Return Migration Trajectories Between Australia and Germany

Leaving the ‘lucky country’? Return migration trajectories between Australia and Germany

Maren Klein

This thesis is submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Faculty of Health, Arts and Design Swinburne University of Technology

2016

Abstract This thesis examines migration trajectories between Australia and Germany with a particular focus on long-term return migration to Germany in the context of increasing transnational orientations and globalisation.

The goal of this research to uncover patterns and understand the variety of possible trajectories within the broader contexts of globalisation, transnationalism and general societal transformations rather than constructing generalisations about return migration.

This study used a qualitative approach in an interpretivist/constructivist framework with data collected through semi-structured in-depth interviews conducted in Australia and Germany, thus enabling a strong focus on migrants’ subjective experiences and perceptions of mobility. While some statistical data and research into contemporary German migration trajectories globally was utilised, in particular in the comparison of long-term return from Australia with return from other major German emigration destinations, the emic perspective was this study’s focus. This was the most appropriate methodological choice because of the primary focus on the experiences, beliefs, thoughts, and opinions of the participants which are inevitably their own construction rather than an objective perception of reality. A further factor in the choice of this approach was the relevance of the constructivist concept of multiple, situated realities to adequately manage the participants’ variety of backgrounds and migration trajectories.

The research reveals a previously unacknowledged diversity in the migration trajectories of this migrant group despite continuities in the long-term return behaviour of German migrants. It also reveals a growing openness in mobility planning accompanied by a strong national identification, the interdependency of macro-level factors and micro- level decision making and the importance of family considerations in long-term return decisions.

This thesis adds to but also provides new ground to the academic debate on Australia’s migration history by illuminating the country’s post World War II shift from a homogenous and assimilationist to a multicultural society through the examination of the incorporation of an ethnic minority group. It also adds empirical and analytical insight to the academic debate regarding the diversification of migration trajectories and the shift in the understanding of the concept of long-term return migration.

Acknowledgements First and foremost I would like to thank my interview participants who took the time and shared their thoughts, experiences and feelings with me honestly despite the sometimes painful feelings that arose. Without you, this project would not have been possible.

Secondly I would like to thank my Principal Coordinating Supervisor, Associate Professor Bruno Mascitelli, and my Associate Supervisor, Dr Simone Battiston, for their encouragement, their patience and their advice.

I would like to thank the staff in the Research Office, the staff in the Faculty of Health, Arts and Design, and the staff in the Faculty of Business and Law who were always helpful and provided advice and assistance cheerfully, even when it was requested at the last moment. A special thank you goes to Rita Barbagallo, Anne Cain, and Jennifer Lim.

Thanks also goes to my husband who did not bat an eyelid when I told him I was going to cut our disposable income; who read every version of every single draft of every single chapter; and who did not complain once about the many weekends I spent at university.

Thanks to all my friends who simply believed that I could do it—even when I seriously doubted it. Thank you also to all my fellow students who provided good advice but also a place to complain and doubt: A Lam, Allison, Anna, Catherine, Cecilia, Chiara, Denise, Esther, Farinoush, Luca, Melanie, Mun, Renata, and Vassi.

Thanks to my colleagues who waited patiently for a long time for me to be able to work more days per week and who cheered me on—even when I bored them to tears with my research which has no bearing on their work or lives whatsoever.

Then, there were Maxie and Rousseausie who distracted me with their attention-seeking behaviour and who still loved me unconditionally even on a bad day or when I did not get home before eleven at night. Their purring, their soft paws and their meows always cheered me up.

Finally, thanks to my parents for instilling a love of learning and a work ethic in their children, and to my sisters for whom me undertaking a PhD was so normal they never even questioned it. ii

Contents Abstract ...... i Acknowledgements ...... ii Declaration ...... iii List of tables ...... ix List of figures ...... ix List of abbreviations ...... x 1 Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Introduction ...... 1 1.1.2 The origins of the research topic ...... 2 1.2 Research context ...... 4 1.2.1 Australian migration trends ...... 7 1.2.2 German migration trends ...... 9 1.3 Purpose of the study ...... 11 1.3.1 Aims of study and research questions ...... 11 1.3.2 The significance of the current study ...... 14 1.4 An overview of the structure of the thesis ...... 16 1.5 Definition of terms ...... 17 1.6 Summary ...... 18 2 Literature Review ...... 19 2.1 Introduction ...... 19 2.2 Some overarching considerations ...... 20 2.3 Key theoretical approaches to migration ...... 25 2.3.1 The Laws of Migration ...... 25 2.3.2 Push-pull models ...... 26 2.3.3 Neoclassical economic theory ...... 27 2.3.4 New Economics of Labour Migration (NELM) ...... 28 2.3.5 Historical-structural approaches ...... 29 2.3.6 Migration systems and network approaches ...... 31 2.3.7 Transnationalism ...... 32 2.4 Migrant incorporation and adaptation ...... 35 2.5 Return migration ...... 38 2.6 Return migration and current theoretical approaches to migration ...... 41 2.6.1 Return migration and economics approaches ...... 42 iv

2.6.2 Structural approaches ...... 44 2.6.3 Return migration and social network approaches ...... 45 2.6.4 Transnationalism and return migration ...... 46 2.7. Empirical investigations into return migration ...... 49 2.7.1 The emigration of immigrants: return migration in the Australian context ... 49 2.7.2 German migration to and from Australia ...... 50 2.7.3 Emigration and return migration in the German context ...... 52 2.8 Summary ...... 58 3 German Migration to and from Australia...... 60 3.1 Introduction ...... 60 3.2 Historical overview ...... 62 3.2.1 1788–1914: Early settlers to World War I ...... 62 3.2.2 1914–1947: From World War I to the end of World War II ...... 67 3.3 Australia’s post-war immigration program—general overview ...... 72 3.3.1 1945–1960s ...... 73 3.3.2 1970s–mid-1990s ...... 75 3.3.3 1990s to the present (2015) ...... 76 3.4 The incorporation of migrants: assimilation, integration, multiculturalism, and a focus on responsibilities and values ...... 78 3.4.1 Assimilation and integration ...... 78 3.4.2 Multiculturalism ...... 79 3.5 Post-World War II German migration to Australia...... 82 3.5.1 German early post-war emigration policy considerations...... 82 3.5.2 The Australian—West German Assisted Migration Agreement ...... 84 3.5.3 Migrant integration ...... 87 3.5.4 Contemporary German migration to Australia ...... 88 3.5.5 Snapshot of the German-born population as at the 2011 Census ...... 90 3.5.6 German migration to and return from Australia—some statistical data ...... 92 3.6 Summary ...... 95 4 Research Design ...... 96 4.1 Introduction ...... 96 4.2 The research paradigm: constructivism/interpretivism as epistemological basis .. 96 4.3 Semi-structured interviews as primary data collection instrument ...... 99 4.3.1 The interviews ...... 101 4.3.2 The issue of translation ...... 103

4.3.3 Interview guides ...... 104 4.4 Data collection approach ...... 106 4.4.1 Gaining access...... 108 4.4.2 Site selection ...... 110 4.5 The research relationship ...... 110 4.5.1 Ethical considerations ...... 110 4.5.2 Positioning ...... 112 4.6 Data analysis using Thematic Analysis ...... 116 4.6.1 Thematic Analysis (TA) ...... 116 4.6.2 Undertaking data analysis with Thematic Analysis ...... 118 4.7 Rigour in qualitative research ...... 119 4.7.1 Limitations ...... 122 4.8 The sample ...... 123 4.9 Summary ...... 126 5 Citizenship ...... 127 5.1 Introduction ...... 127 5.2 Dimensions of citizenship ...... 129 5.3 Evolution of German and Australian citizenship laws ...... 131 5.4 The sample—formal legal statuses and citizenship ...... 133 5.5 Citizenship choices ...... 138 5.5.1 Acquiring the Australian citizenship, renouncing the German citizenship .. 139 5.5.2 Dual citizenship (since 2000) ...... 142 5.5.3 Keeping the German citizenship ...... 145 5.6 Citizenship, mobility, flexibility and return migration ...... 147 5.7 Discussion and conclusions ...... 149 5.8 Summary ...... 153 6 Narratives of Migration and (Im-)mobility ...... 155 6.1 Introduction ...... 155 6.2 Migrant cohorts—the organisational view ...... 158 6.2.1 Early assisted passage years cohort...... 159 6.2.2 Integrated migrants ...... 161 6.2.3 Expatriates ...... 162 6.2.4 The ‘myth of no return’ ...... 163 6.3 The individual migration project ...... 165 6.3.1 Bi-national relationships—the most common project conceptualisation ..... 166 vi

6.3.2 Shifting the focus from country of origin to host country...... 171 6.3.3. Fluid life courses ...... 174 6.4 Creating virtual co-presence ...... 178 6.4.1 Visual co-presence ...... 180 6.5 Discussion and conclusions ...... 182 6.6 Summary ...... 187 7 Narratives of (Non-) Return ...... 188 7.1 Introduction ...... 188 7.2 Short-term return visits ...... 191 7.2.1 Purpose and frequency of visits ...... 191 7.2.2 Short-term visits from German family and friends ...... 193 7.3 Return narratives 1: (Un)settled and staying ...... 194 7.4 Return narratives 2: Trajectories ...... 198 7.4.1 Return intentions ...... 198 7.4.2 Executed returns ...... 200 7.4.3 Non-voluntary absences from Australia ...... 203 7.5 Bi-local and pluri-local orientations ...... 204 7.5.1 Bi-national partnerships ...... 206 7.6 Promoters and inhibitors of mobility ...... 209 7.6.1 Family-related promoters and inhibitors ...... 209 7.6.2 Economic considerations ...... 211 7.6.3 Quality of life factors ...... 212 7.7 Discussion and conclusions ...... 213 7.8 Summary ...... 221 8 Conclusion ...... 223 8.1 Introduction ...... 223 8.2 Patterns ...... 225 8.2.1 Temporal patterns ...... 225 8.2.2 Bi-national relationships ...... 228 8.2.3 Host country orientation ...... 229 8.2.4 Contemporary patterns—fluid life courses ...... 230 8.2.5 Citizenship patterns ...... 232 8.2.6 Patterns of return ...... 234 8.3 The impact of globalisation and intra-EU mobility ...... 235 8.4 Return trajectories from Australia compared to other regions ...... 236

vii

8.5 Contribution to knowledge in the field of return migration studies ...... 237 8.6 Implications for future research ...... 240 References ...... 241 Appendix 1—Ethics Clearance—SUHREC2012/281 ...... 271 Appendix 2—Project Invitation and Consent ...... 273 Appendix 3—Interview Schedules ...... 282

viii

List of tables

Table 2.1: German emigrants by education and duration of stay, selected destination countries 2010/11 ...... 56

Table 3.1: Number of Germans in Australia, 1861–1947 ...... 72

Table 3.2: German migration to Australia: settler arrivals, 1946–1969...... 86

Table 3.3: Germans in Australia—Census data 1947–2011 ...... 90

Table 3.4: Germans in Australia—Census data 1986–2011—Ancestry and language spoken at home ...... 90

Table 3.5: German migration to Australia: settler arrivals, permanent departures, departures as percentage of settler arrival, 1946–1989 ...... 93

Table 3.6: German migration to Australia: settler arrivals, permanent departures, permanent departures as percentage of settler arrivals, 1990–2012 ...... 93

Table 3.7: Excerpt, Australia’s Migration Programme - Country position, 2013–2014 ...... 94

Table 3.8: Permanent departures overseas born by selected country of birth by length of stay, 2011–2012, 2012–2013 ...... 94

Table 4.1: Organisations ...... 123

Table 4.2: Individual interview participants by country of residence at interview ...... 125

Table 5.1: Visa statuses of study participants who arrived in Australia post 2000 ...... 136

Table 5.2: Visa statuses of study participants who arrived in Australia prior to 2000 ...... 137

List of figures

Figure 2.1: Types of transnational mobility ...... 34

Figure 2.2: Berry’s acculturation model ...... 36

Figure 5.1: Citizenship data from 2011 census ...... 134

Figure 5.2: Percentage of naturalised Germans 1981–2011—census data ...... 135

List of abbreviations

ABC Australian Broadcasting Corporation

ABS Australian Bureau of Statistics

DIAC Department of Immigration and Citizenship (January 2007–September 2013)

DIBP Department of Immigration and Border Protection (September 2013— current)

DIMA Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (March 1996– November 2001 and January 2006–January 2007)

DIMIA Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Indigenous Affairs (November 2001–November 2006)

EU European Union

EFTA European Free Trade Association

IOM International Organisation of Migration

OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

SBS Special Broadcasting Services

TA Thematic Analysis

UN United Nations

UN DESA United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs

1 Introduction

1.1 Introduction International migration has been a topic of global importance for a number of years. A 2004 United Nations (UN) report on international migration refers to the “Extreme politicization of migration in many countries” (UN 2004, p. 31) and Castles, de Haas and Miller in the introduction to the 5th edition of The Age of Migration (2014, p. 1) describe it as “amongst the most emotive subjects in contemporary society”. Public discourses around the phenomenon abound and, in the context of developments such as the events of 11 September 2001, Eastern European migrations to Western European destinations as a consequence of EU (European Union) enlargement, a slow recovery from the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) for a number of developed economies, and since 2014 the European migrant crisis, have become more forceful and more polarised. This polarisation has led to a narrowing of a focus on securitisation and adverse economic effects on the host country at a time when there is an increasing diversification of migration with a multiplicity of non-linear, multi- directional trajectories; it has also led to a lack of engagement with the human dimension of migration. Conceptualisation of return migration in this context often takes the form of forced or government-incentivised return or limiting the ability of the migrant to settle or access welfare services of the host country. At the other end of the spectrum is the “footloose” cosmopolitan “on the move in the world” (Hannerz 2002, p. 104).

The polarisation encountered in public and political discourses on migration has not been replicated in the migration scholarship; here the opposite applies as migration scholarship exhibits a fragmentation and diversification caused by factors including among others discipline, region, focus on the level of analysis (macro, micro or meso), and ontological point of view. And while the goal of most migration scholars is no longer producing a unified theory, a narrow focus can lead to duplication of research (Massey et al. 1994, cited in Brettell & Hollifield 2014, p. 2).

The objective of this thesis is to explore the non-linear, bi-directional migration trajectories between developed countries, Australia and Germany, specifically

1 focusing on voluntary long-term return migration movements—that is return not forced and/or-incentivised by governments, conflict or environmental disasters. The exploration investigates the migration trajectories of (ex) Australian residents of German ancestry or citizenship in the decades since the signing of The Australian— West German Assisted Migration Agreement in 1952. The exploration focuses on the following factors:

 macro-level political and socio-spatial conditions and their impact on the development of migratory movements, i.e. the influence of the nation state and its regulatory frameworks on long-term return migration flows;  the interaction between macro-level conditions and micro-level expectations and experiences, i.e. the intersection of macro-level structural conditions and the individual migrant’s expectations and desires and how that shapes experiences; and  the dynamics of globalisation and transnational activities in migrants’ lives.

1.1.2 The origins of the research topic Marshall and Rossman (2011, p. 28) point out that research projects are often based on the researcher’s own biography and interests. This, to a degree, is also the case in this project: my being a long-term German migrant in Australia led to a heightened awareness of issues and events related to Germans in Australia. One of these issues was the fact that a not inconsiderable number of Germans leave Australia again. This led to the question of reasons for the return: was it homesickness; visa limitations; family considerations or a better employment outlook back in Germany? Attempting to find information on the topic led to the realisation that return migration was not a particularly well explored area, and, more astonishing for me, return migration between developed countries did not seem to have generated much interest. That seemed counter-intuitive as mobility relies on financial resources and migrants from developed countries are more likely to be able to mobilise sufficient resources. Another puzzling fact in the literature on migration was the division of migrants into either elite and highly skilled or poor with a low skill-base when the majority of migrants I had encountered where neither; in terms of social stratification they were middle-class.

Thus this project was deliberately conceptualised to fill a gap in the current state of knowledge on long-term return migration trajectories by investigating mobility between developed countries. Choosing a relatively long timeframe (six decades) allows for the investigation and comparison of the development of migration and mobility and the interdependency of micro-level decision making and macro-level political and economic developments. The choice of Australia and Germany as examples of developed countries was influenced by personal considerations as outlined above; but more importantly it is based on the migration history between the two countries which makes them an ideal example for the investigation of globalisation and transnational processes as expressed in the changing approaches to and (self-) definition of migration and migrants: Australia as the classic country of immigration and Germany as the country of emigration in the aftermath of World War II, the emergence of Germany’s economic miracle and the economic convergence of the two countries over the last century.

Moreover, German migrants also reflect the characteristics of populations most likely to provide valuable insights into contemporary mobility processes and limitations as set out by Favell, Feldblum and Smith (2007, p. 16) as their capacity for mobility is and has been relatively unconstrained1 (be it through assisted passage in the past or particular skill sets today) and whose mobility is influenced by educational, professional or lifestyle choices rather than necessity; but who on the other hand do not fit the dichotomy of either footloose cosmopolitan elites or the marginalised migrant; who lead ordinary lives in which the crossing of an international border is just one, and not necessarily the defining aspect of their lives.

Investigating the return migration trajectories of Germans from and to Australia, can thus provide insight into the drivers and inhibitors of mobility of ‘ordinary’, that is not marginalised but also not elite, migrants beyond structural limitations.

But the choice was also influenced by pragmatic considerations such as gaining access to a suitable research sample and language capabilities. My status as a long- term German permanent resident in Australia provided me with knowledge of and

1 Since the removal of the restrictions on movement imposed after the end of World War II, (West) Germans have enjoyed relatively unconstrained travel.

3 access to German community networks in Australia and my ability to speak German was not only useful during fieldwork but also provided access to a German body of literature on migration. The issue of researcher positionality arising from this insider status will be discussed in greater detail in Chapter 4 which deals with methodology.

1.2 Research context This introductory chapter provides the context for the research project by setting out research context and discussing the purpose and significance of the study. The research is set in an Australian context, and the statistics included in this dissertation, unless otherwise specified, are drawn mainly from Australian sources. The theories and conclusions from the literature in this thesis derive from studies conducted in a range of countries, including Australia and Germany. An overview of the thesis structure and a brief definition of ‘migrant’ as used in this thesis conclude the chapter.

Migration in all its forms plays an increasingly major role in in contemporary public discourses and political decision making. There is a growing consensus on the importance of migratory processes and their outcomes on a societal, political, and economic level, thus making it an issue of interest for scholarly research (Castles & Miller 2009; IOM 2013; King 2002; Massey et al. 1998 ; Smith & King 2012).

Notwithstanding the fact that migration is not a new phenomenon—it is often framed in terms of being one of the basic conditions of the human experience from pre- modern migrations to the present (Bürgelt 2010; Castles & Miller 2009)—much (but not all) scholarship contends that current migrations are of a different quality to those of previous eras. What differentiates previous migration from the contemporary one(s) is the unprecedented and rising number of migrants across the world (Bommes & Morawska 2005; Castles & Miller 2009; Faist 2000; Koser 2007; O’Reilly 2012; Samers 2010 ) driven by technological advances and societal transformations. These, in turn, have led to a diversification of migratory processes (Castles & Miller 2009; Cresswell 2006; Ette & Sauer 2010; Hugo 2005; King 2002; King & Skeldon 2010; Massey et al. 1998 ; Smith & King 2012; Urry 2002, 2012) necessitating further investigations in the form of empirical studies. In turn, there is a strong likelihood that findings of these studies will lead to refinement of existing or

development of new approaches to and theories of migration (Smith & King 2012, p. 132).

According to the United Nations Population Division (UN DESA 2013, pp. 1-2), in 2013 the number of international migrants reached 232 million, an increase from 175 million in 2000 and 154 million in 1990. Between 1990 and 2000, the international migrant stock grew by an average of 1.2 per cent per year. Between 2000 and 2010 it accelerated to 2.3 per cent. The impact of the GFC resulted in a temporary slowdown to around 1.6 per cent per year during the period 2010 to 2013. For the OECD area, though, this trend reversed in 2014. According to the recently published 2015 International Migration Outlook 2015 (OECD 2015a, pp. 11-12) permanent migration flows to the OECD have reached pre-crisis level with 4.3 million permanent entries to the OECD. This number does not include temporary migrants such as students, or asylum requests. The total number of foreign-born people in the OECD increased by 40 per cent between 2000–2001 and 2010–2011.

In 2013, 136 million international migrants lived in the so-called Global North2, and 96 million in the South3. The share of international migrants living in the developed regions has increased since 1990. In 2013, 59 per cent of all international migrants lived in the North, an increase of 6 per cent from 53 per cent in 1990. In the North, the proportion of international migrants in the total population exceeds that of the South. In 2013 migrants constituted 10.8 per cent of the total population in developed regions compared to 1.6 per cent in developing regions (IOM 2013; UN DESA 2013). The 2013 IOM Migration Report (p. 25) reports a migration rate of approximately 40 per cent from the Global South to the North; it also reports at least one third of migrants moving from South to South (with the caveat that there is lack of accurate data); and a smaller stream at slightly more than one fifth of migrants (22 per cent) migrating from North to North; moreover, it draws attention to the fact that there is a small but growing percentage of migrants (5 per cent) who migrate from North to South.

2 North’ refers to high-income countries and ‘South’ to low- and middle-income countries, as classified by the World Bank; in this classification Australia and New Zealand are considered Global North. 3 As the report points out, while the descriptors Global North and South are neither precise nor appropriate in all circumstances, they are useful as generic overall descriptors.

It is worth remembering, though, that despite the large volume of migrants globally and the steady increase in the number of migrants worldwide, the percentage of migrants compared to the world population has remained modest (King 2012; O’Reilly 2012): in 1990 migrants accounted for 2.9 per cent of the world population compared to 3.2 per cent in 2013 (UN DESA 2013, p. 1). Thus, it is not only the increase in the number of migrants and the diversification of migration processes that have made migration one of the key issues of contemporary discourses; the impact migration has not only on the migrant and the host country but also the home country and those who stayed has also become increasingly a focus of attention, as has the geographical spread of migratory movements (Held et al. 1999, p. 10-28). The IOM’s 2013 World Migration Report notes that migration can have cumulative effects on host as well as home countries.

Migration can result in a chain of development—from individuals, through to households, communities and, ultimately, countries. Globalization has led to a significant increase in human mobility, with social, economic and environmental implications for all concerned (IOM 2013, p. 31).

Despite the evidence of these diverse flows, the focus of migration policy and research of the last few decades has concentrated largely on migrations from the Global South to the Global North, possibly because economic issues feature strongly in socio-political considerations.

Another field less investigated is long-term return migration despite the fact that migration has always been a “two-way street” (Massey & Redstone Akresh 2006, p. 954). One factor which may account for the lack of a coherent body of knowledge is that theoretical approaches to migration and return migration were located in the “permanent settlement migration paradigm” (Hugo 2003), conceptualising migration as one discrete move from home to host country. Thus, return migration was seen as either a move back to the home country at the end of the migratory trajectory or as a failure to adapt in the host country (Cassarino 2004; Constant & Massey 2002; Constant & Zimmermann 2011; Currle 2006; Dustmann & Weiss 2007; Glorius & Mattuschewski 2009; OECD 2008). This view of migration as a permanent event may have been influenced by a focus on the traditional immigration countries (USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand) although even at the time of the transatlantic

mass migration of the early 20th century about a quarter of migrants returned (Bade 2002, cited in Glorius & Mattuschewski 2009, p. 205).

More recent approaches to migration and return migration research take into account the possible multi-directionality of migration and thus view return migration as part of the migration cycle (Čapo Žmegač 2010; Cassarino 2004; Currle 2006; Ley & Kobayashi 2005).

For current migratory flows the 2008 OECD Migration (p. 203) report states that approximately two in five migrants will leave the host country within five years of arrival. A similar result is also reported by Dustmann and Weiss (2007, pp. 253-54) in their study on return migration from the United Kingdom, and Dustmann and Görlach (2015, p. 2). However, these figures are not evenly distributed across all migratory flows. They vary depending on home and host country, category of admission, and, of course, are also dependent on characteristics of the individual migrants themselves.

1.2.1 Australian migration trends As a classic immigration country, Australia, with one of the most diverse populations in the world—the 2011 Australia Census showed that more than a quarter (26 per cent) of the Australian population was born overseas and that a further twenty per cent had at least one overseas-born parent ABS (2012a)—has focused scholarly and political/policy interest on migratory movements to a much greater extent than many other countries as migrants have made up a large component of the Australian population since the early days of settlement. The post- World War II Australian Migration Programme initially recruited migrants from countries in North-Western Europe, followed by large numbers of migrants born in Southern and Eastern Europe. In the 1970s a number of economic and political developments contributed to the changes of direction of migration streams to South- East Asia, and later on to a number of further Asian countries. This is reflected in the decrease from 52 per cent in 2001 of the overseas-born population originating from Europe to 40 per cent in 2011, and the increase in the proportion of migrants born in Asia from 24 per cent of the overseas-born population in 2001 to 33 per cent in 2011. The proportion of the overseas-born population arriving from countries outside

Europe and Asia also increased (ABS 2012). This change in origin of migrant populations arriving in Australia has also redirected the focus of research from European to more current migrant groups. A further change, that from settler to temporary migration, has implications for settlement and return migration.

Emigration of immigrants which may include long-term return migration4 from Australia has increased substantially since the mid-1990s, coinciding with the shift to temporary migration.

Emigrants consist of Australian born emigrants and overseas born emigrants. In 2012–13 52.7 per cent of all emigrants from Australia were born overseas, a slight increase on the 2011–12 proportion of 51.1 per cent. It has also been reported that a small but significant number of people migrating to Australia leave within two years of their arrival (Department of Immigration and Border Protection 2013).

Long-term return migration of immigrants has been a topic of interest in Australia since the mid-1950s (Price 1998, p. 119). However, in line with changes to the Australian migration program the focus of the interest has shifted from settlement to temporary migration. This shift is also evident in the assessment of the implications and effects of the emigration immigrants: while the effects of emigration of immigrants, or ‘settler loss’ as the phenomenon was often referred to in the past, used to be assessed as negative for Australia (Lukomskij & Richards 1986, p. 604)— a loss of skills and experience, a cost without adequate return for Australia’s investment, a potential displacement of a more suitable migrant (one who had not left/would not leave Australia), and a cost to the planning and replanning of services. In recent times these effects (while still mentioned) are complemented by positive implications such as the development of global links facilitating access to overseas markets, investment of foreign currency in Australia, and skills, knowledge and access to networks that emigrants who return to Australia may bring with them (Hugo, Rudd & Harris 2001, pp. 108-110; 2003, pp. 47, 56, 63).

4 Not all migrants who leave Australia do so to return to their home country; emigration of immigrants also includes migration to a third country.

1.2.2 German migration trends Scholarly engagement with migration in the German context has until recently concentrated on integration of immigrants. Investigations into return migration in Germany have tended to focus on return from Germany to countries of origin with only a small number of studies exploring long-term return migration to Germany. Some of the more recent studies include Uebelmesser (2006), Heimer and Pfeiffer (2007), Erlinghagen and Stegmann (2009), Ette and Sauer (2010), Liebau and Schupp (2011), and Cohen and Kranz (2015). Most of these investigations focus on the long-term return from preferred emigration destinations of German citizens, that is EU countries and the United States. Only a small number of contemporary studies have included (marginal) exploration of long-term return migration from Australia/New Zealand/South East Asia to Germany in the context of an overall different research focus (Bürgelt 2010; Bürgelt, Morgan & Pernice 2008; Radermacher 1991)5. However, two recently released reports, International Mobil: Motive, Rahmenbedingungen und Folgen der Aus- und Rückwanderung deutscher Staatsbürger (Internationally mobile: Motives, parameters and results of emigration and return of German citizens) (SVR-Studienbereich 2015) and the OECD (2015b) report Talent Abroad: A Review of German Emigrants, provide a far more detailed overview of the migratory movements including long-term return migration to Germany.

While a detailed examination of German migration to Australia with a particular focus on the developments since 1952 will be the focus of Chapter 3, this chapter will provide a brief general overview of trends in German emigration since World War II in an attempt to situate the purpose and scope of this thesis in the broader context of migration trajectories based on the two 2015 reports mentioned above.

An exploration of German emigration since World War II reveals a number of developments; one of the peaks of the volume of German emigration occurred in the early to mid-1950s when more than 100,000 Germans left the country on an annual basis for the classic emigration countries, i.e. the United States, Canada and, to a lesser degree, Australia. From the mid-1950s onwards the volume of German emigrants decreased continually until it reached its lowest point in 1975. A new high

5 These studies were undertaken in Australia, Australia/Canada, and New Zealand.

9 of approximately 140,000 emigrants annually was reached in the mid-1990s, followed by a decrease to 109,507. This trough was followed by a steady rise to a record high of 191,105 German citizens in 2007 (Kathmann 2012, p. 108). Shortly after, the impact of the Global Financial Crisis decreased the number of migrants globally.

The preferred destinations of German emigrants have undergone considerable change. While during the 1950s two thirds of German emigrants relocated to the classic emigration countries (Kathmann 2012, cited in SVR-Studienbereich 2015, p. 11), this decreased to approximately one third of emigrants during the 1960s (Ette & Sauer, cited in SVR-Studienberech 2015, p. 11) and has changed considerably again during the last two decades: the integrated EU with its freedom of movement, common currency and rights to work and settlement but also its promotion of intra- European mobility has become the new destination of choice for German emigrants (SVR-Studienbereich 2015, p. 11). Between 2001 and 2013, migrant flows to European OECD countries were approximately three times that of flows to non- European OECD countries. This development has also impacted on the stock of German immigrants in European and non-European OECD countries respectively: in 2000/01 the stock of German immigrants in non-European OECD countries was slightly higher than in European OECD countries, 1.6 million compared to 1.5 million, by 2010/11 this position had been reversed with 1.8 million German immigrants in European OECD countries and 1.6 non-European OECD countries (OECD 2015b, p. 31). And while the United States is are still the preferred destination for German emigrants, the EU/European Free Trade Association (EFTA) countries jointly host more German immigrants than the United States. Of the twelve OECD countries which host 90 per cent of all German immigrants today, the highest number of Germans, over 1.1 million, were living in the United States, followed by the United Kingdom (approximately 275,000) and Switzerland (approximately 274,000). Greece, Australia and the Netherlands complete the twelve preferred countries, each hosting approximately 100,000 German emigrants in 2010/11 (OECD 2015b, pp. 27-28).

1.3 Purpose of the study

1.3.1 Aims of study and research questions While the body of literature on migration including return migration is large and diverse, knowledge and examination of migration processes and outcomes is not comprehensive as interest tends to focus only on certain areas. And while the focus can and does change there is much truth in King’s observation that

Migrations can be spectacular or mundane, or … regarded as problematic or non- problematic. By and large, the mundane, non-problematic forms of movement are left unrecorded and often unstudied. The spectacular, problematic ones get all the attention although it must be stressed that the nature of the ‘spectacle’ is often exaggerated and distorted by its media portrayal or politicisation (2002, p. 102).

This focus on the spectacular and/or problematic is compounded by the fact investigation of migration is usually undertaken in the host country, therefore the focus is on immigration and associated with that the integration or otherwise of the alien into host country society, and issues of social cohesion. Thus, this focus does not usually extend to a detailed exploration of those who decide to return to their home country. Therefore, while a considerable number of studies (Johnston 1972, 1979; Jones & Lancaster 1967; Richardson & Taft 1968; Taft 1962, 1986) investigated the assimilation of European migrants into Australian society during the peak years of the assisted passage programs, this interest declined in accordance with declining numbers of Europeans and the change in direction of migrant flows. And while statistical data on the outmigration of immigrants is comparatively well documented in Australia (Skeldon 2013, p. 3), this data does not provide any insights into reasons, decision making processes and execution of decisions or the migrants’ intentions and experiences.

Related to these two biases is a third: the focus on “settlers (‘immigrants’), who, in the language of classic migration studies, move from a less to a more developed country with ‘permanent settlement’ in mind” (Colic-Peisker 2010, p. 468).6

6 Colic-Peisker uses this description to differentiate between transnational knowledge workers and other migrants, not to demonstrate a certain focus in migration research.

As indicated in the 2013 IOM Migration report (p. 25), when it comes to the different migration pathways, the main focus has been on migration from Global South to North; and there is as yet little knowledge on migrations between developed economies although, as outlined in the previous section, approximately 22 per cent of migrations occur between countries of the Global North, and, as the 2008 OECD report in its section on return migration observes (OECD 2008, p. 163) “migrant mobility is greater between countries at a similar level of development … Return rates to OECD countries are on average twice as high as those to developing countries”.

These factors have contributed to a lack of knowledge and deeper understanding of multi-directional migration trajectories between developed economies which this study aims to close. Investigating the development of migration trajectories between Australia and Germany offers an instructive example due to the initial difference in economic status after World War II and between the two countries and the gradual convergence over the last half century in particular.

The developments in the migration trajectories will also allow for the investigation of the diversification of migration and migration trajectories and the changing self- perception of migrants (Bönisch-Brednich 2002; Fechter 2007; Schubert-McArthur 2006).

This project is built around four research questions. The central research question in this project: How have the patterns and determinants of long-term return migration between Australia and Germany (as examples of countries with developed economies) changed in response to macro-level political, economic and socio-spatial conditions?, is aimed at investigating the role of the macro-level environment as reflected in the changing nature of migratory movements. The formulation of this question was informed by an attempt to acknowledge the longitudinal nature of the study; the initial considerable differences on an economic, political and socio-spatial level; the differences between Australia in 1952 as one of the victors of and, more importantly, a country untouched by the physical destruction of World War II, and Germany as the defeated aggressor and a country in ruins; and

the steady convergence over more than fifty years which resulted in both countries achieving a similar level of development as developed economies.

It also takes into account claims of increasing diversification and change of quality of migratory movements, and of the paradox of increasing importance of mobility in developed economies as a consequence of globalisation which at the same time renders mobility an increasingly common place phenomenon.

This overarching research question was extended by the addition of a number of supplementary questions focusing on specific aspects of the overall question and the intentions outlined above.

As the overarching research question was aimed at the macro level, a second question is expressly aimed at the micro-level: How do macro- and micro-level socio-spatial conditions intersect in migrants’ envisagement, negotiation and experience of return?

The third question, How can the exploration of return migration between developed countries illuminate the dynamics of globalisation and transnational movements?, aims to illuminate the possible structural constraints affecting those who face the least constraints on their mobility, Favell, Feldblum and Smith’s (2007, p. 16) “test case” of liberalisation of mobility, but also in how far the absence of structural constraints leads to a transnational orientation and facilitates mobility.

The final question, How do the findings of this study compare with current German studies which concentrate on return from the major German emigration destinations, the US and EU countries such as Austria and Switzerland?, explores the influence of location on migratory movements.

Moreover, the project also provides a space for contemporary German-Australian migration and return migration stories, acknowledging the so often denied human face of migration. By making Jupp’s “hidden migrants” (Jupp 1995, p. 63) visible, it also illuminates a part of the Australian-German history.

1.3.2 The significance of the current study The key objectives of the doctoral study reported in this thesis are to provide a better understanding of the factors influencing migration and long-term return migration trajectories between developed countries, and of the interdependency of macro-and micro-level factors such as regulatory frameworks and migrant agency, and in this way contribute to a broader and deeper understanding of a migratory movements.

The thesis is important for a number of reasons. As the global debate regarding brain drain, gain and circulation, and the related concept of migrant selectivity (Borjas & Bratsberg 1996; Ette & Sauer 2010; Hatton & Williamson 2004), embedded in the wider discussions of demographic change and its effects such as labour force and skills shortages due to low fertility rates and aging of the population, illustrates, migratory flows can have a significant socio-economic and political impact on country of origin and host country.

In an immigration country such as Australia with one of the most regulated migration programs in the world, return migration is an issue of importance and has led to a considerable research into the phenomenon, often in the form of Australian Government sponsored reports (e.g. Commonwealth Immigration Advisory Council 1967; Hugo 1994; Hugo, Rudd & Harris 2001; Lukomskiy & Richards 1986; Price 1998). As Lukomskiy and Richards (1986, p. 615) point out, apart from the fact that in the case of settler migration, return represents a loss of human capital to Australia after its investment in the recruitment and selection of migrants, there are also policy implications. Return can lead to changes in the composition of the immigrant population and thus impact on government planning and policy.

Return migration can also have a significant social and cultural impact by affecting the composition of the net gain from migration. The characteristics of a settler departing are different to those of one arriving, resulting in different needs and contributions (Lukomskiy & Richards 1986, p. 604). The loss to Australia can take various forms: older migrants take a wealth of knowledge and experience with them, younger emigrants are usually highly skilled and thus present a loss of high level skills (Hugo 1994; Hugo, Rudd & Harris 2001, 2003). Moreover, immigrant numbers are not unrestricted, a settler who departs might do so at the expense of

somebody who would have stayed and provided a sustained contribution to Australia (Lukomskiy & Richards 1986, p. 604).

As outlined above, these negative effects, while not rejected, are complemented by positive implications such as the development of global links facilitating access to overseas markets, investment of foreign currency in Australia, and skills, knowledge and access to networks which emigrants who return to Australia may bring with them (Hugo, Rudd & Harris 2001, pp. 108-110, 2003, pp. 47, 56, 63).

But it is not only return executions which impact on the host country. Return intentions can also significantly impact on the migration by influencing the migrants’ engagement with the host country. As has been argued (Cassarino 2004; Dustmann & Görlach 2015) immigrants’ intention for a temporary stay in the host county influences their investment in human and social capital; thus, temporariness affects more than the individual migrant and thus their consumption behaviour and integration or otherwise into the host society.

However, given the recent shift in Australia’s migration program towards temporary migration, return migration could be interpreted as an indicator of the efficiency of immigration policies, planning and programs. Therefore, an examination of return migration may provide valuable insight into the effectiveness of immigration policy and programs.

In a scholarly context even though return migration was mentioned as early as 1885 in Ravenstein’s Laws of Migration (1885)7, interest in the phenomenon is relatively recent (Brettell 2003; Cassarino 2004; Currle 2006; Glorius & Mattuschewski 2009) and cyclical (Brettell 2003, pp. 47-48). As Stefanson (2004, p. 4) states: “return movements across time and space have largely been ignored in anthropology and migration research”. Although there is now a sizeable body of literature in the field of return migration—in 2008 the OECD devoted a full chapter of its International Migration Outlook to the phenomenon and Carling, Mortensen & Wu’s (2011) bibliography of return migration runs to more than 200 pages (entries for Germany, though, do not amount to even a full page)—return migration is still considered “the

7 According to Grigg (1977, p. 41) Ravenstein published a revised version of the Laws of Migration in 1889.

15 great unwritten chapter in the history of migration” (King 2000, p. 7) more than ten years after initial publication of the statement8 (e.g. Percival 2013, p.2).

By investigating the long-term return movements this study will make a contribution to the deeper understanding of contemporary mobility between developed countries that goes beyond the question of structural constraints by exploring the intersection of micro- and macro-level factors driving or inhibiting mobility.

1.4 An overview of the structure of the thesis The structure of the thesis is as follows. Chapter 1 provides the background statement and discusses the significance and purpose of the study. Chapter 2 provides a review of the relevant literature relating to theoretical approaches to migration and return migration, and empirical investigations into return migration from both an Australian and a German perspective including German migration to Australia. Chapter 3 presents an overview of German migration to Australia. This chapter commences with a brief outline of historical migrations but will concentrate on contemporary German migration since the signing of the Australian-West German assisted passage agreement of 1952. Chapter 4 presents an outline of the research design. The chapter explains why a qualitative and relativist approach, utilising in-depth semi-structured interviews, was chosen as the most appropriate means of data collection for this research. Chapter 5 commences the presentation of the findings of the study, discussing the first of three major themes, Citizenship, which emerged across all interviews, and its relation to the return migration. It will explore options and processes of making decisions about citizenship and naturalisation, and establish the central motivation for participants’ various decisions about citizenship: subjective desires, desires for mobility, desires for security, and to a lesser degree desires for political participation.

Chapter 6 focuses on arrival, host country experiences and integrational aspects of the migration project as a precursor or inhibitor to long-term return migration. It illuminates the German migrants’ initial conceptualisations of their migration to Australia, their experiences and subsequent developments of their Australian residence, on the one hand, and Germany and German/European imaginations and

8 A Google search on this citation resulted in 1,280,000 instances found.

considerations on the other. It traces these developments via expert interviews and interviews with individual migrants.

Chapter 7 will focus on narratives of (Non-) Return, narratives of short-term return visits; narratives of (non-) return, including imaginaries of those who have not (yet) returned and the lived experiences of a long-term/permanent return, taking into account that executions of an initial return may not be the endpoint of the journey. A discussion of promoters and inhibitors of return is also included.

Finally, Chapter 8 discusses and summarises the contributions and implications made by the current research. The boundaries of the current study and suggestions for future research are also included in this final chapter.

1.5 Definition of terms Before proceeding, it should be emphasised that some terms in the literature pertaining to migration are not used consistently. Inconsistency in relation to the distinction between the term ‘migrant’ and ‘expatriate’ or ‘self-initiated expatriate’ (SIE) as utilised in particular in business, economics and human resources contexts (Al Ariss & Crowley-Henry 2013; Andresen et al. 2014) can be observed frequently. This usage may indicate a value judgment:

when expatriates come from less-developed countries they are most frequently labeled as ‘migrants’ or ‘immigrants’. … The literature positions ‘migrants’ in stark contrast to SIEs from developed countries. SIEs therefore emerge as agentially more internationally mobile and, as such, benefit from the privilege of ‘self-initiating’ their international mobility (Al Ariss & Crowley-Henry 2013, p. 80).

This study will follow UN terminology. The UN specifies that a migrant is “any person who changes his or her country of usual residence” (UN 1998, p. 17), with the “country of usual residence” representing the place where the person has the centre of his life (UN 1998, p. 17).

Two further UN definitions important in the context of this study are those of ‘long- term migrant’:

Long-term migrant: A person who moves to a country other than that of his or her usual residence for a period of at least a year (12 months), so that the country of destination

effectively becomes his or her new country of usual residence. From the perspective of the country of departure, the person will be a long-term emigrant and from that of the country of arrival, the person will be a long-term immigrant (UN 1998, p. 95).

And ‘returning migrant’, defined as:

Persons returning to their country of citizenship after having been international migrants (whether short-term or long-term) in another country and who are intending to stay in their own country for at least a year (UN 1998, p. 95).

The definition of long-term migrant is of particular importance for this project as it deliberately served as one eligibility criterion for participation in the study.

Conversely, the definition of returning migrant is of importance in the context of this study as this is not followed. There are two reasons for not adopting this definition: (1) the aim of the study is to investigate return trajectories of long-term migrants to Australia, excluding short-term migrants such as students on a semester-long exchange; (2) the above definition speaks of return to the country of one’s citizenship; this would limit the investigation considerably as a number of Germans naturalised for pragmatic reasons and still returned long-term to Germany. Adopting the UN definition, those returns to either Australia or Germany could not have been classed as returns, however, in the minds of the study participants they clearly were as will be discussed in Chapter 7.

1.6 Summary This chapter provided an introduction to the research project. It outlined the background of the project conceptualisation, provided on overview of the general research context looking at Australian and German trends. It set out the aims of the study, outlined the research questions and delineated the significance of the study. It then provided an overview of the structure of the thesis and concluded with a definition of terms of importance in the study.

The next chapter will review key literature on migration and return migration.

2 Literature Review

2.1 Introduction This chapter introduces key literature and concepts utilised in researching migration and also used in this thesis for the investigation of non-linear bi-directional migration trajectories between Australia and Germany, focusing on voluntary long- term return migration movements—that is, return not forced by governments, conflict or environmental disasters.

