial Distribution of asylum seekers | Erstverteilung der EASY Asylbegehrenden EC European Commission ECHC European Convention on Human Rights ECtHR European Court of Human Rights ENP European Neighbourhood Policy EU European Union GU Accommodation Centre| Gemeinschaftsunterkunft LGBTQ or Queer, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, queer/questioning, LGBTQIA asexual NGO Non-Governmental Organization Social Democractic Party of Germany | Sozialdemokratische Partei SPD Deutschlands UN United Nations UNHCR United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees VG Administrative Court | Verwaltungsgericht ZAB Central Aliens Office | Zentrale Ausländerbehörde WP Work Package 5 About the project RESPOND is a Horizon 2020 project which aims at studying the multilevel governance of migration in Europe and beyond. The consortium is formed of 14 partners from 11 source, transit and destination countries and is coordinated by Uppsala University in Sweden. The main aim of this Europe-wide project is to provide an in-depth understanding of the governance of recent mass migration at macro, meso and micro levels through cross-national comparative research and to critically analyse governance practices with the aim of enhancing the migration governance capacity and policy coherence of the EU, its member states and third countries. RESPOND studies migration governance through a narrative which is constructed along five thematic fields: (1) Border management and security, (2) Refugee protection regimes, (3) Reception policies, (4) Integration policies, and (5) Conflicting Europeanization. Each thematic field between (1) and (5) is reflecting a juncture in the migration journey of re- fugees and designed to provide a holistic view of policies, their impacts and responses given by affected actors within. In order to better focus on these themes, we divided our research question into work packages (WPs). The present report is concerned with the findings related to WP5, which focus specifically on the Germany’s integration system. 6 Executive Summary • Germany is a “reluctant” immigration country. Despite its post-World-War-II history of immigration, Germany has never adopted a coherent strategy or policy of integration. Immigration was considered a transitory phenomenon as the notorious term “guest workers” suggests. Considering the expected return of immigrants to their countries of origin, integration policy making has long remained implicit. • Recent processes of refugee immigration have opened a policy window for a more proactive approach to immigration and integration. However, the formulation and implementation of integration policies are situated in a setting of double complexity. First, integration is a cross- cutting policy issue which connects to the responsibilities of various federal ministries. Second, it is a multi-level system in which policy making and monitoring largely take place on the federal level. However, the actual implementation is mainly realized on the level of regional states and municipalities. • At least since 2016, integration measures (as those stipulated on Asylum Package II for example), point to the competing and paternalistic logic of retaining control over refugees. This is accomplished by the imposition of restrictions on movement and the expansion of value education as part of the integration courses. It is also supported by a logic of human capital, which privileges refugees as to their economic value whilst restricting basic rights, such as the freedom of movement. Individuals applying for asylum in Germany live highly restricted lives subject to accountability, compliance and punitive measures. • While the “Asylum Packages” and the “Integration Act” have mainly focused on structural integration through labour market inclusion, the “Migration Masterplan” has emphasized sociocultural aspects, such as identification and acculturation. It’s obvious that most initiatives respond to an alleged public expectation of refugees smoothly fitting in the society rather than to the actual demands of support and participation which they may have. • Civil society actors seem to fill the gaps left by the policy field regarding the sociocultural but also some elements of structural immigration. This happens, for instance, in the education of refugee children, with regards to language learning and health care (e.g. the provision of counselling for those with mental health issues). Volunteers also give a human face to the German system through the development of local actions based on welcoming and pastoral care of refugees. Nevertheless, sometimes these actions take on a paternalistic tone that tend to infantilize asylum seekers. In some cases, instead of helping remove adaptive barriers, we observe that certain initiatives tend to demarcate or reinforce cultural boundaries. • We note that the German asylum regime is coated in protectionist rules regarding German employees vis-à-vis the potential hiring of refugees from the part of labour unions, associations and guilds, which may severely curtail refugees labour market integration. • While the rate of unemployment among refugees is still quite high, recent studies show that half of the refugees who arrived in 2013 have found some sort of employment. Woman with children were more likely to be unemployed than men. In comparison to earlier cohorts, refugees who arrived in 2013 had a slightly higher chance to find a job. This is mainly a consequence of structural factors, such as the robust German labour market and the skills shortage in many areas. • One of the most important individual factors for (un)employment of refugees are lacking German language skills. Consequently, most of them were pushed towards occupations in the areas of cleaning services, logistics and kitchen assistance. Between 2017 and 2018, almost 100.000 people from the eight most prevalent countries of origin of refugees were incorporated into the first labour market, yet almost a third of them in the domain of subcontracted labour. 7 • Our findings also underline the enormous impact of reception conditions for the integration of refugees. • First, the new reception policy paradigm of “integrated refugee management” builds on strategies of isolation and deterrence, which impede sociocultural and structural integration. • Second,