Despite the fact that long-term return migration is common in an era of transnationalism (Bartram, Poros & Monforte 2014, p. 121) it has not received the same attention as emigration. Non-linear bi- or multi-directional migration trajectories especially between developed countries require a more thorough investigation, tracing the development of return mobilities, taking into account the interdependency of micro-level decision making and macro-level political, economic and socio-spatial factors. The changing mobility behaviours of migrants who are not seen as problematic remain generally unexplored despite the fact that much migration takes place between countries at the same level of development, and that movement between OECD countries is higher than between non-OEDC countries. Moreover, there is a lack of investigation into the migratory movements of those migrants who are neither part of the elite nor the low-skilled cohort (Conradson & Latham 2005a; Favell, Feldblum & Smith 2007). In particular, German long-term return migration from Australia is an under-researched area; a number of doctoral theses have devoted minor segments to the phenomenon (see section 2.7.2), however, it has been not been explored in any depth.

The chapter will commence with a review of the more substantive conceptual approaches utilised in the investigation of migration and long-term return migration. While there are number of competing approaches—some diametrically opposed in particular in their assessment of return migration—being cognisant of the diverse ways of approaching the topic contributes to an understanding of the foundations of policy formulation, public discourses, and empirical research. It also raises the awareness that migration is a complex phenomenon and conceptual approaches need

19 to reflect the diverse contexts of migration in all its forms. This is particularly pertinent in a study with a longitudinal approach, as the socio-economic, political and socio-spatial circumstances impacting on migration between two countries has undergone considerable change, a situation which may benefit from the consideration and application of more than one approach.

Although the argument that return migration differs from migration in fundamental ways, thus requiring a different approach (Salaff 2013, p. 460), is sometimes put forward, the majority of approaches to return migration follow Bovenkerk’s lead that “There is little reason to study return migration with theoretical instruments other than the ones usually employed in migration studies in general” (Bovenkerk 1974, p. 9), an assessment shared by other migration scholars (cf. Cassarino 2004; Currle 2006; Hugo 1994). Glorius and Mattuschewski (2009, p. 208) in their investigation on the usability of migration theory for exploration of long-term return migration come to the conclusion that migration theories, adjusted for the specific research context, can serve as instruments for the investigation of return migration.

This chapter will further explore conceptual approaches to incorporation of migrants, as this has been shown to have a considerable impact on the desire to return (Amit & Bar-Lev 2015; Massey & Redstone Akresh 2006), followed by pertinent empirical literature on long-term return migration. The following section will focus on emigration of immigrants from Australia after World War II. Subsequently, current investigation into emigration and return migration to Germany will be reviewed. The small but growing body of literature dealing with German migration to and return from Australia/New Zealand will also be examined.

2.2 Some overarching considerations Migration is generally described as a complex, and multifaceted but also patterned phenomenon (Arango 2000; Brettell & Hollifield 2014; Kurekova 2011; Ravenstein 1885; Sassen 2006), shaped by historical, technological and societal developments studied in a variety of academic disciplines (Castles & Miller 2009; Currle 2006; Glorius & Mattuschewski 2009; King 2012), leading to “considerable diversity” (Schmitter-Heisler 2008, p. 84) in the focus of interest with each discipline applying discipline-specific requirements in the framing of the research topics, questions and

hypothesis formation, although at times convergence across disciplines may be stronger than within (Brettell & Hollifield 2014; Currle 2006; Glorius & Mattuschewski 2009; Massey et al. 1998). O’Reilly (2012, p. 3) identifies migration studies as a “sub discipline in its own right, albeit with somewhat differential treatment depending on the (inter-) disciplinary perspective being employed”. This has resulted in an extensive and ever expanding empirical as well as conceptual literature (Bommes & Morawska 2005; King 2012; Kivisto & Faist 2010; O’Reilly 2012), as development of conceptual-theoretical approaches is closely linked to specific empirical observations (Arango 2000; Castles 2012; King 2012; Kurekova 2011). “For over a century, sociologists and others … have developed a vast literature that documents empirically the myriad facts of immigration, while at the same time creating theoretical models that serve to inform interpretive and explanatory accounts” (Kivisto & Faist 2010, p. 7).

One generally accepted observation is that migration has a history reaching back as far as prehistoric times (Bürgelt 2010; Castles & Miller 2009; Koser 2007; Massey et al. 1998; O’Reilly 2012): “human beings have always moved in search of new opportunities, or to escape poverty, conflict or environmental degradation” (Castles & Miller 2009, p. 2). As an illustration of the multitude of human movement, Hoerder (2002, p. xx) relates the story of a researcher forced to reduce data for graphs and maps “because otherwise they would have looked like a bowl of spaghetti” and goes on to state that

Human movement might as well be compared to the grains in a sack of rice. In a way both spaghetti and sacks of rice would be easy to study; migrants, by contrast, have minds of their own and plans for their future. Myriad of moves across space result from the will of men and women to fashion their lives (Hoerder 2002, p. xx).

However, as Oswald (2007, p. 43) argues, it is important to differentiate between different epochs in migration history because modern migrations have occurred within the framework of nation states and much of the data available is based on this concept.

It is possible to identify a series of major migration events for modern times (Gabbacia 2014; Koser 2007). However, depending on the focus of scholarship, different classifications, timelines and scopes may be observed (Gabbacia 2014, pp. 38-39). Hoerder (2002, pp. 2-8), whose goal is to describe migrations from local to continent to global level, proposes five phases from medieval and early modern times to today; Massey et al. (1998, p. 1-3) in the introduction to their comparative study of migration theories outline four phases of modern migration. Their modern migration history starts with the European mercantile and early colonial expansion phase from the 15th century onwards, which would equate to Hoerder’s second phase. From a continental European perspective, the end of the Thirty Years War (1648) and the transition from agrarian to industrial society as a starting point (Bade & Oltmer 2004; Bade & Brown 2008).

The temporal demarcation between contemporary and historic migrations is also not uncontested. Massey et al. (1998, p. 2-5) classify contemporary migrations as post- industrial, constituting a break with the past by becoming a global phenomenon, and commencing during the 1960s. Other migration scholars such as Castles, de Haas and Miller (2014, p. 5) see the end of World War II as the starting point of “long- distance movements”. Hoerder (2002, p. 7) concurs that “in the decades since the 1950s new patterns” emerged. McKeown (2011, p. 164), however, challenges the notion of newness and views it as “intensification” of previous events and patterns. These different points of view reflect the various temporal approaches to contemporary migrations: a focus on the present, comparison of then and now or concentrating on developments from the past to the present (Brettell & Hollifield 2014, p. 5).

When comparing past and current migrations, it is generally argued that what sets the current migrations apart is the quality of the phenomenon: underpinned and driven by technological advances, in particular in communication and transportation, which have facilitated and accelerated the global flow of capital, goods and services, knowledge, and—to a lesser extent—people, migration has become a diverse global phenomenon (Castles & Miller 2009; de Haas 2010; Favell 2008; Koser 2007), which impacts not only the migrant but host and home society as well (IOM 2013; Koser 2007). As O’Reilly (2013, p. 1, emphasis in the original) suggests: “Migration

has become a normal feature of contemporary societies: a global phenomenon of flows and counterflows; geographical fluidity as opposed to population shifts; ongoing daily processes as opposed to unique events.” This argument has also been made by German scholars, most notably Bade and Oltmer’s (2004) “Normalfall Migration” (migration is normal). On an empirical level, findings by Bönisch- Brednich (2002, pp. 306-309) and Schubert-McArthur (2009, p. 193) researching German migrants in New Zealand indicate less permanency, greater flexibility and mobility between Germany and New Zealand, seem to reflect O’Reilly’s assessment. On the other hand, mobility is not accessible to every person in the same way and has become a marker of inequality (Bauman 1998; King 2012; Urry 2007):

the otherwise attractive notion of the ‘age of migration’ needs to be qualified: migration for some, but not for others. Fine if you are white, from a wealthy country in Europe, North America or elsewhere in the developed world, or if you have money to invest or valuable skills to deploy. But if you are from a poor country in Africa, Latin America or parts of Asia: forget it (King 2012, pp. 5-6).

Another observation, closely linked to the diversity of the field, concerns the area of theory development. Massey et al. (1998) in the conclusion section of their influential survey of migration theory outlined the necessity to devise an overarching theory (Massey et al. 1998, p. 281).

However, to date an overarching and widely accepted theory of migration does not exist (Arango 2000; Favell 2008). Moreover, there are two broad and opposing positions in relation to the development of such a theory. The first position holds that this aspiration still remains the ultimate goal.

Migration scholars recognize the need for an overarching theoretical framework and are struggling in various ways, using various concepts and approaches, to draw attention to migration as a structured and structuring process (Massey et al. 1998; Morawska 2001; Castles 2007; Bakewell 2010) (O’Reilly 2013, p. 1).

For this reason, some disciplinary assessments see migration research as under- theorised and lacking in theoretical advancement. While empirical work is abundant, it is often either disconnected from theories or used to confirm rather than to test, question or refine the existing theoretical propositions (Arango 2000, p. 283). As the

23 basis of many of the theoretical models in particular in migration determinants research were developed from specific empirical observations, they often grew in isolation and are separated by disciplinary boundaries (Arango 2000; Castles & Wise 2008).

The second position is that such a theory is not achievable. No single theory is capable of explaining the complexity of the migratory process (King 2012, p. 11), and in line with the diversification of migration the interest in formulating an overarching theory has decreased (van Hear 2010, p. 1535). Castles (2010, p. 1582) asserts that an overarching theory would have to be so abstract as to be banal and calls for the development of “middle-range theories that can help integrate the insights of the various social sciences to understand the regularities and variations of a range of migratory processes within a given historical socio-economic constellation”.

King (2012, p. 31) argues for “a middle path”: applying theoretical approaches in a variety of combinations in such a way that they provide an understanding of the complexities of real life migrations while not getting lost in the generalisations of simplistic theories or the production of case studies only relevant within the confines of their application.

In the context of this study which takes a longitudinal approach to investigate changes in patterns and determinants it is useful to bear in mind that the call for new theories or further theorising does not negate the legitimacy, usefulness or applicability of existing theoretical approaches; rather it points to the necessity of developing theories reflecting the societal, political and technological changes impacting on human experience and migration (Smith & King 2012, p. 132). Similarly, the fact that different theoretical approaches offer different hypotheses does not make them contradictory or mutually exclusive, rather it points to different implications in contexts, and different foundations for policy development (Faist 2000; Massey et al. 1993).

2.3 Key theoretical approaches to migration Research into migration often concentrates on one of a number of broad areas of investigation: the processes involved in the movement of migrants; settlement (Castles, de Haas & Miller 2014; Massey et al. 1998; O’Reilly 2013); and migration governance or “control” (Kivisto & Faist 2010, p. 9).

Interest in the investigation of migration can be further broken down by discipline- specific foci. In general demographers, economists, and economic sociologists concentrate on the causes of immigration, while sociologists focus on the impact of the migratory experiences on countries of origin and destination countries (Kivisto & Faist 2010, p. 33). Theoretical approaches focussing on the processes around the movement of migrants, the “social, economic and political forces that generate and perpetuate international migration” (Massey et al. 1998, p. 3) are thus predominantly economic theories, concentrating on the questions of “why” “who and when” and “for how long” (Brettell & Hollifield 2014, pp. 4–13).

Theoretical approaches can also be broken down by the level of analysis, into: (a) micro-level approaches focussing on individual decision making; (b) macro-level approaches with a focus on migration as a result of regional differences such as wage differentials; labour and capital scarcity; structural characteristics of labour markets and migration policies; and (c) meso-level approaches which focus on institutional contexts and social ties discovered in empirical studies in areas such as transnationalism (Brettell & Hollifield 2008; Ette & Sauer 2010).

Finally, approaches can also be classified by the stage of the migratory process, that is initiation or perpetuation of movement (Massey et al. 1993, p. 17).

This study will use the stage of migratory process approach in the review of the concepts explaining migration and return migration.

2.3.1 The Laws of Migration Ravenstein’s Laws of Migration (1885) are often cited as the forerunner of modern economics approaches (Castles, de Haas & Miller 2014; King 2012; Kivisto & Faist 2010; Lee 1966). Ravenstein, a demographer, developed a set of seven principles based on British population movement data to refute the contention migrations

25 occurred in a random fashion (1885, pp. 167-235). The principles addressed a number of issues also found in contemporary theory-building such as the primacy of economic motivation and the link between migration and development (Castles, de Haas & Miller 2014, p. 28) and issues of distance, gender, return and technological advances (Kivisto & Faist 2010, pp. 33-34). Though not uncritically accepted (Kivisto & Faist 2010; Lee 1966), Ravenstein’s laws influenced the so-called push– pull models and a contemporary variant, neoclassical equilibrium theory.

2.3.2 Push-pull models Push-pull models focus on differentials in two locations, such as wage differentials and employment conditions, uneven population density, or scarcity of labour and capital. Migration is viewed as an individual, voluntary and rational decision by the migrant, the result of a cost-benefit analysis. This includes the possibility of a decision not to move when a move would seem not to provide any net gain.

The first of these models, Lee’s Theory of Migration (1966, pp. 49-50), posits four factors involved in the process of migration: (1) factors associated with the area of origin; (2) factors associated with the area of destination; (3) intervening obstacles; and (4) personal factors. The assumption is that migrations occur as a consequence of two complementary processes. Migration is predicted to occur when push factors, which operate in the area of origin, are stronger than forces keeping potential migrants sedentary and pull factors, which operate in area of destination, are stronger than those deterring entry. “Natural inertia” (Lee 1966, p. 51) and intervening obstacles of various nature (e.g. borders or legal barriers) also impact on migration decisions as do personal attributes of migrants.

Migration is selective. This simply states that migrants are not a random sample of the population at origin. … persons respond differently to the sets of plus and minus factors at origin and at destination, have different abilities to overcome the intervening sets of obstacles, and differ from each other in terms of the personal factors … The kind of selection, however, varies, being positive in some streams and negative in others. By positive selection is meant selection for migrants of high quality and by negative selection the reverse (Lee 1966, p. 56).

According to King (2012, pp. 12-14) push-pull models were the dominant paradigm in migration conceptualisation until the 1960s, reflecting neoclassical economics principles such as utility maximisation, rational choice, factor-price differentials between regions and countries, and labour mobility. Push-pull models tend to be popular because they offer a simple explanation of migration. Their continued use is evidenced by one of the sources on German migration to Australia: Tampke’s The Germans in Australia published in 2006, uses a push-pull approach to explain 19th century German migration to Australia.

However, criticism of the push-pull model contends that it is descriptive and not explanatory in nature (Castles, de Haas & Miller 2014, pp. 28-29), that it provides an arbitrary list of factors without an explanatory framework (Skeldon 1990, cited in Castles, de Haas & Miller 2014, p. 28), and that instead of a framework it is simply an ordering of factors.

2.3.3 Neoclassical economic theory Related to the push-pull model, neoclassical economic theory has been one of the most dominant approaches utilised in migration research and policy development (Arango 2000; Kurekova 2011) and “has strongly shaped public thinking” (Massey et al. 1993, p. 433).

Kivisto and Faist view neoclassical theory explicitly as part of the push-pull paradigm: “one variant of the push-pull model is frequently taken to be representative of the model as a whole, an economic theory known as the neoclassical equilibrium perspective” (Kivisto & Faist 2010, p. 36); Castles, de Haas and Miller (2014) see neoclassical economic theory as a separate approach, “valuable” (2014, p. 30) for understanding the selectivity of migration. This view is shared by Massey and his co-authors who refer to push-pull models as the “inseparable companion” (Massey et al. 1998, p. 12) of neoclassical economic theory.

The approach works at the macro as well as at the micro level. At the macro level it is about the optimisation of allocation of production factors: labour moves from labour-abundant to labour-scarce regions while capital flows in the opposite direction, from capital-rich to capital-poor countries. In the long run, this will lead to

27 an equilibrium between regions and migration will decline. Originally conceived by Harris and Todaro (1970) to explain rural to urban movement in developing countries, it was later applied to international migration by Borjas (1989) (Castles, de Haas & Miller 2014; Ette & Sauer 2010; Kivisto & Faist 2010; Massey et al. 1998).

On a micro level, the approach views migration as the result of a cost-benefit analysis based on accurate and timely information by a rational actor (Castles, de Haas & Miller 2014; Ette & Sauer 2010; Kivisto & Faist 2010; Massey et al. 1998).

Sjaastadt (1962) refined the approach by introducing the concept of human capital to neoclassical economic theory in an attempt to explain the “paradoxical behaviour” (Sjaastadt 1962, p. 81) of internal US migratory streams, by positing “migration, training, and experience as investments in the human agent” (Sjaastadt 1962, p. 87, emphasis in the original) which, in conjunction with other “variables such as age and sex affect earnings within an occupation” (p. 87). Sjaastadt’s approach follows utility maximisation principles by positing that a rational actor will undertake a cost-benefit analysis and is expected to migrate if the expected benefits in a destination region are higher than the costs of migration and the expected benefits in the region of origin. However, as expected benefits are not independent from the specific socioeconomic characteristics of the migrant, human capital theory in migration can explain selectivity in migrants.

Despite its value in explaining selectivity in migration, this approach has been criticised as being based on a number of unrealistic assumptions such as viewing people as rational actors who base their decisions to move to an infinite number of locations on cost-benefit analyses, assuming that the information these actors have is perfect and correct and the assumption that markets and other structural factors are perfect and accessible to every migrant in the same way. Thus, based on unrealistic assumptions, neoclassical economic theory is often not able to explain real-life migration patterns (Arango 2000; Castles, de Haas & Miller 2014; King 2012).

2.3.4 New Economics of Labour Migration (NELM) The NELM approach was developed in response to the criticism levelled against neoclassical theories. Criticism included the focus on economic factors to the exclusion of other factors; and the focus on the migrant as decision maker in

isolation from the social context (Castles, de Haas & Miller 2014; Massey et al. 1998). The New Economics of Labour Migration approach highlights the role of family, household or group in decision making processes and acknowledges the complex interdependence between migrant, context and information available. As the migration decision is based on an agreement among a number of people, it can also be offered as an explanation of why only some members of a family or group migrate while others stay behind. An additional consideration argues that the decision to migrate may not only concern wage and income maximisation but may relate to strategies of income diversification and, thus, risk mitigation (Stark & Bloom 1985). Migration is thus a "calculated strategy" and not “… an act of desperation or boundless optimism” (Stark & Bloom 1985, p. 175).

However, this approach is not globally applicable. It was developed in relation to internal migration in less developed countries and thus works best in that context. Additionally, it has been criticised for only looking at the country of origin side of migration (Arango 2000; King 2012).

2.3.5 Historical-structural approaches In contrast to neoclassical approaches, historical-structural approaches, rooted in Marxist interpretations of capital and development and influenced by dependency theory in 1960s Latin American studies, argue that historically developed macro- structural forces perpetuate and extend the uneven distribution of economic and political power. In this context migration is seen as mobilisation and exploitation of cheap labour and resources, entrenching the disequilibria between rich developed countries and poor less developed countries (Castles, de Haas & Miller 2014; King 2012; Massey et al. 1998).

Described as either a meso-level or a macro-level approach, this approach focuses on the structural factors that explain employer/industry or national economy demand for migrants as a source of labour. In line with changes in developed economies from manufacturing to knowledge production, the nature of the labour market also changed with an expansion in the high-skilled areas of science, technology, and administration. This change however, also went hand in hand with an increase in jobs in service provision which are generally low-skilled and paid (Castles, de Haas

& Miller 2014; Kivisto & Faist 2010). Migrants in this approach are selected for their specific fit within the economy.

The two main proponents of this approach are Piore (1979) and Sassen (1999, 2001). In his influential work Birds of Passage (1979) Piore posited a two-tiered or dual labour market consisting of one sector with high salaries, substantial benefits, and reasonable levels of employment security, usually only accessible to natives of a country, and a secondary sector, characterised by low wages, minimal benefits, job insecurity and little chance of advancement: the sector usually accessible to migrants. This secondary labour market can then split into subsections according to human capital differentials of migrants and in this way can be said to become segmented. Both Sassen and Piore see contemporary migration as demand driven and locate it within the broader capitalist flow of labour.

While this approach has been influential, a number of conceptual and methodological shortcomings, such as its inability to explain the no longer recruitment-driven labour migrations especially in the low skilled sector in developed countries, and its lack of engagement with migration between developed economies/countries and their differentials, have been identified (Arango 2000; Castles, de Haas & Miller 2014).

World systems theory, another structuralist approach influenced by dependency theory of the 1970s and ’80s sees migration as a product of core industrialised capitalist countries dominating semi-peripheral and peripheral countries (Wallerstein 1974). Core countries exploit peripheral countries in a quest for raw materials and cheap labour. Contrary to equilibrium theories such as neoclassical economic approaches, world systems theory reinforces a view of inequality in the relations between core, semi-peripheral and peripheral countries. This approach views migrations as a consequence of economic globalisation and market penetrations and as such is a forerunner of globalisation theories (Castles, de Haas & Miller 2014; King 2012; Portes & Rumbaut 2014). Criticism of this theory includes the claim that it disregards or denies the agency of migrants; shows a reductionist stance by assuming that all countries follow the same procedures; and neglects the role of the state (Arango 2000; Castles, de Haas & Miller 2014; King 2012).

2.3.6 Migration systems and network approaches Theories concerned with explanations of how migratory movements are sustained include theories on migration systems and networks. Castles, de Haas and Miller (2014, p. 39, p. 43) view migration systems and networks as approaches focusing on migrant agency; migration network theories focus on social capital, migration systems view migrations as a process with feedback mechanisms which influence future migration flows. The proponent of this approach, the Nigerian geographer Mabogunje, used the systems approach to describe rural–urban migration across the African continent. Another approach, developed by Kritz, Lim and Zlotnik (1992) applied the concept to international migration flows. According to King (2012, pp. 20-21) a systems approach in migration studies is useful because it focuses on structure, linkage and process and allows for conceptualisation of migrations not as a linear unidirectional push-pull movement but as circular, multi-causal and interdependent with effects of change in one part of the system traceable through the whole system. However, criticism of systems approaches include that they are mechanistic and positivist; that there are difficulties with data availability and research design (King 2012, p. 21); that there is little knowledge of the genesis of the system; that little attention is paid to contextual factors that impact on home and host regions and thus change the conditions under which the initial migrations took place; and finally, that little attention is given to internal mechanisms driving the system which over time might also lead to the decline of the system (Bakewell, de Haas & Kubelka 2011, p. 6).

Migration networks see migration as the result of interaction between macro and micro structures. Macro structures include the political economy of world market, inter-state relationships, laws, practices of sending and receiving nation states, evolution of production, distribution and exchanges in an increasingly integrated world economy. Micro structures pertain to the migrants and their concerns and contexts: informal social networks provide migrants with resources as information and knowledge, assistance in finding work, and adapting to host country social and cultural requirements. Family and community are central entities in these networks (King 2012, p. 21). This type of interaction leads to migratory chains. Once established others follow, making migration safer and more manageable for those

31 who migrate later. Migration networks are based on a set of interpersonal ties connecting migrants and non-migrants and former migrants and can be considered a form of social capital which facilitates the likelihood of international movement because it provides information and lowers risk and cost of migration (Massey et al. 1998, pp. 42-44). Faist (1997) outlines the concept of the meso level, that is personal and social networks which connect individual and social-structural reasons for migration. According to King (2012, p. 21) they contribute three insights: they facilitate an understanding of help understanding the dynamics of differential migration, assist in predicting future migration, since networks reproduce migrants, and thirdly, they contribute to the theoretical distinction between initial causes and perpetuation. However, here as in migration systems approaches, it is not clear which factors lead to the decline of a network over time.

2.3.7 Transnationalism The dominant approach of the last two decades, the concept of transnationalism, bears a number of similarities to network approaches, and has its roots in anthropological9 examinations of return migration (Brettell & Hollifield 2014, p. 19) emphasising migrants’ links with their home countries, putting forward the notion that migration does not necessarily mean definitive departure and, equally, implies that return may not be definitive either.

Transnationalism emerged as an approach to the study of migration in the early 1990s, a time characterised by economic globalisation, high levels of migration, and a change in migration patterns (Kivisto 2001, p. 549). Before Glick Schiller, Basch, and Blanc-Szanton (1992) appropriated the term to describe a particular type of migratory behaviour, it had been mainly used as a descriptive term in economic literature. However, its originator reportedly is the American social critic Randolph Bourne in his concept of a “trans-national America” (Kivisto & Faist 2009, pp. 127- 128).

9 According to Brettell and Hollifield (2014, p. 19), transnationalism while arising from the discipline of anthropology, is a widely used concept in sociology, political science and geography as well.

According to Kivisto and Faist (2010, p. 130) the introduction of the term was significant for two reasons: by making the historical comparison and establishing a new quality to contemporary migration Glick Schiller, Basch, and Blanc-Szanton also implicitly made the point that on a theoretical level a new approach to investigating migration was needed because the unit of analysis, the nation-state, did not adequately reflect contemporary migrants’ wider field of action. Glick Schiller, Basch, and Blanc-Szanton argued that contemporary migration assisted by technological advances in the fields of transportation and communications was a qualitatively different form of international mobility to that of previous epochs. The central premise is that modern migration no longer constitutes a linear, one-time movement from home to host country, involving the eventual adaptation and assimilation of the migrant into a new social, cultural and political community. Based on field work with a number of different ethnic groups their early definition of transnational migration is:

the process by which immigrants forge and sustain simultaneous multi-stranded social relations that link together their societies of origin and settlement. In identifying a new process of migration scholars of transnational migration emphasize the ongoing and continuing ways in which current-day immigrants construct and reconstruct their simultaneous embeddedness in more than one society (Glick Schiller, Basch & Blanc- Szanton 1995, p. 48).

Another of the key features of transnationalism is its rejection of what FitzGerald (2014, p. 119) calls the “notion of assimilation as the master category of migration studies”.

Since its inception in the field of migration studies the concept of transnationalism has undergone much development and while it offers “a more holistic consideration of movement” (Hugo 2013, p. 2), and as Østergaard-Nielsen argues “has come to stay” not as a ‘”fixed theoretical framework” but a “discussion of the meaning, scope and impact of migrants’ cross-border relations” (2012, p. 122), the concept has not been adopted universally without criticism. Main criticisms focus on the question of representativeness of the transnational experience, i.e. how many migrant cross- border engagements are truly transnational and not simply the upkeep of inevitable cross-border familial ties (Boccagni 2012; Guarnizo, Portes & Haller 2003; Portes

2001; Waldinger 2008, 2013), and related to this issue the assertion that the claim to newness of the phenomenon was overstated as cross-border movements always result in cross border ties which will decrease over time (Foner 1997; Waldinger 2013; Waldinger & FitzGerald 2004), leading to the question of durability of ties across generations (Portes & Rumbaut 2014, p. 183).

The dual nature of the concept of transnationalism, defined by the relationship between mobility and integration (Kreutzer & Roth 2006, p. 15), is reflected in Kreutzer and Roth’s “types of transnational mobility” (2006, p. 16) below. Based around Simmel’s (1992, cited in Kreutzer & Roth 2006, p. 15) notion of the stranger as part of the group/society in which they currently reside but at the same time an outsider or on the margins because of the possibility of further mobility, and conceptualised along the dimensions of mobility and integration, the various types of transnational mobility are not static but dependent on the mobile person’s situation. Thus, the immigrant for instance can be become the locally anchored identity or the transmigrant. A third dimension, social stratification, is also implicit in this typology. Thus, for instance, labour mobility can be ascribed high or low status depending on the characteristics of the mobile person: labour mobility from a less developed country, generally assumed to be low skilled, is ascribed a low social status and such mobile persons are often called guest workers or, as set out in Chapter 1, migrants; in contrast, the privileged skilled mobile person from a rich/developed country who also moves for employment and career reasons, the expatriate, is generally ascribed a high status.

Figure 2.1: Types of transnational mobility

+ Globetrotter/ Cosmopolitan employment related highly mobile

Guest worker Transmigrant

Stranger

Vagabond Immigrant Mobility

(transnational) Locally anchored Outsider identity - + Integration

Source: translated and adapted from Kreutzer and Roth (2006, p. 16) and Dahinden (2010)

Hannerz (2002) finally offers a view of mobility and incorporation through the ideal type of the ‘cosmopolitan’, contrasting other types of mobile persons with this category. Cosmopolitans engage closely with other cultures but do not adopt them as there is always an “exit” (p. 104) available.

But not all mobile persons are cosmopolitans. Most mobile persons travel for “home plus”, an idea originated with Paul Theroux (1988, p. 133, cited in Hannerz 2002, p. 104); thus tourists travel for a “home plus” experience related to a particular territorial space but often not to its culture but lifestyle experiences such as nice beaches.

Labour migrants, in Kreutzer and Roth’s typology the ‘guest worker’ and the (highly mobile) transmigrant, generally move for “home plus higher income” (2006, p. 18) and often do not incorporate to any great degree but surround themselves with compatriots. Exiles on the other hand, those whose mobility was not necessary volitional, may develop cultural competence out of necessity, thus it may be “home plus safety” (p. 105). For Hannerz (2002, pp. 104-101 ) it is the expatriate who is most closely aligned to the ideal type of cosmopolitan as expatriates have chosen to live abroad for a time but know they can go whenever they want to as opposed to transnationals, those who feel at home with other cultures, are engaged in and have special ties to places in which they have lived and who easily travel to places abroad to meet with colleagues for discussions10. For Hannerz most mobile people do not seem to integrate deeply into the host country society.

2.4 Migrant incorporation and adaptation However, as outlined in section 2.3 another major area of investigation in migration studies is that of settlement: “the social relationships between immigrants and members of the native majority and their cultural interactions” (Portes & Rumbaut 2014, p. 71).

From a psychological perspective Berry (1997, pp. 9-12) outlines four basic strategies migrants can—theoretically—choose from. They are based on the relative

10 The description of transnationals follows George Konrad (1984, pp. 208-9, cited in Hannerz 2002, p. 106).

35 preferences for maintaining heritage culture and ways of participating in the dominant culture’s society.

According to Berry’s (1997) acculturation framework as depicted below, migrants as the non-dominant group in plural societies must develop strategies of how to acculturate, considering two underlying questions: one is that of cultural maintenance—to what degree is country of origin cultural identity important and maintenance desired; the other is the degree of contact with and participation in host country society. In Berry’s framework, there are four major acculturation strategies: integration is the strategy chosen when there is a desire to maintain home country identity but at the same time participation in the dominant culture is sought. If there is no interest in retaining home country cultural identity and there is a strong wish to participate in and interact with the majority culture, the strategy chosen will be assimilation. If on the other hand, there is a desire to keep the home country cultural identity intact with no interest in participation in the dominant culture separation will be the strategy of choice (if this an option enforced by the majority culture then it is more appropriately named segregation); marginalisation is defined as the strategy chosen when there is little possibility or interest of retaining home country culture and little interest or possibility in having relations with the dominant culture. As Berry points out (1997, p. 10) marginalisation is an option rarely chosen; marginalisation usually occurs due to forced assimilation attempts in conjunction with forced separation.

Figure 2.2: Berry’s acculturation model

Source: Adapted from Berry (1997, p. 10)

From a sociological perspective, assimilation, a common theory (in particular in the American context) is the study of convergence between foreigners and the native population (FitzGerald 2014, p. 119) and may cover integration as well. Classic assimilation theory—the “canonical view” (Kivisto & Faist 2010, p. 93)—is based on the work of the so called Chicago School in the 1920s (Fitzgerald 2014; Kivisto & Faist 2010). The classic assimilation perspective, also called straight line assimilation, envisions a convergence in norms, values, behaviours and characteristics of immigrant and majority group over time. The assumption is also that migrants who have spent more time in the host society will show greater similarities with the norms of that society (this applies also for members of the following generations) than those whose duration of stay has been shorter (Bean & Brown 2014, p. 75). According to Fitzgerald (2014, p. 119) straight line assimilation is no longer a concept used by serious scholars.

One often cited work is that of Milton Gordon (1964) (Bean & Brown 2014; FitzGerald 2014; Kivisto & Faist 2010) who highlighted three different variants of assimilation: melting pot; Anglo-conformity, which can be wide ranging from embracing English language and middle-class norms to embracing theories of racial superiority; and pluralism, incorporating origin culture maintenance and economic and social host culture integration. Gordon’s model encompasses several stages following the acquisition of culture and language: structural assimilation (close social relations with the host society), followed by intermarriage in large numbers; and ending in ethnic identification with the host society. Alba and Nee in their “new assimilation theory” (2003) build on Gordon’s model by pointing to the important role certain institutions can play in achieving assimilation. One of the criticisms aimed at assimilation theory is that it works best with a homogenous mainstream, a notion which has become increasingly contested in today’s societies (Bean & Brown 2014, p. 75).

Other scholars have focused on the fact that ethnicity, depending on circumstance and context, can be an advantage or a disadvantage when it comes to achieving social and economic upward mobility (Glazer & Moynihan 1963, cited in Bean & Brown 2014, p. 76).

Another major theoretical perspective is Portes and Zhou’s (1993) segmented assimilation perspective. This perspective combines elements of straight-line assimilation and ethnic dis/advantage perspectives into one framework. This framework posits that contextual, structural, and cultural factors are important in determining the incorporation pathway a migrant or their children will follow. Structural barriers (inadequate schooling, no employment or other opportunities) can lead to downward mobility of some migrants’ children; in extreme cases this may lead to oppositional behaviours and a rejection of assimilation altogether. Others may embrace and model country of origin attitudes and values to inspire their children to become high achievers in the host country. Portes and Zhou call this process selective acculturation.

Portes and Rumbaut (2014, p. 183) draw attention to the fact that research (e.g. Snel, Engbersen & Leerkes 2006) has shown that contrary to initial beliefs transnational practices, perceived to be closely related to segmented assimilation, can be compatible with and conducive to successful acculturation and integration. In this view migrants first establish a firm footing in the host country and from this base engage in transnational organisations or activities, which may include forms of return migration.

2.5 Return migration As set out in Chapter 1, Ravenstein’s Laws of Migration (1885) identified the bidirectionality of migration as early as 1885. Sustained scholarly interest in return migration, though, only emerged in the 1960s. Interest was strong from the mid- 1970s and into the 1980s, then waned in the late 1980s and stayed low during the 1990s. Renewed interest can be observed for approximately the last decade (Cassarino 2004; Currle 2006; King & Christou 2011). The migratory processes that can be subsumed into the category of return migration are as diverse as those associated with the original outmigration (Xiang 2014, p. 167). Glorius (2013, pp. 217-236) identifies the following differentiations that can be applied to the study of

return migration: volition11, length of stay, intention and execution of return, timing of return, and selectivity of returnees. Szkudlarek’s (2010) literature review on cross cultural re-entry identified the following groups of returnees as objects of investigations: corporate repatriates, spouses, missionaries, students, return migrants, third culture kids, peace corps volunteers, and others repatriates. There are investigations into ethnic return (Klekowski von Koppenfels 2009; Tsuda 2009) and the return of the second generation (Christou 2006; King & Christou 2010, 2011). Yet other investigations take a geographical approach: there is a sizeable literature on return migration by geographical location for instance, such as to Ireland (Ní Laoire 2008; Ralph 2014); the Carribbean (Conway & Potter 2009; Duval 2004); Poland (White 2014; White & Ryan 2008); Senegal (Sinatti 2011, 2014); New Zealand (Chaban et al. 2011; Inkson et al. 2008; Lidgard 2001; Myers & Inkson 2003; Pocock & McIntosh 2011, 2013); Australia (Baldassar 2001; Hugo 2009; Tharenou & Caulfield 2010); and from Australia to the UK (Appleyard 1962a, b; Appleyard, Ray & Segal 1988; Burrows & Holmes 2011; Hammerton & Thomson 2005). Klinthäll has researched return migration from Sweden extensively (1999, 2004, 2006a, b).

Return migration has been identified as a major component of current migratory behaviour, increasingly important for migration management and research. Despite its growing importance, though, “knowledge of it is still fragmentary” (OECD 2008, p. 162) (Cassarino 2004, 2008; Constant & Massey 2002; Constant & Zimmermann 2011; Currle 2006; Dustmann & Weiss 2007; Glorius & Mattuschewski 2009; Gmelch 1980).

One factor which may account for the lack of a coherent body of knowledge may be that theoretical approaches to migration and return migration were located in the “permanent settlement migration paradigm” (Hugo 2003), or in the words of King and Christou (2011, p. 453) “Migrants moved from origin to destination; some stayed for good, others returned after a while; end of story.”, conceptualising migration as one discrete move from home to host country (Peterson 2013). Thus,

11 Volition, according to Cassarino (2004, pp. 27-76) includes return preparedness which consists of two factors: readiness, i.e. for a return migrant to achieve change and development in their country of origin, they must be able to acquire the resources needed; and willingness, that is the migrant must is able to make the decision on whether the time is right for a return.

39 return migration was seen as either a move back to the country of origin at the end of the migratory trajectory or as a failure to adapt in the host country (Cassarino 2004; Constant & Massey 2002; Constant & Zimmermann 2011; Currle 2006; Dustmann & Weiss 2007; Glorius & Mattuschewski 2009; OECD 2008). The reality of migration and return migration has never been that clear cut, possibly influenced by a focus on the traditional immigration countries (USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand) although even at the time of the transatlantic mass migration of the early 20th century about a quarter of migrants returned (Bade 2002, cited in Glorius & Mattuschewski 2009, p. 205; Wyman 2005, pp. 16-22). In contrast European countries did not see themselves as immigration countries for most of the 20th century despite large labour migration movements from the South to the North in the second half of that century (Castles, de Haas & Miller 2014, p. 102). The temporariness of those movements is embodied in the German appellation guest worker.

More recent approaches to migration and return migration research take this into account and view return migration as part of the migration cycle (Cassarino 2004; Currle 2006). This shift in conceptualisation is reflected in the two positions outlined below. While Gmelch defined return migration as “movement of emigrants back to their homelands to resettle” (1980, p. 136), Dustmann and Weiss see return migration as a subset of temporary migration:

Return migration is the type of migration one usually has in mind when referring to a migration as being temporary. Return migration describes a situation where migrants return to their country of origin by their own choice, often after a significant period abroad (2007, p. 238).

These different conceptualisations of return migration may well reflect macro-level socio-political and economic changes and their impact on individual life trajectory conceptualisation (Bönisch-Brednich 2002; Oswald 2007; Pries 2004).

The extent of temporary migration, though often unacknowledged, has always been considerable. For current migratory flows Dumont and Spielvogel (OECD 2008, p. 203) report that approximately two in five migrants will leave the host country within five years of arrival. A similar result is also reported by Dustmann and Weiss

(2007, pp. 253-54) in their study on return migration from the United Kingdom. However, these figures are not evenly distributed across all migratory flows. They vary depending on country of origin, host country, category of admission, and, of course, are also dependent on characteristics of the individual migrants themselves.

Another factor adding to the complexity of investigating return migration is the lack of reliable and comparative data (Cassarino 2004; Glorius 2013; Gmelch 1980; OEDC 2008). The reasons for this lack of data can be attributed to the above- mentioned adherence to the conceptualisation of migration as a unidirectional move and, as Dustmann and Weiss (2007, p. 236) argue, to the fact that it facilitates analysis of migratory behaviour. Moreover, the lack of data can also be attributed to the difficulties inherent in acquiring relevant data as this may require migrants to provide authorities with information about their movements which the migrant might not want to provide, which might not be readily available, or which may be distorted due to timing or other issues (Sauer & Ette 2007; OEDC 2008).

2.6 Return migration and current theoretical approaches to migration The dearth of data, however, is not reflective of the interest in the phenomenon. Return migration has been an area of empirical studies rooted in various theoretical approaches since the 1960s (Cassarino 2004, p. 254). For the European context Currle (2006, pp. 8-9) identifies the following ‘waves’ of interest: return of labour migrants from the United States to Italy, Mexico and Puerto Rico; return of British migrants from Australia and New Zealand; and return from the United Kingdom to the Caribbean. The second wave was initiated by the recession of the early 1970s. Interest in return migration waned in Europe in the late 1980s and early 1990s but increased again towards the end of that decade due to increasing global mobility, temporary migrations and undocumented migration, and migratory movements due to military actions in various parts of the world.

King and Christou (2011, pp. 452-453) make the point that this renewed interest is likely to be driven more by the reconceptualisation of migratory movements within

41 certain analytical frameworks—the mobilities paradigm12, the transnational approach and diaspora studies13—than by an increase in the number of return movements; and that by engaging in “a far more variegated and nuanced exploration of the ontology of return” the study of migratory movements in general has been reframed and new conceptual insights have been gained.

Return migration is also considered as a feature in other theoretical approaches to migration. An extensive and systematical overview of return migration in key theoretical approaches is provided by Cassarino (2004), who explores how long-term return movements are viewed in five common theoretical approaches:  economics approaches, that is neoclassical economics and the new economics of labour migration  structural approaches  social network approaches  transnationalism.

2.6.1 Return migration and economics approaches The neoclassical economics approach views migration as a strategy to improve personal economic conditions. As outlined in Section 2.3.3, in this approach the migrant is conceived as a rational actor with accurate information whose migration decision is the result of a cost-benefit analysis and follows utility maximisation principles, i.e. a migration will be undertaken if the expected benefits at the destination are higher than the combined cost of migration and the expected benefits at the origin. In this scenario the migrant will participate successfully in the host society which will allow them to receive greater benefits than in their country of origin. Keeping up ties with the country of origin will be costly financially and possibly psychologically; developing and maintaining ties in the host country is seen

12 However, return mobilities do not feature significantly in the mobilities framework (King & Christou 2011, p. 453), thus it is not included in the exploration of theoretical approaches to return migration in this thesis.

13 Diaspora studies as a framework is also not included in this thesis. While the concept has been widened and broadened from the original ‘victim’ diaspora, there are a number of essential features such as a historical aspect to the migrations; dispersion from a homeland; boundedness, preserving the group’s distinct ethnic identity; and importance of the homeland in the ethnic group’s imaginations (King & Christou 2011, pp. 456-457), all features not applicable to contemporary German migrants/migrations in/to Australia.

as decreasing the cost of staying and increasing the cost of return. Therefore, it is assumed that over time ties with the country of origin will decrease and this decrease will negatively impact on the feasibility of a long-term return. Thus, when a migrant returns this is interpreted as an inability to successfully integrate into the host country society, that is as a failed migration project or as de Haas, Fokkema and Fihri (2014, p. 416) put it: “while “winners” settle, “losers” return.”

In contrast, the new economics of labour migration approach offers a diametrically opposed interpretation, viewing return as the last step in the migration project after the achievement of goals set at the outset, that is, as a success. As set out in Section 2.3.4, this approach not only highlights the fact that migration decision making is rarely an individual act but may well involve a family or group, but also, and more importantly, that income maximisation might not be the main factor in the migration decision; that migration might be seen as a means of income diversification and thus as risk mitigation (Stark & Bloom 1985). The focus then shifts from the country of origin, and a migrant will only return when the goal of the migration has been achieved. Postponing return would indicate a failure of gaol realisation and might lead to permanent settlement. According to de Haas, Fokkema and Fihri, this approach permits maintenance of strong, and possibly intergenerational, ties with the country of origin during prolonged in the host country (2014, p. 417).

Despite assessing return migration in radically different ways both approaches treat migrations as clearly defined projects with strategies before, during, and after return. The main focus of these approaches is on the economic determinants of return migration, thereby neglecting the influence of psycho-social, political and institutional factors which may be as or more important than economic factors. Moreover, there is little information regarding decision-making processes and the interaction of the migrant and the context of home and host country.

According to De Haas, Fokkema and Fihri (2014, p. 417) there is a lack of empirical studies testing the two approaches simultaneously with only two studies ( Constant & Massey 2002); Fokkema & de Haas 2011). Neither study reported a clear endorsement of either hypothesis, but rather mixed results. This is an indication that return migration is strongly heterogeneous; it is likely to depend on initial

43 motivations, employment and other opportunities in relation to livelihood strategies in both country of origin and host country as well as educational, and other individual features of the migrant. Thus, there may not be a unifying theoretical approach, and depending on the specific context, both approaches may provide explanations for the observed migratory behaviour.

2.6.2 Structural approaches In structural approaches, the focus of interest shifts from the micro level of the individual return migrant to the interaction between the returned migrant and the social, cultural and institutional context of the country of origin. Not unlike in the NELM approach there is an emphasis on the return migrant’s financial and economic resources, however, in contrast to economics approaches, structural approaches incorporate a focus on the context in home country after return, exploring whether migrants are able to utilise their economic and human capital to drive development in their home countries and what factors influence the reintegration of the returned migrant.

One well- known typology is the work of Cerase (1974) which differentiates between four types of return migration:  Return of failure—undertaken when the migrant is unable to integrate in the host country; these return migrants are considered to have little or no developmental impact on the country of origin as it is assumed that they will not have acquired usable resources. Such a return might involve a loss of face in the society of origin. This type of return migration is similar to the perception of return in neoclassical approaches.  Return of conservatism—undertaken by migrants whose plan at the outset of their migration was a return home after achieving a set target, such as acquiring enough money to buy property in the country of origin. These returnees are characterised as adherents to the values of the country of origin and thus have little developmental impact. There are similarities to the NELM approach here.  Return of retirement—as indicated by the name, this type of return is undertaken by migrants at the end of their working life when a decision is made to return to their home countries; this might include the acquisition of

some property where they will spend their old age. The developmental impact of these migrants is considered negligible.  Return of innovation—this type of return migration is undertaken by actors who are “prepared to make use of all the means and new skills they have acquired during their migratory experiences” (Cerase 1974, p. 251) with a view to achieving their goals in their origin countries as they believe these, offer greater opportunities to satisfy their expectations. However, local power structures tend to thwart their ambitions.

Cerase’s typology, based on Italian emigration to and return from the United States during the 20th century, offers a pessimistic view of the possibility of developmental change through return migration.

Structural approaches, despite broadening the focus to incorporate the socio-cultural and institutional context of the country of origin, still suffer from a number of shortcomings. Structuralists still tend to view migration and by extension return migration as mostly economically motivated, thus neglecting closer investigations of cultural, historical or social links between home/host societies; there is also no insight into decision-making processes. Finally, possibly due to the timing of their development, reflecting the core/periphery focus by mostly focusing on migrants moving from less developed rural areas to modern industrialised countries, this is an approach better suited to the dichotomy of developing/developed economies.

2.6.3 Return migration and social network approaches Social network approaches, not unlike transnationalism, perceive migrants as part of cross-border international networks built on commonalities between members. Whereas the commonalities in the transnational approach tend to be shared ethnicity, language and religion, in social network theory these commonalities are based on common interests and/or experiences.

Social network theory views return migrants first and foremost as actors who mobilise resources by drawing on their linkages and tangible and intangible resources. Return migration is viewed as only one stage in the migration project; and return migrants may well retain strong ties with their former place(s) of settlement. Resource mobilisation for a return may be realised by drawing on interpersonal

45 relationships deriving from previous migration experiences and other long-term relational relationships which are not static and thus may change over time.

2.6.4 Transnationalism and return migration Transnationalism focuses on the dynamic structure of migration, incorporating return as one stage in a cycle, makes it the most appropriate approach for the investigation of the non-linear bi-directional migratory movements. As transnationalism proceeds from the assumption “that that there are multiple ties and interactions linking people or institutions across the borders of nation-states” (Vertovec 1999, p. 2), linkages are emphasised. The emphasis on linkages has in turn led to a shift from what Ley and Kobayashi (2005, p. 112) call the “narrative of departure, arrival and assimilation”, to enable a broader view of the phenomenon of migration which includes host as well as home country; it also encompasses all forms of mobility, not only permanent settlement/permanent return.

Moreover, is not so much a theory of migration but incorporation (Kivisito & Faist 2010, p. 129). At the core of the transnational approach to migration is the multi- stranded nature of involvement that migrants sustain across host and home country, the so-called transnational social spaces or fields spanning geographical, political and cultural borders, thus linking country of origin and host society as a single sphere of social action. Return in this paradigm does not necessarily constitute an endpoint. It is viewed as part of a system of social and economic relationships, one stage in a possibly ongoing process of mobility (Čapo Žmegač 2010; Cassarino 2004). Thus, the approach has led to a reconceptualistion of what King (2002, p. 101) calls the “traditional binaries of migration studies”, one of which is the sharp distinction between temporary and permanent migration. Situating return as just one of a number of possible stages in the migration process enables a broadening of the concept to view it as a complex phenomenon that can take on a variety of forms, an important consideration in an era of less permanency, and greater flexibility and mobility over even such distances as Germany and New Zealand (Bönisch-Brednich 2002; Schubert-McArthur 2009).

Carling and Erdal take a somewhat different direction when arguing that although the boundaries between return migration and transnationalism are not always clear-

cut and indeed, the two may overlap, “it also makes sense” (2014, p. 3) to view the two as separate concepts, in particular because on a practical level most migrants do not or are not able to engage in intense transnational activities. Acts of physical mobility do not occur frequently for a majority of migrants. However, even if the return migration and transnationalism are considered distinct concepts, it is important to bear in mind that they may influence each other considerably as a social practice.

(Short-term) return visits to the home country can illustrate the various ways in which transnational practices and return migration interact. Short-term return visits may lead to a reassessment of the migrant’s tie with both home and host country: some migrants may realise the significance of their ties to the host country and decide not to return; for others it may a step on the journey to long-term return; or it may become a substitute for long-term return.

Transnational ties are also not one-directional; therefore, long-term return considerations may be influenced by possibilities of “post-return transnationalism” (Carling & Erdal 2014, p. 4), that is the ability to keep strong ties, often in formalised format such as citizenship, with the host country. This is in line with findings of European guest worker return behaviour as outlined in section 2.6 below.

A further concept associated with transnationalism debate, that of middling transnationalism introduced by Conradson and Latham (2005a, pp. 229-229), is also useful in the context of this study. Conradson and Latham developed their concept in response to what they perceived to be a narrow interpretation of transnationalism due to the predominance of transnational research on North America and its established migration pathways with less developed economies of Central America and the Caribbean fostering the impression that transnational migrants were found at the extreme ends of the spectrum. Middling transnationalism emphasises “the degree to which transnationalism is in fact characteristic of many more people than just the transnational elites and the developing-world migrants who have been the focus of so much transnational research” (Conradson & Latham 2005a, p. 228). Moreover, they argue that not only are transnational patterns in other parts of the world more diverse structurally and compositionally but also that by broadening the view to include

47 those who also engage in transnational travels but are middle class/occupy a middle position in both home and host country a much more comprehensive knowledge of mobility could be developed.

Favell, Feldblum and Smith take up this concept when they call for exploration of the mobility patterns of those who face the least barriers.

A better test case of the supposed liberalization of human mobility in the world economy, then, would be international professional, highly skilled, or technical migrants, whose mobility is linked more to choice, professional career, and educational opportunities. That is, of those who face the least barriers linked to exclusion, domination, or economic exploitation. Their experience would reveal not just how far liberalization might go under ideal conditions, but also reveal, in sharp relief, what persisting limitations there might still be to a completely unfettered global economy of mobility (2007, p. 16).

They also advocate for researching what they call “The human face of global mobility” (2007, p. 15), that is micro-level studies of everyday life, also a focus of attention in Conradson and Latham’s (2005a, p. 228) approach: they point out that everyday activities and therefore ordinary experiences are part of even the elite’s life and should therefore be a focus of research. As Smith (2005, p. 243) argues:

In focusing our attention upon ‘middling transnationalism’ Conradson and Latham … call for greater attention to the ‘everyday’ practices and mobilities of transnational urbanism. They usefully theorise ‘middling transnationalism’ in terms of the everyday practices of transnational friendship and nationality-based networks of people of ‘middling’ social and economic status in their countries of origin.”

Moreover, investigating middling migrants also allows posing the question of mobility and integration beyond the usual dichotomy of permanent immigrant and incorporation and highly mobile expatriates who have a “pragmatic relationship to places” (Plöger & Becker 2015, p. 1522).

The concept of middling migrants is particularly useful for this study as due to the longitudinal aspect, the composition of the migrant cohorts and their incorporation into the Australian labour market is not homogenous, so a focus on only low-skilled and low-income or highly skilled migrants is not feasible in the context of this study.

2.7. Empirical investigations into return migration Empirical studies into return migration looking at the decision to stay or return have shown that a complex decision-making process involving considerations that take into account the situation in both country of origin and country of destination play a role: having a family in the destination country may decrease the likelihood of a return whereas spouse and children living in the country of origin increase the likelihood (Constant & Massey 2002, p. 650). Migrants who keep up linkages with family and friends in the country of origin are also more likely to return (Constant & Massey 2002, p. 650). Some studies found that migrants with less human capital were more likely to return (DaVanzo 1976; Newbold & Bell 2001). In some cases, suitable employment was more important than income (Constant & Massey 2002, p. 650). Life cycle event such as illness, divorce or the death of a partner may increase the likelihood of return, depending on the extent of a migrant’s support network in the country of destination. Finally, studies have also found a propensity for return for people who migrate more than once (DaVanzo 1976, p. 21).

2.7.1 The emigration of immigrants: return migration in the Australian context Return migration is not an uncommon phenomenon in Australia—the Department of Immigration and Border Protection14 put the percentage of overseas born residents departing permanently as a proportion of total permanent departures at approximately 50 per cent since 1998–99 (DIAC 2011, p. 1). However, “It is frequently overlooked that Australia is a significant emigration nation with some of the world’s highest rates of out-movement of people on a permanent and long-term basis” (Hugo, Rudd & Harris 2001, p. 20).

As the global discussion regarding brain drain, gain and circulation, and the related concept of migrant selectivity (Borjas & Bratsberg 1996; Ette & Sauer 2010) illustrates, migratory flows can have a significant socio-economic and political impact on country of origin and host country. In a country with a highly regulated migration program such as Australia, return migration is an issue of importance as indicated by successive (some government-commissioned) investigations into the phenomenon (e.g. Appleyard 1962a, b; Appleyard, Ray & Segal 1988; Hugo 1994;

14 The most recent title of the department in charge of immigration in Australia.

Hugo, Rudd & Harris 2001; Lukomskiy & Richards 1986; Price 1975). Return migration impacts in a variety of ways. For instance, in the case of settler migration, return migration represents a loss of human capital to Australia after its investment in the recruitment and selection of migrants (Lukomskiy & Richards 1986, p. 604). This loss can take various forms: older migrants take a wealth of knowledge and experience with them; younger emigrants are usually highly skilled and thus present a loss of high level skills (Hugo 1994; Hugo, Rudd & Harris 2001). There are also policy implications. Return migration leads to changes in the composition of the immigrant population and thus impacts on government planning and policy. As an example, it has been suggested that for Australia policy implications from retirement return migration may be considerable in a number of areas (e.g. outflow of pensions; possible subsequent remigration to Australia; uncertainty regarding the need for specialised ‘ethnic’ aged care and the cohort size(s).

Reflecting global trends, Australia’s migration program has seen a shift from settler to temporary migration (Collins 2013, p. 160), posing questions of social cohesion and transformation (Castles, Hugo & Vasta 2013, pp. 116-120). Publications that have dealt with contemporary migration to and return from Australia include Khoo et al. (2007), investigating skilled temporary migration from an employer perspective; Khoo, Hugo and McDonald’s (2011) research into skilled migration from Europe to Australia; Khoo, Hugo and McDonald’s (2008) investigation into factors that turn skilled temporary migrants into permanent ones; Hugo’s 2013 investigation of the Italian-Australian migration system; and Khoo’s (2014) investigation of how to attract and retain highly skilled migrants.

Tharenou and Caulfield (2010) on the other hand investigated the factors which might induce the return of self-initiated expatriates back to Australia.

2.7.2 German migration to and from Australia Interest in the Australian-German migration connection (sometimes extended to include New Zealand; in the last ten years a number of publications have taken Australia and New Zealand as their geographical frame of reference) finds its representation in a not overly large but growing body of literature, consisting of both substantive, book-length works and journal articles. In the Australian context most of

the substantive works were published in the 1980s and the first half of the 1990s and chart the history of German migration and settlement since its inception in the 18th century. One of the first major works, Borrie’s study on German and Italian migration and settlement patterns in Australia, was published in 1954. Cigler and Harmstorf (1985), Tampke and Doxford (1989), Mennicken-Coley (1993), Tampke (2006), and Vondra (1981) explore German migration, settlement and cultural influences in Australia. Fischer (1989) focuses on the German-Australian community’s ‘enemy alien’ status as a consequence of World War I and its subsequent diffusion and dissolution. Research on the topic of German migration to Australia in the post-World War II era concentrates on the shift from enemy alien to acceptance as migrants (Kaplan 1995; Schmorrte 2005) and integration. Jupp (1995, p. 63), calling the Germans ‘the hidden migrants’, raised the possibility of ‘invisibility’ as an ethnic group. Münstermann (1997, p. 141-143) argues that the Germans have a history of fitting in and a pragmatic view of how to do it which fits with Seitz & Foster’s (1985, pp. 427-28) findings.

German-Australian migration has been investigated in a number of doctoral theses: Lüthke’s thesis (1989) investigated the psychological dimensions of migration and the migrant’s predispositions to successful migration experiences. It also included a minor section on return of migrants to Germany, concluding that migrants predisposed to return shared a number of characteristics. This was disputed by Radermacher (1991) whose thesis compared the German-Canadian to the German- Australian experience. More recent theses include Buchanan’s (2007) investigation of identity formation of Germans in Melbourne, Wende’s (2010) research into the formation of transnational spaces of German migrants in Queensland and Western Australia, and Eubel’s (2010) investigation of gender as a social structure and its impact on West German women’s migration to and migrant experiences in Western Australia in the 1950s and 1960s. Another author with a focus on gender is Berloge (2002) who investigates different German female migrant cohorts in Australia. Bürgelt’s contributions (2008, 2010) look at migration and return from a psychological perspective with a focus on migration to New Zealand. Berchem’s (2011) ethnographic investigation of post-World War II German migrant trajectories in Sydney since the 1940s analyses patterns of integration, acculturation and

51 differentiation against the background of German and Australian culture and history. His investigation shows some parallels to Bönisch-Brednich’s 2002 research into German migrants in New Zealand. Schubert-McArthur (2009) investigates current Germany migratory trajectories with an emphasis on the grey area between tourism and migration; finally, Schellenberger (2011) looks at transmigrants who ‘commute’ between New Zealand and Germany.

2.7.3 Emigration and return migration in the German context From a German perspective it has to be noted that much migration research had been focused on immigration to Germany and issues of integration (Biedermann 2006; Sternberg 2012) until the mid-2000s when the emigration rate of Germans equalled that of the 1950s. Prior to that, research on emigration was more often of a historical nature and favoured the major emigration destinations such as the United States. German scholars who have made the most relevant contributions to Australian- German migration research are Steinert (1995), Biedermann (2006) and Sternberg (2012). Steinert investigates West German migration politics and policies between 1945 and 1961, and includes a discussion of the Assisted Passage Scheme between the Australian and German governments. The investigations focus on macro-level developments in the general context of West German emigration and immigration politics, whereas Biedermann aims to combine macro and micro levels by adding migrant narratives. Sternberg (2012) illuminates the shifting perceptions of and attitudes to emigration in German politics and the media between 1945–2010.

Emigration and by extension research into migratory behaviour ranked high on the political and societal agenda between 2006 and 2009 when the publication of the annual migration statistics revealed a net migration loss of the German-born for the first time since the end of the 1960s and emigration levels for the German-born not seen since 1954 (Ette & Sauer 2010, pp. 11-12). Of most concern was that emigrants seemed a positively selected group in terms of age, skills and education (Erlinghagen & Stegmann 2009; Uebelmesser 2006), that is younger, more highly skilled and better qualified than the overall population. While only 29 per cent of the resident 25-64 year old German population is tertiary qualified, nearly half of the emigrants in the same age group are tertiary qualified (Ette & Sauer 2010, p. 107). These characteristics in conjunction with the view that immigration in Germany was

primarily low- and medium-skilled and thus could not compensate for the loss of highly skilled emigrants (Brücker 2010, pp. 138-139), led to the fear of an incapacitating “brain drain” from Germany (Ette & Sauer 2010, p. 12). However, recent migratory developments in Germany, that is positive net overseas migration (NOM) figures for the years 2009–2013 have shifted the public focus and political discourse from emigration to immigration once again (SVR-Studienbereich 2015, p. 6).

Some findings of current German research into emigration and return of the German- born, though, point to a high return rate for German emigrants. Results from a 2006 online survey of highly skilled German emigrants showed that more than two-thirds of the respondents working in an academic or research environment had planned their return home (Heimer & Pfeiffer 2007, p. 41). Another study estimated that about 68 per cent of German emigrants return after a stay abroad (Liebau & Schupp 2011, S. 2).

According to Ette and Sauer (2010, pp. 158-160) and Liebau and Schupp (2011, p. 8), German return migrants are also a positively selected population. Liebau and Schupp’s study seems to point to a correlation between qualification and temporary migration; that is, the higher the qualification, the higher the likelihood of a temporary migration and a return to Germany. This mirrors Ette and Sauer’s findings (2010, pp. 195-196) that the proportion of highly skilled return migrants is higher than the proportion of highly skilled emigrants.

The studies mentioned above were complemented by two studies into migratory behaviour of Germans published in 2015 as outlined in Chapter 1: SVR- Studienbereich ’s International Mobil: Motive, Rahmenbedingungen und Folgen der Aus- und Rückwanderung deutscher Staatsbürger (Internationally mobile: Motives, parameters and results of emigration and return of German citizens) in April 2015 and the OECD (2015b) report Talent Abroad: A Review of German Emigrants, published in June. While there is considerable overlap in the findings, the reports differ in their assessment of the return of the highly skilled to Germany.

The OECD report concluded while a relatively large number of Germans professed an interest in emigration—in particular those who are unemployed or low-skilled—

53 not many realised this intention. Nevertheless, a sizeable German emigrant population existed, 90 per cent of which was concentrated in twelve OECD countries with the US hosting the most emigrants and Australia at number eleven. The impact of the GFC led to a stabilisation of the emigration flow with Austria and Switzerland becoming the preferred countries of emigration. The number of the highly educated among the migrants grew by 40 per cent between 2000/01 and 2010/11, whereas the number of those with a medium level of educational attainment grew by seven per cent. Moreover, the number of highly educated female migrants had also grown. Those German emigrants in employment often held high level positions, often in occupations with a skills shortage in Germany. Moreover, the outflow of Germans was greater than the number of those who returned and the proportion of highly skilled Germans leaving was greater than that of those returning, whereas the opposite held true for those with a medium level of education. For researchers, career considerations were the driving factor behind emigration, however, many seemed to be interested in a return often due to family considerations. Despite this apparent willingness to return, the report saw evidence of a brain drain when considering scientific impact measured by publications in academic journals (OECD 2015b, pp. 15-17).

The SVR-Studienbereich report of April 2015 did not claim to be representative as regards Germans emigrants and return migrants but to offer relevant insight backed by evidence into cross-border mobility of the citizens of a highly developed country. Insights gained from the study included the conclusion that there was no indication of a brain drain. While the proportion of the highly qualified emigrants was high compared to the general population, it was also high among those returning; moreover, only a minority of highly qualified emigrants intended to migrate permanently. A second insight was that economic factors were secondary in emigration as well as return considerations. Main motivations were interest in new experiences in the emigration decision while family/partner considerations played a major role in return decisions. In general, a range of motives were considered to drive migration decisions. Mobility impacted on migrants’ circumstances: in most cases emigration led to an increase in earnings but had a negative impact on the social life of migrants. In the case of return, a difference between the highly skilled

and those not as highly skilled was observed: while the economic impact of experience abroad was positive for the highly skilled, the less skilled saw a negative economic impact upon return. Both groups, though, saw a positive impact on their social lives. Another finding with possible consequences for migration and return was that prior migration experience predisposed people to further mobility.

Of particular interest in relation to German migration to and return from Australia is the relationship between length of stay in the host country and skill level of migrant: while migrants in general are more highly skilled and educated than the non- migratory population, migrants to the classic English-speaking countries show an even higher skill and education profile and are more often in employment than migrants to EU 1415/EFTA countries (SVR-Studienberich 2015, p. 51). This may to some degree be related to the age profile of the migrants in the host countries; above average numbers of young migrants whose purpose for migration is education are found in EU14/EFTA countries; it may also be related to the impact of migration governance as in the case of Australia where entry is governed by a system that awards points for certain characteristics such as age, skills and qualification, and fluency in English. Skill levels have been linked to return intentions and—to a lesser degree—executions, and the duration of stay in the host country. Those still at university or studying show the highest intention to return; they are usually also younger; this is in line with general migration research findings that younger people are more likely to be mobile. Those who are more highly qualified are also more likely to leave the host country. The table below provides an overview of the duration of stay and outmigration rates of German emigrants from preferred German migration destinations including Australia and New Zealand, illustrating greater mobility by the highly skilled. While more than 70 per cent of the highly skilled German migrants to Australia stay ten years or longer, for those with medium level education this level increases to nearly 90 per cent, a considerable difference.

15 The EU14 as defined by SVR-Studienbereich (2015, p. 25) consists of the European States before the 2004 enlargement, that is the so-called EU15; as Germany is excluded in the context of the study, the remaining EU states are referred to as EU14. (Original German: “also die EU15 ohne Deutschland (im Folgenden als EU14 bezeichnet”)).

Table 2.1: German emigrants by education and duration of stay, selected destination countries 2010/11

High education Medium education

<5-10 ≥ 10 <5-10 ≥ 10 ≤5 years years years Total ≤5 years years years Total

United States 9.3 8.3 82.4 239 270 5.1 3.8 91.1 290 405

Switzerland 41.8 16.6 41.3 152 208 34.2 12.4 53.2 131 650

United 24.7 10.6 63.9 118 139 13.7 6.4 78.4 93 268 Kingdom

Canada 5.2 3.6 78.8 75 720 3.2 2.1 85.6 67 090

Austria 24.9 20.8 54.3 47 715 23.3 17.6 59 102 563

Australia 14.6 11.4 72.2 31 244 5.9 3.9 87.5 38 678

New Zealand 22.5 23.3 53 7 317 25.6 19.4 52.5 3 675

Source: adapted from OECD (2015b, p. 130)

While some migration theories and typologies classify long-term return migration as a failure (e.g. Cerase 1974)—the inability of the migrant to adapt to host country conditions—the SVR-Studienbereich report found that more highly educated or skilled migrants show more of an intention to return. Subjective assessment of standard of living was the best indicator for return intentions: more than half of those who perceived their standard of living in the host country as worse or similar to that before their emigration indicated a desire to return to Germany, whereas only 32.1 per cent of those who had achieved a higher standard of living had any return intentions according to the report.

Reported reasons for a return included migration planned as temporary, family or partner reasons, employment reasons, better quality of life in Germany and no real ties to the host county (SVR-Studienbereich 2005, pp. 45–46).

A length of stay of ten years or longer for 72 and 87 per cent of migrants respectively is also indicative of general trends in Australia’s established European migrant populations, namely that of aging migrant cohorts—the median age of the

German-born increased from 51.1 years in 1996 to 63.0 years by 2013 (Department of Immigration and Border Protection 2014, p. 105)—with a declining share in the overseas born population. While the German-born resident population was still ranked at number ten of the top ten countries of birth in the 2011 Census data, data from the Department of Immigration and Border Protection (2014, p. 105) puts the estimated German-born resident population in 2013 at two per cent (127,650 persons), representing a decrease in the German share of the Australian overseas born population of 0.9 per cent compared to 1996 (121,950 persons). This decline has occurred despite some modest growth in absolute numbers due to higher migration levels. While 62 per cent of the total overseas-born population in Australia arrived prior to 2001, the number of German-born migrants was much higher at 80.6 per cent. Only 7.1 per cent of the total German-born in Australia at the 2011 Census arrived between 2001 and 2006 and 8.5 per cent arrived between 2007 and 2011 (Department of Social Services 2014). This development is in line with other older and established cohorts such as the British and Italians.

The OECD (2015b, p. 42) investigation of German emigration also identified the Germans in Australia as an aging cohort with a relatively low percentage of working age migrants and also of recent immigrants. The number of recent emigrants/immigrants, defined as those arrived within the preceding five years, was eight per cent for Australia, a number considered low. This is significant in the exploration of return migration as recent emigrants are considered more mobile than those who have resided in the host country for a considerable number of years, thus a low percentage may be considered an indicator for little return movements from the host country in particular when linked to the considerable geographical distance, commonly considered to decrease the likelihood of return migration (Borjas 1989; van Tubergen, Flap & Maas 2004). On the other hand, there is evidence of out migration of the German-born. The Department of Social Services identified return migration as one of the three factors contributing to the decrease in the share of the population of the German-born in Australia (Department of Social Services 2015).

One of the recommendations of the SVR-Studienbereich report was to evaluate, reconceptualise and systematise state-assisted return programs and diaspora engagement; initiatives—while they exist—are not coordinated and thus not as

57 effective as they could be (2015, p 54). In fact, as Cohen and Kranz (2014, pp. 12- 13) argue, these programs are often rejected by the migrants because of their perceived lack of understanding of the prospective returnee’s situation and needs. Cohen and Kranz’s recommendations mirror the reports: better diaspora engagement might lead to better and more cost effective outcomes.

The findings as outlined by the SVR-Studienbereich and Cohen and Kranz highlight the need for a thorough investigation of return migration trajectories between developed countries, tracing the development of return mobilities and the interdependency of micro-level decision making and macro-level political, economic and socio-spatial factors. They also highlight the need for a particular focus on the long-term return intentions and trajectories of German migrants in light of an aging population and shortages in skilled labour.

2.8 Summary This chapter introduced the various theoretical approaches utilised in the investigation of migratory processes. This included approaches mainly concerned with the description and explanation of the initiation of migration but also those concerned with the perpetuation of migration.

The chapter also explored the place and explanation of return migration in the various theoretical approaches. As part of the migratory experience and influencing the return decision making processes, theoretical approaches to incorporation of migrants into the host society were also explored.

The various perspectives on migration and return migration as expressed through theoretical approaches demonstrated the complexity of the phenomenon and reflected the fact that there is not one best approach; that theoretical approaches are contextual.

Viewing the migratory experiences investigated in this study through a transnational lens was considered the most suitable approach, not because of the dominance of the paradigm but because its focus on linkages between host and home society and its ability to integrate non-linear bi- or multi-directional trajectories due to its flexibility and open-endedness allow for an indefinite number of further stages in the migration trajectory.

The chapter also looked at empirical evidence of migration and return migration in the context of Australia and Germany and the changing nature of migration globally as reflected in the empirical evidence provided.

3 German Migration to and from Australia

3.1 Introduction According to data from the 2011 Australian Census, 5.3 million or 27 per cent of Australia’s resident population were born overseas (ABS 2012a). The composition of Australia’s population growth, from approximately seven million in 1946 to 23 million today, demonstrates the importance of migration to Australia. At its inception, Australia’s migration program aimed to achieve one per cent of population growth annually. Currently, according to the Department of Immigration and Border Protection’s website, net overseas migration (NOM), the net gain or loss of population through immigration to or emigration from Australia, contributes 60 per cent of Australia’s population growth compared with 40 per cent through natural increase (Department of Immigration and Border Protection 2013). And while NOM can and does fluctuate considerably, it has been higher than the natural increase in population since 2005. According to the ABS in 1901, 23 per cent of Australia’s population was born overseas. By 1947, the overseas-born population proportion had declined to 10 per cent. Due to the establishment of a national government immigration program in 1945 a gradual increase of the number of overseas-born Australians took place and by 1977 had reached a proportion of 22 per cent of the population. During the 1980s, 1990s and the early 2000s, the overseas-born population fluctuated between 21 per cent and 23 per cent. At 30 June 2010, the number of overseas-born Australians was 6.0 million, representing just over one- quarter (27 per cent) of the total population (ABS 2012b). It is commonly accepted that migration—voluntary or involuntary, assisted or self-financed—has been at the core of Australia’s population and economic growth. It has been argued that Australia is the “product of conscious social engineering to create a particular kind of society” (Jupp 2002, p. 5), “one of the few nations to have been built by planned immigration” and that “Australian immigration policy has first and foremost served economic goals…” (Markus, Jupp & McDonald 2009, p. 152). These authors also contend that the Australian Government’s stringent control of the migration program is at the root of the public’s generally positive attitude towards immigration in Australia.

Over the last 30–40 years the composition of Australia’s migration program has not only changed but also broadened considerably (ABS 2012a, b). Until the 1970s Australia’s migrant pool was overwhelmingly white, of Anglo-Saxon and, to a lesser extent, North-Western European origin. Among the North-Western European migrants, Germans have been an important group for more than 200 years. They were the first ‘non-British’ ethnic group of influence in the development of a number of Australian colonies, and despite a considerable decline in migrant numbers, Germany is still one of the ten most common countries of birth and ancestry in Australia. There is also considerable temporary immigration across all visa categories (i.e. Visitor, Student, Working Holiday Maker, Temporary Skilled, Temporary Graduate, Temporary Other, and Bridging) and while numbers vary, Germany ranked 15 out of the top 50 source countries in June 2013 (Department of Immigration and Citizenship 2013b, p. 21).

In 2012–13, 9,820 working holiday maker visas were issued to Germans, making it Australia’s sixth largest source worldwide, and third largest source from Europe. Germany was the second largest European market for tourists visiting Australia (over 158,000) over the same period. According to the 2011 census, just over 110,000 Australian residents were born in Germany, while more than 900,000 Australians claim German ancestry. Moreover, according to the Department of Immigration and Citizenship (2013a, p. 115) “there was some modest growth in this cohort due to higher migration levels”.

However, James Jupp’s 1966 statement that “Australia is a country of arrivals and departures” (p. 1) holds as true today as it did in 1966. Emigration of immigrants is not an uncommon phenomenon and today as in the past outflow of long-term German residents from Australia is significant.

The purpose of this chapter is to provide an overview of German migration to Australia. It will commence with a brief historical overview of German migration to Australia until the end of World War II; this will be followed by an outline of the Australian immigration program after World War II, after which German immigration to Australia from 1952 to the present will be illuminated. The chapter will conclude with a brief look at statistics regarding immigration and departures.

3.2 Historical overview

3.2.1 1788–1914: Early settlers to World War I The establishment of a British penal colony in New South Wales in 1788 laid the foundations for the development of “a white settler society, closely linked to Britain, and integrated into the economic system of the Empire” (Vasta 2006, p. 18). Free settlement, initially negligible, started to increase with the establishment of a pastoral economy in the early 19th century (Borrie 1954, p. 14). To encourage more settlers to Australia, assisted passage schemes subsidising the migrant’s journey were offered from 1832. The recipients were mainly British and Irish immigrants, however, a small number of European immigrants mainly of German origin also arrived (Richards 2008, p.2).

The establishment of Australia as a British penal colony was not only a reflection of British dominance but also of the appeal of distance (Clyne 1981, p.1). In many cases one of the main reasons for those who chose to come to Australia was to put as much distance as possible between themselves and where they came from: the German Lutherans, fleeing religious persecution; the so-called German 48ers, refugees from the failed revolution of 1848; Jewish and other victims of Nazi race policies; and those who felt displaced in post-World War II Germany.

German migration history in Australia dates back to the First Fleet in 1788 (Clyne 1981; Tampke 2006). However, the first substantial wave of German immigration to Australia commenced in 1838 with the assisted passage and settlement in rural South Australia of a group of 180 Lutheran Germans fleeing religious persecution in their homeland (Harmstorf 2001, pp. 360-365). Living in ‘closed’ farming communities with minimal outside contacts, these Lutherans continued to practise their German way of life and language, language maintenance through the establishment of German schools (Leuner 2008; Harmstorf 2001). Religious persecution, though, was only one of many drivers of German migration to South Australia. Other settlers came for economic, political, and climate reasons and also as part of migration chains (Harmstorf 1987).

These settlers included Clausthal-Zellerfeld miners working in the South Australian copper mines whose emigration between 1848 and 1854 had been sponsored by the kingdom of Hanover for economic reasons (Vollmer 1998, p. 1); wine growers settled in the Barossa Valley, and trades and business people settled in Adelaide. Another group consisted of educated middle-class Germans, participants in the failed European revolution of 1884 who rose to prominence in South Australian society. They included the brothers Otto and Richard Schomburgk and Carl Wilhelm Ludwig Muecke who arrived in Adelaide in 1849. As one of their many and varied endeavours Otto Schomburgk and Muecke founded the German language newspaper Südaustralische Zeitung in 1850, only two years after their arrival. Richard Schomburgk, at the age of 54, became director of the Adelaide Botanic Gardens (Payne 2011, p. 126). Another group of Germans attracted to Australia were naturalists, scientists and adventurers fascinated by Australia’s natural history, geography and species. Famous names include Ludwig Leichhardt, Ferdinand von Mueller and Amalie Dietrich.

While the Lutherans in rural areas maintained German traditions and language, class determined German life in Adelaide to a much greater extent. Upper and middle class Germans integrated readily into mainstream society and did not show much interest in German cultural maintenance. Active maintenance and promotion of ‘Deutschtum’ (Germanness) predominantly took place in the German clubs, often involving recent immigrants. Despite their integration and dispersal, it is estimated that at the time of the declaration of war in 1914 Germans made up as much as ten per cent of the South Australian population (Harmstorf 2001, pp. 360-365).

South Australia was not the only colony with a German population. Substantial German migration to other Australian colonies also took place. Large scale German immigration to and settlement in New South Wales started in the late 1840s, although there is evidence of Germans employed in the agrarian sector in the colony as early as 1825. Even some convict transportation from Hamburg is recorded (Tampke 2001, pp. 365-69). Wilhelm Kirchner, a Sydney-based German merchant and the colony’s migration agent, was instrumental in organising two successful assisted immigration campaigns in Germany. The first, from 1848 to 1853, brought approximately 2000 German immigrants to New South Wales. After the discovery of

63 gold in New South Wales, Kirchner directed a second campaign between 1854 and 1857. Approximately half of the 4000 Germans immigrants who arrived in New South Wales received some form of assistance. To ensure the assisted immigrants would serve out their contracts, Kirchner recruited mostly families intending to farm. Upon completion of their contract, they had the opportunity to buy their own land and work in farming, viticulture, orchards or market gardening (Tampke 2001, pp. 365-369).

In Queensland German settlement commenced in 1838 with the arrival of the Moravian brethren, German missionaries who set up a mission in the Moreton Bay area under the auspices of the head of the Presbyterian Church in Australia (Wende 2010, p. 71). However, the mission was not considered successful. The New South Wales government withdrew funding in 1844 and the mission closed in 1848. A number of German missionaries purchased land and remained in the area (Wende 2010, p. 71). The settlement of secular immigrants in Queensland followed that of settlement patterns in other colonies: the German migrants settled predominantly in rural areas. The first secular settlers settled in Darling Downs in 1854 (Buchanan 2007, p. 35). German immigrants continued to arrive in Queensland after the separation from New South Wales on 6 June 1859 because Queensland offered not only free passage to German migrants but also provided land grants to self-funded migrants (Wende 2010, p. 72). Queensland also employed the offices of a migration agent to promote Queensland to Germans. This resulted in an increase in the number of Germans recorded in the 1891 census to 14,910. By 1911 this number, however, had decreased to only 12,000 (Corkhill 2001, pp. 369-370).

Victoria also had a small assisted migration scheme, and by the end of the 1860s the number of assisted migrants who had settled in Victoria was roughly the same as for New South Wales. The overall number of German immigrants in Victoria in the 1850s and early 1860s was considerably higher than in New South Wales due to the gold rush attracting many unassisted immigrants, and settlers from the other colonies (Tampke 2001, pp. 365-369).

Compared to the other colonies the German population in Western Australia was small. In 1881 only 71 German immigrants were counted. The discovery of gold in

some Western Australian regions and some economic development saw an increase in the number of German migrants from 71 to 290 between 1881 and 1891, to 1522 in 1901 and to 2036 in 1911 (Wende 2010, p. 73).

The gold rush of the 1850s changed the size and composition of Australian immigration. Population trebled in the decade from 1850–60 (Borrie 1954; Markus, Jupp & McDonald 2009). Australia now also hosted non-European immigrants, including South Pacific Islanders employed in the Queensland sugar cane plantation industry; and a sizeable number of Chinese who arrived in Australia during the gold rush. Compared to other migrant groups, these non-European migrants faced considerable race-based barriers in the form of restrictions and regulations. It has been argued that these restrictions were initially also part of a class struggle, with unions fighting against employers undercutting local wages by hiring immigrants as cheap labour; but by the end of the 19th century an emerging Australian nationalism and the fear of an Asian invasion had replaced class struggle (Vasta 2006, p. 18).

It has been argued that notwithstanding those race-based barriers, 19th century Australian society had a multicultural character, reflected in the vibrant German press in which politicians vied for the European vote; an active cultural life; bilingual schools, and four Lutheran synods (Clyne 1981, p. 1, p. 36).

German migration to Australia remained strong until the end of the 19th century. Migration networks, social unrest and poverty in Europe, Australia’s perceived opportunities and the decrease in the length of the journey with the invention of the steam ship all contributed. By century’s end, however, German expansion and the improvement in the standard of living in Germany all but ended immigration to Australia (Tampke 2001, pp. 365-369).

In general it can be said that in the course of the 19th century speakers of German settled in the major cities, participated in the Gold rush, but also established closed rural settlements with strong maintenance of German language and culture, often with a religious base (Clyne 1981, p. 36).

Australia’s standard of living was high at the beginning of the 20th century compared to other countries (Leuner 2008, p. 33). The maintenance of this economic

65 differential was a prerequisite for continued immigration for a country as remote from the main emigration nations of the time. During phases of expansion, especially the 1850s and 1880s, Australia imported capital and immigrant labour from Britain and, to a degree, from other northern European countries such as Germany, as outlined above. Distance from Europe and the related cost of migration enabled Australia to regulate immigrant flows and numbers depending on its economic needs (Richards 2008, p. 8) with assisted passage schemes one tool of migration governance.

Australia’s strong British loyalty may have been a reaction to the country’s isolation, the distance from the Motherland and the fear of the foreign, but it also kept Australia a conservative society and reinforced the dependency of Australia’s identity on Britain invasion (Bommes, Castles & Wihtol de Wenden 1999; Richards 2008).

This is reflected in the Immigration Restriction Act of 1901 which enabled denial of entry or removal of unwanted persons and general restriction of migration. This act, also known as the ‘White Australia Policy’, was one of the first pieces of legislation enacted by the newly federated Commonwealth of Australia, comprising the former self-governing British colonies of New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania, Victoria and Western Australia, in 1901. The possibly most well-known component of the White Australia Policy is the so-called dictation test, set to exclude unwanted migrants. This test required a prospective migrant to pass a written dictation test in a European language. The language of the test, nominated by an immigration officer, was often one not familiar to the applicant, explicitly chosen for that reason so that entry could be denied (Leuner 2008, p. 76).

Following the Immigration Restriction Act, in 1903 the Naturalisation Act 1903 introduced the conditions by which the Commonwealth would grant ‘aliens’ naturalisation so they could attain the rights and privileges of British subjects. Under this act persons from Asia, Africa or the Pacific Islands were excluded from applying for naturalisation. Amendments to this act were made during World War I which required applicants for naturalisation to advertise their intent, denounce their own nationality and prove they could read and write in English.

3.2.2 1914–1947: From World War I to the end of World War II World War I

The outbreak of World War I in 1914 not only ended Australia’s cultural pluralism; anglo-conformism reached a high point (Clyne 1981, p. 1) and put a complete stop to German immigration. It also took a substantial toll on the existing German- Australian community. Anti-German sentiment in Australia was unexpectedly strong (Perkins 2001, pp. 370-372). Until the declaration of war not only had the Germans been seen as model immigrants and hard workers, but as “nordic cousins” (Jupp 1995, p. 65). Educated Australians knew of the Queen’s German heritage and close relationship to the Royal family of Germany, contributing to a feeling of kinship and reinforcing the acceptability of German immigrants (Jupp 1995; Schmortte 2005).

A variety of reasons composed of cultural, religious, political but also economic elements (Perkins 2001, pp. 370-372) have been put forward to account for the strong anti-German sentiment. Non-participation in the Anglo-Saxon majority culture including religion in particular in rural areas, coupled with upkeep of German traditions and German language and the visible patriotism practiced in German clubs and promoted via some German language newspapers (Harmstorf 2001, pp. 360- 365) were noted unfavourably; the unification of Germany in 1871 and the subsequent establishment of a naval fleet was seen as a challenge to the superiority of the British naval fleet, the body guaranteeing the safety of a white Australia (Perkins 2001, pp. 370-732); it also presented an opportunity to eliminate competition in manufacturing in the Australian market place (Perkins 2001, pp. 370- 372). Fischer (2009, p. 139) interprets the rise of the anti-German sentiment as the Australian Government’s use of the war to shape the future identity, character and composition of Australian society as a homogenous British society. This complements the view that Australia’s longstanding feelings of fear of invasion by a “hostile north” (Saunders 2003, p. 23), its dependence on Britain and a resulting belief of British supremacy as reflected in the White Australia Policy provided the basis for the severity of policies regarding enemy aliens; that in fact, the inclusion of Germans was only an extension to the number of groups the original policy sought to contain (Saunders 2003, pp. 30-31).

Legislative and administrative measures introduced in the War Precautions Act of 1914, the Aliens Restriction Order of 15 May 1915, and its amendments of 28 July 1915 and 2 March 1916, resulted in the internment of an increasing number of enemy aliens, ranging from Germans to naturalised British subjects, natural-born Britons of enemy heritage and other neutral and allied aliens who had been brought to the authorities’ attention under the conditions of the Act (Saunders 2003, p. 30).

Internment was selective, though, aimed at removing the Australian-German community from mainstream Australian society by depriving it of its cultural, spiritual and civic leaders through internment. This measure, coupled with the destruction of the community’s socio-cultural infrastructure—closing German schools and clubs, prohibition of German language newspapers and the eradication of German place names—was ultimately successful as it led to the destruction of “a socio-culturally autonomous German-Australian community” (Fischer 1995, p. 471). Not all internees were forcibly detained. The War Precautions Act also offered German Australians the option to voluntarily enter internment. This was an option taken up by a number of internees upon becoming destitute due the economic consequences of the anti-German sentiment (Nicholls 2007, p. 60).

In total, 6,890 German internees, of whom approximately 4,500 had been residents of Australia prior the outbreak of the war, were reported (Fischer 1995). The remainder were sailors taken off ships in Australian ports or residents of British colonies in South-East Asia and the Pacific, interned and transported to Australia. Nicholls (2007, p. 46) puts the number of internees from British colonies at approximately 1000. Of the approximately 4,500 Australian German (and Austrian) residents 700 were naturalised British subjects and approximately another 70 were British-born subjects with German ancestry (Fischer 1995; Saunders 2003).

According to Fisher (1995), at the end of the war 6,150 German ex-enemy aliens were repatriated to Germany. Of these 5,414 had been interned; the rest were either family members or un-interned ex-enemy aliens who had been ordered to leave the country or accepted a government offer to leave. All in all, only 696 German citizens were deported. The remaining 4,620 volunteered for repatriation to Germany (Perkins 2001, pp. 370-372). However, the degree of volition is open to

interpretation, particularly in light of Nicholl’s (2007, pp. 48-49) description of the process for repatriation put in place by the Aliens Committee one month after the armistice. The process encompassed three types of recommendations for repatriation: (1) recommendation to deport those aliens sent from other countries for internment; (2) extension of (1) to internees from Australia but allowing them to argue their case against deportation by providing them with the opportunity to provide proof of their loyalty to Australia; (3) it was recommended to also include those of German heritage who had not been interned. These recommendations were implemented within a very short timeframe and ex-enemy aliens had few avenues of recourse. The decision making process was balanced in favour of deportation and few decisions favourable for ex-internees were made (Nicholls 2007, pp. 48-49).

Interwar years

Following World War I, a sharp decline in the number of German immigrants could be observed. To a degree this decrease in numbers was related to deportations, however, other factors in the dispersal of the German population were assimilation through intermarriage, a decline in the birth rate and an aging population (Kwiet 2001, pp. 372-375).

German life and culture in Australia recovered slowly from World War I: the German consulate general, established in 1879 in Sydney and closed after the outbreak of World War I when diplomatic relations ceased, reopened in Melbourne in 1924. The German Australian Chamber of Commerce was established in 1929 in Sydney and German clubs, associations, musical groups and a Goethe Society began to be re-established. In 1933 the Bund des Deutschtums in Australien and Neuseeland (Association of Germanness in Australia and New Zealand), an umbrella organisation for all German organisations in Australia, New Zealand and the Pacific, was established. However, while a re-emergence of German culture took place, the number of migrants did not return to 19th century levels even after the withdrawal of the refusal of entry on 1 December 1925 (Leuner 2008, pp. 51-52).

A small increase, driven mostly by Jewish refugees from the Nazi regime, became noticeable from 1936 onwards (Perkins 2001, pp. 370-372), with most arriving in Australia between 1938–1939 (Clyne 1981, p. 22). Of the approximately 9500

German speaking immigrants, described as mainly tertiary educated or business people, class conscious and originating predominantly from two locations, Berlin and Vienna, most settled in Sydney and Melbourne (Clyne 1981, p. 22).

They were also not a homogenous group: there were Eastern European Jews whose focus was on religion; cosmopolitan Jews who emphasised the cultural aspect; and those of Jewish origin who had not identified as Jewish but had been designated Jews through German Aryan laws (Clyne 1981, p. 23). Their integration into Australian society took divergent routes: some wanted to break with the past, ceasing all German association, marrying into Anglo-Saxon families and giving up the German language, associated as it was with Nazi Germany. Others felt that the considerable Jewish contribution to German culture should not be forgotten, denied or erased; therefore, German language and culture were worthy of maintenance.

Nazi aspirations in the pre-war years met with modest success in Australia, despite the German Government’s efforts in spreading their propaganda through a variety of media and avenues such as German films, lectures and a weekly publication, Die Brücke (The Bridge). This publication was produced by the a-political Bund des Deutschtums in Australien and Neuseeland which tried to distance itself from the National Socialist Party. However, by accepting subsidies for Die Brücke, the organisation was effectively dependent on the Nazi regime and became an organ for its propaganda (Turner-Graham 2011; Voigt 1992). While a number of individual members of German clubs and associations were sympathisers of the Nazi regime, this did not translate into the organisations’ support of the Nazi ideology or the German National Socialist Party. Australian membership numbers of the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiter Partei (National Socialist German Workers Party) seem to have been low: Harmstorf (1987), citing figures from the German Foreign Office, puts the number for 1936 at 77 members; Turner-Graham (2011, p. 1), citing German and Australian sources, puts the number for 1937 at 160, decreasing to 91 by March 1938, 105 members for September of that year and a peak of 136 in July 1939.

Anti-German sentiment was also not as strong in the lead up to World War II. Until the beginning of World War II, a certain amount of sympathy for the politics and underlying philosophies of the Third Reich could be observed worldwide; moreover, Australia was following the British lead of “calm and moderation” (Saunders 2003, p. 38). Harmstorf (1987) also reports the case of the South Australian distinguishing between Nazi administration and the German people. Lack (2003) makes the point that the reason for Australia’s participation in World War II was its close relationship with Britain. It was a move against Germany as Britain’s enemy, not an opposition to Nazism.

World War II

This is not to say that no restrictions as regards enemy aliens, that is German, Italian and Japanese nationals and descendants, were implemented. The National Security Act, similar to the War Precautions Act of World War I, came into effect on 9 September 1939, giving the Federal Government executive powers and allowing for the internment of enemy aliens (Saunders 2003, pp. 35-36). As a result, 7,521 German, 18,432 Italian and more than 1,100 Japanese enemy aliens were interned. The German and Italian internee cohorts included prisoners of war, overseas civilian internees and Australian civilian internees (Seitz & Foster 1989, p. 17). One consequence of World War II for the German population of Australia was a further decline in their numbers (Buchanan 2007; Kwiet 2001) illustrated in the table below.

Table 3.1 below provides an overview of the development of German population numbers from 1861–1947, outlining the decline from a high of 44,961 in 1891 to a low of only 14,567 in 1947, five years before German mass migration to Australia began.

Table 3.1: Number of Germans in Australia, 1861–1947

Colony (state)/Year NSW Vic Qld SA WA Tas Australia

1861 5467 10418 2124 8863 n/a n/a 26872

1871 6614 8995 8317 8309 n/a n/a 32235

1881 7521 8571 11638 8801 71 782 37384

1891 9565 10764 14910 8514 290 918 44961

1911 7241 6142 11979 4977 2036 590 32990

1921 4569 3693 9527 3193 1005 387 22396

1933 3595 2855 6983 2149 996 238 16842

1947 4457 4307 3839 1098 656 171 14567

Source: Adapted from: Borrie (1954, p. 158)

3.3 Australia’s post-war immigration program—general overview Current immigration to Australia is based on the Migration Act of 1958; it is non- discriminatory in that it allows any individual regardless of race, ethnic origin, gender or religious persuasion who meets certain criteria including those for character and health to apply for entry into Australia.

Historically, Australia has been a settler society with successive waves of “highly planned, segmented and selective” (Bertone 2013, p. 172) immigration. As Australia’s population growth is based on immigration, the necessity for control has been a constant theme in Australia’s migration history. Policies on issues such as assimilation, multiculturalism, integration or citizenship are concerned with the necessity of controlling volume and characteristics of migrants and social and economic consequences of migration (Pietsch 2013, pp. 143-144).

World War II is considered a watershed for Australia, bringing into sharp focus fears regarding the country’s isolation and Britain’s inability to defend it. With it came the realisation that Australia needed a larger population—not only for defence purposes but also for political and economic reasons: to ensure macro-economic stability by “linking production and consumption” (Walsh 2014, p. 588) to develop economies

of scale that would guarantee Australia’s survival in an unpredictable political world (Birrell 2014; Markus, Jupp & McDonald 2009). Thus it was necessary to ensure future economic growth through population increase (Hugo 2011; Markus, Jupp & McDonald 2009; Richards 2008; Vasta 2006), a sentiment clearly expressed by Arthur Calwell, Australia’s first Minister for Immigration:

Our first requirement is additional population. We need it for reasons of defence and for the fullest expansion of our economy (Extract from Hansard House of Representatives, 2 August 1945, pp. 4911-4915, cited in Leuner 2008, p. 37).

According to Richards (2008, p. 157) population growth was a well-established item on governmental agendas as early as 1941. Migration governance is designated a Commonwealth and federal power and the Federal Department of Immigration16 was established in July 1945. Calwell, as its first minister, oversaw the commencement of the Australian post-war migration program, a program maintained and refined to take account of changing economic, social and political environments, by each succeeding Australian government. The original intention for Australia’s migration program was to contribute approximately one per cent to the country’s population. In contrast to later periods, policy attention was not driven by public opinion but rather the need to build post-war economic capacity, and bolster national security (Pietsch 2013, p. 145).

3.3.1 1945–1960s The initial program under the slogan ‘populate or perish’ offered assisted passage and work contracts to selected migrant groups (Richards 2008, p. 160). Initially and in keeping with the White Australia Policy, the program was geared towards British migrants. In order to achieve the ambitious population targets, a free passage scheme for British ex-service personnel and their families, and an assisted passage scheme for British civilians, were signed by the Australian and British governments in 1946. A second migrant group targeted were the so-called ‘Displaced Persons’: between 1947 and 1954 approximately 170,700 displaced persons migrated to Australia (Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs 2001). Despite Calwell’s

16 The name of the department in charge of migration governance has undergone a number of name changes since its inception. The last change occurred in 2013 with a change from Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC) to Department of Immigration and Border Protection (DIBP).

73 publicly declared preferences for British migrants17 it soon became clear that recruitment of migrants would need to be extended to other countries to achieve the one per cent target. Consequently, assisted passage schemes were established with a number of European countries in following years including the Netherlands, Italy and Germany, and the number of non-British migrants began to exceed the number of British migrants. During the period 1949–1959 the top five source countries for settlers were the United Kingdom and Ireland, Italy, Germany, the Netherlands and Greece (Klapdoor, Coombs & Bohm 2009, p. 7).

Initial post-World War II assisted migration was essentially a tool to advance Australia’s economy by supplying labour in those sectors where it was needed. For most migrants of non-British origin it meant employment in low-skilled jobs with little or no regard for qualifications and skills. This impacted on migrants’ ability to utilise their prior skills and qualifications after fulfilment of their assisted passage contractual obligations and generally led to entrenched “labour market segmentation” (Bommes, Castles & Wihtol de Wenden 1999, p. 23). Clyne (1981) also reports that during the first post-war years, upward social mobility of the host population resulted in immigrants taking up the work Australians were leaving.

A number of government initiatives such as the 1966 introduction of a special program enabling migration of European guest workers, who had finished their contracts in Europe, to Australia ensured the continued increase in immigrant numbers during the 1960s. An initiative foreshadowing future directions of the migration program was the 1966 review of the policy regarding non-European migrants, advocating the acceptance of a greater number of non-European migrants selected for their qualifications—without, though, diluting the basic aim of a homogenous population (Klapdoor, Coombs & Bohm 2009, p. 8). By the end of the 1960s, though, the broad consensus regarding Australia’s post-war migration programs began to unravel (Pietsch 2013, p. 145).

17 In 1946 Calwell advised Parliament that his hope was that for every foreign migrant there would be then British migrants.

3.3.2 1970s–mid-1990s Driven by the collapse of the consensus on migration on the one hand and structural change to the economy occasioned by the end of the long boom, that is the end of the substantial predominantly unskilled and semi-skilled labour shortages, on the other, the 1970s marked the beginning of considerable changes to the framework of the Australian migration program. As part of changes to the migration program the Immigration Restriction Act was repealed in 1973. The repeal laid the foundation for the commencement of significant immigration from Asian countries. The removal of immigration restrictions based on race and nationality did not indicate restriction-less system, but a substitution of admission criteria, taking into account changed global economic, anti-racist and human rights conditions (Walsh 2014, p. 588). In 1978 the criterion-based Numerical Assessment system (NUMAS) was introduced as the measure for migrant admission to Australia. Based on the Canadian points system, NUMAS awarded a certain number of points for desired attributes taken as indicators for successful economic contributions and societal integration; these attributes include age (youth), language skills, occupation and Australian work experience or educational qualifications (Bertone 2013, p. 172). The focus of the Australian migration program had thus shifted from labour shortages to skills requirements and laid the foundation for the introduction of the prototype of Australia’s current three stream—skills, family, and humanitarian—migration program (Khoo, Hugo & McDonald 2008, pp. 197-199).

The developments initiated during the 1970s intensified in the 1980s. The phase of population building prevalent since World War II came to a close and with the shift to Asia the shift to skills strengthened (Birrell 2014; Castles, Vasta & Ozkul 2014). The emphasis on skills, though, was initially of a general nature, not tied to employment, but viewed as adding to the stock of Australian human capital. This practice changed in 1989 with the restructuring of the points system. The reconfiguration of the points system resulted in applicants with generalist degrees without an accompanying vocational qualification or credentials no longer being able to be considered for selection. “It was not enough to be well educated: the education had to be related to job requirements in Australia” (Birrell 2014, p. 144).

Consensus about non-discriminatory immigration policy, initiated with the repeal of the Immigration Restriction Act, with permanent settlement the preferred outcome and “family reunion as the largest component of the entries” (Castles, Vasta & Ozkul 2014, p. 130) was prevalent from the mid-1970s to the mid-1990s.

3.3.3 1990s to the present (2015) The 1990s presented as a continuation of the developments of the previous decade. The focus on skills increased to ensure migrants’ self-sufficiency and ability to make economic contributions. It was coupled with a reduction in size of the family reunion category in the migration program and a reduction in benefits available to migrants on arrival to avoid burdening social programs based on domestic tax payers’ contributions (Birrell 2014; Castles, Vasta & Ozkul 2014; Walsh 2014).

In 2012 the Australian Government tightened the system even further by introducing an additional requirement to the application process. A formal application can only be made after an invitation by the Department, a state government, regional authority or employer sponsors who reserve the right to only select the highest scoring applicants if there are more applicants than places (Birrell 2014, p. 150).

However, the most significant shift is that from permanent to temporary migration. Historically, the annual migration program, in operation since 1945 (Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs 2001) was focused on the selection of permanent immigrants or ‘settlers’, and their families, whose commitment to Australia was to be demonstrated by the acquisition of the Australian citizenship as soon as possible (Castles, Vasta & Ozkul 2014, p. 140). To that end the Australian citizenship law was simplified a number of times (Klapdor, Coombs & Bohm 2009, p. 1). Moreover, “there was conscious rejection of the ‘guest worker’ programs” (Markus, Jupp & McDonald 2009, p. 9) as utilised in a number of European countries.

The introduction of the ‘457’ long-term temporary business (employer sponsored) visa category in 1996 reshaped the migration landscape of Australia considerably. Upon coming to power in 1996, the new Liberal Coalition Government under John Howard adopted the recommendations coming out of a report commissioned by its Australian Labor Party predecessor to address concerns and dissatisfaction of the

Australian business community regarding the visa regulations on the temporary entry of business migrants and highly skilled specialists (Bertone 2013, p. 173). This resulted in the introduction of the ‘457’ visa. This visa category allowed employers to sponsor migrants into Australia for up to four years. The government’s professed reasoning was that this would enhance the global competitiveness of Australian businesses (Birrell 2014, p. 145). It has also been argued that the scheme provides a stimulus for economic growth by capturing revenue through taxation and consumption while the restriction on the accessibility of public goods makes sure that migrants’ financial contributions exceed those of citizens and permanent residents (Walsh 2014, p. 590). The significance of this visa category is not based on the temporariness alone: unlike permanent migrants, migrants on a 457 visa are not points-tested in the same way as other skilled migrants, there are no numerical limits and a considerable number have sought to remain in the country as permanent residents; moreover, no labour market testing is required for temporary skilled workers (Klapdor, Coombs & Bohm 2009, p. 16).

The introduction of a temporary migrant stream alongside the permanent one has also led to a change in migration patterns. Between 1983–1992 on average 88 per cent of net overseas migration arrivals were permanent and only 12 per cent were long-term temporary arrivals. By 2002–2007 this ratio had changed to 59 per cent long-term temporary and 41 per cent permanent arrivals (Markus, Jupp & MacDonald 2009, p. 9). The number of temporary residents coming to Australia now exceeds the number of permanent residents (Robertson 2014, p. 1916) and ten per cent of the Australian workforce as a whole has a temporary migrant status (Mares 2012).

However, for many migrants, especially skilled migrants, temporary entry is the first step to a permanent visa. According to Birrell (2014, pp. 153-155) the majority of migrants applying for an employer sponsored permanent visa are holders of a 457 temporary visa.

In summary it can be said that by the early 1980s skilled migration had become the favoured type of migration, beginning to replace the unskilled and semi-skilled migration of the 1960s and 70s. With the introduction of NUMAS, migrants were

77 processed in one of the three streams: family, business or humanitarian. While initially the largest, the family stream was successively cut and the business stream grew in importance and numbers. Immigrant selection began to be based on the number of points received and criteria applied included labour market match and English proficiency. Temporary migration has continued to grow significantly since the mid-1990s and now surpasses permanent migration to Australia. Since the end of World War II successive waves of migrants from various geographical regions have transformed Australia and its population and have made it one of the most multicultural countries in existence.

3.4 The incorporation of migrants: assimilation, integration, multiculturalism, and a focus on responsibilities and values The previous section examined the development of the Australian migration program since its inception in 1945. This section will provide a brief overview of the different major discourses brought to bear on the incorporation of migrants since the inception of the Australian migration program.

3.4.1 Assimilation and integration The immigration policy between the end of World War II and the mid-1960s (Wende 2010, p. 82) was one of assimilation: “everyone would learn English, everyone would look basically alike, and everyone would share values, beliefs and practices with some toleration for religious differences (Jupp 1992 cited in Wende 2010, p. 82). Migrants were supposed to assimilate as soon and as completely as possible. Acquisition of the Australian citizenship18 represented the tangible endpoint of the process. The Nationality and Citizenship Act of 1948 stipulated that migrants of British origin could become citizens after 12 months in Australia, non-British European migrants could do so after 5 years, while non-European migrants were ineligible. The Act required migrants to speak English and to assimilate into the Australian way of life (Pietsch 2013, p. 144).

The Australian government assisted this process by providing (potential) migrants with language and general instruction about the country on the voyage to Australia and in the migrant camps. However, this was not necessarily successful due to the

18The Australian citizenship was formally established in the Nationality and Citizenship Act 1948.

fact that some migrants were illiterate in their native languages and many migrants worked in very isolated areas and/or due to long working hours lacked the time or ability to attend those classes.

The 1949 change in government from a Labor to Liberal government did not lead to a change in the policy. Assimilation remained the policy of choice. Menzies’ Australian Citizenship convention of 1950 made it clear that migrants were expected to shed their past and become Australians, subscribing to Australian culture, language and traditions, at that time conceptualised as British. However, the assimilationist policies and practices were not considered a complete success; assimilation was eventually superseded by the policy of integration which remained in place until 1972 (Ho 2013, p. 31).

3.4.2 Multiculturalism Multiculturalism was a response to the recognition of migrant disadvantage in particular in the areas of language and employment (Ho 2013; Vasta 2006; Wende 2010) and a realisation that migrants might not want to give up their cultural identity (Koleth 2010). Moreover, it has been argued the realisation by the Australian Labor Party (ALP) that ethnic communities represented a sizable number of votes led to an engagement in particular in relation to the Greek and Italian communities, to capture as much of the ethnic vote as possible (Bommes, Castles & Wihtol de Wenden 1999; Ho 2013).

Multiculturalism “as the basis for migrant settlement, welfare and social-cultural policy in Australia” (Koleth 2010, n.p.) was first mentioned in 1973 in a speech by Al Grassby, the Minister for Immigration under the Whitlam Government, entitled “A Multi-Cultural Society for the Future” (Koleth 2010, n.p.). However, despite its introduction as an official policy in 1973, no clear understanding of multiculturalism existed.

While the first official definition, entitled Australia as Multicultural Society, was provided in a 1977 report produced by the Australian Ethnic Affairs Council and submitted to the Australian Population and Immigration Council (Koleth 2010, n.p.), the so-called Galbally report was considered the “foundation document of multiculturalism” (Jupp 2002, p. 87): in 1978 the Australian Government engaged

Frank Galbally to chair a commission to review migrant services. The resulting report entitled Migrant Services and Programs: the Report of the Review of Post- Arrival Programs and Services to Migrants emphasised the need to provide encouragement and assistance for migrants to improve their overall situation and to enable them to maintain their cultural identity. The report led to the establishment of a number of initiatives such as interpreting and translation services, migrant resource centres to enable ethnic communities and voluntary agencies to take care of migrant welfare needs, the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs, multicultural radio and television services, SBS, the extension of the Adult Migrant English Program (AMEP), and the introduction of multicultural education in schools. There was also substantial growth in the number of advisory institutions (Ho 2013; Wende 2010). On the other hand, as Ho (2013, p. 33) points out the focus on ethnic disadvantage and migrant welfare ultimately directly related disadvantage to deficiencies within the ethnic groups themselves and restricted multiculturalism to addressing this disadvantage only.

The Galbally report’s emphasis on the superior ability of ethnic community organisations and voluntary agencies for service delivery suited the government’s agenda to contain costs and thus service provision was shifted to voluntary organisations. As a result power was concentrated in a few organisations and participation of those not in a dominant position in the multicultural discourse was stifled (Ho 2013, p. 34).

Labor, when it took office in 1983, focused its policy on bringing migrant services back into the mainstream, and on the removal of barriers to participation based on ethnicity and gender. The Jupp review of migrant and multicultural programs and services released in 1986 focused on ensuring equal opportunity for all Australians by providing basic resources and support for cultural expression. One of the outcomes of the report was the establishment of the Office of Multicultural Affairs (OMA). Integrating migrant services into the mainstream also removed some of the dominance privileged migrant organisations had enjoyed. Multiculturalism increasingly was seen as a policy applicable to all Australians (Ho 2013, p 35).

The focus of multicultural policy shifted from migrant settlement services to an emphasis on the economic benefits of cultural diversity. Emphasising economic benefits was an effective way of legitimising cultural diversity in the eyes of the public, especially at a time of economic downturn when public anxiety about migration, cultural diversity and multiculturalism found its expression in discourses about the “Asianisation of Australia”, initiated by the historian Geoffrey Blainey in 1984 (Castles, Vasta & Ozkul 2014; Ho 2013; Koleth 2010).

In response to criticisms in particular on Asian immigration, the Committee to Advise on Australia’s Immigration Policies (CAAIP), chaired by Dr Stephen FitzGerald, was established in 1987. Its 1988 report firmly put the emphasis on skilled migration and a reduction in services for migrants. The main emphasis, however, was on national identity and migrants’ commitment to Australian values and way of life (Wende 2010, p. 91). In response to the report’s recommendations multiculturalism shifted to the rights and responsibilities of citizens in the context of a commitment to Australia and Australian values.

This focus also found its way into the 1989 National Agenda for a Multicultural Australia. It was based on three elements: cultural identity—all Australians were to be able to express and share their cultural identity; social justice—equality of all Australians regardless of race, creed, gender origin; economic efficiency— maintenance and development of skills for all Australians.

Key initiatives included the National Policy on Language (1987), which encouraged the learning of foreign languages of economic significance (in particular Asian languages) as well as maintaining community languages, and the establishment of the National Office of Overseas Skills Recognition in 1989.

In 1992, the Keating Government—building on the National Agenda—introduced the concept of productive diversity, that is capitalising on the linguistic and cultural skills, business networks and market knowledge of Australia’s diverse population (Ho 2013, p. 36). The concept of productive diversity repositioned multiculturalism from social justice issues to a national economic benefit.

In 1996 the Liberal Coalition government with John Howard as Prime minister came to power. Multiculturalism saw the absorption of many migrant services and institutions into main stream services and a return to a pro-white British mindset. By reducing access to NESB migrants and thus decreasing the number of those who might not succeed easily in Australia, the government was able to reduce costs of migrant settlement. The increasing emphasis on skills resulted in a reduction of multicultural programs. The 1999 New Agenda for Multicultural Australia redefined the principles of multiculturalism from one of support for ethnic groups and migrants to one with an emphasis on national values, civic duty, and integration into mainstream culture. This shift found its representation in the introduction of the 2007 Citizenship test to ensure societal cohesion and migrant integration (Ho 2013; Wende 2010). Australia’s policy here followed the international trends involving reassertion of the nation state (Klapdor, Coombs & Bohm 2009, pp. 18-19).

Neither the 2007 election of a Labor government nor the 2013 election of a Liberal Coalition Government seems to have wrought much change in multicultural policy. It took three years for the Labor Government to release its multicultural policy, The People of Australia, in 2011.

Since then, despite a change of government in 2013, no official policy change seems to have occurred: while the Australian Immigration Fact Sheet 6. Australia's Multicultural Policy is no longer available on the Department of Border Protection’s website, the Settlement and Multicultural Affairs section of the Department of Social Services website still displayed The People of Australia (Department of Social Services 2014) as Australia’s multicultural policy at the time of writing.

3.5 Post-World War II German migration to Australia

3.5.1 German early post-war emigration policy considerations Post-World War II West German19 migration policy was developed in the space between the divergent needs of national and international interests (Steinert 1995, pp. 329-332). On the one hand policy was dependent on the needs of a

19 Exit from the ex-German Democratic Republic was tightly controlled by the state with almost no possibility of leaving for a western country, and even a relocation to an Eastern bloc country was difficult.

heterogeneous and developing labour market, influenced by trade, finance, and internal politics and considerations, comprising the anti-emigration position of refugee organisations, and the fears of employer organisations and unions regarding the loss of skilled labour. On the other hand the desire to establish and maintain good relations with important economic partners such as the US and Canada was strong.

Despite the fact that in the first few years after World War II any decision in relation to border crossings was in the hands of the Allied Powers, there was early interest in the development of a future German emigration policy.

Representatives of the German Länder (federal states) discussed these matters as early as 1946, however at that time suggestions were of a rather restrictive character. Positions regarding emigration policy fell into one of two major camps: on the one hand emigration of refugees who were unable to return to their area of origin— numbering over 2.5 million in 1950—was seen as desirable. On the other hand a scarcity of labour made emigration undesirable. Slogans like “20 million too many” “emigration or starvation” but also “there’s no labour to spare” (Steinert 1995, p. 31) are illustrative of this situation. Despite the considerable number of departments involved in the development of migration policy, there was a consensus that migration, economic and demographic policy development had to be closely aligned. An example of this alignment was the continuous tightening of eligibility criteria for potential assisted passage migrants during the 1950s until finally only those who received a war pension were eligible (Steinert 1992, p. 391).

After the end of the allied exit permit period, the discussion about emigration focused on the fear that it would result in the loss of skilled labour and, as a consequence, the burden to be carried by the German population in the wake of the war would be unduly magnified for those left behind. Carlo Schmid, a German Labour politician, branded emigration as immoral and suggested the introduction of a tax on the assets of emigrants (Sternberg 2012, p. 147).

In the early 1950, when the first assisted passage migration agreement between Australia and Germany was negotiated, Germany and Australia’s situations were complementary: Australia needed to expand its labour force and Germany had to accommodate as many as twelve million refugees and expellees in a country that had

83 not yet recovered from war. But apart from this broad agreement, the details were more difficult to work out. Germany was interested in resettling its refugees and expellees, while Australia was interested in recruiting migrants from West Germany only: it was thought that West Germans would be less affected by the trauma of war. Australia desired skilled migrants, Germany’s goal was twofold: resettlement of farmers and farm labourers and ensuring enough skilled labour remained in Germany (Steinert 1995; Sternberg 2012).

A second objective of the German government was to stop migration through sponsorship by private companies. As the reality of migrant life was often dissimilar to initial recruitment representations the German Government wished to be able to intervene on behalf of its citizens. The negotiations proved difficult and time- consuming but were finally concluded in 1952 (Biedermann 2006; Sternberg 2012).

The migration agreement of 1952 arose out of the interest of the German government to develop a mechanism for orderly emigration, in particular that of refugees from Germany’s former eastern regions. On the Australian side it reflects the interest in a North-Western European migrant population (Steinert 1995, pp. 147-155). However, the conceptualisations were dissimilar: Australia wanted young, skilled migrants; Germany was interested in resettling an older and comparatively low skilled population. This is illustrated by the following quote from a report of the German Delegation to Australia:

Australia’s interest—to exaggerate a little—is to grant entry as an immigrant to a single 24-year-old highly skilled worker with no dependents; Germany’s interest is to facilitate the emigration of a 50-year-old farmer with a large family. The negotiations attempted to strike a balance between those two positions (Biedermann 2006, p. 144 [translated by thesis author]).

3.5.2 The Australian—West German Assisted Migration Agreement Despite the initial issues in reaching consensus, the agreement was significant in the political and socio-economic contexts of both countries and shaped migration considerably through policy and governance on both sides. Initially valid for five years, the agreement was followed by two extensions and was finally terminated in 1981 (Buchanan 2007, p. 41).

It was the only migration agreement the Federal Republic of Germany entered into with any of the major immigration countries and as such a major deviation from its usual practice of dealing with emigration, characterised as a “hands off” approach (Sternberg 2012, p. 38), despite public discussions located between the economic argument of loss of skilled labour, the moral argument of a dereliction of duty towards the “Schicksalsgemeinschaft” (community of fate) Germany, and the socio- political one of the danger of radicalisation through overcrowding (Steinert 1995, p. 42). On the Australian side, it overcame the controversy surrounding the admittance of German migrants only seven years after the end of World War II by reversing the picture of the cruel, arrogant and undemocratic Nazi to that of the stereotypical hard- working German (Kaplan 1995; Sauer 1999; Schmortte 2005) through overall bi- partisan political support and a clever media campaign (Kaplan 1995), and, as Sauer (1999, p. 430) suggests, the Government’s exploitation of Australian self-interest to shape perceptions by concentrating on the economic dimension and emphasising German trade skills as an asset to the Australian economy.

Interest in migration was high in 1950s war-ravaged West Germany. Unemployment was approximately 10 per cent in 1950, and the per capita income in Australia was approximately 70 per cent above that of Germany, a high standard of living, only surpassed by the US, Canada and Switzerland (Biedermann 2006, p. 66). Australia also seemed to offer the opportunity to own one’s own home, a dream for the citizens of a country where the former capital still resembled “a heap of rubble” (Trümmerwüste) (Biedermann 2006, p. 68) as late as 1954. Between 1950 and 1956 more than two million people enquired about migration. Expellees showed the most interest in migration. The interest of the public in emigration decreased in the course of the 1950s.

The migrations of the 1950s were strongly shaped by the assistance provided by the governments of both countries. Otherwise, according to Biedermann (2006, p. 15), the likelihood of any significant migration to Australia would have been very low due to the prohibitively high cost of the journey, but also due to restrictions on the exchange of German currency. The assisted passage agreement laid the foundation for the largest wave of German migration to Australia.

After the ratification of the assisted agreement, the number of German immigrants to Australia increased quickly. The peak years, 1954 and 1955, saw 13,359 Germans and 10,342 Germans respectively immigrate to Australia (Clyne 1981, p. 3). While a large number of these immigrants could be considered middle class, many others were skilled trades people and most settled in urban areas; only 20.8 per cent of Germans settled in rural areas (Zubrzycki 1960, p. 74-75).

The agreement blurred the boundaries between labour migration and immigration as the majority of German migrants received a two-year contract and residency permit with no guarantee of an automatic conversion to a permanent residency. After the conclusion of the two-year period, permanent residency could be applied for and if granted, the migrant was then permitted to choose work and location freely (Steinert 1995, pp. 148-149). And while many migrants remained in Australia, the number of return migrants was quite high: between 1947 and 1974, 32.4 per cent of German immigrants to Australia returned to Germany.

Despite the fact that the first agreement was extended twice, the German government’s interest started to wane by 1957. This became most noticeable in the restrictions placed on access to the assisted passage scheme and the German Government’s approach to information about Australia to be provided by the Australian migrant recruitment agencies. The assumption was that a realistic picture of the country would deter a considerable number of would-be migrants. By 1961 the number of German migrants began to decrease as can be seen in Table 3.2:

Table 3.2: German migration to Australia: settler arrivals, 1946–1969

Year (financial year) Settler arrivals

1946–1949 2563

1950–1959 69756

1960–1969 48952

Source: adapted from Münstermann (1997, p. 63A)

The decrease in migrant numbers can be attributed to a number of reasons: (1) The Australian government slowed its migrant recruitment drive temporarily due to a slow-down in the economic situation and rising unemployment. (2) Australia

required skilled migrants from Germany. Due to the improvement in the German macro-economic situation, the so-called ‘economic miracle’ was in full swing and skilled workers were also in high demand in Germany. (3) Germans’ interest in migration in general had decreased rapidly in response to the positive economic situation, vastly improved living conditions, and an economic and socio-political outlook which was generally optimistic (Biedermann 2006; Steinert 1995; Sternberg 2012).

3.5.3 Migrant integration The 1950s migrants shed their German identity quickly. This can be attributed to two main reasons (Biedermann 2006, p. 40): (1) Assimilation was the Australian Government’s stated goal and by complying with the requirements of the country that had provided the German migrants with a future, they were also able to leave “the burden of history” (das eigene schwierige historische Erbe) (Biedermann 2006, p. 40) behind. (2) Another contributing factor to the fast assimilation of the 1950s migrants was the feeling of many of the younger Germans that 1950s German society with its reorientation towards traditional values and its hierarchical class system was stifling, and denied them social advancement. Overseas countries seemed to offer the opportunity of living in freer and egalitarian societies.

This disaffection with life in post-war Germany coupled with the very positive picture of life and conditions in Australia presented in Australian Government recruitment materials of the day led to a strong interest in immigration. Despite strict regulations by the German Government the Australian Government’s recruitment materials depicted Australia as an egalitarian society where life was comparatively carefree and could be enjoyed without worries about the past and future, another attraction for Germans seeking an escape from the Nazi past and the devastation of World War II (Berloge 2002; Biedermann 2006). However, a large number of migrants experienced a disconnect between their idea of life in Australia and its reality. This was partly due to the conditions of the assisted passage agreement which, modelled on the process and conditions first introduced in the resettlement of Displaced Persons, included initial accommodation in migrant camps such as Bonnegilla and often periods of initial unemployment. When available, employment was usually in unskilled or semi-skilled jobs not utilising migrants’ skills (Berloge

2002, pp. 330-34). Despite initial disillusionment with standards of living and a much harsher than expected life, many of the 1950s migrants eventually become Australian citizens. Most, however, took their time and often made the decision only after a visit to Germany which took place many years after the initial emigration (Biedermann 2006, p. 70).

Despite the ready assimilation of the Germans and their general ‘invisibility’, German clubs and organisations provided a feeling “Heimat”20. German club life was quite active. Clyne reports that by 1981 the number of German associations and clubs had increased considerably, however, many of these were not monolingual. He attributes their success or establishment to the fact that the German migrants had now managed to secure their livelihoods which allowed them time for clubs (Clyne 1981, p. 52-56). His assessment of late 1970s German culture is that clubs were integrated into Australian cultural life. The place of the German clubs in contemporary Australian culture is far less assured as younger migrants in general have not much interest in a form of community which has not changed much since the 1980s and prefer different avenues to meet.

3.5.4 Contemporary German migration to Australia German interest in migration declined during the 1960s, however, the decline in overseas migration was more pronounced; moreover, return migration numbers from the so-called “classic” immigration countries, the US, Canada and Australia were about the same as the emigration numbers to those countries (Sternberg 2012, p. 191).

One factor in the decline of the migrant numbers to Australia—apart from macro- structural economic factors—may have been the critical stance to migration adopted by the German media which began publishing cautionary articles. As regards Australia, the Bonegilla riots in 1961 were reported in the German media and the German migrant experience in Australia described as disappointing; life in Australia was reported as very harsh, leading to many migrants being desirous of a return to Germany (Sternberg 2012, pp. 192-94).

20 The literal translation is “home”, however, that does not capture the nuances of the concept which often includes a feeling of belonging.

Motivation for and form of migration also shifted from “classic” migration—families or individuals migrating for reasons of poverty, unemployment or housing shortage often with no return intention—to a variety of forms: improvement of the material situation, often intertwined with career expectations and an offer of employment overseas; spousal migration; and temporary migration to gain overseas exposure and language experience for employment purposes (Sternberg 2012, pp. 194-95).

The late 1970s and early 1980s saw a revival of German interest in migration to Australia as a consequence of the European socio-political situation: fear of a nuclear threat in some sectors of the German population, growing unemployment, the high cost of living, overcrowding and environmental concerns (Kaplan 2001, pp. 377- 379) but also German internal politics—in particular as regards to nuclear energy and big infrastructure projects which seemed to favour profit motives over environmental concerns, the feeling of stagnation, a country stuck in a rut. Migration was now associated with “self-realisation” (Selbstverwirklichung), not focused on economic considerations but quality of life (Sternberg 2012, pp. 196-200). Other factors consistently cited are climate and landscape in conjunction with life style (Buchanan 2007, p. 47-48). In the 1980s the number of enquiries received by the Australian embassy in Bonn rose by roughly 250 per cent to approximately 20,000 annually (Sternberg 2012, p. 199); the increase in enquiries, however, did not lead to a new wave of German migration. Tampke (2006, p. 159-161) estimated the annual intake at around 1000 per year.

Despite the low numbers of German settler migrants, the increase in temporary migration and the aging of the German population, the German population according to Census figures has remained relatively stable as Table 3.3 illustrates:

Table 3.3: Germans in Australia—Census data 1947–2011

Census Year Number of Germans 1947 14567 1954 65422 1961 109315 1966 108708 1971 110811 1976 107559 1981 110759 1986 114810 1991 114900 1996 110331 2001 108220 2006 106524 2011 108003 Source: Adapted from Australian Bureau of Statistics (various)

And while the number of people who speak German at home has decreased, the number of people who claim German ancestry has increased considerably since 1986 when the ancestry was first recorded as can be seen in Table 3.4 below.

Table 3.4: Germans in Australia—Census data 1986–2011—Ancestry and language spoken at home

Census year Number of German spoken at Ancestry Germans home 1986 114810 510,402 1991 114900 113,335 * 1996 110331 98,810 * 2001 108220 76,443 742,212 2006 106524 75,634 811,540 2011 108003 80,370 898,676 Source: Adapted from Australian Bureau of Statistics (various) *Please note: According the Australian Bureau of Statistics the ancestry question was not included in the 1991 and 1996 censuses.

3.5.5 Snapshot of the German-born population as at the 2011 Census Data from the 2011 census aggregated by the Department of Social Services (DSS) provides the following snapshot of the German-born population in Australia: the German-born population stands at 108,003, an increase of 1.4 per cent from the 2006 census. New South Wales had the largest German-born population (31,084), followed by Victoria (28,021), Queensland (21,027) and South Australia (11,409).

The median age is 62 years compared with 45 years for all overseas-born and 37 years for the total Australian population, making it an aging population. The sex ratio was 90.6 males per 100 females, that is 51,327 males (47.5 per cent) and 56,675 females (52.5 per cent).

Compared to 62 per cent of the total overseas-born population, 80.6 per cent of the German-born people in Australia arrived in Australia prior to 2001. Among the total German-born in Australia at the 2011 Census, 7.1 per cent arrived between 2001 and 2006 and 8.5 per cent arrived between 2007 and 2011.

The main languages spoken at home were English (56,923), German (43,023) and Polish (1,726), however, of the 51,078 persons who spoke a language other than English at home, 95.7 per cent reported speaking English very well or well and only 2.6 per cent spoke English not well or not at all.

Compared to 55.9 per cent of the Australian population, 67.9 per cent of the German-born aged 15 years and over had some form of higher non-school qualifications; and 2.6 per cent were still attending an educational institution.

The participation rate in the labour force among German-born people aged 15 years and over was 48.1 per cent, the unemployment rate 4.8 per cent. The corresponding rates in the total Australian population were 65 per cent and 5.6 per cent respectively. Of the 46,912 German-born who were employed, 56 per cent were employed in either a skilled managerial, professional or trade occupation. The corresponding rate in the total Australian population was 48.4 per cent.

The median individual weekly income for the German-born in Australia aged 15 years and over was $471, compared with $538 for all overseas-born and $597 for all Australia-born. The total Australian population had a median individual weekly income of $577.

The top ancestry responses that German-born people reported were German (84,984), Polish (8,326) and English (4,991) (Department of Social Services 2015).

3.5.6 German migration to and return from Australia—some statistical data Departure of migrants is not an uncommon phenomenon—the Australian Department of Immigration and Border Protection (previously Department of Immigration and Citizenship, DIAC), puts the percentage of overseas born residents departing permanently as a proportion of total permanent departures at approximately 50 per cent since 1998–99 (DIAC 2011, p. 1). In 2012–13 of the 91,761 people who indicated they were departing permanently, 52.7 per cent were born overseas, an increase of 1.6 per cent on the 2011–12 proportion of 51.1 per cent (DIBP 2015 Factsheet 5). This also affects the German-born population as advised by the DSS (2015) in its historical background to the snapshot of the German-born presented above and can be seen in statistical data on overseas arrivals and departure.

However, in the context of statistical data collection it is necessary to exercise some caution: as regards the statistics on permanent departures, the Australian Department of Immigration and Citizenship cautioned on its website that its statistics were representative of trends only as the data is based on information provided by passengers leaving the country and who may not provide correct or truthful answers on their passenger cards (DIAC 2012b, p. 72).

Historical statistical data on German immigration can only provide trends as the classification for migrants entering the country was changed a number of times leading to different definitions of who counted as German. The Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs in a 2001 publication provided the following advice:

The data for Germany are inflated because data prior to 1959 are based on country of last residence, and most immigrants arriving from Germany after World War II were displaced persons who were not born in Germany. … *Settler arrivals by birthplace data not available prior to 1959. For the period July 1949 to June 1959, Permanent and Long Term Arrivals by Country of Last Residence have been included as a proxy for this data. When interpreting this data for some countries it should be noted that in the period immediately after World War II, there were large numbers of displaced persons whose country of last residence was not necessarily the same as their birthplace (DIMA 2001, pp. 24-25).

As outlined earlier, the number of Germans in Australia in 1947 was just 14,567, equating to 0.2 per cent of the population, the lowest percentage since 1830 (Kaplan 2001, pp. 377-379). With the commencement of German mass migration in 1952 numbers started to increase steadily. Results were first reflected in the 1954 census figures: 65,422 Germans had immigrated. By 1961 Australia’s German migration population had reached 109,315 persons or one per cent of the population. Eighty- four per cent of these arrivals were assisted passage migrants. After 1961 the German population numbers stabilised; in 1996 the number stood at 110,331 despite approximately 30 per cent of settlers permanently leaving Australia again in the period 1947–83 (Kaplan 2001, pp. 377-379). From the 1970s onwards, the number of German migrants decreased considerably: from approximately 2,000 annually in the 1970s to approximately 850 annually in the early 1990s (Kaplan 2001, pp. 377- 379).

Table 3.5: German migration to Australia: settler arrivals, permanent departures, departures as percentage of settler arrival, 1946–1989

Year Settler Permanent departures Permanent departures as (financial arrivals % of settler arrivals year) 1946–1949 2563 747 29 1950–1959 69756 7033 10 1960–1969 48952 23463 48 1972–1979 18752 13158 70 1980–1989 28925 11359 39

Source: adapted from Münstermann (1997, p. 63A)

Table 3.6: German migration to Australia: settler arrivals, permanent departures, permanent departures as percentage of settler arrivals, 1990–2012

Year Settler Permanent departures Permanent departures as (financial arrivals % of settler arrivals 1990year)– 2001 8637 2423 28

2001–2012 9379 4368 47

Source: Adapted from DIMA/DIAC statistical sources (2006, 2007, 2011, 2012a, 2012b)

The excerpt from the outcomes 2013–2014 of the migration program as published by the Department of Immigration and Border Protection below provides an overview of Germany’s position in relation to other migrant country streams.

Table 3.7: Excerpt, Australia’s Migration Programme - Country position, 2013–2014

Stream Family Points Employer Total Students Temporary Visitors Population Stream tested Sponsored Skill Work in skilled Stream (Skilled) Australia migration Rank 19 n/a 12 n/a 19 14 9 10

Source: adapted from DIBP, Australia’s Migration Programme - Country position based on 2013–14 data (2015)

This inflow, however, is accompanied by a sizeable outflow of permanent German migrants from Australia. For the financial year 2011–2012, the Department of Immigration and Citizenship reported 837 settler arrivals compared to 537 permanent departures, a departure rate of 64 per cent; for the financial year 2012– 2013 the Department of Immigration and Border Protection reported 684 settler arrivals and 523 permanent departures, a departure rate of 76 per cent21.

Table 3.8 presents an overview of the duration of stay of German migrants in Australia, revealing a relatively long duration of stay, as most Germans departing permanently do so after five years or longer in Australia.

Table 3.8: Permanent departures overseas born by selected country of birth by length of stay, 2011–2012, 2012–2013

Country of <2 2 and < 3 and < 4 and < 5+ Not Total birth: Germany years 3 years 4 years 5 years years stated

2011–2012 70 35 20 27 374 11 537

2012–2013 57 29 22 17 384 14 523

Source: DIAC (2012b); DIPB (2015b)

21 However, data sourced from the overseas arrivals and departures dataset pivot tables accessible at https://data.gov.au/dataset/overseas-arrivals-and-departures, downloaded 9 May 2015 contain different data sets based on country of citizenship, not country of birth. Settler arrival data from pivot tables for 2011–2012: 778; for 2012–2013: 609.

3.6 Summary This chapter has looked at German migration to Australia. It provided a brief historical overview, and then outlined the Australian immigration program after World War II, and the development of German immigration to Australia, taking into account developments both in Germany and in Australia.

It illuminated the role the media and stereotypes played in repositioning the enemy alien Germans into desirable migrants and the desire of many early migrants to conform to the Australian demand to assimilate as it provided the opportunity to shed the burden of the German past and start again.

It also showed how government policy can influence and shape migratory movements. Lastly, it provided an overview of the considerable outflow of the German-born from Australia.

4 Research Design

4.1 Introduction This chapter sets out the methodological considerations leading to the research design employed to explore (return) migration trajectories of German migrants to Australia/Australians of German ancestry.

It commences with a brief overview of epistemological positions in social research and provides the rationale for the choice of constructivism/interpretivism as research paradigm. The following section outlines the methodological framework of this thesis, delineating the choice of research approach and primary data collection tool; the issue of managing the research relationship in respect to researcher positioning and ethical considerations; as well as the approach to data collection and analysis. The penultimate section presents a discussion of the issue of rigour in qualitative research; the final section reflects limitations of the approach and methods used and introduces the sample. This chapter forms the basis for the presentation of the research results and discussion in Chapters 5 to 8.

4.2 The research paradigm: constructivism/interpretivism as epistemological basis Research requires careful design to achieve a proper fit of research question(s), assumptions and strategies used. To achieve this fit it is necessary for the researcher to be aware of the different methods, strategies and techniques of enquiry and their inherent perspective and uses (Marshall & Rossman 2011; Richards & Morse 2013). Because there is an interdependency between assumptions, strategies and techniques all influencing the result, any research design is the outcome of a number of decision on what is most appropriate for a particular project (Creswell 2009; Flick 2014; Maxwell 2013; Punch 2013; Richards & Morse 2013).

This is a qualitative study, with data collected through 15 semi-structured, in-depth expert interviews in Australia and Germany and 40 semi-structured, in-depth interviews with individual migrants in Australia and Germany. The goal was not to establish statistical parameters, but rather to understand migrants’ lived experiences. As this study aims to provide a detailed description and analysis of the quality of the

changing patterns and determinants of migration trajectories—that is, explore, describe and understand participating migrants’ lived experiences, not establish statistical trends—a qualitative approach is appropriate.

Most qualitative research is interpretive; based on the assumption that reality is socially constructed and there is not one single, observable reality but rather multiple related realities or interpretations of a single event. Merriam argues (2009, p. 5) “Qualitative researchers are interested in understanding how people interpret their experiences, how they construct their worlds, and what meaning they attribute to their experiences”.

General characteristics of qualitative research are a focus on meaning and understanding, on outlining process and on trying to understand a phenomenon from the participant’s perspective. It is an inductive process and is often used when little or no adequate explanatory theory exists. In contrast to quantitative inquiry, qualitative inquiry does not test deductively and frameworks are informed by what is learned through fieldwork (Merriam 2009, p. 16). Thus, it is an appropriate approach in the context of migration trajectories with a focus on long-term return between developed countries, considered an under-researched field in migration studies. As there is not much information available it would be difficult to formulate a hypothesis based on existing theory. While quantitative data in the form of immigration and census statistics is available and will be used to provide an avenue into identifying patterns, qualitative analysis will move from the descriptive level to an exploration of the phenomena observed through investigation of migrant’s experiences and reasoning.

The theoretical framework underlying research is also referred to as the paradigm. Guba (1990, cited in Denzin & Lincoln 2011, p. 13) defines paradigm as a “basic set of beliefs that guides action”.22 The assumptions anchored in and explained by the epistemological position taken by the researcher strongly influence the way

22 The American physicist and philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn, credited with introducing the concept of paradigm, described it as the set of beliefs, values and techniques in use by the members of a particular scientific community (Hammersley 2012;Maxwell 2013). Kuhn himself saw social science as not (yet) in a paradigmatic state due to the number of competing approaches; however, social scientists, adopting his perspective, in general saw the different approaches as competing paradigms with no epistemological superiority over the other (Hammersley 2012).

97 knowledge is studied and interpreted. Thus it can be argued that research paradigms form the basis of decision-making related to research: they are crucial in determining the theoretical foundation of any study and thus have significant implications for the practical conduct of research and the interpretation of findings. Moreover, they offer a guide to the investigator, not only in choices of methodology and method, but also in ontologically and epistemologically fundamental ways. Consequently, researchers require a clear understanding of which paradigm informs and guides their approach prior to engaging in any research (Guba & Lincoln 1994; Maxwell 2013; Richards & Morse 2013), or as Mackenzie and Knipe (2006, p. 193) argue, “without nominating a paradigm as the first step, there is no basis for subsequent choices regarding methodology, methods, literature or research design”.

Despite the importance of the paradigm to the research process there is neither agreement on the number of different paradigms nor the terminology. This project is situated in the constructivist/interpretivist paradigm as set out by Lincoln, Lynham & Guba (2011, p. 98) in their identification of broad paradigms currently informing qualitative research in the social sciences.

The constructivist/interpretivist paradigm is a research framework characterised by ontological relativism leading to local and specific constructed and co-constructed socially and societally embedded realities. It assumes a subjective or transactional epistemology in which knowledge is subjective and seen as socially constructed from experience and interaction of the individual with others and the environment (Crotty 1998; Lincoln, Lynham & Guba 2011). The aim of enquiry in this paradigm is understanding and reconstruction of meaning, transacted between researcher(s) and the researched, because “Researchers do not ‘find’ knowledge, they construct it” (Merriam 2009, pp. 8-9). Thus, reality is dynamic and multiple. Because knowledge is constructed and transacted, a claim to objectivism cannot be made and the possibility of research without bias is not entertained. Constructivists

are more interested in deeply understanding specific cases within a particular context than in hypothesizing about generalizations. Indeed, they are suspicious of causal explanations and empirical generalizations applied to complex human interactions and cultural systems (Patton 2002, p. 268).

As the experiences, beliefs, thoughts, and opinions of the participants are the primary focus of this study is, the constructivist paradigm was the most appropriate methodological choice. It was further thought that constructivist concepts of multiple, situated realities were particularly relevant to this study, as the participants had a variety of backgrounds and migration trajectories. Essentially, the goal of this research was not to construct generalisations about return migration, but rather to uncover patterns and understand the variety of possible trajectories within the broader context of the return migration phenomenon. The epistemological privileging of context and co-construction was thus essential in recognising the varied nature of each research encounter and each participant’s narrative. Furthermore, in constructivist research, data collection is a process of discovery, and themes and theories can be emergent from the data itself, a useful concept in an exploratory investigation.

4.3 Semi-structured interviews as primary data collection instrument Data collection is a crucial step in the empirical research process and in-depth interviewing is a common data collection tool in qualitative research (Maxwell 2013; Merriam 2009; Minichiello, Aroni & Hays 2008). The purpose of the interview is to extract a particular type of information, find out what is “in and on someone else’s mind” (Patton 2002, p. 341). Interviews are an appropriate tool to use when it is not possible to observe behaviour, find out about feelings or how people interpret the world through other methods. They are also useful for the researcher to investigate past events (Merriam 2009, p. 88).

In general interviews are categorised by structure and fall into one of three forms: structured, semi-structured or unstructured (Merriam 2009; Minichiello, Aroni & Hays 2008; Punch 2013; Ritchie et al. 2013).

Structured interviews, also referred to as standardised or survey interviews, are used to gain information for surveys and opinion polls in a relatively short period of time (Merriam 2009; Minichiello, Aroni & Hays 2008). To achieve comparability, facilitate data analysis and avoid biases, a detailed interview guide is used and research subjects are asked the same questions in a predetermined order. However, structured interviews do not allow for specific information from participants nor

99 information that provides insight into participants’ thoughts, feelings and individual realities.

In general, interviewing in qualitative research is more open (Merriam 2009, pp. 90- 91) and employs the so-called semi-structured, also called the focused, approach (Minichiello, Aroni & Hays 2008, pp. 47, 51-52) in which an interview guide without fixed wording is developed around the topic(s) of interest. Advantages of this approach are that it allows flexibility and lets the interviewee’s view of reality emerge while being time efficient for both interviewer and interviewee. One drawback of this technique is that if the interviewer is too focused on the interview guide, this might lead to suppression of other topics by the participant. Another drawback relates to data analysis in that it might be difficult to compare or analyse data (Minichiello, Aroni & Hays 2008, p. 52).

The third format is the so-called loosely structured or unstructured interview which resembles a conversation between interviewer and interviewee. A major strength of this method is that it is highly individualistic and responsive to the situation. However, major drawbacks are that it is a time consuming format and the data analysis required tends to be complex (Minichiello, Aroni & Hays 2008, p. 52).

As the semi-structured interview is considered one of the techniques for collecting rich and in-depth data that can provide adequate material for research into a participant’s view of reality, the way they construct meanings and make sense of the social relationships they have to engage in on an everyday basis, it was chosen as the main data collection tool for this study, bearing in mind that the researcher creates their own story from the interview data.

It had originally been intended to conduct all interviews face to face. Time and financial constraints, though, saw some interviews conducted by telephone and via Skype. Most interviews were recorded; however, due to organisational considerations two representatives of organisations while agreeing to the interview did not give permission for the interview to be recorded and some individual participants requested that some of their comments neither be recorded nor find their way into any publication of the data for fear of being identifiable.

100

Although it was initially intended to conduct all Australian interviews face to face by scheduling clusters of interviews interstate, this proved not a feasible option due to difficulties in accessing participants. Therefore, telephone interviews were conducted with interstate participants.

Methodological textbooks often question the suitability of telephone interviewing in qualitative research because of their perceived lack of ability to build rapport and the unnaturalness of the situation (Irvine, Drew & Sainsbury 2013, p. 88). According to Minichiello, Aroni and Hayes though, telephone interviews

can be used as the mediating technology when engaging in in-depth interviews and have been used more frequently than previously, particularly when the study time is short and the research topics are already well defined (2008, p. 55).

Moreover, they argue that one of the key concerns, the concern about the nature of the rapport with faceless participants, has proved an advantage.

4.3.1 The interviews The interviews were conducted in two main phases: the first phase took place in Australia between February and June the second phase was undertaken in Germany in September 2013.

Overall fifty-eight interviews were conducted. Three of the interviews were excluded from the study. Two exclusions occurred because the participants, elderly gentlemen in their 80s, could not understand that they were required to sign a consent form; the third exclusion occurred because the participant did not meet all eligibility requirements. Of the remaining fifty-five interviews fifteen were conducted with representatives of organisations, with one participant representing two organisations; the remaining forty interviews were conducted with forty-one individual migrants as one interview had two participants. There was however an overlap in organisational and individual information offered. Some of the representatives of organisations complemented their organisational view with their personal observations and experiences as migrants, while on the other hand some of the participants approached as individuals were also members of organisations and at times proffered an organisational point of view. At the time of interview thirty of the forty-one

101 individuals resided in Australia; at the time of writing this number had decreased to twenty-seven as three participants had returned to Germany in line with what they had indicated in the interviews. Twelve of the thirty interview participants were what Bovenkerk (1974, p. 30) calls re-emigrants, that is they had returned to Germany and then emigrated at least a second time to Australia.

The in-depth interviews varied in length from approximately forty-five minutes to two hours but in general lasted approximately one hour. They were organised according to the interviewee’s preferences as regards location, time and date and preceded by either a telephone or email conversation about the project which addressed—in accordance with the project information and consent forms—any questions an interviewee might have had about the research project, the topic, practicalities, data protection and privacy issues but also any questions regarding the researcher and her history.

The preferred location for most interviewees was their home. The interview schedule as well as all other project information and the consent forms were constructed in two languages, English and German. As with any translated text it is necessary to ensure not only linguistic but also cultural adequacy/localisation. The strategy used in particular with project information and consent documentation was to draw heavily on contemporary German documentation of the same type and then have all documentation and the interview schedule scrutinised and validated by an accredited translator who is also a native speaker of German. The rationale behind offering a choice of languages was not only driven by the fact that some of the interviews were planned to be conducted in Germany but also to ensure interview participants felt comfortable and respected, and on a more pragmatic level, that speaking the language they felt most comfortable with would provide richer data. Moreover, observing the language used may allow some glimpse into matters such as acculturation, transnational social spaces and the questions of identity and belonging.

Only fourteen of the interviews were conducted in English; of those interviews five were conducted with native speakers of English; that is, three interviews with organisations in the field, and two with second generation migrants. Of the remaining nine participants, two had migrated to Australia as children so did not

102

speak German well; two others, while German was their native language, were acting as representatives of organisations; two asked what was more convenient for me, the researcher; and the remaining three indicated that despite the fact that they had migrated to Australia as young adults, English was their preferred language because that was the language they usually communicated in. All other interviews were conducted in German, even though some of the participants had been living in Australia for twenty-five years or longer and had English speaking partners.

All interviews apart from those where participants had asked not to be recorded were audio recorded and transcribed, or in the case of the interviews conducted in German transcribed and translated. Due to the amount of audio minutes, one third of the translations was undertaken by myself, the rest of the translations and all of the transcriptions of the English interviews were undertaken commercially. Three of the four translators involved in the project were native speakers of German who had migrated to English speaking countries; the fourth was an American with near native speaker capacity. To ensure appropriateness of translations, those undertaken by other translators were verified by me23 and my own translations were verified through back translation by the commercial translators.

4.3.2 The issue of translation Translation inevitably changes some of the meaning of any utterance as “phrases and concepts generated in one language rarely translate directly into another” (Marshall & Rossman 2011, p. 165); translation therefore can qualify as an act of interpretation (Esposito 2001, cited in Marshall & Rossman 2011, p. 165) which has an impact on the choice of data analysis strategies. This issue will be addressed in section 4.6 on data analysis.

Marshall and Rossman (2011, pp. 166-170) raise a number of issues in regards to translations, one of them the issue of direct quotes. The main question here is whether a translation can serve as a direct quote; and while there are no hard and fast rules, the suggestion is to include phrases and key words from the original from time to time which serves as a reminder that the original interview was conducted in another language.

23 I am a nationally accredited translator for English ↔ German.

103

This study includes translated material as direct quotes. This decision was made on pragmatic grounds and care was taken to ensure the quotes convey the underlying message of the utterance. As suggested by Marshall and Rossman (2011), phrases and key words from the original language utterance have been included from time to time.

4.3.3 Interview guides Despite the fact that the data collection method chosen was the semi-structured interview, developing an interview guide was considered important, not only as an aide-memoir (Minichiello, Aroni & Hays 2008, pp. 48, 89-90), but also to ensure the best and most efficient use of the interview participants time. As this was a multi-site study, the interview guide, as with all other documentation, was developed in English and in German to be used as per the interview participants’ preferences.

As recommended (Merriam 2009; Minichiello, Aroni & Hays 2008; Punch 2013; Ritchie et al. 2013), three pilot interviews were conducted. It has to be pointed out, though, that due to the uncertainty regarding the degree of difficulty of finding interview partners who met the selection criteria, the pilot interviews were conducted with British migrants, therefore the question of language did not arise and was not addressed in the pilot interviews. The pilot interviews led to some adaptation of questions, especially in the introductory phase of the interviews. Moreover, the pilot interviews foreshadowed the process of the interviews in that it became clear that most interview partners did not require many prompts; the interview partner’s stories covered the areas the interview guide focused on naturally with just a few prompts required to transition to further areas.

The interview guide for individuals reflected the semi-structured and open-ended nature of the interviews. The interview guide for individuals consisted of five major sections:

(1) Tell me about yourself. The purpose of this section was two-fold: it was supposed to provide the interview partner with a neutral lead-in to the topic which might or might not lead to their migration experience(s). It was also used as a way of eliciting demographic data such as age group, qualifications and employment pre- and post- migration, marital status at time of migration, and to provide context.

104

(2) The second section dealt specifically with the interviewee’s migration experience(s) focusing on motivation, purpose and expectation of migration, post- migration settling into Australian life and their assessment of their life in Australia.

(3) The third section addressed the question of return. This section had a number of variations depending on the actual situation of the migrant, i.e. whether they were actual returnees, settlers/long-term residents with no current intention to return or those in the process of returning.

(4) The fourth section explored the question of citizenship and identity.

(5) The last section dealt with language and language maintenance.

The interview also had a closing section which asked what recommendations the interview participant would make if asked about migration by an interested person and whether they thought technology had changed the migration experience.

The interview guide for organisations asked for a brief overview of the history, services and goals of the organisation, the development of the organisation and its service, changes in clientele and the macro situation and environment, and a closing section which differed between German and Australian organisations. For organisations in Australia the section concentrated on the question of the development of the German community in Australia. In Germany the question was broadly about thoughts about the development of German migration and how return fitted in the various scenarios.

The final interview prompt in both sets of interviews was always an invitation to raise any other issue the interview partner would like to address.

105

4.4 Data collection approach Another set of decisions to be made in social enquiry relates to sample design, even if the size of the population is small or if the phenomenon is just one single case (Ritchie et al. 2013, p. 77). Sampling is an important aspect of any empirical research project as it affects every aspect of the analytic process. While this is true for all types of research projects it becomes even more important in qualitative research were knowledge claims are made on the basis of interactions with relatively small numbers of people (Rapley 2013, p. 49).

At the most general level, a distinction between two basic types of sampling, probability (also called random sampling) and non-probability sampling, can be made (Merriam 2009; Ritchie et al. 2013). Probability sampling, typically applied in quantitative research, utilises large-scale samples and is generally held to be more rigorous. However, as statistical generalisation is not usually the goal of qualitative research (Marshall & Rossman 2011; Merriam 2009; Ritchie et al. 2013) and since qualitative studies that collect data via in-depth interviews commonly allow for rather small numbers of participants, random sampling in this case makes little sense.

The type of sampling usually employed in qualitative enquiry is non-probability sampling (Merriam 2009; Ritchie et al. 2013). The units in a non-probability sample are selected to reflect particular features of the sampled population. Three main types of non-probability sampling can be identified: quota sampling, purposive sampling and convenience sampling (Battaglia 2008, p.524).

The type of sampling employed in this project was purposeful or purposive sampling, also called expert and sometimes judgemental sampling (Battaglia 2008, p. 524). It is an approach used when the researcher wants to gain insight into and understanding of a phenomenon by determining the unit of analysis which provides the most information. Other terms used are criterion-based selection (LeCompte & Preissle 1993, cited in Merriam 2009, p. 77) because to undertake the sampling a list with the desired/necessary attributes, the criteria, is established and adhered to by the researcher when recruiting the participants. According to Battaglia (2008, pp. 524- 525) “Purposive sampling is generally considered most appropriate for the selection

106

of small samples often from a limited geographic area or from a restricted population definition, where inference to the population is not the highest priority.”

The rationale behind the choice of recruitment techniques should wherever possible be driven by the particular research objectives and the knowledge of various population groups and any important differences between them (Merriam 2009; Rapley 2013).

On the other hand, it is important to realise that practical aspect must also be taken into account in research projects, in particular those associated with doctoral research. This means that recruitment decisions should also be influenced by feasibility of access, data collection, relationships with study participants, validity concerns and ethics (Maxwell 2013, p. 99) which may mean that the actual recruitment situation may deviate from the ideal situation (Rapley 2004, p. 17).

The phenomenon investigated in this research is one applicable to a very restricted population, as defined by the eligibility criteria for participation below:

 German citizen/former German citizen or of German ancestry, and  lived in Australia for at least one year (12 months) any time since 1952, and  considered returning, or be in the process of returning or having returned to Germany for at least one year (12 months), or  representative of an organisation that facilitates or is involved in bi-lateral German Australian relationships.

The reasons to extend the sample to include representatives of organisations was two-fold: migrant community organisations are not only important for the immigrants themselves, they also offer an important source for the investigation of migrants’ integration into the host society. Migrant organisations are established to permit migrants “to create, express and maintain a collective identity” (Schrover & Vemeulen 2005, p. 823) based on their own or the host society’s through an ascribed collective ethnic identity, a differentiation of their ethnic identity from that of the host society and/or other ethnic groups and from the host society perspective. By forming an organisation, immigrants demarcate their ethnic or national identity from

107 others. The second reason was a far more pragmatic one: it was hoped that the organisations would be able to provide a longitudinal overview and thus contribute to the recognition of patterns.

4.4.1 Gaining access As indicated by the eligibility criteria, the sample population for this study was a highly specific group not easily identifiable in the general population. Therefore, a hybrid strategy to identify interview partners was employed: organisations were approached directly; to reach individuals the project was advertised in relevant media. Relevant media included newsletters of German organisations operating in the field of social services and education, a website developed by the researcher and publicised via Twitter, and an invitation distributed via list server. Of these only the newsletters proved successful.

In general, there was only one follow up to targeted invitations with no response; if after two weeks no response had been received to a targeted invitation, a second invitation was issued. If that invitation also received no response, the assumption was made that the organisation or individual was not interested.

Organisations approached included all German Clubs whose websites included email contact details; however only a small minority of these responded. German companies with a presence in Australia were also contacted but again, most of these did not respond. Other organisations included religious, social, cultural and educational organisations. The last three types of organisations proved particularly helpful as their willingness to participate was high. Most of these organisations also employed staff who fit the eligibility criteria, so some staff of these organisations also participated in the individual interviews.

The response rate of informal German interest groups contacted was very low. One group which responded declined publicising the invitation but asked for the researcher to come to a meeting and make personal contacts. This personal appearance led to the recruitment of three participants. Some snowballing of the sample also occurred as interview participants recruited further participants. Despite some criticism of this method, it is considered appropriate for difficult to locate populations which holds true for locating German return migrants. Moreover,

108

Liamputtong (2010, p. 69) argues that it is an appropriate and useful strategy in cross-cultural research in particular when a researcher works through cultural brokers or community leaders: (a) because in this way the original pool of participants can be broadened and (b) because involvement of a cultural broker or community leader serves as a positive recommendation for the researcher.24 One of the drawbacks of using snowball sampling is that it might lead to a relatively homogenous sample because research participants might refer others much like themselves (Maxwell 2013, pp. 99-100).

Despite these problems and though initially slow, recruiting interview participants in Australia proved relatively easy compared to the German recruitment attempts. By the conclusion of the Australian interview phase, the originally intended twenty interviews had been exceeded by an additional twenty.

Recruiting interview partners in Germany proved very difficult. Most organisations contacted directly via email did not respond; others were reluctant to engage for a variety of reasons. Overall five organisations agreed to an interview. Three of these were located in the German migration assistance sector; one was a cultural and one a commercial organisation. Locating and recruiting individual return migrants proved even more difficult. Even the initial attempt at snowball sampling was not as successful as in Australia. It only led to the identification of six interview participants. As outlined above, a website publicised via Twitter with the help of an Australian curator of a cultural Twitter account with a large number of followers did not produce any result. Advertising in national German media did not produce any results. Publicising the project in newsletters of German-Australian interest groups created some interest, however, a number of respondents dropped out in the process of scheduling interviews by email or lost interest when it became clear to them that no financial reciprocity for time invested in the interview could be expected. Only one participant was recruited in this way.

The second recruitment attempt for the German phase was launched through the internet website Australien-Info.de, an internet site for Germans interested in

24 While this research project was not conceptualised as a cross-cultural project, organisations in the German-Australian intercultural field did publicise the project and could thus be seen as intercultural brokers.

109

Australia and migration to Australia. At the time of recruitment, this website published a list of German-Australian interest groups across Germany including the email addresses of the organisers of the groups. These organisers were contacted by email outlining the research project with a request to distribute the message to group members. This attempt led to the recruitment of a further five interview participants.

4.4.2 Site selection The interviews were conducted at two sites, Australia and Germany. Initially it was thought that the interviews in Australia would provide the “baseline” of those who had decided not to return. However, as it became clear very early in the interview process that there were a considerable number of re-emigrants in the Australian context, the Australian interviews captured (a) the experiences of return migrants who remigrated to Australia after a return to Germany; (b) ‘fresh’ return motivations as recollection changes over time; (c) the motivation and experiences of stayers.

In Germany, the interviews captured the experiences of return migrants but also their considerations regarding a return to Australia and, because two of the interview participants in Germany were Australians of German ancestry, different points of view as regards return migration to each country.

4.5 The research relationship This section discusses ethical considerations, and the position of the researcher in the research process with a particular focus on the issue of shared ethnicity between researcher and the researched in migration research.

4.5.1 Ethical considerations In Australia, research that involves human subjects is governed by the Australian Government National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). These guidelines require the researcher to develop strategies for areas such as data and data retention including participant privacy not only through de-identifying data but also by ensuring that a participant cannot be identified by the information they provide, unless they have agreed to be identified; there is the area of informed consent and the provision of adequate information for potential participants to informed consent, which includes ensuring that participants are aware of the voluntary nature of their

110

participation, their right to termination at any time, their right to ask questions at any time and their right to not provide information on any given topic or to ask for particular pieces of information not to be tape recorded and/or used in the analysis of the data. In the case of qualitative research in particular, research topics of a nature which could lead to emotional distress for a participant could be explored and as it is not always easy to ascertain which topics may lead to distress with which individual, processes for dealing with distress should be in place.

On a conceptual level these concerns were addressed in the ‘Application for Ethics Clearance’ and its appendices (see Appendix 2), submitted to the Swinburne University Human Research Ethics Committee (SUHREC) for approval in November 2012 with ethics clearance from SUHREC received in December 2012, granting approval for data collection to be conducted between January 2013 and January 2015.

On a practical level, participant privacy was ensured through data de-identification, and storage of identifier keys in different locations to the actual data; secure storage was achieved by password protection of electronic files, and locked storage of physical files. Pre-interview telephone or email conversations provided the opportunity for the researcher to provide extensive information about the project, its purpose and its goals. It also offered the potential participants an opportunity to ask questions about the researcher and her history.

A number of participants availed themselves of the opportunity to have certain responses not recorded: the overriding reason here was that those responses might make them reidentifiable. On the other end of the spectrum were the German migrant counselling services whose representatives welcomed exposure in particular in connection with the focus of the research on return movements.

Care was taken to formulate interview questions in the interview guide in such a way as not to be too emotionally intrusive, and in instances when participants indicated that either the topic was one they did not want to pursue or would delve too far into dysfunctional or distressing relationships, the researcher made it clear that there was no expectation to speak about a distressing subject; that it was the participant’s decision whether to continue or stop with a particular line of

111 information/story/content. It can be reported that no interview proved very distressing to participants so that processes for harm mitigation did not need to be activated. Some participants, however, were affected by their own stories, while others saw the interview as an experience that had focused their ideas.

Care was also taken to adhere to the fundamental principle of in-depth interviewing; that is, “to provide a framework within which informants/participants can express their understandings in their own terms” (Minichiello, Aroni & Hays 2008, p. 85). This was achieved by structuring the role of interviewer as that of a facilitator aiming to maintain control of the topic and flow of the interview and enhance the quality of responses, but also to be a sympathetic, patient and non-judgmental listener while balancing that with the need of the interview partner to be acknowledged.

4.5.2 Positioning25 One of the characteristics of qualitative research is that the researcher is also the data collector (Maxwell 2013; Richards & Morse 2013), the “primary instrument of data collection and analysis” (Merriam 2009, p. 15); which leads to the question of how one’s own experiences inform the academic enquiry undertaken (Voloder 2014, pp. 2-3). Positioning, also referred to as positionality, in qualitative research refers to the fact that a researcher’s characteristics influence substantive and practical aspects of the research process—from questions, data collection, analysis, and writing, to reception of findings (Carling, Erdal & Ezzati 2014, p. 37).

In qualitative research the issue of being an insider, that is, sharing certain characteristics with the population investigated, or being an outsider, that is, not sharing characteristics, is commonly encountered (Van Mol et al. 2014, pp. 69-70).

Insider status is usually based on shared citizenship, ethnicity, language, religion, gender, socio-economic class and/or cultural identity (Van Mol et al. 2014, p. 71). Advantages associated with insider status are linguistic and cultural skills that facilitate access and interaction (Carling, Erdal & Ezzati 2014; Van Mol et al. 2014),

25 Please note that due to the nature of the issue discussed the focus will be on the researcher as a person, so the point of view will be that of a first person narrative and the pronoun used will be “I” and associated forms.

112

disadvantages cited are usually not questioning and exploring concepts and notions due to familiarity and unquestioning acceptance (Van Mol et al. 2014, p. 71).

There are also advantages and disadvantages ascribed to outsider status: the main advantage is objectivity as the outsider takes a distanced observer position which enables them to see things that are taken for granted by insiders and elicit more comprehensive explanation, which by the same token can also be construed as a disadvantage as there is a question whether the outsider is able to really understand the group(s) they are investigating (Carling, Erdal & Ezzatti 2014; Van Mol et al. 2014).

However, this view disregards the fact that the research encounter is not static; it is a negotiation between the researcher and the researched in which the researcher adopts a particular identity. This may involve adjustment of voice, dress, language and other attributes which influence how the researcher is received (Cousin 2010, p. 17).

The same holds true for the conferral of the insider/outsider status which is neither static nor conferred on the basis of a shared ethnicity alone. Both parties in the research encounter “assign meaning to the other by relating specific markers or characteristics to a mental inventory of social categories” (Carling, Erdal & Ezzati 2014, p. 41).

The positioning of the researcher depends on their own characteristics and the nature of the relevant divide—it can be a continuum depending on the interview partner. There are also internal dividing lines within migrant groups and one can be simultaneously insider and outsider depending on how much one shares. It should not be forgotten that insider or outsider status is granted by the research participant, thus the insider or outsider status is constructed and co-constructed by the research participant in each research encounter (Colic-Peisker 2004; Maydell 2010; Van Mol et al. 2014).

In the case of this study, the conferral of insider/outsider status on me as the researcher was definitely located on a continuum for a number of reasons: most obviously my surname acted as a clear marker, indicating at least German heritage, thus establishing some commonality with all of my interview participants, even

113 those who were not German themselves, because all operated within a German context.

While organisational representatives were not as interested in my personal background virtually all individual interview participants enquired about my migration background. Their personal interest raised an ethical issue for me: how much of my personal history could be shared with any one participant without being seen to be manipulative given that I shared many characteristics with my interview participants? My strategy in general was not to disclose too much about myself so as to keep the focus on the interview and the participant, but to answer all questions as truthfully and as completely as possible.

The fact that I was conducting the interviews as part of my doctoral studies served as a distancing measure in the case of those migrants who did not have a university education but as a strong proximity measure in those who were either undertaking or had undertaken doctoral studies themselves.

One particularly difficult issue for me was that of reciprocity in the case of interview participants who were clearly not happy with their particular situation. I did not feel that I had anything to offer apart from having a conversation after the conclusion of the interview providing general information on migration and migrant integration and return based on the literature review, and advising explicitly regarding the counselling services as outlined in the project information.

All interview partners were offered web access to the study results once it had been completed. While most participants were interested in access to the study, a small minority indicated no interest.

However, positioning does not only influence the relationship between the researcher and the researched, it affects all aspects of the research process from beginning to end. Marshall and Rossman make the argument that “a strong autobiographical element often drives the research interest” (2011, p. 28) in particular in applied disciplines such as management, education and others in the qualitative paradigm.

114

Considering one’s own position and making it transparent reveals to the audience how the researcher’s worldview and experiences impact on the research and strategies of enquiry, and how personal history can shape observations, conclusions drawn and the reporting of the research. This creates an understanding for the audience of what factors have influenced the research and also helps situate findings in their specific cultural and historical context. Cousin (2010, p. 9) makes the point that positioning is about addressing subjectivity, an issue that is not new as with the growth of interpretivist frameworks came the acknowledgement that all researchers into human activities brought their own subjectivity to the research.

Subjectivity is sometimes characterised as bias, however, there is also an argument that the researcher’s unique perspective can be crucial in generating understanding: “The self is not some kind of virus which contaminates the research. On the contrary, the self is the research tool, and thus intimately connected to the methods we deploy” (Cousin 2010, p. 10).

Hammersley and Atkinson (2007) in their discussion of principles in ethnographic research argue that all social research relies on the researcher’s capacity of participant observation, and that reflexivity, that is “the ability to act in the social world and at the same time be able to reflect upon ourselves and our actions as objects in that world” (Hammersley & Atkinson 2007, p. 18), is “an aspect of all social research” (p. 19).

Much of the above applied directly to my project. My approach to this project was informed by my experiences and assumptions but also values as a German migrant in Australia. And while due to the broad range of participants the shared experiences and values varied in scope, it must be acknowledged that in general my insider position was beneficial in the data collection phase as it generated trust. The ensuing belief of shared experiences and values led to very open interviews and sharing of views.

On the other hand, I did not set out to validate my views and ideas but to investigate different experiences and to establish a narrative from the various and often divergent experiences of my interview partners.

115

4.6 Data analysis using Thematic Analysis The focus of qualitative research in social sciences is in the study of human behaviour and social life in its natural settings and the complexity of this is mirrored in the many approaches to the analysis of qualitative data and the different perspectives that can be taken. While there is no single methodological framework, there are commonalities between different approaches and comparison is central to all systematic enquiries as comparison leads to abstraction in data (Merriam 2009; Punch 2013).

Data analysis can be seen to consist of three separate phases according to Roulston: “(1) data reduction or ‘meaning condensation’ (Kvale 2007); (2) data reorganization; and (3) interpretation and representation” (2014, p. 304).

Thematic analysis is a common type of qualitative data analysis and is the method employed for this study. The choice of this method was influenced by the nature of the data: by the fact that the main corpus consists of translations. As pointed out before, no translation can be considered to reflect meaning in full as it is always already an interpretation of the original utterance. Therefore analysis of translated data should always aim at broader meanings and concepts, thus excluding methods such as Grounded Theory or Content Analysis which require drilling down to the core meaning.

4.6.1 Thematic Analysis (TA) According to Braun & Clark (2006, pp. 79-86) TA is a method for identifying and analysing patterns of meaning in a data set, illustrating which themes are important in the description of the phenomenon under investigation. The end result should provide the salient themes present in the data. One of its distinctive features is its theoretical flexibility; that is, it is not associated with any particular theoretical approach, thus can be used with a wide variety of data and approaches in qualitative research.26

26 Braun and Clark (2013, p. 120), though, make the point that there are a number of differing approaches to TA which align more with certain types of methods such as Boyatzis (1998), Guest et al. (2012) and Joffee (2011).

116

TA is an empirically driven approach for detecting the most salient patterns of content. It examines observable content as a first step and looks at manifest themes as a way of understanding more latent, tacit content. It uses existing theoretical constructs but also offers the opportunity to work with emerging themes in an inductive process through making them into category for analysis (Joffee 2011, pp. 209-210).

It is a six-phase process which moves from familiarisation with data to coding, searching for themes and reviewing themes to defining and naming themes and the final phase, producing the report. While the phases are sequential, analysis is a recursive process, with the researcher moving backwards and forwards between the data.

Pattern identification according to Braun and Clarke (2006, p. 83) can take place in two ways: “in an inductive or ‘bottom up’ way … or in a theoretical or deductive or ‘top down’ way”. As the underlying research paradigm of this study is a constructivist paradigm, inductive analysis was chosen “a process of coding the data without trying to fit it into a pre-existing coding frame, or the researcher’s analytic preconceptions (Braun & Clarke, 2006, p. 83, emphasis in the original).

However, at the same time as Braun and Clarke (2006) note, “researchers cannot free themselves of their theoretical and epistemological commitment, and data are not coded in an epistemological vacuum” (p. 84). Therefore, it is necessary to continuously verify the coding, looking for additional information, while constantly going back and forth between the entire data set during all analytical stages (Braun & Clarke 2006, p. 86).

The purpose of this process is to present the most common themes by identifying the relationships between codes, and later on between the themes, sub-themes and overarching themes.

117

4.6.2 Undertaking data analysis with Thematic Analysis According to Braun and Clarke there are two broad styles of TA:

“a more descriptive and often essentialist form of analysis, which aims to closely ‘tell the story of the data’ ... and a more conceptual and interpretive, and often more constructionist, form of analysis, typically focusing on more latent meanings, that frequently provides a more detailed analysis of particular extracts (Braun & Clarke 2013, p. 252, all text formatting in the original).

The approach utilised in the data analysis of this project was the first described, i.e. the more descriptive style, telling the story of the data. This approach was considered to fit best with the concept of the constructivist approach, of concentrating on the participants’ interpretation(s) of their lived experiences.

The initial process was commenced by transcribing audio files, checking transcripts and translations for accuracy, which at the same time led to familiarisation with the dataset as outlined by Braun and Clarke (2013, p. 206), i.e. by noting everything that seemed potentially meaningful in the context of the research questions. The next step led to initial identification of codes. The initial coding categories were revised, changed, and combined or deleted as some categories overlapped one another and could be collapsed. Each code was given a descriptive name. Words, phrases, or paragraphs were coded. After conclusion of this phase, the process of pattern identification was commenced by looking for clusters of codes. Some obvious clusterings of codes were detected:  differences between early and contemporary migrant cohorts  the initial migration experience and its impact on the participants’ attitudes towards staying in Australia or returning to Germany  conceptualisations of return and development of mobilities  citizenship as an identificational tool.

These clusters were then used as the basis for identifying overarching themes and subthemes.

118

The coding process, and the subsequent searching for patterns to structure into themes, and the relationships between these was carried out with the help of the NVivo 10 program, and was undertaken across the whole dataset. While data provides both evidence and clues from which knowledge and understanding are drawn, it is the researcher who identifies common themes that link issues together, and ground the analysis in the participants’ understandings (Minichiello, Aroni & Hays 2008, pp. 263-64).

As outlined in the previous section, the coding and pattern searching process is iterative and recursive. As thematic structures and overarching constructs began to take shape during analysis, it was necessary to return to the transcripts/translations and the associated audio files time and again. Themes were considered and reconsidered, further condensed and organised. The revision stage also served the purpose of ensuring that final themes adequately accounted for the data across the whole data set.

The writing of memoranda was used throughout the process to record and keep track of ideas about how categories interacted and fitted together into a larger theoretical whole.

4.7 Rigour in qualitative research Validity in qualitative research is a controversial concept because it is thought to be closely related to quantitative/ positivist thinking and thus inappropriate for constructivist/ interpretivist approaches (Maxwell 2013, p. 122) whose basis is that there is no “real world” outside the constructions by individuals or societies, which makes it impossible to develop any objective standard for evaluating those constructions.

On the other hand it has been argued that it is necessary to show that qualitative research meets quality criteria and that this can be achieved by ensuring rigour throughout the various phases of a qualitative study: ensuring rigour in the design phase through congruence between paradigm, research question and methodological cohesiveness; while conducting the project by using appropriate sampling

119 techniques, by being responsive to matters that are not working, and in the final phase by triangulation and peer review (Merriam 2009; Richards & Morse 2013).

According to Maxwell (2013, p. 128) triangulation can be defined as collecting information from a diverse range of individuals and settings, using different methods. However, triangulation does not automatically increase validity as the sources of the triangulation may also present bias even if they are different sources. So triangulation should be carried out with regards to validity threats; that is, looking at biases and potentials for error and finding a way to deal with those: “...validity threats are made implausible by evidence, not methods” (Maxwell 2013, p. 128).

In this study the primary tool of data collection was the semi-structured interview; however, this data source was supplemented by statistical data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the Australian Department of Immigration and Border Control, the German Statistische Bundesamt (Destatis) (Federal Statistical Office of Germany) and the Office for Migration and Refugees, archival German language media in Australia and observations recorded from interviews. In this way, triangulation of a variety of sources can be said to have contributed to ensuring rigour.

Another way to ensure rigour is what is called respondent validation or member checks (Maxwell 2013, p. 126): that is, soliciting systematic feedback on data and conclusions from the interview partners. While an important strategy to avoid misinterpretation and a way of identifying researcher bias, it is not foolproof: participants’ feedback may not be any more valid than their interview responses and should only be taken as evidence regarding validity. Moreover, it was not feasible for this study to take preliminary analyses back to the participants due to time constraints and access to interview partners. However, the interview questions were designed in such a way that they asked similar questions in different ways or pose different questions to interviewees about the same topic during all interviews to enable me to cross-check information provided by participants to obtain as accurate an understanding of participants’ interpretations as possible.

120

Peer review is another way to ensure the trustworthiness of the study (Maxwell 2013; Merriam 2009). The strategy was exercised throughout the whole project, through supervision meetings, informal conversations with former and current colleagues, fellow students and friends, and formal colloquia or conferences to find out whether peers arrived at a similar interpretation when shown the data and the analysis.

Another quality criterion which is difficult to apply in the context of qualitative research is that of reliability. Reliability refers to the possibility of replicating the results of a study. As qualitative research in social sciences is concerned with human life and behaviour, this is a problematic concept since human life and behaviour are never static, and laws of human behaviour can never be isolated. Replication of a qualitative study will likely not produce the same results as there are many interpretations which can be applied to the same data. The more important question is whether the results are consistent with the data collected. If the findings of a study are consistent with the data collected, then it can be considered dependable (Merriam 2009, pp. 221-222).

This can be achieved through an audit trail, essentially a detailed account of how the study was conducted and how the data were analysed. In the case of this study it was attempted through the detailed description in this chapter.

A third quality criterion is external validly: that is how generalisable are the findings of a study? Generalisability, if conceptualised in the same way as for quantitative research, is difficult to achieve in qualitative research, in particular in a small study with time and resource constraints. However, it has been suggested that this may be a task for the audience. If the reader of the research can generalise from the research to their context, then the concept has meaning. To enable an audience to attempt generalisation this study used the strategy of producing a detailed description of settings, participants, findings and adequate evidence in the form of quotes.

121

4.7.1 Limitations There are number of limitations associated with the methodology and methods used in this study. One of the key limitations is the size of the sample. Forty-one individuals and fifteen representatives of organisations cannot capture the entirety of long-term return migration trajectories. Therefore, the results of the study are indicative only of certain trends.

A second limitation also associated with sampling is the gender imbalance. And while attempts were made to address this imbalance, ultimately the female respondents outnumbered male respondents considerably. Of the forty-one individual interview participants only a third was male (N=41, 30 F, 11 M); this imbalance is even more pronounced for the organisational participants—only a quarter were male (N=15, 11 F, 4 M). There were no male representatives in the German sample, and only four male representatives in the Australian sample. As gender differences have been recorded in migratory behaviour and determinants of migratory movements, this gender imbalance may have an impact on the generalisability of the findings.

A third possible limitation of this study is related to access. As all individual interview participants were accessed via German-Australian interest groups and media, this might have been a group with a particular interest and views; if access to a broader and more varied sample had been possible, the information uncovered might have provided a richer view.

122

4.8 The sample As outlined in this chapter, the sample included 15 organisational representatives across Australia and Germany. Table 4.1 below provides an overview of fields the organisations were engaged in.

Table 4.1: Organisations

Participant Field Country P2 Education Aus P9 Club Aus P12 Welfare Aus P 18 Culture Aus P21 Religious Aus P24 Education Aus P25 Welfare Aus P28 Education Aus P29 Club/Education Aus P31 Club Aus P38 Business GER P43 Welfare GER P47 Culture GER P48 Welfare GER P52 Government GER Source: Author

The sample of individual interview participants consisted of forty-one individuals as one interview was conducted with a couple where each partner had a relevant migration history. The interview participants ranged in age between their mid/late twenties (four), and their late eighties (two). Most of the interview participants were aged between forty and fifty (eleven) and fifty to sixty (thirteen), four were aged between thirty and forty and three between sixty and seventy. Their first arrivals span the years from 1954 to 2013 and their first departures span the years from 1961 to 2014.

Most of the interview participants were what is called middling transnationals, that is they occupied a mid-level socio-economic position; most of the more recent migrants had university qualifications, and many worked in mid-level professional occupations such as education, policing, health and welfare skilled trades; a number were self-employed. Only two participants, both returned to Germany, had lived the

123 life of the spouse of an organisational expatriate; in Germany both occupied a mid- level socio-economic position with employment in mid-level managerial jobs.

Thirty of the migrants were located in Australia at the time of interview. Three of these were in the process of organising their and their family’s return to Germany at the time of the interview. They have since returned to Germany. Eleven of the interview participants were located in Germany at the time of interview and all of those remain there.

Ten of the twenty-six migrants remaining in Australia at the time of writing had at least returned long-term to Germany once and then re-emigrated to Australia. Of the now fourteen migrants in Germany, two had returned to Germany from Australia long-term more than once.

Table 4.2 (page 125) provides more detailed information about all individual interview participants.

124

Table 4.2: Individual interview participants by country of residence at interview

Participant Country of birth Country of residence Age Group Gender Return interview intention P 1 Germany Australia 50-60 F Maybe P 3 Germany Australia 20-30 F Maybe P 4 Germany Australia 20-30 F Maybe P 5 Germany Australia 50-60 M No P 6 Germany Australia 50-60 F Returned Ps7.1 Australia/German Australia 50-60 F Temporary heritage Ps7.2 Germany Australia 50-60 M Temporary P 8 Germany Australia 50-60 F Returned P 10 Germany Australia 50-60 F No P 13 Germany Australia 50-60 M Maybe P 14 Germany Australia 60-70 F No P 15 Poland/German Australia 70-80 M No citizenship P 16 Germany Australia 40-50 F No P 17 Germany Australia 50-60 F No P 19 Germany Australia 70-80 F No P 20 Germany Australia 40-50 F Maybe P 22 Germany Australia 50-60 M Maybe P 23 Germany Australia 40-50 F No P 26 Germany Australia 70-80 F No P 30 Germany Australia 40-50 F Maybe P 33 Germany Australia 40-50 F Maybe P 34 Germany Australia 60-70 F Yes P 35 Germany Australia 60-70 F Maybe P 36 Germany Australia 60-70 F No P 37 Germany Australia 40-50 F Returned P 40 Germany Australia 20-30 F Maybe P 55 Germany Australia 20-30 M Likely P 56 Germany Australia 30-40 M Likely P 57 Germany Australia 40-50 M Maybe P 58 Germany Australia 30-40 F Definite P 32 Germany Germany 50-60 F Yes/not eligible P 41 Austria/German Germany 80-90 M No citizenship P 42 Germany Germany 80-90 M No P 44 Germany Germany 40-50 F Yes/not eligible P 45 Germany Germany 50-60 F Temporary P 46 Germany Germany 40-50 F Yes/not eligible P 49 Australia/German Germany 50-60 F Maybe heritage P 50 Australia/German Germany 40-50 M Maybe heritage P 51 Germany Germany 40-50 F Maybe P 53 Germany Germany 30-40 F No P 54 Germany Germany 30-40 F Maybe Source: Author

125

4.9 Summary This chapter has attempted to describe in detail process and logic for choices made, for having chosen a constructivist/interpretivist design; a qualitative approach, purposive sampling, and TA as the method to analyse data from interviews. It has also outlined the sampling procedures, the sample and the limitations arising from the sample.

It has attempted to outline all procedures and processes in an open and transparent manner to ensure meeting the quality criteria in qualitative research.

126

5 Citizenship

5.1 Introduction This chapter commences the findings section of this thesis. This section will explore citizenship as one consideration in relation to long-term return migration trajectories between Australia and Germany. It looks at options and processes of making decisions about citizenship and naturalisation which, even in an era of globalisation, involves a careful consideration of risks, costs, and benefits for (transnational) actors. It is these processes that shall be explored here. The first step in this chapter is a review of the dimensions of and theoretical approaches to citizenship, followed by an outline of the developments of German and Australian citizenship laws respectively as factors influencing migrant decision making processes. As a next step, the citizenship and visa statuses of the participants in this study with regard to their visa status/citizenship eligibility and intentions will be set out. A distinction will be made between those who arrived prior to the year 2000, the year acquisition of dual citizenship become a possibility for German migrants, and those who arrived after that date. The final step will be an analysis of the interview data to establish the motivations for participants’ various decisions about citizenship: subjective desires, desires for mobility and/or security, and to a lesser degree desires for political participation.

Citizenship is a highly pertinent consideration in the context of migration and return migration. Usually defined as “a form of membership in a political and geographic community” (Bloemraad, Korteweg & Yurdakul 2008, p. 154), citizenship, by its nature, is located in the space between inclusion and exclusion. Host countries do not generally extend full membership rights to migrants. From the host country perspective this is considered a temporary exclusion until the migrant naturalises (Ngai 2011, p. 135). Despite some nation-states’ conferral of extensive rights to long-term residents, a migrant is usually excluded from full political participation in the host country and nor do they have the right to unconditional residence and admission; and while migrants usually retain the right to return to their country of

127 origin, there may be loss of some other rights in their country of origin27. From a migrant’s perspective, though, rights are cumulative, so despite not being granted the same rights as citizens of the host country and possibly losing some membership rights of the country of origin, migrants may not experience these losses or restrictions as a reduction in rights (Bauböck 2012, pp. 8-10).

Citizenship is significant in the context of long-term return migration on a number of levels:

Research in the United States has shown that naturalisation can be an indicator for a desire to settle in the host country (Massey & Redstone Akresh 2006, p. 969). Reversibility of the migration decision, i.e. ease of return migration, either due to geographical proximity, or because access to the host country was conceived as more of a convenience than a commitment28, decreases the intention to naturalise (Portes & Rumbaut 2014, pp. 190-191 ).

Second, despite decades of globalisation and transnationalisation, regulatory frameworks and migration governance impact on migrants’ mobility by permitting or restricting admission and the conditions of admission to the territory of a nation state. Despite the argument that the rights long-term resident in some countries gain amount to a quasi-citizenship and thus diminish the value of naturalisation and the power of the nation state (Soysal 1994; Spiro 2007), nation states continue to exercise considerable power through formal rules and the institutions that influence access to participation and belonging through citizenship29.

Nation-states may be losing sovereignty with regard to their ability to regulate socio- economic realities or social networks, as some scholars postulate (Urry 2007), but when it comes to membership and identification, as well as access to territory and related rights, nation-states and ethnic categories play a major role (Dahinden 2012, p. 123).

27 For German migrants this may include a loss of voting rights under certain conditions, although in general expatriate Germans are eligible to vote if certain administrative conditions are fulfilled. 28 Portes and Rumbaut cite low naturalisation rates for Mexicans (proximity), and Canadians, British and Germans because a green card is a convenience, not a necessity (Portes & Rumbaut 2014, pp. 190-191). 29 However, since the end of WW2 supranational rights such as human rights regimes have gained purchase (Bosniak 2006, p. 25).

128

Citizenship and/or visa status have the capacity to shape return migration intentions and executions through regulation and restriction of mobility. Therefore, citizenship can have a decisive impact on mobility and on the realisation of long-term return migration intentions—unconditional access to host country and country of origin has been shown to impact significantly on mobility regimes of migrants (Constant & Massey 2002, p. 645).

On an individual level, citizenship decisions and decision making processes may provide some insight into the development of ethno-cultural attachments to host country and/or country of origin, and the interaction of these attachments with instrumental factors. This insight could prove useful in addressing concerns of social cohesion but also in assessing aspects of transnational and global orientations.

5.2 Dimensions of citizenship Theoretical approaches to citizenship often describe the relationship between an individual and the nation state as: civic (or instrumental); legal-rational; or emotional (or identificational), an ethno-cultural bond to a nation (Fozdar & Spittles 2010, p. 127).

In migration discourses, the legal status of migrants, i.e. access to a nation state, is often privileged; however, as indicated the concept encompasses a broader range of dimensions: legal status, rights, political and other participation in society, and a sense of belonging and identification (Bloemraad, Korteweg & Yurdakul 2008; Bosniak 2006).

Legal status refers to who is entitled to formal legal membership in a particular organised political community, commonly the nation state. In general, citizenship can be based on place of birth (ius soli) or parental origins (ius sanguinis) or both. The majority of migrants, unable to access citizenship of the host country through birth, must gain access through naturalisation (Bloemraad, Korteweg & Yurdakul 2008; Bosniak 2006).

Formal membership in a particular political community is considered to include privileges and duties. In that way citizenship is two-fold: it is a membership status but also “a bundle of rights and duties” (Vink & Bauböck 2013, p. 2). Legal status

129 and rights and duties are considered central to the political interpretation of the concept of citizenship, whereas participation and identity/belonging are considered to constitute a sociological interpretation (van Bochove 2012, pp. 98-99); in that way they bear some resemblance to the civic/instrumental and the emotional/idenficational relation between the individual and the nation state outlined above.

Belonging, identification and solidarity with other members of one’s group, constitute the emotional aspects of membership; national identity and patriotism are often described as being integral to the idea of citizenship. The fact that the nationalism–citizenship link is still important today is an indication that the nation state is not solely a legal and political institution; that it also holds cultural and social meanings (Bloemraad, Korteweg & Yurdakul 2008, p. 156). In fact, it has been argued that globalisation has led to a resurgence of the patriotic dimension of citizenship (Fozdar, Spittles & Hartley 2014, p. 318, p. 332).

While it is helpful to engage in a disaggregation of the elements of citizenship on a theoretical level, in reality the distinction between these dimensions is blurred. Legal status, for instance, does not only impact on migrants’ choices as regards mobility, it also impacts on self-perception and their relationship to other ethno-cultural groups. If possible, migrants often acquire dual/multiple memberships for instrumental but also for identificational purposes. Thus, that which is often viewed as legal status can serve an instrumental function by maintaining the migrant’s ability of physical mobility between country of origin and host country but it also offers an identificational dimension by serving as an expression of a migrant’s ethno-cultural belonging(s).

Legal status is not an unambiguous concept, either. As indicated, some countries, Australia among them, grant membership rights to long-term non-citizen residents very similar to those of citizens, thus obviating the need to acquire the Australian citizenship. In addition, Australia’s citizenship laws follow those of the migrant’s country of origin; if acquisition of citizenship is desired, depending on the country of origin, citizenship decisions are no longer either/or decisions for an increasing number of migrants, Germans among them.

130

While proponents of this development see dual/multiple citizenships as a representation of the dual allegiances, ties and identities increasingly common in mobile individuals, critics, who view citizenship as a unique commitment to a single nation state, point to divided loyalties but also to problems of integration and a decline in societal cohesion which could lead to an unstable polity (Brown 2002, pp. 76-77).

5.3 Evolution of German and Australian citizenship laws Since the end of World War II in the context of changing demographic and socio- economic needs and increased global mobility, both German and Australian citizenship laws have undergone a number of changes. As a nation state, Germany has experienced profound socio-political changes as a consequence of World War II: a division into two nation states and a subsequent reunification in 1990 affecting citizenship and citizenship laws. The country also had to come to terms with the legacy of the so-called ‘guest worker’ schemes of the 1960s and 1970s, and, after the collapse of the ‘Iron Curtain’, a considerable number of repatriates of ethnic German origin settled in Germany. This led to the realisation that Germany had become a ‘country of immigration’, a fact that challenged long-held beliefs and political strategies. These events have also impacted on German nationality law, shifting it from a ius sanguinis position, citizenship through descent, to one located between ius sanguinis and ius soli, citizenship through place of birth, the legal principle Australian citizenship law is based on. While the principle of ius sanguinis makes it difficult for persons who are not descendants of a German citizen to acquire the German citizenship, it is the concomitant principle of the avoidance of dual citizenship in the nationality law of 1913 (Reichs- und Staatsangehörigkeitsgesetz), which made it difficult for German nationals to acquire the nationality of another state without automatic loss of their German citizenship.

Prior to the year 2000, German national law did not permit a German citizen to hold any other than the German citizenship, making the loss of the German citizenship automatic upon adoption of the citizenship of another country. And while the Nationality Act (Staatsangehörigkeitsgesetz), the successor of the 1913 nationality law, which came into force on 1 January 2000, still reaffirms this principle explicitly,

131 the revised law has changed the options for German migrants considerably by introducing the possibility of obtaining dual citizenship in certain circumstances.

Even today, the German citizenship is automatically lost upon the voluntary acquisition of the citizenship of another country30 unless, as in the case of Australia, the so-called ‘permit to retain German citizenship’ (Beibehaltungsgenehmigung) has been applied for and granted prior to naturalisation in the host country. Grant of the permit to retain the German citizenship is not automatic and requires convincing evidence that a number of criteria are met, among them substantiation of enduring ties to Germany and real existing disadvantage in the host country if citizenship of that country is not acquired: an inability to engage in the host country on a political level is not considered a disadvantage.31, 32

Thus, prior to the year 2000, German migrants in Australia had two options: retaining the status of permanent resident indefinitely or naturalisation accompanied by automatic loss of the German citizenship, an option chosen by a number of the early assisted passage years migrants because it allowed them broader access to Australian social security provisions.

Acquisition of the permit to retain the German citizenship has reportedly become easier in the years since 2000 and a number of interview participants were dual citizens or were intending to apply for the permit to retain the German citizenship.

In Australia immigration and the development of the Australian citizenship have been closely related since Federation. It is a relationship that has been formally developed through government administrative structures, and changes to citizenship law have reflected changes in immigration policies (Klapdor, Coombs & Bohm 2009, p. 1). Australian citizenship law has been amended numerous times, most

30 Except European Union countries, Switzerland or another country with which Germany has a corresponding treaty. 31 German citizenship laws were relaxed even further. Since 6 July 2011 the rule that German nationals who voluntarily enter the armed forces/comparable armed groups of a state of which they are also a national without the consent of the relevant German authorities automatically lose their German nationality, no longer applies in the case of a number of countries, Australia among them. 32 The current provisions of the Nationality Law also enable in principle the renaturalisation provided the applicant meets certain criteria which include the ability to support themselves, mastery of the German language, proof of ties to Germany, clean criminal record and health insurance for Germany. Additionally, renouncing other nationalities is viewed favourably.

132

often to facilitate acquisition of citizenship, a reflection of a number of successive Australian governments’ desire for migrants to become settlers through naturalisation as quickly as possible.

A reversal of this trend to facilitate access to the Australian citizenship arguably occurred with the enactment of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007. Focusing on the duties and responsibilities instead of benefits, the Act also made access to citizenship more onerous through an increase in residence requirements and the introduction of a citizenship test. Permanent settlement, while a more complex and lengthy process now, is still an option and provisions for migrants on temporary visas to apply for permanent visas onshore exist.

5.4 The sample—formal legal statuses and citizenship The advantages and disadvantages of the Australian citizenship as opposed to contemporary permanent residency rights in real terms are slight. The rights granted to permanent residents in Australia amount to what has been called ‘quasi- citizenship’. The value of citizenship lies in the symbolic alignment with Australia, and, as will be shown in this chapter, at least for some of the participants in this study in the security it seems to offer in the current political climate. As Klapdor, Coombs and Bohm suggest:

In practical terms, citizenship has little effect on the material situation of migrants in Australia. As permanent residents, they have access to the welfare support, Medicare and public education available to the general population. Many also have access to special settlement services to assist them to participate in mainstream life as soon as possible. The instrumental advantages of citizenship for migrants are security from deportation33, an Australian passport and eligibility for permanent government employment (including in the armed services). The requirements Australian citizenship imposes, mainly to enrol to vote and to vote, and possibly do jury service, are not onerous and would be considered by many to be advantageous aspects of citizenship. In symbolic terms, citizenship has great value for the Australian population at large, in that it formally establishes membership in the national community. (Klapdor, Coombs & Bohm 2009, pp. 1-2).

33 However, there are provisions under which a dual citizen can be deported and those provisions may be broadened under legislation currently discussed.

133

The differences in access to the privileges of membership in the Australian polity between permanent residency and citizenship as outlined above are minimal for German permanent residents in Australia. There is neither economic nor legal/political necessity to adopt the Australian citizenship. Permanent residency provides access to welfare services including health and education34; however, Australian or dual citizenship provides some instrumental and identificational advantages as set out above, in particular where participation on a political level is desired.

Census data from the 2011 Census, Figure 5.1 below, shows that the naturalisation rate of the German-born in Australia (68.9 per cent) is higher than the naturalisation rate for all overseas born (62.5 per cent); however, census data also shows a sharp decrease in the naturalisation rate of Germans between the 2006 and 2011 censuses. Current citizenship numbers are lower than in 1981 (see Figure 5.2 below).

Figure 5.1: Citizenship data from 2011 census

Citizenship - 2011 Census

% 9.1

Total 1,959,288

% 0.4 Australian born 61,629 % 35.6

All overseas born 1,886,266

% 29.7

Born in Germany 32,051

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Australian citizen Not an Australian citizen

Source: QuickStats 2011 Census—Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS 2013)

34 One difference in privileges is that a permanent resident has to acquire a so-called resident return visa every five years. This is associated with a considerable amount of paperwork and cost. Set at the beginning of each financial year, the price as at July 2015 starts from AUD 440. This does not take into account possible other fees and charges.

134

Figure 5.2: Percentage of naturalised Germans 1981–2011—census data

Naturalisation of Germans in % by census year 80 77.4 76.5 75 75.5 75 73 68.9 70

60 1981 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011

Source: Wende (2010, p. 124) and ABS (2013)

This decrease in the acquisition of the Australian citizenship may be due to a number of reasons. It may indicate an aging German population, one where more migrants of a previous generation took out citizenship than current migrants. It may also indicate the shift from permanent to temporary visas; or the decrease may be related to the availability of dual citizenship and a reporting behaviour which privileges the German citizenship. It may reflect the quasi citizenship factor of permanent residency; conversely, it may reflect a significant identificational value of the German citizenship.

Overall, thirty-eight of the interview participants had held German citizenship at one point in their lives or were German citizens at the time of interview35. Twenty-five of these had initially migrated to Australia before the year 2000 and thirteen after that year. A number of migrants who had initially migrated to Australia prior to 2000 showed trajectories which included at least one long-term return to Australia after a long-term return to Germany. One of these migrants, Participant 8, returned to Australia in 2012, this time on a contributory parent visa as her more than 15 year’s absence resulted in the loss of her permanent residency permit. This participant is included in the table of participants who arrived after the year 2000 as her current visa status reflects her latest entry. Of those who had migrated after 2000 two arrived in Australia as dependents of a temporary visa holder and had returned to Germany—albeit reluctantly; four had arrived on student visas and two had entered Australia on spouse visas. One of the students and one of the spouse visa holders had

35 The remaining three were Australian-born but of German ancestry.

135 returned to Germany and none of the remaining migrants on student or spouse visas had been in the country long enough to apply for dual citizenship. One migrant held permanent residency. The remaining four migrants had acquired dual citizenship; one of them was in the process of preparing their return to Germany at the time of interview (and had returned at the time of writing). The visa and citizenship statuses of the migrants who arrived after 2000 seem to reflect the increase in numbers of temporary migration: six of the fourteen participants were in Australia on temporary visas, with another two having converted their temporary status to dual citizenship; moreover, there was also an increasingly diverse range of visa/citizenship statuses: six different visa/citizenship statues in a sample of fourteen participants.

Table 5.1: Visa statuses of study participants who arrived in Australia post 2000

Country of residence (ex) Visa status/Citizenship

P 22 Australia Dual (ex-temporary)

P 37 Australia (at time of interview) Dual (ex-temporary) Germany at time of writing) P 57 Australia Dual

P 58 Australia Dual

P 4 Australia PR/not yet dual eligible

P 6 Australia (at time of interview) Spouse Germany at time of writing) P 40 Australia Spouse/not yet dual eligible

P 3 Australia Student/not yet dual eligible

P 55 Australia Student/not yet dual eligible

P 56 Australia Student/not yet dual eligible

P 44 Germany Temp

P 46 Germany Temp

P 53 Germany Student

P 8 Australia (at time of interview) Ex-PR/contributory parent Germany at time of writing) Source: Author

136

The visa and citizenship statuses of migrants who arrived in Australia prior to 2000 were less diverse. Most of the twenty-four migrants in this cohort were permanent residents. Five had acquired the Australian citizenship and renounced their German citizenship (21 per cent). Two of those arrived in Australia as 1.5 generation migrants and had grown up in Australia. Only three were dual citizens (12.5 per cent) and two of the dual citizens were currently residing in Germany—one of these expressed the preference of not returning to Australia long-term, the other was unsure, basing any return decisions on the future preferences of the children and the availability of appropriate employment. The visa status of the remaining seventeen interview participants was or had been ‘permanent resident’. Of the permanent residents residing in Australia, four had not been aware prior to the interview that dual citizenship had become an achievable option36; one was in the process of acquiring the Australian citizenship and renouncing her German citizenship; six permanent residents were intending to commence the process of applying for the permit to retain the German citizenship; and one had commenced it just prior to the interview.

Table 5.2: Visa statuses of study participants who arrived in Australia prior to 2000

Country of Visa status/ Country of Visa status/ residence Citizenship residence Citizenship P 14 Australia Australian P 20 Australia PR/dual eligible P 15 Australia Australian P 26 Australia PR/dual eligible P 19 Australia Australian P 30 Australia PR/dual eligible P 23 Australia Australian P 33 Australia PR/dual eligible P 36 Australia Australian P 34 Australia PR/dual eligible P 7.2 Australia Dual P 35 Australia PR/dual eligible P 1 Australia PR/dual eligible P 36 Germany EX PR/ not dual eligible P 5 Australia PR/dual eligible P 41 Germany EX PR/ not dual eligible P 10 Australia PR/dual eligible P 42 Germany EX PR/ not dual eligible P 13 Australia PR/dual eligible P 46 Germany EX PR/ not dual eligible P 16 Australia PR/dual eligible P 51 Germany Dual P 17 Australia PR/dual eligible P 54 Germany Dual Source: Author

36 In the early years it was reportedly very difficult to be granted a permit to retain citizenship as there were no clear guidelines regarding what constituted disadvantage.

137

5.5 Citizenship choices From a pragmatic point of view, it is not citizenship but permanent residency which makes a difference for German migrants in Australia as that is the visa status which offers access to social security and welfare provisions including health services; it also offers participation in civil society to (almost) the same degree as for citizens. Yet, it was citizenship which constituted an area of intense interest to many of the project participants; preferences were often categorised as “pragmatic” or “emotional” by the participants themselves. It was not so much the acquisition of the Australian citizenship most participants focused on but the loss of their German citizenship, thus validating the position outlined earlier in the chapter that citizenship has a strong identificational value. However, while most participants presented a strong German ethnic identity, it should be born in mind that ethnicity is not only shaped by realities such as material experiences, similarities in socialisation, shared social spaces, language and culture; it is also continuously socially constructed (Portes & Rumbaut 2014, p. 204). Therefore, the ascription of ethnicity is dynamic. Ethnic ties are changeable; other ties can be chosen to supplement or supplant the original ones. This is of particular interest when exploring ethnicity in the context of migration, as second or third generation migrants may develop a so-called symbolic identity; that is, their ancestral ethnic identity forms part of their concept of self but has few behavioural consequences (Gans 1979).

Bauböck’s (2012, p. 8) observation that migrants react to their migration experiences in various ways which can include adopting the host country nationality; diaspora formation; an orientation towards either the local community the migrant resides in or came from; or an identification as European is an illustration of the social construction of ethnic identity.

The attitudes and positions taken towards citizenship and dual citizenship by the interview participants in this study can be categorised as follows:

 orientation toward host country leading to the acquisition of the Australian citizenship with concurrent renunciation of the German citizenship  transnational orientation leading to acquisition of dual citizenship

138

 ascription of high value to country of origin, i.e. German, citizenship leading to: o strong preference for retention of the German citizenship but interest in dual citizenship on the condition that the German citizenship can be retained o retention of the German citizenship and no interest in any other option

5.5.1 Acquiring the Australian citizenship, renouncing the German citizenship Despite the comment by one of the organisational representatives that all of the organisation’s members became Australian citizens in order to be able to access welfare services, the number of interview participants who renounced their German citizenship to acquire the Australian citizenship was not large—five out of thirty- eight (13 per cent). At the time of interview, as outlined earlier, one further participant was engaged in the naturalisation process.

The five migrants who had naturalised and renounced their German citizenship had all done so prior to the year 2000. Timing of and trigger for acquisition of the Australian citizenship, though, were influenced by individual circumstances as was their emotional attachment to the German citizenship. Some of the participants privileged the instrumental factors of their decision and others the emotional dimension in their narratives; however, in all contributions both aspects were blended. Participants 14 and 15, 1.5 generation migrants, had spent much of their lives in Australia. Despite the similar duration of residence their narratives show the broad range of individual responses to the question of citizenship.

For Participant 15 the instrumental factor was decisive as it was a requirement for the chosen career; but the emotional detachment from a Europe out of reach and an attachment to Australia also became apparent.

I couldn’t join the [public service agency] without being an Australian citizen. … Yeah, yeah, it was convenient and there was no hope, ah, desire to ever go back to Europe anyway, to live anyway. ... it’s a great country and I like living here. (Participant 15, Australia, 2013).

139

In contrast, Participant 14—despite a clear attachment to Australia “Well I think also we are very lucky in Australia where it’s normal to be different … we’re a very diverse nationality, which is lovely”—retained her German citizenship for more than fifty years and only became naturalised when a confluence of mostly instrumental factors formed a tipping point for the acquisition of the Australian citizenship. However, despite her more than fifty years of residence in Australia, there was still a psychological cost (Brown 2002, p. 71) associated with giving up the German citizenship: “Dual citizenship, yeah, I would have had that if it was possible. I don’t think they gave me a choice. Yeah, it’s a shame, isn’t it?” (Participant 14, Australia, 2013).

Attachment to Australia, a sense of belonging sometimes expressed around Australian family ties, in particular the Australian-born children’s citizenship, that is an alignment between mothers’ and children’s citizenship, detachment from Germany and a focus on Australia as the geographical centre of the familial life, an orientation towards the future, or a combination of those were the common triggers shared by those participants who had migrated as adults and decided to naturalise.

I would’ve liked to keep two citizenships but … the next visit back to Germany my mother had moved and my grandparents’ place was gone and I felt that if I was no longer going back to a place I recognised …. So, on return I considered things … and I had an emotional response that it was about my future. I was going to stay here for the rest of my life, I have an Australian husband and Australian boys and so I was going to become an Australian … (Participant 23, Australia, 2013).

I prefer to be Australian. ... I was a bit sorry about it but all my children were Australians as well. For what reason should I be the only one with a German [passport] … I think I’m living here now, so I can be an Australian. … I adapted my lifestyle and so on because I like all of it a lot. You get everything, you can live the way you want – I’m not eager to be German, absolutely not (Participant 19, Australia, 2013).

Despite the greater acceptance of transnational attachments and the availability of dual citizenship, it is not a foregone conclusion that every contemporary migrant will opt for dual citizenship.

140

And last Friday, I just passed my citizenship test. So I will be becoming an Australian citizen. I did look into having dual citizenship … and decided it was too hard, too expensive, can’t be bothered. Germany is making it so difficult and it’s a process that can take up to two years. … and my husband always says, ‘Are you ever going to become an Aussie?’ … I’ve probably been toying with this for probably ten years. … I’m going to be a true blue Aussie. … And one thing that sort of annoys me a bit is that, yes, I can be active in Australian politics and stuff, but I can’t vote and that’s the one thing that’s always been bugging me (Participant 17, Australia, 2013).

Similar to the previous contributions, a range of motives contributed to the decision: duration of residence, the difficult process of acquisition of dual citizenship, but also the influence of family and a desire to fully participate in Australian society by becoming a member of the Australian polity. The acquisition of the Australian citizenship with the concomitant renunciation of the German citizenship marks the endpoint of an identificational shift from German to Australian, linguistically emphasised by the use of the colloquial expression ‘true blue Aussie’ indicating the creation of a holistic Australian identity.

Factors which for all six participants influenced the decision to opt for the Australian citizenship were instrumental as well as emotional: employment and mobility, integration and orientation towards Australia due to duration of stay, and emotional connection to Australia through core family, in particular children. Noteworthy here is that all interviews with participants who had acquired the Australian citizenship were conducted in English, thus providing further evidence of an orientation towards the host society. Full political participation in the host society, one of the main instrumental advantages of citizenship as outlined by Klapdor, Coombs and Bohm (2009, pp. 1-2), did not feature significantly for those migrants who had naturalised prior to 2000. That fact that dual citizenship even when available was not aspired to lends credence to the argument that naturalisation is a good indicator for the intention to stay. Viewed through the prism of Kreutzer and Roth’s (2006, pp. 16-20) typology of transnational mobility, a shift to a locally anchored identity can be posited.

141

5.5.2 Dual citizenship (since 2000) Seven of the interview participants had acquired dual citizenship. Of those five were residing in Australia at the time of interview; at the time of writing three were residing in Germany, three in Australia, and one dual citizen was preparing her (and her family’s) return to Germany. Another six participants in Australia were interested in acquiring dual citizenship in the foreseeable future.

Six of the dual citizens emphasised the main purpose of acquiring dual citizenship had been instrumental, such as facilitating equal access to both countries and broader employment choices. In contrast to those migrants who had naturalised prior to 2000, a desire for meaningful political participation was one of the instrumental factors cited as a motivation for acquiring dual citizenship. However, an emotional dimension, i.e. an identificational aspect, was also mentioned. This was similar for migrants who had not yet acquired dual citizenship but intended to commence the process.

The initial reason was that it’s just easier to have both in case we ever go back, otherwise you always have the problem with permanent residency in Australia that you need a re- entry visa every five years, … think it was mostly for practical reasons. ... It really is because if something happens, you have the opportunity to just go back to Australia without having to apply for a visa, so I arranged that six months before we moved here (Participant 51, Germany, 2013).

I still have the German citizenship, yes. … I will try to apply for dual citizenship. I would like to go and vote; … That’s important to me and I think that’s also the only reason to apply for dual citizenship because I maybe want to vote (Participant 20, Australia, 2013).

I would like to apply for dual citizenships … because I’ve been living here for a while I would like to vote here as well; I took part in Germany via postal vote every now and then but I basically have the feeling that whatever I vote for there doesn’t really affect me (Participant 33, Australia, 2013).

One of the stronger and unanticipated concerns impacting on motivations for choices regarding citizenship was the sense of insecurity participants felt. Security concerns, especially by North-Western European migrants, have as far as could be ascertained

142

only been reported recently (Berchem 2011, p. 479)37. While security from deportation has been cited as one of the few and minor advantages of the Australian citizenship38 (Betts & Birrell 2007; Klapdoor, Coombs & Bohm 2009), and despite the relatively extensive rights permanent residents enjoy under Australian law, there was a strong perception amongst a number of participants that permanent residency was not a secure status.

Security concerns varied between the legal statuses: migrants on temporary employment-related visas were mostly concerned with retaining access to Australia in case of job loss. Permanent residents were concerned about continued access to membership benefits in a political climate that did not seem as migration tolerant as previously; there was a certain insecurity relating to their status as non-citizen in respect of right of admittance, residence and access to social security provision.

[A]nd our visa was always tied to his job and in the [industry] sector, you never know what might happen, but I always thought if he loses his job, then we’ll just go back, … but for him it was more important that we had to try and avoid that and make sure we could stay here …. So the first part was having some stability here and the second part was that, because we knew we were going back to Germany … it was just practical, both from a financial aspect and otherwise, to have that second option (Participant 33, Australia, 2013).

What I don’t like about permanent residency is that you still have somewhat of a second- class status, I would call it, and you can’t vote and so on. … But this is a place, too, where the wind may change at any time, which means at one point they might say we need young people of this or that occupation and let them all in, and then the next election comes along and some Australian says they take away all our jobs, so they quickly get rid of that immigration policy (Participant 6, Australia, 2013).

37 Robertson (2013, p. 113-14)) reports security concerns for her students-turned-migrants not unlike those reported by participants in this study, however, her sample included mainly participants from non-European countries. 38 At the time of writing the particular advantage of citizenship, safety from deportation, is under review for dual citizens who are suspected of an array of offences ostensibly related to terrorism but criticised as being very broad and vague.

143

But sometimes I ask myself what would happen if they changed the law and said that everyone with PR must become a citizen or they will no longer qualify for retirement benefits? … So I’d feel a little more comfortable in this country if I were a citizen but it’s become an issue for me more over the last two years (Participant 1, Australia, 2013).

Despite the emphasis on the instrumental character of their decision, the emotional aspect of citizenship was important for the migrants and was debated in much greater detail than the instrumental dimension. Here the migrants positioned themselves in relation to country of origin and host country. While there is no one hundred per cent overlap, the emotional dimension included feelings of belonging and full participation in the society many of the participants had spent a considerable part of their lives in, felt part of and which they enjoyed. In that sense it was a sign of commitment to Australia, a “giving back” by getting involved. Keeping one’s German citizenship, similarly, was seen as an acknowledgement of one’s roots and background, thus acknowledging and joining the two parts of one’s life. “You do not discard your past when you acquire a new passport” (Participant 22, Australia, 2013).

It was basically a pragmatic decision but your feelings are also involved because I’m now technically here one hundred per cent. But it doesn’t make a big difference if I’m a permanent resident or an Australian citizen but the feeling is different, so that I can really say ‘I’m now finally here’. … I think it was a pragmatic decision … but to keep the German citizenship was for me probably a more emotional thing than to apply for the Australian one (Participant 7.2, Australia, 2013).

As indicated in previous sections, citizenship decisions are not individual decisions only—they are influenced by and impact on family. Participant 7.2’s Australian spouse made the point that his naturalisation was also emotionally important for her “But it was satisfying for me to know that you are now also an Australian” (Participant 7.1, Australia, 2013).

The close relationship between the instrumental and the identificational value of citizenship was illustrated by Participant 37’s reflections on her newly acquired Australian citizenship, pursued on instrumental grounds, i.e. retention of access to

144

Australia as the family were returning to Germany. Her reflections indicate the significance of the identificational value of citizenship.

So I’m definitely German and that won’t change, either. We’re also proud, of course, to now have Australian citizenship, and because I know that many Australians haven’t been here for generations, either, I feel comfortable in saying that I now have citizenship, too, although I still feel like I don’t quite yet have the right to it. But that’s Australian, too, in a way, that you don’t have to have been Australian all your life, so in that sense—and that might become even stronger in Germany—I do feel Australian in some way (Participant 37, Australia, 2013—returned to Germany 2014).

Most interesting in this reflection was the fact that the participant identified as German, and professed “pride” in a citizenship she did not (yet) feel a “right” to; that the way of relating to the Australian citizenship was by emphasising the fact that many Australians did not have a birthright either. While it remained unclear whether this participant’s conceptualisation of citizenship “right” was influenced by the German ius sanguinis principle, there seemed to be a feeling that citizenship required an ethno-cultural attachment and identification even in cases were instrumental purposes were privileged.

5.5.3 Keeping the German citizenship German citizenship had strong identificational value for many participants in this study. In general, the participants’ focus was on the retention of their German citizenship because of its emotional significance. Instrumental grounds such as EU mobility were mentioned but not privileged in the discussion. A variation on the theme “I will never give up my German citizenship” (Participant 10, Australia, 2013, arrived in 1991) was one of the most common responses in the exploration of citizenship, nationality, identity and belonging. This position was taken regardless of duration of stay in Australia, arrival and departure prior or post 2000, age of migrant, and also independent of return intentions.

I want to obtain dual citizenship. … no immediate reason to do this, and if I don’t get dual citizenship, I won’t do it. I don’t want to give up my German citizenship (Participant 1, Australia, 2013, arrived in 1986).

145

I wouldn’t abandon my German citizenship; I think I see myself as a German who hasn’t been living in Germany for a while and it still feels like I have a German identity (Participant 33, Australia, 2013, arrived 1990s).

Residency yes, citizenship probably not. Not if it means that I would have to give up my German citizenship. … And yeah definitely, I would definitely apply for dual citizenship but I would never give up my German passport. ... I’ll always be German and that’s not something I want to discard. It’s something I treasure (Participant 3, Australia, 2013, arrived in 2006).

Many of the permanent residents, most of whom had been living in Australia for at least fifteen years, declared an intention of keeping their German citizenship. This seems to indicate a strong allegiance to Germany despite their long absence, however, it is not their only allegiance. They also felt a strong attachment to Australia.

I feel probably more German than Australian, but I also know that Australia has left its mark on me. I am somehow both. I’m probably a product of my country of origin, ... I also have lived here 25 years next March … and I think so much time doesn’t pass without leaving a trace. ... And I think I also look at what I can do for Australia, actually … I don’t mean that in a nationalistic sense, I mean more that we should do something for our current area, even a small area, which helps make it a better place. I feel so rooted here that I want to do this ... I think I feel a little of both (Participant 1, Australia, 2013).

Retaining one’s German citizenship for this group then should not be seen as rejecting Australia but as part of the complex attachments migrants develop, in particular where links with the country of origin can be maintained and people live in transnational or bi-national contexts, maybe best described as having also developed a locally anchored identity which co-exists with the older country of origin identity. In an extension of Hannerz’ (2002, p. 104) notion of “home plus” this dual attachment could be described as “old home plus new home”.

However, there was also a group of participants who did not have a strong interest in dual citizenship. Most were long-term permanent residents, well integrated into their local settings. Their belonging in and to Australia was centred around their personal

146

ties, communities and networks. Legal status had instrumental but no emotional meaning for them.

I only have German citizenship. … And I am an Aussie. I don’t need to have that certificate. It never bothered me. …And I say, married to an Aussie, that’s enough. You can’t expect more of me. It’s not really necessary … It wouldn’t change anything, becoming an Aussie (Participant 35, Australia, 2013).

5.6 Citizenship, mobility, flexibility and return migration Scholarly literature cites the level of mobility a certain citizenship offers as one instrumental determinant in citizenship decisions (Fozdar & Spittles 2010, p. 137). In this study all participants were aware of the respective mobility values of their country of origin citizenship as compared to their host country citizenship, but also of the value of a dual citizenship in the context of their personal preferences. Participants were also aware of the impact of nation state regulations and broader macro-level regulatory frameworks such as EU regulations. This is in line with of research into citizenship decision (Colic-Peisker 2006; Fozdar & Spittlers 2010; Ong 1999).

The participants in this study showed an interest in two broad categories of mobility: the desire to maintain relatively similar rights to entrance, exit, work and residency in country of origin and host country, and the ability of temporary or long- term/permanent return to the country of origin. While mentioned, ease of travel did not feature strongly in considerations of citizenship as both German and Australian citizens do not face many restrictions in respect of overseas travel. A German passport was seen as offering greater opportunities due to the freedom of movement within the Schengen area; this was considered advantageous by a number of participants, in particular by those with children: “[I]t was important that both of my boys have dual citizenship, so they have the European passport as well as the Australian passport” (Participant 23, Australia, 2013). It was also considered advantageous by those migrants who were more transnationally oriented.

It [dual citizenship] gives me a lot more opportunities now within Australia …, job related, and also because we have dual citizenship we are still able to work in the European Union and it makes it much easier to take these opportunities if they come up.

147

… we have the confidence and the insurance of being able to get back into Australia even after three, four or five years when the normal permanent resident visa may have had to be renewed, the citizenship is still there and we can come back to Australia (Participant 57, Australia, 2014).

However, this contribution demonstrates that participants did not consider citizenship an either/or approach but a cumulative advantage by linking their German passport to opportunities in the broader EU context and their Australian passport providing the opportunity of a return to the host country, should that be desired. This conceptualisation of mobility differs from the practice of ‘visiting friends and relatives’ (VFR) and travel for tourist/leisure purposes, or that of keeping one’s options open because of familial obligations in Germany. It is a conceptualisation that is transnational and fluid in character in line with the requirements of the individual’s life trajectory and open to revision in response to external but also internal contexts.

Well, my daughter … she has somehow absorbed that sense from me, maybe by osmosis, that Germany is her true home and she’s looking forward to going back and also wants to live in Germany, although she feels very comfortable here, no question. So if it was only the two of us, …, we’d still go back. But since [husband] and [son] are also part of the family and feel at home here and wouldn’t mind staying … So that’s how the citizenship came about … it was just pragmatic and I am sure that we will come back at some point …, if the kids want to study here or so, but emigration, no. It was always clear to me that my roots would remain in Germany (Participant 37, Australia, 2013).

This contribution clearly reflects the intricate relationships between subjective motivations and situational context, and the impact of global mobility regimes. For this participant the migration to Australia was always conceptualised as a sojourn with a definite end point; however, for other members of her family this does not seem to have been the case; so while external circumstances (the need to care for an elderly parent), has privileged her conceptualisation over the desires of other members of her family, their desires in the context of the nation states’ regulatory frameworks have led to the acquisition of a dual citizenship to keep the option of returning to Australia open.

148

The possibility of return played a two-fold role in the discussion of citizenship choices: those migrants who had renounced their German citizenship did not consider a long-term return to Germany:

I can go back to Germany at any time, I mean I don’t want to live there anyway; I only want to go there for a visit and that’s not difficult at all, you can do that anyway. So why should I trouble myself to get something like that [dual citizenship]? (Participant 19, Australia, 2013).

Others felt that as long as they had plans for an extended stay in Germany which might also change into a long-term return, retaining the German citizenship and staying a permanent resident was the simplest course of action “The thing—because I’m German—we can stay longer and extend the holidays if we wanted. I thought that would be really easy and if we really like it, we can stay” (Participant 34, Australia, 2013).

5.7 Discussion and conclusions For most people citizenship is a never queried status acquired at birth (Vink & Bauböck 2013, pp. 2-3). For migrants, though, it becomes a complex issue which involves legal and identificational dimensions. While naturalisation rates of Germans were higher than for the overall migrant population in Australia, their number had fallen considerably in the last ten years and is now lower than in 1981. Evidence from this study points to the following factors as pertinent in this development: the aging of the German population in Australia where more migrants of a previous generation took out citizenship than current migrants as it offered them access to social security and welfare provisions; permanent residency as a preferred option offering long-term residents quasi citizenship rights without the necessity of relinquishing their German citizenship with its strong identificational value for many; the availability of dual citizenship since 2000; and the proliferation of temporary visas in conjunction with a move away from permanent settlement intentions.

Factors that played into the decision making processes around citizenship included availability and eligibility for dual citizenship; an attachment and desire to engage with Australia or the migrant’s local area; a desire for a status that provided greater

149 security in Australia; the ability to return to the country of origin; ensuring the greatest international mobility and access to settlement and labour market rights; and the strength of the identificational value of the original citizenship. The desire for political participation, while mentioned, was a major consideration for only some of the participants.

Most interview participants saw the issue of citizenship as having pragmatic and emotional aspects, a division in line with theoretical approaches which differentiate between political and sociological dimensions of citizenship. Instrumental aspects were emphasised by those migrants who had naturalised (or were in the process of naturalising) and had—voluntarily or involuntarily—renounced their German citizenship, and by those who had acquired/were in the process of acquiring or were intending to acquire dual citizenship. However, emotional factors were present in all decision-making processes.

Only five of the interview participants had renounced their German citizenship in favour of a sole Australian citizenship. These renunciations occurred in the context of naturalisation prior to the change in German nationality law, a time when there was no provision for dual citizenship. The motivations for naturalisation were embedded in family constellations and considerations, that is the core family sharing a citizenship, but especially sharing a citizenship with one’s children—some overtones of security may be playing into this scenario, i.e. ensuring the geographical cohesion of the family unit; feelings of living in the present and looking towards the future, not an imagined place from the past; of making a decision of committing to one culture and country; but it was also an acknowledgement of the fact that the interview participants’ lives were centred on Australia and that linkages with Germany had decreased. Importantly, in the context of this study the only return contemplated was that of a short-term holiday. While not all five participants might have renounced their German citizenship had dual citizenship been available, a sixth participant made the decision despite the possibility of the acquisition of dual citizenship based on the interdependent factors of decreased links to Germany, integration into, attachment to and appreciation of Australian culture due to duration of residence, and core family attachments. Despite the individual differences, there are some commonalities: in line with the claim that

150

naturalisation is a good indicator for settlement intention (Massey & Redstone Akresh 2006; Portes & Rumbaut 2014), all six declared no desire to live in Germany again.

Interview participants who had acquired or where thinking of acquiring dual citizenship also focused initially on the instrumental aspect of citizenship. Ease of travelling and unlimited admission to Australia were the overriding consideration for those who either held or intended to acquire dual citizenship—in a number of cases related to the intention or decision to return to Germany for a longer duration; but dual citizenship was also sought for security purposes such as the right to remain in Australia and access to social service provisions should the political climate change; a further reason for acquiring dual citizenship was unrestricted access to employment opportunities both in the EU and Australia. Despite the initial emphasis on the instrumental aspects of dual citizenship, the emotional dimension was equally if not more important: dual citizenship was seen as an expression of attachment to Australia, of having “arrived”, of being “rooted” while at the same time not denying one’s origin and cultural heritage, a way of acknowledging the “co-presence of here and there” (Clifford 1999, p. 264), the fact that home “is simultaneously in the present as the host country, and in the past as the country of origin” (Duarte 2005, p. 319). This citizenship behaviour reflects the argument made earlier that ethnic (self) ascription is dynamic and ethnic ties can be supplemented or supplanted. For this group, a return to Germany was either a reality or a possibility not ruled out notwithstanding duration of stay in Australia. This group also included those migrants who were considering or hoping to be able to divide their time between the two countries upon retirement, a not uncommon concept among migrants.

Overall, it was the emotional aspect of citizenship most interview participants emphasised, in particular in relation to renunciation of citizenship. Most participants in this study did not entertain the notion of a renunciation of their German citizenship as it was intimately connected to their identity—but implicitly also because there was no need to do so. Those who had lived in Australia long enough to be eligible for permanent residency status had attained it and thus were eligible for almost the same membership benefits as citizenship. The emotional attachment to Germany did not preclude an attachment to Australia or, in the case of only recently

151 arrived migrants, an appreciation of Australia. In most cases participants exhibited a transnational orientation, which translated into acquisition of or interest in acquiring dual citizenship.

Fozdar and Spittles’ (2010, pp. 143-144 ) argument that citizenship in the Australian migrant context is conceived and articulated in both identificational terms of belonging and feelings of solidarity with others in the polity, but also in instrumental terms, a pragmatic option, thus proved applicable to the participants in this study.

Since the acquisition of dual citizenship requires eligibility for the Australian citizenship which currently has a residency requirement of four years, there were a number of participants who did not yet meet the eligibility criteria for Australian citizenship. Most were relatively young and in the study or early career-building phase, a time of general mobility, so a return to Germany/Europe was only one of several options. Thus for many there were neither clear return nor clear settlement intentions. And while some showed interest in acquiring dual citizenship “if we are going to stay here” (Participant 4, Australia, 2013), this had not yet proceeded beyond the conceptual stage.

Identification of the most suitable option for the individual’s needs was the basis for all considerations by those participants who envisioned return, whether on a temporary or permanent basis. Similar to the behaviour described by Robertson (2013, pp. 119-123) of students-turned-migrants, the different citizenship strategies employed depended on the individual participant’s situation.

Dual citizenship was seen as the most suitable and pragmatic approach by most, but especially those of working age as it ensured not only full entry and exit rights in both countries, but also residency, labour market participation, and access to welfare provision rights. The ability to work across the EU was seen as an important advantage. This option was chosen by the majority of dual citizens in preparation of their return to Germany, highlighting the intrinsic relationships between global mobility regimes, subjective motivations and situational context. But increasingly, it was also seen as an option by those who, while living in Australia as a permanent resident, felt the desire to express their dual attachments and allegiances; a demonstration of their participatory belonging in two polities. Most participants in

152

this study while strongly identifying as German also felt very attached to Australia. Dual citizenship was also felt to offer a safer status in a political climate that was considered to be less stable than in the past and increasingly hostile to migrants.

But not all participants felt the need for a dual citizenship. Some considered their permanent residency sufficient as they felt their belonging to Australia did not require official confirmation, and thus had no desire for a change of their visa status. This strategy tended to be chosen by migrants who had tentative plans for an extended stay in Germany with the possibility of turning it into a longer-term return. For them retaining the German citizenship and staying a permanent resident was the simplest course of action.

5.8 Summary This chapter explored citizenship decision. It found that factors and motivations influencing citizenship decision were complex and context-dependent. Both instrumental and emotional aspects featured in each individual migrant’s decision, balancing practical needs of mobility and security with subjective feelings of belonging, attachment and obligations to two countries.

This is in line with Fozdar and Spittle’s (2010, pp. 143-144) conclusions that citizenship by migrants in Australia is conceptualised and expressed as a feeling of shared values with the host country but also as a pragmatic and instrumental decision to achieve strategic means; an interaction between feelings of attachment, duty and obligations, civic participation, and rights, and pragmatic factors such as the mobility advantages of an Australian citizenship, labour market opportunities, but also security concerns.

This chapter also reflected growing broader trends associated with transnationalisation and globalisation in the replacement of the either/or decision for German or Australian citizenship by the availability of dual citizenship. An increase in the (desire for) acquisition of dual citizenships on instrumental grounds marks the increasing and often temporary and circulatory mobility of people in response to macro-level socio-economic factors, also indicated by the increasing variety in visa statuses. However, interest was also shown by those who did not necessarily indicate

153 mobility considerations in their decision making process; here dual citizenship was an acknowledgement of attachment to two countries.

Maybe least expected and at first glance a counter argument to globalisation and transnationalisation, there is a distinct and significant emotional aspect associated with citizenship and especially with the identificational value of the German citizenship. Only few of the participants in the study did not mention identificational factors. This aspect, though, can also be seen as part of the process of transnationalisation and globalisation which have been linked to a resurgence of patriotic aspects of citizenship: according to Beck and Beck-Gernsheim (2001)

Globalization of biographies means a very complex, contradictory process that generates novel conflicts and forms of separation. Thus, the upsurge of local nationalism and the new emphasis on local identity should be seen as an unmistakeable consequence of globalization, and not, as they may first appear, as a phenomenon that contradicts it.

The importance of identificational strategies and objects may also be an element of the condition of migrancy which usually leads to continued and profound reflection on citizenship, nationality and belonging.

The next chapter will focus on an examination of the original migration project conceptualisation and integrational factors.

154

6 Narratives of Migration and (Im-)mobility

6.1 Introduction This chapter is the second chapter outlining the findings of the research and focuses on arrival, host country experiences and integrational aspects of the migration project as a precursor or inhibitor to long-term return migration. It illuminates the German migrants’ initial conceptualisations of their migration to Australia, their experiences and subsequent developments of their Australian residence on the one hand, and Germany and German/European imaginations and considerations on the other. It traces these developments via expert interviews and interviews with individual migrants.

The chapter explores migrant cohorts, migration project conceptualisation, and the function of virtual co-presence in mobility decisions. It commences with a brief outline of factors which may play a role in integration in the host society and thus lead to a decrease in the likelihood of long-term return migration. This will be followed by an exploration of the changing German migrant demographics as conceived by organisational interview partners. The subsequent section will investigate individual conceptualisations of the migration project. The final section will examine cross-border ties and the implications of virtual co-presence in relations mobility behaviours.

On a micro level, migration projects are not static; they undergo change—often in line with life course events such as meeting one’s partner and/or the end of a partnership due to divorce or death; schooling of children; or retirement. Thus, not all initial intentions, regardless whether for settlement or temporary sojourn, were realised as initially planned. Other migration projects did not include explicit plans, especially for the duration of residence in Australia, and some were not conceptualised as migration projects but as relocations.

We often think about what else we can do and moving to a different country always comes up. … Of course Germany then comes to mind because we lived there for a long time and we have friends there … We have to be somewhere but where? That’s the question (Participant 57, Australia, 2014).

155

This remark by a dual Australian-German citizen illustrates the fact that migration is a dynamic process, that every instance of migration carries the possibility of further movement with it. This subsequent movement may take the form of a long-term return to the country of origin or onward migration to a third country. Migration is not a unidirectional, one-off undertaking completed with the arrival in the host country and return migration has always been a part of the migration cycle, albeit often neglected or ignored. As has been established in the literature, decisions regarding emigrating and returning are complex processes of assessing options based on a bundle of motives which includes macro-level structural and micro-level individual factors (White 2014, pp. 27-28). Long-term return migration decisions are influenced by the interaction of migrants’ goals and expectations, the objective situation faced in the host country and the situation in the country of origin. Migrants’ satisfaction with their situation in the host country can be a determinant of intentions, thus affecting concrete behaviours such as long-term return migration (Amit & Bar-Lev 2015, pp. 949-950). As none of these factors are static, the migration project and all pertinent elements are continuously assessed and reassessed and thus can change over time.

This chapter focuses on factors which may contribute to or enable long-term incorporation in the host country, thus inhibiting return intentions and actual long- term returns. In the context of immigrant incorporation two interrelated factors— geographical and socio-cultural distance—are thought to exert an influence on settlement. There is an expectation that geographical distance leads to positive skill selection and to an increase in the cost of migration, in turn leading to an investment in human capital and decreasing the likelihood of return (Fokkema & de Haas 2011, pp. 2, 7). However, on the other hand, geographical distance often entails cultural distance—differences between migrants and natives in areas such as culture, physical appearance, language and socio-economic and class background— increasing the effort required for the two groups to relate to each other, thus

156

decreasing likelihood of interaction and leading to a lower degree of socio-cultural integration39, 40.

Immigrant integration is described as a process taking place across a number of dimensions of host country society and institutions. A common distinction is that between structural and socio-cultural dimensions. Structural integration is defined as “the acquisition of rights and status within the core institutions of the host society: employment, housing, education, health services, political and citizenship rights” (Heckmann 2005, p. 15). Socio-cultural integration can be differentiated further into cultural integration (or acculturation) encompassing cognitive, behavioural and attitudinal changes in immigrants and their descendants when adapting to the norms of the host society; interactive integration comprising the domains of social intercourse, friendship, marriage and membership of various organisations; and identificational integration which takes account of feelings of belonging, expressed in terms of allegiance to ethnic, regional, local and national identity (King & Skeldon 2010, pp. 1634-1637). Identity, feelings of being at home and sense of belonging are subjective and are renegotiated continuously. Therefore, subjective aspects of integration are of significance and dissatisfaction with life in the host country may increase the likelihood of a long-term return to the country of origin (Amit & Bar-Lev 2015, pp. 948-951, 958-959).

There is an assumption that greater degrees of integration are negatively related to long-term return migration. Major factors commonly considered to contribute to socio-cultural integration and to significantly contribute to settlement decisions are proficiency in the majority language, duration of stay in the host country, intermarriage and family reunification. Labour market integration—in part determined by the degree to which a migrant’s human capital is accepted and valued by the host society—an aspect of structural integration, is also a significant factor when considering return migration (de Haas & Fokkema 2011, p. 757).

39 Integration is a contested concept. It has been described as an “umbrella concept” (Arends-Toth & Van de Vijver 2006, p. 157) with a variety of possible meanings, not least because it has been used interchangeably with the concept of assimilation. Even when used in contrast to assimilation, its operationalisation often bears strong similarities to assimilation (King & Christou 2008, p. 5). 40 In the Australian context it should also be noted that ‘integration’ can refer to a particular phase in Australian immigration policy development. “Integration”, the precursor to multiculturalism, replaced the assimilationist policies of the early Australian immigration program years as the preferred model of immigrant incorporation and was the model of choice in the 1960s and 1970s (Koleth 2010).

157

But macro-level factors such as structural conditions in the country of origin as well as the host country also influence micro-level contexts and considerations. On the macro level governance frameworks, socio-economic and political conditions in Australia and Germany have undergone considerable changes since the signing of The Australian—West German Assisted Migration Agreement of 1952, initiating the largest wave of German migration to Australia. The migrant cohorts identified by the observation of organisational representatives in Australia bear witness to that.

6.2 Migrant cohorts—the organisational view The claim that ethnic migrant groups are not homogeneous but “almost always divided by social fissures such as class, generation, age and gender” (Ganga & Scott 2006, p. 21) is clearly applicable to German migrants in Australia. There was a general consensus across all participants in the study, organisational representatives as well as individual participants, that the assisted passage migration of the 1950 and 1960s produced a fundamentally different cohort than later migrations. Moreover, the general consensus extended to the belief that the incidence of return migration to Germany had been negligible, consequently the narratives of the organisational representatives concentrated on the immigration trajectories of the migrants.

As outlined in Chapter 4, ten expert interviews, representing eleven organisations— one participant represented two organisations—were conducted in Australia. The organisations included three German clubs; four educational institutions, one cultural institution, one religious institution, and two institutions active in the welfare sector. Despite the broad range of sectors, there was a broad consensus across all organisations regarding migrant cohorts and the issues of return migration.

As the main differentiation was drawn between the migrant cohorts of the early assisted passage years, a generational divide could be assumed. And while a generational aspect is present, the stronger focus of organisational representatives was on social stratification and socio-cultural integration.

The view expressed by all organisational representatives was that definite patterning was observable in German immigration trajectories to Australia since 1952. Three categories of immigrants positioned along two dimensions, temporal and level of

158

integration, were identified. These observations were based on (imputed) motivations, social stratification and socio-cultural integration.

The temporal patterning shows a division into the early assisted passage years cohort of the 1950s and 1960s—a time frame explicitly mentioned by all organisational representatives; followed by the migrant cohort of the 1980s to mid-1990s, “after Chernobyl, … they were just fed up with the whole business of Europe and had memories of the World War II with the atomic thing blowing up in Russia” and from “the last 15 years”41 (Participant 29, Australia, 2013).

6.2.1 Early assisted passage years cohort The main thrust of the contributions by organisational representatives was that of social stratification as the key distinction between the migrants of the early assisted passage years and later migrant cohorts. The early assisted passage years cohort was described as working class tradespeople, whereas the more recent migrations were seen as middle-class based:

All the migrants actually congregated in the German club because the German migrants, even though they were all tradesmen, they all dressed up in a suit on Sunday and white shirt and tie, and that was not the done thing in Australia. So they were ostracised for looking foreign. They all came to the German club to feel at home (Participant 31, Australia, 2013).

You know, they were bricklayers and interior decorators and carpenters and tailors, shoemakers—people like that. … So these migrants who came after WWII ... most of these people have got artisan or working class background. … So there’s a vast difference between, say, the 1950s, the 1960s arrivals and the ones that have been coming in for the last 15 years. Huge difference. … [T]hese Germans are totally different from the previous migrations. They are middle class and a lot of them have degrees … usually, they’re not generally artisan type people. ... And that’s typical (Participant 29, Australia, 2013).

While there is some doubt that the early assisted passage years cohort was largely low skilled and working class based as the Australian Government insisted on skilled and qualified migrants and was fully aware of what German qualifications entailed,

41 As the interviews were conducted in 2013 this would refer to the late 1990s.

159 overseas qualifications were rarely accepted on an equivalent level and neither qualifications nor experience played a large role in labour force placement of migrants (Berchem 2011; Biedermann 2006). Employment was usually only offered in the low-skilled sector. Thus, labour market segmentation had an effect on the socio-economic position and integration of the early assisted passage years cohort. On the one hand it meant that their economic situation was relatively depressed for a number of years and, together with their ‘foreignness’ as described above, prevented an early socio-cultural integration into the majority society or a return to Germany; on the other hand, it made the acquisition of the Australian citizenship an attractive option, in particular once children had to be taken into account.

Our members basically don’t fly to Germany anymore, it’s too expensive. They weren’t able to afford that anyway in the first six or seven years in Australia and so that ship had sailed. ... They all abandoned their German citizenship and became Australians. That offered them access to social security services and proper medical insurance in Australia. Then they had kids and they were of course little Aussies and a return to Germany didn’t interest them (Participant 25, Australia, 2013).

“In the society but not of it” (Portes & Rumbaut 2014, p. 161) provides an apt description of the early assisted passage year migrants’ position in Australian society.

[T]he classic emigrants who came here in the 50s and early 60s and they came from post- war Germany, from the Federal Republic. ... They obsessively tried to assimilate but at the same time never accepted their new home. ... they always speak of the Australians – it never became their home even though they really made an effort to assimilate. …But it was more like a one-way street … because they weren’t able to afford to pack their things and to buy a flight ticket so they could go back home. I think it’s also a one-way street mentally; they can’t just go back because they burned all their bridges (Participant 22, Australia, 2013).

Their children, however, became part “of” the Australian society firmly and unequivocally, reflecting a strong assimilationist tendency within one generation.

If I go by my own children, they were born of German parents, all they wanted to be is Australian. They rejected this totally, being German, because it set them apart in school

160

and they got ridiculed for that. And so they were going to have none of it. So my children are not interested in the German part of their heritage whatsoever (Participant 31, Australia, 2013).

The confluence of distance, employment in low-skilled sectors producing financial constraints, and life course events such as the birth of children transformed many of the early assisted passage cohort into settlers. Structural integration was achieved through naturalisation and labour market integration, however, socio-cultural integration was not achieved to the same degree because the settlers

feel like Germans in Australia … They can’t avoid being Germans in Australia because they have an accent. … It’s something that defines you and everyone knows that you are not an Australian” (Participant 25, Australia, 2013).

Being noticeably different prevented the formation of an “Australian identity” (Colic-Peisker 2006, p. 222) as identity must be confirmed externally to be considered real (Berger & Berger 1972, p. 62, cited in van Bochove 2012, p. 118; Colic-Peisker 2006).

6.2.2 Integrated migrants The second group as conceived by the organisational representatives was the group considered most integrated: migrants, mostly female, in a bi-national relationship whose lives focus on their Australian family and the German background plays a peripheral role. “[T]he only thing that might still connect them to Germany is if their parents still live there, so that they visit them every now and again” (Participant 22, Australia, 2013). The extent of this engagement increases if children are involved. The German parent then tends to engage in the transmission of culture which takes the form of attendance at events such as lantern parades organised by German organisations or events based around important German traditions such as Christmas and Easter. She tries to ensure that the children learn the basics of the German language. “The children go to the German school because that is very important for the mother so that the children are able to communicate with grandma in Germany” (Participant 28, Australia, 2013).

161

6.2.3 Expatriates A third group identified by organisational representatives is the so-called ‘Expatriate’, the temporary sojourner defined by their visa and employment contract.

A piece of paper, three years and the return ticket in your pocket. .... I felt more like a tourist; of course I did my job but it was actually more about driving through the country, exploring, flying everywhere and taking as many memories as you can with you. We enjoyed life and being different and we didn’t want to have anything to do with the Germans around here (Participant 22, Australia, 2013).

The focus of members in this group is on maximising the foreign experiences. “They have a very conscious mindset ‘away from Germany’, they want to immerse themselves into the Australian community” (Participant 28, Australia, 2013). However, the knowledge of the temporariness of the experience also keeps the engagement with the host country superficial as engendering those special experiences which can be taken away as ‘memories’ generally requires tourist settings and actions and rarely forms part of the everyday life of the majority group, thus precluding deeper engagement with the majority society and its socio-cultural life. Applying Hannerz’ lens, this group has more in common with the tourist and the tourist’s “home plus” mindset. It fits in, though, with Kreutzer and Roth’s (2007, pp. 18-20) conceptualisation of the expatriate as a “home plus career advancement and excitement”.

Hannerz’ definition of expatriate has much in common with Klekowksi von Koppenfels’ (2014, p. 43) accidental migrant, who embodies the second type of expatriate identified in the expert interviews: a sojourner whose initial temporary conceptualisation may turn into settlement or an open-ended experience, one in which timeframe of stay in Australian is both deliberately undetermined and indeterminate. Emplacement in the host society may happen gradually and the temporary sojourner becomes a long-term migrant. Most are strongly engaged in their Australian life, but also have a strong connection to Germany, often aided by a financial and work-related ability to visit the country of origin frequently and stay for extended periods of time.

162

Then there are the ones … who never really made a decision for one thing or the other and who never specifically said ‘Yes, that’s it! I belong here’. There are an awful lot of people, and I am one of them, who just enjoy having this kind of freedom and who are able to say ‘I am really comfortable here, Germany is also great and I love going there, not only to see my family but for holidays, too’ – it’s a bit of a two-way street (Participant 22, Australia, 2013).

There is interdependency between the temporal and the socio-cultural integration dimensions as the differences observed between migrant cohorts coincide with changes to the Australian migration program and reflect the move from the low- skilled employment of the post-war decades to an increasingly highly skilled migrant intake, resulting in a changed immigrant demographic.

6.2.4 The ‘myth of no return’ As foreshadowed, organisational representatives in Australia disputed that significant return migration had taken or was taking place. One exception was a representative from an educational organisation because the clientele consisted for the greater part of expatriates who through the nature of their migration project intended to stay for a limited time only.

Our expats … these are the ones here for a period of two to five years and then they will return. … Since it is unclear how long this adventure may last, the children are sent to the [school] School as it is expected that the family will return to Germany eventually (Participant 28, Australia, 2013).

However, even this participant believed that this return behaviour contrasted sharply with the immigration and subsequent settlement trajectories of the 1950s and 1960s migration projects:

[T]he people who came out in the 50s, that was it for them, they never thought that they would ever go back to Germany. It wasn’t possible financially and no one got half a year of annual leave to do so. For most of them on the ship to Australia, they were clear that they wouldn’t ever see again what they were leaving behind (Participant 28, Australia, 2013).

Here again a clear distinction is drawn between the migration of the 1950s and 1960s and contemporary practices. Technological advances and the globalisation of

163 production factors have made long-term return a feature of the migration project. This is contrasted with the migration project of the 1950s and 1960s where return, according to the organisational representatives, was not a feasible option because the migrants themselves viewed their act of mobility as a unidirectional move, due to financial and time constraints. This view was shared by most organisational interview participants.

When asked about the applicability of a 30 per cent return rate reported for German migrants between 1947 and 1983 (Kaplan 2001, p. 377-379), the veracity of the percentage was universally questioned. In particular, the representatives of the German clubs thought it unlikely that members of their clubs had returned in high numbers as being trades people they “were making good money” and enjoyed a “high standard of living” (Participant 9, Australia, 2013). But representatives of other organisations also were not convinced of a sizeable return migration from Australia to Germany: “The migrants of the 1950s, 60s didn’t go back on the whole” (Participant 29, Australia, 2013). This is of course a true observation in the sense that thirty per cent return means sixty per cent of migrants settled. On the other hand, this presented a view of the phenomenon of return migration. One of the organisational representatives had been a long-term return migrant herself and had known others but did not see long-term return migration as a phenomenon in its own right.

From ’47 until the end of the 50s, I can’t imagine that there was such a high number. In the 60s and 70s—I knew a couple who were in our hostel, and they were so discontented here that they moved back to Germany. … Then I know just this one friend and a few other people; lots of people experienced culture shock. ... I’d say maybe ten per cent, fifteen per cent maximum from my experience. I did it myself, once (Participant 18, Australia, 2013).

Another view held that most return migrants had eventually returned to Australia “And the people with the resources, who’ve actually done it, often return to Australia” (Participant 12, Australia, 2013). “I know of a couple myself that left Australia but they came back. A lot of them came back. Yes. They then a few years later came back again” (Participant 31, Australia, 2013).

164

Another suggestion was that return migration numbers might have been higher in previous decades due to imperfect or faulty information. As information is more readily available these days, migration projects are better planned and based on more realistic expectations. One possible group of Germans whose long-term return rate might have been comparatively high was that of migrants with a university degree. German academic degrees were not easily accepted, resulting in over-qualification, deskilling, and dissatisfaction.

I can imagine, for instance, back then migrants with tertiary degrees [Akademiker42] were part of that group who returned, because they weren’t accepted. I think one is better informed, and goes with full knowledge, and then doesn’t return (Participant 18, Australia, 2013).

The position that the number of returns has decreased in recent decades is not universally shared. Participant 22 believes that a number of more recent migrants felt the same as those of the 1950-1960s: “I also know some people who emigrated in the last ten years and a few of them actually went back because they basically felt exactly the same as the old generation” (Participant 22, Australia, 2013).

In tracing the views of organisational representatives, it became clear that long-term return migration from Australia to Germany is not a concern to most organisations located in the broader bi-cultural social field either in Australia or in Germany.

6.3 The individual migration project While the previous section outlined the views of the organisational representatives, the following sections give voice to the experiences of individual migrants.

As outlined before, the age of the interview participants ranged from the mid-20s to 80s and the duration of stay of the interview participants was broad and ranged from more than forty years to just over twelve months. Socio-economically, however, they can all be described as middling migrants.

42 The original German word “Akademiker” can mean academic but the more common meaning is according to the Duden, an authoritative German dictionary, “jemand, der eine Universitäts- oder Hochschulausbildung hat”, somebody who holds a tertiary degree.

165

6.3.1 Bi-national relationships—the most common project conceptualisation “I met an Australian”43 was the most common reason cited in this study for Germans to migrate to Australia. Therefore, the investigation of the individual migration projects will commence with an exploration of bi-national relationships. Nearly half of all individual interview participants, eighteen out of forty-one, initiated their migration project because their partner was an Australian resident or citizen; a further interview participant reconceptualised her original plan on the journey to Australia as she met her future partner during the journey. Only four interview participants in this group were male. This is in line with other research and statistical evidence. It is generally assumed that cross-border marriage or spouse migration is dominated by female flows and there is evidence that females outnumber males in bi-national relationship migrations (Williams 2010, p. 61). Marriage or spouse migration has always been an important element of the Australian migration program. It constitutes the largest category of the family stream and while the family stream has lost ground to the skills stream in the last few decades, a considerable number of migrants still enter Australia in the Partner category every year.

Most of the bi-national relationships in this study follow the “pattern of boy meets girl in the course of overseas travel or work” (Birrell 1995, p. 12). Fourteen of the German partners in a bi-national relationship met their Australian citizen/resident partner while either or both were engaged in travel, work, or study outside Australia. The remaining four had met their non-Australian partner while engaged in travel, work or study in Australia or elsewhere. It was the partner who had a connection to Australia, converted to a permanent residency initially and later to a citizenship in these relationships.

It has been argued that spouse migration to Australia includes elements of lifestyle migration (Khoo 2001, pp. 120-123), however most German partners claimed that Australia as a destination had not positively influenced their decision making process “so it happened to be Australia, why not?” (Participant 5, Australia, 2013) and in other cases the distance from Europe generated misgivings.

43 Participant 51, Germany, 2013. However, while this exact phrase was used by participant 51 only, a number of other participants used a variation of this phrase.

166

I think my pull factor was [ex-partner] … It was according to the motto ‘we will build a life together and it will all just be wonderful’. It was more focused on the person than on the country. It always frightened me that it was incredibly far away from Germany and I knew I wouldn’t have the money to go back at regular intervals; the distance did always frighten me (Participant 10, Australia, 2013).

Two factors cited as decisive in the choice of Australia was the attachment of the partner to Australia, for most partners their country of origin, and the German partner’s desire to continue the relationship.

I was 19 or 20 and met an Australian. … a lot of Australians took a year abroad in the 70s; … but he always knew that he would go back because Australia was the ‘best country in the world’ ... if I wanted to keep this man I had to go to Australia as well. The decision wasn’t an easy one because I loved my home and my family but on the other hand I didn’t want to lose this man (Participant 34, Australia, 2013).

My expectations of how my life would be here were less connected with Australia than with how my family and married life would be. I had decided to build a family with this man …. The place was relatively unimportant to me; Australia, Timbuktu, Switzerland… I wanted to build my small family and live somewhere with them. We’d be happy because we were together, or so I thought romantically (Participant 30, Australia, 2013).

These examples indicate a strong emphasis on the romance aspect with little consideration of the migration aspect and a general disregard for the geographical, socio-cultural and socio-structural change implications.

Even after the end of a relationship, the influence it can exert especially when children are involved is far-reaching and can have a decisive impact on migration decision making.

Their father wouldn’t have let them go, he would’ve made it difficult. … after the divorce I started asking myself ‘what am I doing here? I only came here because of this man’. ... I could sell this house here and I could establish myself in Germany really well; I could buy myself an apartment and have a decent income but what about my children? … I didn’t have children so that I can move to the other side of the world (Participant 10, Australia, 2013).

167

A further factor influencing location choice in Australian-German bi-national relationships apart from the Australian partner’s strong attachment to Australia was the language factor. The German partner usually spoke English while the Anglo- Saxon partner was monolingual (cf. King 2002, p. 99). Monolingualism of the Australian partner, on the other hand, acted as an inhibitor of long-term return in this study: “[ex-partner] didn’t master the German language” (Participant 10, Australia, 2013). However, in recent years this issue has become less of a problem. There are a number of companies and organisations in Germany where the language of business is English. Moreover, many younger Germans speak English well and are keen to practice their skills on native speakers, a desire which may inhibit the acquisition of German even when living in Germany. “He did not have to. They all wanted to practice their English with him” (Participant 58, Australia, 2015). This in turn influenced the partner’s chances of professional advancement and led to the family’s migration to Australia44, thus influencing the location choice in favour of Australia.

Not all migration decision by partners in bi-national relationships were unreflected. Most of the couples interviewed assessed their options and actions carefully and did not rush into migration. This is in line with previous Australian research on decision making in spouse migration which points to a joint decision on where to live for bi- national relationships from European countries such as Germany (Khoo 2001, pp. 120-123).

In 1992 I met my husband in [country]. He came to Germany two years later and we lived in [city in Germany] for two years, then we went to Australia for three months, at first, to see if I liked it, because I had a small child at that point, I had an eight-month old daughter and wanted to find out whether I would like it there with a child. Then I became pregnant shortly after and went back to Germany to have the second child and, shortly after the birth, we immigrated to Australia (Participant 51, Germany, 2013).

It has to be noted, though, that Participant 51 and her family relocated to Germany and that during their stay in Australia the German partner ensured the children were brought up bi-lingually with a strong emphasis on German culture and traditions.

44 For the partner this was of course a long-term return migration.

168

[W]e started this playgroup ... we only spoke German. ... we were all married to Australian men, it was about the children speaking German and the German culture. … we really tried to keep German traditions alive in Australia. ... it was primarily a German enclave. It was really just German and we only spoke German, too (Participant 51, Germany, 2013).

Not all German partners in bi-national relationships put much emphasis on the transmission of German language and culture, though.

Very basic – a few words - enough to answer the phone when my mother calls and say ‘hello’. My firstborn probably didn’t hear much else other than German for his first 12 month of his life and then I went back to work and in the end it fell into the ‘too hard basket’ (Participant 23, Australia, 2013).

Bi-national relationships face a number of challenges due to the difference in formal citizenship statuses, human capital value, and familiarity with the (unwritten) rules of the host country for the migrant partner. One partner will have ‘outsider’, the other ‘insider’ status, in particular when attaining dual citizenship is impossible (as it used to be for Germans pre-2000) or difficult. This difference in statuses can lead to dependency and lack of agency with significant implications for the relationship as the migrant partner may find themselves reliant on their spouse financially as well as socially (Beck & Beck-Gernsheim 2001). This may lead to a desire to return so strong that the possibility of a relationship breakdown is accepted. Children add a further layer of complexity to the decision making process and may limit available options. The migrant partner may feel a strong desire for long-term return to their country of origin, made impossible (in their view) due to ensuring the best interest of the children. The issue of degrees of volition (Fussell 2012) in voluntary migration decision making and how this impacts on the overall life satisfaction of both partners in the relationship is central here.

When one of the partners thinks they are making huge concessions—that’s never good. …. Giving up all my friends; I was happy with my life and I did it for him, for the relationship and for my daughter so that she could have a family; … Well, he more or less gave me an ultimatum: ‘Are you coming or not? – I am leaving now!’ (Also, er hat mich jetzt sozusagen vor die Alternative gestellt; kommst du jetzt mit oder nicht? – Ich geh‘ jetzt!) … In the case—if my husband had said no [to returning to Germany], and if I

169

had had to go without him … I wouldn’t have been able to leave, because of the child, because you can’t go then … you aren’t able to choose. … Well, after ten years here, he’ll just have to stick it out, well, at least ten years there, I don’t know. … I think once I am back in Europe, there’d never be a need to come back to Australia. There’s nothing I’d miss (Participant 58, Australia, 2014).

While the participant feels that she would prefer to stay in Germany, this relocation may not provide a permanent solution to the question of location as it still leaves open the question of a long-term or permanent return to Australia at some later stage. This complex issue will be explored in Chapter 7.

In contrast, bi-national relationships where both partners were not native Australians did not seem to face similar problems; instead Australia provided a kind of common ground. While a long-term or permanent return to Germany was occasionally considered as a possibility in certain circumstances such as loss of job and no further prospects in Australia, or inheritance of property in Germany, this consideration played no role in the general conceptualisations and future plans.

I never actually thought about it if we, my husband and I, will stay here for good or not … Australia is a pretty good, neutral country for us because my [husband’s native language] is lousy; I really like [European country] but I would find it linguistically difficult to live there and it always restricts you when it comes to jobs and so on ... And it’s the same for him; I don’t think that he could easily find work in Germany with his qualifications. … That’s why Australia is a pretty good compromise which works for both of us (Participant 33, Australia, 2013).

Bi-national relationships and spouse/marriage migration form a complex intersection of insider/outsider statuses, dependencies, wants, and needs. Despite the fact that intermarriage is considered a significant factor in and facilitator of socio-cultural integration, not all bi-national relationships seemed to follow this path. As the trigger for the migration was not necessarily intrinsic to the migrant herself/himself, aspects of non-volition may interact with and impact on feelings of belonging and socio- cultural integration, bringing to mind the exile as conceptualised by Hannerz (2002, p. 105): somebody with cultural competence in but no desire to be part of the host society. The impact of those factors on long-term-return consideration can be significant.

170

6.3.2 Shifting the focus from country of origin to host country This section explores the migration project of those migrants whose focus of primary social engagement had shifted decisively to the host country. The shift in focus from country of origin to host country was observed for more than one third of the individual participants in the study (thirty-nine per cent or sixteen out of forty-one participants).

Initial migration conceptualisations ranged from settlement decisions made by parents in the case of the two 1.5 generation migrants, family reunification, to adventure seeking behaviour, bi-national relationships, the expatriate temporary migration project turned into settlement, and some projects that were driven by a mixture of those motivations.

The reason we came out to Australia was because my mum’s brother had come out. ... [M]y grandpa was a bit of an adventurer, so they wanted to come out ...Well, grandparents were going to go, so she [mother] thought she would, too, because that was the family unit (Participant 14, Australia, 2013).

I’ve always been adventurous and would’ve probably done something else otherwise. ... if it didn’t work out, I had had at least a good enough English knowledge and a nice holiday and got to know Australia (Participant 13, Australia, 2013).

I said to the company, ‘Okay, I either go back after this contract is finished or you apply for permanent residency for me’ … I wanted to stay, but if I couldn’t stay forever, now was the time to go … I wanted to belong somewhere. So if I couldn’t belong to Australia, which was where I wanted to belong, I had to know. … And so after four years of having been here on temporary visa, I became a permanent resident (Participant 17, Australia, 2013).

A special project conceptualisation was that of permanent return to Australia after long-term return to Germany. In all cases the return to Germany was part of life course events such as divorce or marital issues and element of (non-)volition as already encountered in the bi-national partnerships played a role in the migration project development.

171

I was happy in Germany; I liked it … I liked my husband a lot and always trailed after him. ... My husband’s sister already lived in Australia and she wanted to have her family with her ... I always hoped that it might not happen; … Nowadays, I think that [friend] and other people I met did it better than me because they came of their own free will and I just followed my husband. When I came back by myself it was my free will and I wasn’t able to complain and had to get through. I was fighting my way through, it was sometimes difficult but I wouldn’t want to go back anymore (Participant 26, Australia, 2013).

Despite the diversity of migration project conceptualisations, all members of this group were structurally well integrated: All were proficient in English, although some of the early assisted passage year arrivals spoke it with a discernible accent, eleven of the sixteen members of the group were or had been partnered with an Australian citizen; all were or had been well integrated in the Australian labour market, working in skilled employment for which some of them trained or retrained in Australia. Eight members of this group were tertiary-educated; all owned property.

The degree of socio-cultural integration for the group was spread along a continuum from almost completely assimilated to being “German with a touch of Australian” (Participant 10, Australia, 2013).

The shortest duration of stay in this group was fifteen years at the time of interview and the longest fifty-nine years. Acculturation was most complete in those participants who had arrived during the early assisted passage years as children and spent their formative years in Australia. Participant 15’s acculturation, as a child at the time of immigration, took place through schooling and engagement with peers— even though in sometimes less than congenial encounters45. The family abided by the assimilationist policy of the time although some of the drive for the almost complete assimilation was attributed to the participant’s younger siblings, both of whom identified as Australian and who did not want to be different to their peers. This extended even to the celebration of Christmas, one of the few German traditions upheld by a number of the participants in this study:

45 Participant 15 was the only participant who recounted encountering overt racism.

172

An Australian Christmas. … Yeah, as far as I can remember, my parents on the farm, yeah. Christmas day. … I think because [names of younger siblings] had started school, it just became a natural thing, they just wanted the same as all the other kids, you know all their friends (Participant 15, Australia, 2013).

While the length of stay in the host country played a significant role in determining the degree of acculturation, attitudinal and identificational aspects also played a substantial role. For this group of German migrants, the range was quite broad, ranging from defining themselves as Australian, to feeling more Australian than German and with little interest in German affairs. But it also included those who feel excluded, outsiders; seeing themselves on an identificational level as possessing a German-European identity.

Here’s something to explain a bit about how I notice that I’m German or more European; we did Trivial Pursuit in our staff room for a while and I ... could actually only answer the geographical questions because everything else is dominated by the Anglo-Saxon. … I don’t know anything about it but I know I’m an outsider and can’t give any answers (Participant 10, Australia, 2013).

Acculturation can also be affected by subjective assessment of performance against personal goals or expectations. Not achieving those goals can significantly affect integration on the socio-cultural level despite a significant number of years in the host country. But the number of years spent in the host country coupled with the ageing of the migrant can increase the cost of returning to such an extent that a return despite a latent desire is not considered feasible.

But to tell the truth, if I hadn’t bought a house after the first six or twelve months ... then I would’ve packed everything up real quick to go back to go Germany. ... Germany has its own nice and good things and that’s why I always say that I could maybe live there again. … I’m 61 now … if you take a step like that, you have to stick with it and it would be annoying if you regretted that step for the rest of your life. ... But other than that I’m pretty content (Participant 13, Australia, 2013).

Despite the different backgrounds, the variance in the number of years spent in Australia, the different decades of arrival and, most importantly, the variety in the (stated) reasons for settlement, the focus of these migrants’ social relationships and

173 their engagement had shifted to Australia. The degree of volition may vary as shown, however, this did not affect the outcome, structural and socio-cultural integration incorporation into the majority society—albeit to varying degrees.

Integration in the host country can encompass a variety of attitudes towards long- term return migration, including an unrealised preference for the country of origin. Settlement may not be the preferred option but a pragmatic assessment of viable options at a particular point in time and thus different from the original migration decision. Pragmatic considerations might impose constraints in particular for middling migrants. “If I went back to Germany, I’d have to start over again, and I wouldn’t know where” (Participant 16, Australia, 2013) illustrates the fact that settlement/non-return considerations are possibly more influenced by livelihood factors than the original migration decision. The migrant might well be more of a rational actor in line with neoclassical economics theory in the settlement decision than in the original migration project conceptualisation.

6.3.3. Fluid life courses A considerable number of participants in this study indicated their rejection of the label ‘migrant’. This was not due the pejorative connotations attached to the term as discussed in Chapter 1, but due to the fact that they did not classify geographical relocation to Australia as migration. The lengths of stay of this cohort varied between one and thirteen years in Australia at the time of interview. Their ages varied from late twenties to mid-fifties; their visa statuses were also the most varied and ranged from spouse through student to resident and dual citizen. In line with Australia’s migration program focus all were tertiary educated and spoke English fluently. All of them had lived outside Germany for some time prior to migrating to Australia, mostly through participation in exchange programs either during their school years or as part of their tertiary studies. Structural and socio-cultural integration varied depending on the length of stay and mode of entry. A number had Australian partners and all had circles of friends who included Australian and other nationalities; here the lengths of stay was, not surprisingly, a differentiator as those who had come to Australia as a partner in a bi-national relationship and had only been in Australia for a few years claimed the smallest social circles. On an identificational level, if one accepts acquiring host country citizenship as an indicator

174

of acculturation46, this group would have to be viewed as very acculturated, holding the most dual citizenships and even those who were not yet eligible for residency were considering dual citizenship.

Despite the fact that all members of this group met the UN definition of international long-term immigrant/emigrant as it was one of the eligibility criteria for participation, a significant number of interview participants did not view their movement from Germany to Australia as a migration. While participants acknowledged that a geographical movement had taken place, it was argued that for a person to be considered an emigrant/immigrant a conscious decision to emigrate/immigrate was required. As long as this decision had not been made, the continued presence in the host country did not qualify as emigration/immigration. Residence in Australia was classified as a prolonged stay with the option of a return open at any point in time. Similar conceptualisations have been reported for New Zealand (Bönisch-Brednich 2002; Schubert-McArthur 2009).

I asked myself that questions many times ‘why did you emigrate?’ and that word emigrate I said ‘no, that’s not who I am’ because of that decision—even though on a practical level that’s what we did—my wife and I never sat down and decided that we will permanently stay here – we will stay here as long as we like it and that is more or less an unspoken agreement (Participant 22, Australia, 2013).

A different approach argued that the connections to Germany had been maintained and therefore migration had not taken place: “I didn’t consider myself an emigrant. I hadn’t cut my ties to Germany. There was nothing wrong with Germany” (Participant 54, Germany, 2013).

The assumption that it is the relative strength or weakness of one’s ties to the place of origin and not geographical relocation which determines whether a spatial move is to be considered a migration constitutes one aspect of the—implicit—reasoning of why these migrants do not consider themselves migrants: they perceived their connections to Germany as strong despite their physical absence. The maintenance of strong connections was achieved by creating physical co-presence through their

46 Amit and Bar-Lev (2015, pp. 947-948 ) outline that naturalisation is often used as an indicator for identification with the host country and a desire to stay.

175 own visits to Germany, and visits by families and friends in Australia. Virtual co- presence was achieved through the use of information and communications technology (ICT). Mobility, aided by relative affluence and qualifications/skill sets of this group, had become common place, especially for tertiary students for whom some study outside Germany is the norm rather than the exception, and while the ‘tyranny of distance’ had not been fully subjugated by “space-time compression” (Harvey 1990, p. vii; pp. 260-307), distance had become much more bridgeable.

This was in particular true for Germans in the age groups between 20–30 and 30–40 who arrived in Australia as part of bi-national relationship migration and/or those who had children. Annual return visits to Germany as long as the children were not of school age, often financed by parents, were common as were visits by parents, often for a number of months, and visits by friends.47

We have a lot of visitors; …it calmed down somewhat over time but people are still coming … We were in Germany in December and January – I thought it was nice and I also liked the fact that you are only a few hours from Paris and Amsterdam; everything was wonderful and nice (Participant 20, Australia, 2013).

A number of migrants in this group had met their partner while completing their studies either in Australia or outside Germany. Those partners had spent time with them while they were completing their studies, so they were now spending time in their partner’s country. While language abilities played a role, it was conceived as an open-ended endeavour.

My Australian boyfriend whom I met 2007 in Argentina … was with me during my two terms abroad. … he came to Germany for four months, but because he doesn’t speak any German, it is a bit difficult for him to find a job. Then it was my turn to come to Australia, so to say, and it’s almost been two and a half years now. … And we’re still thinking about possibly going somewhere else to, well, further develop and expand our horizons, although we haven’t yet made any progress with that decision (Participant 4, Australia, 2013).

47 While most interview participants had returned to Germany for holidays and also had hosted German visitors, the frequency of both types of visits was significantly higher for this group.

176

Coming to Australia was no longer seen as a migration project but as a building block in one’s life course design project, an open-ended decision which could be revisited, reversed, reaffirmed or revised at any time in response to internal or external factors such as employment opportunities or (perceived) family obligations. Permanency or temporariness were not prime considerations.

Whereas us nowadays, if we decided we had enough, within fourteen days we’d be back home again … everyone knows that things don’t last forever, that experiences are limited whether it is a for a shorter or a longer period. Everyone perceives their stay as temporary (Participant 28, Australia, 2013).

The focus was on maximisation of experience which might take place anywhere at any time. A number of migrants did not see residence in Australia as a definite choice of place but just one location on the arc of their personal trajectory; a spatial move to Germany was seen as a possible locational choice but not a return.

I guess I never felt like a migrant … I feel like I'm here for an undefined period of time but I don’t, I haven’t left completely. I’ve still got things in Germany. I’ve got strong relationships in Germany, so I think I never identified with that term migrant. … I’ll go because probably I’ll find a position there—a job there. But that’s not going back, that’s moving to the next stage. ... It’s going through different stages of my life and if one of them happens to be in the same place where my childhood was, then that still doesn’t feel like back (Participant 3, Australia, 2013).

While most of the participants in this study who subscribed to this view were younger, there were also some ‘migrants of choice’ (Bönisch-Brednich 2006, pp. 461-468) who in middle age had decided to live their lives according to their own dreams and ideals.

Yes, you can redefine; to go somewhere else, move somewhere else and develop ourselves there. … If I define ‘migration’, it means I move from one place to the other and that’s how I find it, without actually getting the citizenship and so on, so that part doesn’t make much difference but I see more … I would see it more as moving because we see ourselves as world citizens, so migration is just a word—of course technically we are migrants but you asked me how I see it and I see it as moving (Participant 57, Australia, 2014).

177

However, the focus on maximisation of one’s potential does not preclude a decision for settlement or return. As set out at the beginning of this section, settlement can happen by stealth; it might also be a decision, moving along the continuum of place attachment towards settlement.

I feel comfortable here. … Was it a proper emigration? – I don’t know; it was always a bit of the case that we kept some kind of backdoor open - which is still the case; I still have the extension with my position in Germany … but we definitely didn’t say ‘we will go to Australia, we will stay there forever’, we didn’t plan that from day one. … I think it’s not temporary anymore; I don’t see it as temporary. … I mean ‘never say never’ but I don’t want to have to start all over again; you eventually reach an age when you say ‘no, that’s enough’. I could probably live in Germany again but it’s not that easy in our case because my husband is [European citizenship] and that makes things difficult. So, no, we are probably not going back (Participant 20, Australia, 2013).

Conceptualising migration in the way this group does, a choice of location rather like moving within one’s country of origin or the European Union, has, of course, implications for the conceptualisation and the realisation of return movements as these may be rather less defined or definitive but more frequent.

6.4 Creating virtual co-presence Another important element in investigations of settlement and return migration is the issue of cross-border ties since “migrants are often in the situation where many of their most emotionally significant relationships are conducted internationally” (O’Flaherty, Skrbis & Tranter 2007, p. 819). There is evidence, in particular for middling migrants, that technological advances in ICTs and transportation and the concomitant decrease in cost have affected quantity and quality of contact with family and friends in the country of origin (King-O’Riain 2014; Ryan, Klekowski von Koppenfels & Mulholland 2015), ameliorating the ‘tyranny of distance’.

ICTs were the main means for participants in this study to create co-presence. All participants were enthusiastic and prolific users of a range of ICTs. ICTs used were—to a degree—dependent on age of migrant, purpose of communication and recipient. Facebook, for instance, did not feature strongly in age groups over fifty; Skype and mobile telephones were the most utilised ICTs regardless of age of

178

participant. Most migrants expressed a positive change in the quality of their interactions.

The communication is easier. … You have a connection, something you didn’t have back then … You aren’t restricted anymore, you just talk to each other and that helps a lot – it’s a huge difference (Participant 13, Australia, 2013).

While the development of ICTs has provided more choice and immediacy across a broader range of options, it is the decrease in price which seems to have had the strongest impact on the quality of the connection to family in the country of origin. Co-presence, Participant 13’s, ‘connection’, could only be established after the removal of the financial constraint: “we always said ‘write down what you want to say’. It was horrible because the costs were so high, the minute was something like $12 or $13 and you just had to be brief” (Participant 13, Australia, 2013).

[T]he contact is now so much closer and more normal so that the feeling of ‘he is forever lost for me’ isn’t that strong anymore – you are not completely separated anymore. … phone calls were still something special when I first arrived here but it’s easier to accept that ‘yes, it is normal to call each other regularly’ just because it is so much cheaper, especially for the younger generation or to send an SMS so that you can stay in touch (Participant 7.2, Australia, 2013).

Younger participants’ use of ICTs was extensive, partly due to the fact that ICTs had been part of their communication habits even before migration. In some cases, this was related to the configuration of social networks (still) oriented towards family and friends in Europe. A number were in daily contact with members of their core family unit, often making what one participant called “chit chat”, and had weekly Skype sessions scheduled with friends. Facebook was used to reach a number of people in a variety of locations, text messages were utilised for short messages, and email was used for more important messages. Contact was described as an everyday activity, blurring the boundaries between absence and presence.

I call my grandparents on their home phone, because they don’t have Skype, but that’s about it. My grandparents once a week. My mother three times a week. My sister and my father four or five times a week, although it’s just chit chat on occasion. ‘How are you?

179

Everything OK? Fine, and you? OK, bye.’ And then a bit longer on the weekend (Participant 4, Australia, 2013).

Another way of staying in touch through creation and maintenance of a shared space of information and feelings is through the use of online media, in particular when the social field includes friends and family in both Australia and Germany, an increasingly common occurrence:

Skype and the iPad are absolutely fantastic in that respect. My kids and those of my husband’s brother can see each other on Skype. … Facebook. We use that a lot. I know just as much about my Australian friends or relatives from their Facebook updates, as I know about my German ones. Or with the recent election. That was extensively discussed. Whenever I post something, myself, it’s always in English, because I have to consider all my friends, at least most of the time. I just posted something on a discussion on Günther Jauch’s48 show that I was annoyed about and considered posting it in English, but then I thought it doesn’t make sense, because they wouldn’t even know who Günther Jauch is. But, of course, someone complained right away and asked for a translation (Participant 54, Germany, 2013).

6.4.1 Visual co-presence An important capability of ICTs is the creation of visual co-presence. Skype and other options which allow for visual sharing of experience are very important for the migrants in this study, making the relationship feel much more intimately connected by extending the frame of reference, allowing participation in the migrant’s and their family’s home environment respectively. The visual aspect seems most important in those cases where children and their relationships to family are involved.

I Skype sometimes … my father, he always likes to see us. … they can see the house. … I think it makes a huge difference not to feel so far away. … Facebook, too, I also like to use it. I know people from all over the world, and we can stay in touch. They can easily send pictures, and you can see pictures from all around the world and stay in touch (Participant 16, Australia, 2013).

48 German television talk show host.

180

For example, after every single family party … they upload their pictures on Dropbox and they do that immediately the day after and someone will send them to us and explain everything a little – but the pictures always arrive right after the party so we can almost take part in it and the contact with the family is more intense. The cousins send pictures on their mobile phones to them [children of the couple] ... – it’s just a better form of contact (Participants 7.1 & 7.2, Australia, 2013).

By including the visual domain, co-presence is enhanced. Grandparents can see their grandchildren grow up and know what they look like. Sharing the knowledge of what Participant 16’s house looks like provides her parents with access to her life. Sharing pictures allows “almost” complete participation as Participants 7.1 and 7.2 argue and makes their connection with their relatives in Germany more immediate.

Most migrants saw the capacity for much more intimate and intensive interactions as improving the overall quantity and quality of their relationship with family and friends in Germany: “it’s less of a separation if you can Skype and, ideally, see each other” (Participant 40, Australia, 2013). ICTs have ameliorated but not eliminated the effects of distance as, even with the ability to see each other, virtual co-presence can still not satisfy the need for physical co-presence. “It’s great even if it’s still lacking the personal contact (Participant 13, Australia, 2013), reflects the argument that “virtual and imaginative travel will not simply substitute for real travel since intermittent co-presence appears obligatory for sustaining much social life” (Urry 2002, p. 258).

However, not all interview participants expressed a desire for sharing the entirety of their everyday lives, especially the desire for increased visual virtual co-presence. Some interview participants expressed a preference for less immediacy through use of telephone, email and/or text messages. Parents seemed to have a greater need for visual co-presence. One participant reflected that while she preferred speaking to her parents by telephone, she would want to see her daughter via Skype if they resided in different countries.

181

6.5 Discussion and conclusions The organisational representatives’ observations of the German community’s developments since 1952 identified two types of patterns: temporal and integrational. The major temporal patterns observable in migrant demographics were functions of macro-level factors and thus coincided with major shifts in the Australian and the German socio-political and economic environment as outlined in Chapter 3: a decrease in German migrant numbers since the late 1950s due to the ‘economic miracle’ coupled with government restrictions on access to assisted passage arrangements (Sternberg 2012, p. 184-88); the end of the long boom in the early 1970s effectively ending mass migration for low skilled labour market participation (Jupp 2002; Markus, Jupp & McDonald 2009); the end of the White Australia Policy and the introduction of skills-based migrant selection in 1979, which saw a decrease in migration from Europe and a change in those who were admitted, thus the perceived change from working to middle class migrants. Finally, Australia’s increasing skills focus and the move from settler migration to temporary visas and the increasing normalisation of mobility especially in the European Union has produced a migrant demographic of middle-class, highly educated, qualified and economically privileged. Thus, migrant demographics have changed in line with nation-state regulatory frameworks and global developments.

However, host society incorporation was the real differentiating factor between migrant cohorts. The early assisted passage year migrants were classified as working class and artisan, undertaking manual types of labour in Australia’s segmented labour market. This had an influence on their incorporation into Australian society. While structurally well integrated, socio-cultural integration did not take place to the same degree. Nevertheless, socio-cultural integration was completed by the generation of their children who assimilated into Australian society.

Later migrant cohorts were described as middle class, and either so well integrated they were invisible, or expatriates who were either consciously making the most of their temporary residence in Australia by immersing as much as possible in Australia social life; or those expatriates who had become emplaced unconsciously and/or whose duration of residence was deliberately undefined and indefinite.

182

The observed interdependency between the temporal and the socio-cultural integration continua did not signify a change in the class base of German migrants but the refocusing of the Australian migration program from the low-skilled employment of the post-war decades to an increasingly highly skilled migrant intake which resulted in a changed immigrant demographic, a finding that is not only applicable to German migrant cohorts but has also been observed for other nationalities such as Croatian migrants (Colic-Peisker 2006, pp. 214-221).

In general, return migration was not a consideration for most organisational representatives. This is in line with the “telos of immigration, settlement, assimilation and citizenship” (Ngai 2011, p. 136)—which also plays a considerable role in the migration imaginaries of the individual participants in this study. Some organisational representatives conceded that contemporary migrations include temporary mobility; however, for most organisations the phenomenon of return migration, if accepted as a phenomenon in its own right, was considered not only an issue pertinent to previous decades only, it was also conceived as a temporary stage—most of those who had had returned to Germany had returned to Australia subsequently. While an oversimplification of what the individual narratives revealed, the organisational representative version of migration trajectories foreshadows that individual trajectories can be diverse and recursive.

Contemporary migrations often originate from emotional and passionate attachments (Mai & King 2009, p. 295). “Love migrations” (King 2002, p. 99) accounted for nearly half of all individual migrations. Despite the fact that globalisation coupled with technological advances and concurrent decrease in price of travel and communication allowed not only for the establishment but also maintenance of “transnational intimacy” (King 2002, p. 99), bi-national relationships in general face more problems than others (Williams 2010, pp. 52-73). This is partly due to the fact that bi-national relationships are the products of social norms defining what is an acceptable relationship in any given society but also because they are inherently personal constructs which are no longer permanent or non-negotiable and thus need constant reflection and renewal (Beck & Beck-Gernsheim 2001).

183

However, the bi-national relationship as a problematic space was not the main or only narrative. There were a number of different conceptualisations of the migration to Australia as part of a bi-national relationship. Problematic conceptualisations were those which disregarded the migration aspect and emphasised the family formation and love perspective, and a breakdown in the relationship in a number of cases—in conjunction with other motives—led to the consideration of a long-term return to Germany.

Other issues bi-national relationships had to contend with were loss of autonomy and self-efficacy, dependency, volition in decision making and a preference for the country of origin. A bi-national relationship might engender transnational orientations but it might also lead to tensions as regards the preferred country of residence. The complexity of such a situation increased once children were involved.

These findings seem to contradict concepts of socio-cultural integration which see partnerships with a host country native as conducive to integration (Anniste & Tammaru 2014; Furtado & Theodoropoulos 2010; Meng & Gregory 2005).

An interesting finding was that this seemed to apply to German-Australian bi- national relationships only; when both partners were not Australian originally Australia seemed to function as a convenient middle ground.

On the other hand, there were a number of participants who confirmed the importance of family in their personal integration process and the heightened possibility of a return without this integrational factor they had observed.

Linguistic ability was rarely mentioned unless it referred to bringing up children bilingually or in relation to the Australian partner’s inability to speak English and thus impacted on return considerations. The desire to transmit German culture and language to children was relatively strong, especially by those migrants who arrived within the last twenty years, many of whom had not made a decision regarding the duration of their residence in Australia. This may be an indication of mobility which in turn may indicate a transnational or global orientation. Berchem (2011, pp. 606- 608), who observed a similar orientation in his investigation of German migrants in Sydney, draws the conclusion that inherent temporariness in contemporary

184

migrations leads to a situation which requires an orientation towards both societies. This seems to be applicable in this investigation as well: only very few participants did not engage in language and culture transmission to their children; those who did not put a strong emphasis on this transmission had shifted their focus to integration in the host country.

Those migrants whose focus had shifted to life in Australia constituted a diverse group. Original migration project conceptualisation ranged from settlement decisions by parents, to adventure-seeking behaviour, temporary sojourn, trailing spouse and, of course, to partner in a bi-national relationship. One subset had made the unequivocal decision that the only return to Germany was a short-term holiday. This included a number of migrants who had returned to Australia after a long-term return to Germany. These participants had made a very conscious and definite decision for Australia.

Others, while committed to Australia as their main residence, harboured ideas of dividing their time between Australia and Germany approximately evenly in retirement. The small set of migrants who actively engaged in these considerations was economically well situated. A division of time between the two countries might indicate transnational attachments situated within the life style migration context, representing “a lifestyle choice that should be considered as a stage within the reflexive project of the self” (Benson & Osbaldiston 2014, p. 4). Others, while interested, did not entertain this notion due to financial constraints, which applied not only to early assisted passage migrants. While in general comfortable, a number of contemporary migrants would prefer to engage in broader transnational mobility but due to their economic situation are not able to sustain medium-term presence in Germany.

Other constraints impacting on return desire realisation were familial obligations. A final factor in the consideration of staying or returning was the cost of having to establish a life in a different location; unlike the original migration project, though, the outcome of the consideration regarding a return conformed to the principles of neoclassical theory. Return was treated as an unlikely option as they were ‘successful’ migrants, i.e. having established themselves successfully in the labour

185 market and society of the host country, Australia, and thus the cost of ‘returning to’ would be much higher than that of staying, or as Waldinger (2008, p. 26) argues “immigrants are realists.”

A considerable number of migrants did not see themselves as migrants. This was a mindset encountered in the cohort who had arrived in Australia since the mid- to late 1990s and coincided with Australia’s move to temporary migration and the normalisation of intra-European mobility. Australia was not considered the final destination, just one stage in a mobile person’s life. This confirms King’s argument that

Migration itself becomes a desirable act rather than an economic means to an end: a consumption good rather than a strategy which satisfies the production needs of another country’s economy or the private survival needs of an individual migrant; and the projection of an individual’s identificatory experience beyond what are perceived as restricting confines of his or her own country (2002, p. 95).

These participants emphasised openness to situations and opportunities and saw their residence in Australia as a phase in their life trajectory. This accords with a process of general societal individualisation, a process in which the individual takes responsibility for actively organising their lives across domains that were previously those of the state or public other institutions, and where the major transitions from one biographical building block to the next such as education and marriage have become matters of choice. The individual’s life course is seen as a series of passages (Giddens 1991, pp. 79-80); the “normal biography thus becomes the ‘elective biography’, the ‘reflexive biography’, the ‘do-it-yourself biography’” (Beck & Beck- Gernsheim 2001). Individuals are required to make choices, and take ownership of and responsibility for their personal narrative, assembling a biography out of a range of experiences: “the line of development of the self is internally referential: the only significant connection thread is the life trajectory as such” (Giddens 1991, p. 80; emphasis in the original). These structures are also temporary and tentative. As the individual is faced with a multitude of possibilities, there is a tendency to keep one’s options open as long as possible (Lawrence & Dodds 2007, p. 409), a behaviour shown by a considerable number of participants. These conditions are closely connected to globalisation and/migration (Beck & Beck-Gernsheim 2001).

186

6.6 Summary This chapter explored migration and factors leading to emplacement in Australia. It did so by exploring migrant cohorts, migration project conceptualisation and reconceptualisations, and the creation and influence of virtual co-presence on migrants’ quality of relationships with friends and family abroad.

The chapter explored migrant cohorts through expert interview. Organisational representatives identified migrant cohorts based on the changing demographic requirements of the Australian migration program which also had an impact on the socio-cultural integration of migrants.

Overall, three broad cohorts were identified: A cohort comprising bi-national partnerships where locational decisions were influenced by but also influenced the quality of the relationship and the degree of volition of the original migration decision. A second cohort where a conscious decision for Australia as had been made and a long-term return to Germany was not considered and a third cohort that saw mobility as a one of the factors of life.

The migration narratives of individual participants reflected enhanced general mobility due to globalisation and transnational orientation but also to as general shift to individualised lives. While in many cases the migrants themselves held fast to the idea of migration as an outcome, their lived experience reflected the process of migration and transnationalism. These lived experiences were influenced by macro- level factors such as Australian migration criteria which privilege the young, linguistically able, and tertiary educated on a temporary visa. These are the people shown to be most mobile, therefore there is considerable intersectionality between macro-level factors and micro-level decision making.

The next chapter is the last chapter of the findings section and will explore long-term return migration narratives.

187

7 Narratives of (Non-) Return

7.1 Introduction This chapter is the third and final findings chapter and will look at (non-)return intentions and actual long-term return trajectories.

This chapter will firstly draw on some existing literature on return migration and in particular current empirical investigations into return migration to Germany to frame the discussion. The interview data will then be used to investigate the participants’ narratives of short-term return visits; narratives of (non-) return, including imaginaries of those who have not (yet) returned and the lived experiences of a long- term/permanent return, taking into account that executions of an initial return may not be the endpoint of the journey. A discussion of promoters and inhibitors of return will follow. In addition, in the conclusions the chapter will briefly explore some of the general implications of migration governance in return migration.

As established in the previous chapters, the mobility trajectories of many participants in this study have been extensive and varied, even those of a number of members of the early assisted passage years cohort. More recently, due to advances in communications (indirectly) and transportation technology (directly), participants in this study presented as increasingly mobile and, despite the considerable distance between Australia and Germany, bi-directional visits have become increasingly common, especially for younger migrants whose parents—often of the baby boomer generation, thus relatively affluent, retired and healthy, so able to travel long distance—and friends come to spend time with them in Australia on a regular basis. Moreover, driven by societal transformations, globalisation and changes to the focus of Australia’s migration program, recent migrants’ initial conceptualisation of the migration project have shifted towards a less defined project, a sojourn in line with their visa status, or an indeterminate stay driven by momentary preference, but also emplacement by inertia rather than decision. Although, as one participant pointed out, no decision is a decision of sorts. As the analysis of citizenship behaviour revealed, most participants in this study had retained their German citizenship and the interest in acquiring dual citizenship had grown since acquisition became an

188

option in the year 2000. One reason cited, among others, for acquisition of dual citizenship was ensuring equal access to both nation states. This is reflected in the narratives of participants located in Australia at the time of interview who indicated a variety of medium to long-term/permanent return intentions. In fact, a return in some form or other for a longer period than just a short-term visit was a tentative idea considered by most participants.

As Chapter 5 showed, the acquisition of dual citizenship served as an admission strategy to both countries. This becomes particularly important when a return is not necessarily seen as the endpoint of the migratory process. As Ley and Kobayashi put it

Transnationalism invokes a travel plan that is continuous not finite. Immigrants never quite arrive at their destination because they never quite leave home. Indeed, the whole problematic of ‘home’ can become extraordinarily complex in an age with increasing levels of dual citizenship, labour contracts with short-term visas, family members located on opposite sides of national borders, and fast and ever cheaper lines of contact between nations (2005, p. 113).

Transnational practices often involve establishment and maintenance of a base in the country of origin as well as the host country; sustaining family, friendship and network ties in both countries, ensuring that regulatory framework requirements, such as residency or citizenship conditions, are met to enable return at any time. Such trajectories and practices blur the concepts of host country and country of origin in an age of spatial dispersion and increasing mobility, not only of the young. On the other hand, there is empirical evidence that a considerable number of German migrants eventually return to Germany.

The OECD (2015b, p. 42) report on German emigrants identified the Germans in Australia as an aging cohort with a relatively low percentage of working age migrants and of recent immigrants. The number of recent emigrants/immigrants, defined as those who arrived within the preceding five years, was eight per cent for Australia. As recent emigrants are considered more mobile than those who have resided in the host country for a number of years, a low percentage may be considered an indicator for low return numbers from the host country. The low rate

189 of eight per cent of recent German immigrants to Australia combined with the considerable geographical distance, commonly considered to decrease the likelihood of return migration (Borjas 1987; van Tubergen, Flap & Maas 2004), may suggest low return rates from Australia to Germany.

Drawing on the literature, in particular the findings of recent studies, there are a number of factors indicating little long-term return migration from Australia to Germany such as the aging German population of Australia and the low rate of recent emigrants; on the other hand there are a number of factors which are favourable for long-term return migration such as the increase in the number of temporary entries to Australia; as seen in Chapter 5, most of the participants in this study who arrived after the year 2000 entered Australia on a temporary visa. Moreover, a number of the participants in this study did not conceptualise their residency in Australia in terms of permanency of temporariness. Australia was not viewed in terms of a geographical endpoint of a life trajectory but just one building block of that trajectory. While this conceptualisation does not in itself indicate a desire to return, it leaves the possibility of another geographical relocation open. A further group, predominantly female partners in bi-national relationships, indicated their preference for Germany coupled with an intention of long-term return migration. Moreover, the increase in intensity and frequency of contact through virtual co-presence led to much stronger maintenance or creation of trans/bi-national social fields. These, according to migration scholarship, increase the likelihood of long-term return.

The potential bi-locality of ‘home’ and with it the possibility of living—at least temporarily—in Germany again, may be implicitly present in the interest in acquiring dual citizenship as a means of ensuring right of admission and membership benefits to both countries. Although the number of dual citizens in this sample was small—the same size as that of those who had renounced their German citizenship in favour of the sole Australian one—the majority of dual citizens had acquired the Australian citizenship to secure entry to Australia before engaging in a long-term return to Germany.

190

Taking these seemingly contradictory factors as point of departure this chapter will commences the investigation of return behaviour with an exploration of short-term visits.

7.2 Short-term return visits Despite the considerably increased ability to create virtual co-presence, and the positive changes to the quantity and quality of migrants’ interactions with friends and family in the country of origin as outlined in the previous chapter, “social life at- a-distance” (Larsen, Urry & Axhausen 2007, p. 258) still comes with considerable costs in economic as well as in psychological terms. Participants in this study reported missing their family and circle of friends, and short-term visits were seen as an important way of filling this gap.

Some participants in this study indicated technological advances in transport had decisively influenced their migration decision.

I think it makes a big difference to be able to say ‘A 24-hour flight and I’m there’. You know you can fly over quickly in case of emergency, no six-week boat rides. … If it had been a long ride on a ship ... no. Then I could never see my family, even on holidays (Participant 40, Australia, 2013).

But me as a German migrant and giving up Germany, I don’t have to give up Germany— as it were. I can fly back for three months and I’ve seen a lot of people go back for three months and stay with relatives and then come back to Australia (Participant 29, Australia, 2013).

7.2.1 Purpose and frequency of visits While all of the participants in this study had undertaken at least one return visit, some differences as regards return behaviour emerged. In general, return visits had increased in the decades since the early assisted passage years due to advances in transportation technology, i.e. decreased (air) travel time and a concomitant decrease in the price of travel, but also the improved economic situation of most migrants. And the time between visits had decreased. “Yes, every four or five years … and after that we definitely went back every three or four years … And the last couple of years we even went back every two years” (Participant 13, Australia, 2013).

191

If I can work it in somehow, I’ll travel there, and so I have the feeling that although I don’t always have close contact, I still feel like I’m part of the family, I’m not disconnected because I’m in Australia. That’s important to me (Participant 1, Australia, 2013).

For me of course it’s no option other than going once a year and I spend a considerable amount of money and time on it. … I go back and catch up with my friends… So whenever I go back, all my time I spend is for – is to keep those relations alive … I went skiing with my parents for a week … because I don’t see my parents as often, I really value the time we have, and it’s the same for them (Participant 3, Australia, 2013).

Yet, as indicated before, not all migrants are frequent travellers. Despite the fact that the cost of air travel has decreased considerably, it is still expensive. McCann, Poot and Sanderson (2010, p. 379) estimated the cost of air travel to the UK for a family of four to be approximately forty per cent of an average Australian annual after tax income; the cost of air travel to Germany would be similar to the UK. Thus, the affordability of travel on a regular basis for more than a single traveller whose income is average or below average is doubtful. Groups who were economically constrained included early assisted passage migrants, now pensioners, but also those migrants, in particular with children, who were not financially well off regardless of the length of stay: “I knew I wouldn’t have the money to go back at regular intervals; … I was there with the kids in 2005, 2007 and to her [mother] funeral in 2011” (Participant 10, Australia, 2013, in Australia since 1991).

Other factors that may curtail return visits to Germany are related to the purpose of the visit as visiting family and friends can turn into a stressful event. “It’s not really like a holiday; ... It can be quite stressful at times … the schedule book is full and it’s immediately no holiday anymore” (Participant 13, Australia, 2013); time constraints imposed by employment and education of children can also impact.

[W]e flew to visit my parents. Almost every year at the beginning, but then less when I started working. … I’m established here, so if I have four weeks of holiday—this is why the gaps between visits have gotten a bit larger—I don’t want to spend a whole year’s worth of holiday in [town] (Participant 16, Australia, 2013).

192

The frequency of visits is thus impacted upon by a number of factors and constraints. While visits have become more frequent, financial and time constraints can curtail the ability to visit. However, visiting has turned into a reciprocal endeavour especially for more recent migrants, with short-term visits from Germany common.

A number of participants who were planning to return to Germany long-term reported frequent short-term visits. Other cases seemed to point in the opposite direction. Return visits were seen as an opportunity to engage with family and friends in Germany, a reciprocal endeavour to satisfy the need for co-presence and to sustain family and friendship networks.

This mirrors international research on the link between short-term return visits and long-term return migration: in some cases frequent return visits were precursors to long-term return migration; in other cases this did not eventuate; and in yet other cases a single short-term return visit initiated a long-term return movement (King & Christou 2011, pp. 458-459).

7.2.2 Short-term visits from German family and friends As indicated in the previous chapter, visits from family and friends were quite common for the cohort who had arrived from the late 1990s onwards, in particular in cases where grandchildren were involved.

And with my mother the arrangement was that I came to Germany every two years and in the years between, she would come to Australia, so I did see my family every year. There weren’t any huge gaps. … so my father came for three months at a time or my mother came over and we always had lots of visitors from Germany (Participant 51, Germany, 2013).

[T]hey [parents] usually come here once a year and are both retired and are able to stay two or three months and with that in mind it’s not that bad (Participant 20, Australia, 2013).

They [parents] have come every year so far; they have been here three times now to see me. Just told me yesterday that they want to come in May (Participant 3, Australia, 2013).

193

I never really felt homesick for Germany but rather for people; it’s the friends and the people that are missing. What can you do against it? – Well, you can visit these people, you can invite these people because I think everyone likes to travel to Australia. You have to stay in touch. I still have contact with all of my friends and my best friends; we write emails to each other or call every now and then or they come and visit us or we

The experiences cited above reflect current trends towards globalisation and extended mobility, observable especially in the frequency with which visits take place. They also reflect growing affluence in developed nations, and as such they are confined mostly to later migrants. Earlier migrants, and especially those whose migrations took place, do not report similar frequency of reciprocal visits.

Reciprocal visits can ensure that the financial burden of visits stays manageable while ensuring the maintenance of family ties and friendship networks at the same time.

7.3 Return narratives 1: (Un)settled and staying Twelve participants indicated that a long-term return to Germany seemed either unlikely or was not desired. ‘Unlikely’ in this context should not be equated with ‘not desired’ as there are factors in the individual migrant’s situation that may make a desired return unlikely.

A number of indicators were associated with a clear preference for Australia as the geographical focus of their lives. Participants in the study who had naturalised or were in the process of naturalising and whose sole citizenship was Australian were unequivocal in their choice: “Never think about it [return]” (Participant 15, Australia, 2013).

Participants who had extensive familial or social networks in Australia also showed a clear preference for Australia.

I can’t see any reason, even if my daughter wants to move to Germany; my work is here, and my whole social environment is here. I see no reason at the moment to move, and don’t want to change that (Participant 16, Australia, 2013, in Australia since the mid- 1990s).

194

I had my family here from day one … The integration is a completely different thing than when you sit there all by yourself and try to find friends – that is a completely different situation. … I never had a problem with anything like that because I had my family and that’s very different (Participant 5, Australia, 2013, in Australia since the 1980s).

There was also a group who assessed their lives in Australia as more successful socio-economically or professionally or more satisfactory—including life style elements such as weather—than in Germany. This group encompassed participants who had returned to Germany and then decided to return to Australia; in some cases, more than one factor motivated their return.

And I had made up my mind at that point in time, I wanted to stay and that there was no going back now to Germany. ... I look at my professional, professional level now. I think I’ve made the right decision (Participant 36, Australia, 2013).

[W]e separated in 1991 and I went back to Germany. … I actually felt homesick; I didn’t even think about whether I would stay or not. … I was able to take care of my mother … and when she died I stayed a couple of years longer and came back after all. Well, I thought ‘Gosh, Germany isn’t a country to grow old in’… I would’ve been alone on top of that because all of my children were already back in Australia at that point … I would’ve been too poor in Germany. … I wouldn’t have been happy to live there all by myself in winter … and to tell you the truth, I don’t even want to go to back to Germany anymore – not for living, not to spend my life there. German acquaintances and friends here … and some of them would love to go back to Germany sooner rather than later. They were more forced to come because their husbands … wanted to come and the wives actually didn’t (Participant 19, Australia, 2013).

The comparison between this participant’s voluntary decision and some of her friends’ different desires due to the non-voluntariness of their migration and continued stay in Australia is reminiscent of comments made by partners in bi- national relationships and draws attention to the importance of volition in migration decision making for the continued satisfaction with life.

Other participants in the study who also considered Australia their geographical focus entertained the idea of or engaged in medium-term (between three and six months) returns as outlined in the previous chapter. This is often envisaged as a retirement life style option.

195

It was, however, not a realistic option readily achievable for most migrants due to economic constraints. It either required location-independent employment which was rare—only one participant in this study qualified; or, as a retirement option, sufficient funds. While most participants in this study were financially comfortable, they did not consider it a viable option. If considered as a retirement option, a further factor, health concerns, needed to be taken into account as it can impede mobility. These issues are detailed by Participant 5 who by his own admission always saw his migration to Australia as permanent but who reveals his own ambiguity regarding a return to Germany:

I do have a lot of friends over there, so it wouldn’t be a problem to integrate again but if I look at the life that I have here, then I’d rather stay here. I think. … You can buy a massive house for 100,000 Euro and pay another 50,000 for renovations on top of that. On the one hand I would love to do that and I have friends who spend five months in Germany and live seven months here. … But they’re already over 70 and age is restricting them and then you have to decide where you want to go. And they’ll pack up things in Australia at some point, for all that money they will get (Participant 5, Australia, 2013).

While it does remain somewhat unclear whether it is economic gain that drives his interest or an interest in a part-time return, his contribution highlights the fact that even though he is firmly emplaced in Australia, a temporary return to Germany has featured as a consideration in his life.

Only one participant in this study actively engaged in this type of return behaviour. She, though, viewed it as just one stage in the migratory cycle, the closure of which might ultimately be determined by her children’s location choices.

Since my husband retired we spend three months of the year in Germany. … Others do the same and are still considering where to spend their sunset years. A return isn’t ruled out for the people who have links with Germany—still have their health insurance; it’s always a possibility and it basically depends on where the children are. … I would go back to [region in Germany] if my children decided to live in Europe … they would be the most important motivation for me (Participant 25, Australia, 2013).

196

The importance of links to the country of origin becomes clear in the contribution below.

But I think once you stayed a few years and established yourself, and then have children, then for various reasons, it is not an easy thing to do to go back. … But the consideration is, you often think, ‘Oh God, wouldn’t it be nice if I had never left and this and that or what else’. But this is all wishful thinking. Of course, the life is here. You make yourself a life here and you’re established here and you know what goes on here (Participant 31, Australia, 2013).

Other decisive factors in return migration decision making cited in many of the contributions are children and financial viability: “I think it always makes a difference if you have money. If you have money to fly back and forth, then it’s no problem at all—then you can have the best of both worlds” (Participant 10, Australia, 2013).

The positions taken towards long-term/permanent return to Germany outlined in the contributions above are located at various points along the continuum between the extremes of no interest in return migration and no ability to return despite a strong desire. Despite the variance in the study participants’ positions towards return migration, the concept of long-term return migration was a potential option, not a myth, in a number of the participants’ lives even when there was no current real desire or ability to act on it.

Socio-economic considerations, not surprisingly, impacted strongly on conceptualisations and realisations of return migration. In some cases not personal preference but economic and familial necessities seemed to determine the migration experience—far more reminiscent of the migrants of the early assisted passage years as described by Biedermann (2006, pp. 260-61) and Berloge (2002, p. 330-334), a reminder that most migrants from developed countries are not elite migrants but ordinary people leading ordinary lives; moreover, that even within the category of middling migrants the variances are considerable (Klekowski von Koppenfels, Mulholland & Ryan 2015, p. 198).

197

7.4 Return narratives 2: Trajectories

7.4.1 Return intentions A number of participants indicated at the time of interview that they were in the process of organising a return to Germany; as mentioned three of those had returned to Germany at the time of writing.

Argumentation around return intentions showed parallels to the citizenship discussion. There was a strand of arguments that focused on pragmatic aspects such as Australia’s distance from the rest of the world, the comparatively higher cost of living in Australia, and the comparatively lower standard of welfare provisions; however, psycho-social factors proved to be far more powerful as motivators for sustained return imaginaries. In parallel to the citizenship discussion, the desire for return was not so much a rejection of Australia—such as dissatisfaction with life in Australia—but a preference for Germany which seemed to motivate these participants’ choices. All participants with return intentions claimed to have undertaken numerous return visits. Return intentions and imaginaries were linked to feelings of a preference for life in Germany and/or Europe, a close connection to Germany, of feeling ‘German’ based on culture and language, of belonging based on familiarity and being like everybody else. The preferred type of return for this group was a permanent as opposed to a long-term return.

[S]o this being surrounded by other cultures and other languages, that doesn’t exist here and that bothers me.… I am European and that’s something I feel very deeply at times ... And then I think about my language, of course. I love my language, I love my culture and I love Europe, in general. … Firstly, you have more social security in Germany. That’s the first thing. Like when everything falls apart, there are ways you can still survive. I mean, there’s a little support here, too, but it’s very marginal. So, a greater social security. And then I think life is less expensive in Germany (Participant 6, Australia, 2013, since returned to Germany).

I think once I am back in Europe, there’d never be a need to come back to Australia. There’s nothing I’d miss. ... I have been back regularly … I feel really great straight away, much better than here. You know how they often say that people who go back to Germany, that they think ‘oh well, I really don’t like this anymore’, and I just don’t feel like that (Participant 58, Australia, 2014).

198

How powerful the imaginary of return to a familiar place where one belongs and fits in with everybody else, where one is one of ‘us’ instead of ‘them’, is demonstrated by Participant 34’s narrative:

I expected to go back after the divorce and that’s what I tried in [year] … But it was very difficult because I expected that my family would be really excited about me coming back but unfortunately that wasn’t the case. … and that’s why I eventually didn’t realise my plans … Like I said, the idea of return had been there for a very long time … I’ve been back to Germany three times in the last year. … This year I will go two times. Last year I stayed once for three months and didn’t even want to come back here anymore; it was so difficult to go back [to Australia]. … The whole life; I just fell back into that life because I have the view that I belong there. … I just had the feeling ‘you belong here’ and it is a very strong one. In Australia I always have to be careful, I have to adapt; even when someone asks what kind of accent it is and where I’m from and I start thinking that it still happens after 40 years of being here and you just don’t have that in Germany – you are just someone. … I know my way around; I can ride around on my bicycle and go shopping at Lidl. … I’m certain that I will definitely live there one day (Participant 34, Australia, 2013).

In a number of cases one determining factor in the scheduling of a long-term return was the timing of educational activities.

I started training as [occupation]. That took three years … and then my husband thought that if we went back to Germany, he might have better job prospects with a PhD, so he started a part-time PhD program, … but it was always clear to me that once we were both done and free again, that it was time to return (Participant 37, Australia, 2013).

As these contributions illustrate, return intentions are often based on a preference for life in Germany, based on a feeling of belonging and familiarity, invoking Hannerz’ metaphorical exile who, while possessing host cultural skills, nevertheless does not want to be part of that society. Negotiation of the return is contingent on a wide variety of factors. The narratives of return imaginaries presented here were those of participants’ personal desires unconstrained by external conditions or requirements such as familial obligations. Familial obligations will be explored in greater detail in the section on drivers and inhibitors of return migration.

199

7.4.2 Executed returns Overall there were eleven return migrants in Germany at the time of interview. Three of these returns had taken place in the 1970s49. All three initial projects had been planned as temporary sojourns; two were intra-company transfers and one of those was conceptualised around the education of the children, thus imposing fixed timelines.

[M]y father didn’t renew his contract. The reason was that he didn’t want me to stay in Australia because he wanted me to get my ‘Abitur’50 in Germany, because the Australian one wasn’t recognised in Germany at the time (Participant 45, Germany, 2013).

The other two projects were of indeterminate duration, one another intra-company transfer, the second an assisted passage migration project. Despite its seventeen-year duration, the assisted passage project never lost its focus on Germany; the Australian-born children were brought up bilingually and the participant never considered naturalising as that would have entailed the automatic loss of his German citizenship. The stated main driver of the return in both cases was employment- related but distance also played a role. Despite the distance both participants considered a return to Australia after retirement. Even though that did not eventuate, their ties to Australia have remained strong—in Participant 42’s case two of his children returned to Australia— and were renewed through bi-directional visits.

It was always clear that we’d return at some point. ... I wanted to go back simply for economic reasons, because the boom in Australia was coming to an end and business wasn’t going particularly well, but there was a new boom in Europe and I thought I’d be missing out. That was one reason. The second reason was that my father died in May 1974 and then you suddenly realize that you’re very far away, so those were the reasons why we went back (Participant 41, Germany, 2013).

What happened was that I started moving up within the [company] hierarchy. ... A major project. I was in Germany a lot during that time. Yes, and that way I also got to know senior executives with [company] Germany and received a few offers and ... I had always wanted to work at head office at one point, so that prompted me to consider it more

49As the returns took place in the relatively distant past, recollections tended to be fixed, a recounting of reasons in a factual way unlike more recent narratives of return which were more reflective and less decisive. 50Examination required for admittance to university in Germany until approximately the 1980s.

200

seriously and then there were a few things at [company] Australia in [Australian city] that I didn’t like that much anymore. There were some people I didn’t see eye to eye with, so without further ado I decided to accept one of the offers and in 1976 we returned to Germany (Participant 42, Germany, 2013).

Employment-related reasons continued to be named as a strong driver for return by current return migrants. However, reminiscent of the citizenship discourse, while instrumental reasons such as employment were initially emphasised, psycho-social factors introduced later into the discussion seemed more important in the decision making process. Participant 53, a former student visa holder, had been undertaking a work placement related to her Australian course of study in Germany which led to an offer of employment.

I was highly appreciated and they offered me a job … I think the other thing is … when you are doing an exchange program or one-year work and travel then things are very exciting, … but that doesn’t last very long and after a year you are in reality and you do have to pay your bills, you do have to survive. Because I came from a very rich and stable country the experience of downsizing myself was of course, not very fun. … you know you can fight and you can say ‘listen, I know exactly how it works; if you are not making that happen, then I will come and then I will make it happen’. I would have never said that in Australia at all. I would have said ‘please, please help me’ … it was for me also going home – going to a place that felt secure (Participant 53, Germany, 2013).

While the stated reason for this migrant’s return to Germany was the offer of employment, the motives for the return seem to be related to psycho-social factors such as dissatisfaction with life in the host country—‘downsizing’ in the participant’s words—due to loss of agency and self-efficacy in an unfamiliar cultural and institutional context. The return restored the agentic ability of the participant.

Participant 51, partner in a bi-national relationship inclusive of children, who had lived in Germany and Australia with her family, initially placed a strong emphasis on employment reasons in her return to Germany narrative: however, later the narrative switched to her children as possibly stronger determinants of location. This was similar to comments made by other participants who had returned to Australia after a return to Germany citing their children’s (and grandchildren’s) presence in Australia as a reason.

201

I wrote to different universities in Germany and sent them a copy of my degrees … and two of the universities offered me a job. ... I always say I go where the work is. That’s how it is in my case, unfortunately, … and if, the next time, I were offered a job in the US, then I would go there, because I say I studied for so many years, now I want to also work in the field. I wouldn’t go anywhere again where my degree wasn’t recognised, because I feel like I have invested too much in it to start from scratch again. … My daughter now wants to study there [Australia] and maybe my son, too, at some point, so if both of them were there, I would probably go, too, because what’s the point of being in Europe all by myself (Participant 51, Germany, 2013).

The complexities of bi-national relationships, in particular when children are involved, include the insider/outsider issue—although the citizenship status in Australia can be resolved for the German partner through the acquisition of dual citizenship, this is not an easy option for the Australian partner in Germany—which can be a factor in loss of agency and dependency. Language issues may impact in a return to Germany because the Australian partner usually has little or no knowledge of German. There is the desire by parents for their children to have an understanding of and grounding in the parental culture and the complex issue of extended family living in two countries: “you always have the feeling that you are actually taking their grandchild away” (Participant 20, Australia, 2013). And there is also the often unresolvable tension between the desires of the partners regarding the preferred location. This evokes Ley and Kobayshi’s ‘continuous travel plan’, making the partners bi-national sojourners or at least requiring bi- or transnational orientation not by choice but by circumstance.

And with the birth of my son came one of those moments where – oh, yes, I’d always imagined my children would be born in Germany and grow up there. … And now we’ve been here for five years and they already asked if we were going back [to Australia] in three years and I said I don’t know. I can’t see it at the moment. I can imagine that my husband might get to a point where he feels the same way I did back then and then we will have to figure out how to handle that, but it would be very difficult for me, because I currently believe very strongly that I can offer my family a better life over here … And there are some other options, too, where I might say I would like the kids to go to school there for a while. ... and I thought that maybe we could turn it into a sabbatical for ourselves, too (Participant 54, Germany, 2013).

202

The narratives of executed long-term return presented here point to range of motives in the return decision and to strong transnational orientation driven by children in particular. But the narratives also illustrate that such a bi-local orientation is not always voluntary. Belonging and familiarity, two of the strongest motives in the return imaginaries, are not as prevalent in the executed return narratives—possibly because they cease to be an issue after the return migrants have adjusted to life in Germany, a process that takes “Six months to a year, … where you still notice everything, and one year until you stop complaining” according to Participant 51.

7.4.3 Non-voluntary absences from Australia Not all returns to Germany were volitional, though. Some migrants who returned to Germany would have preferred to stay in Australia. While the return was not forced, the fact that re-entry seemed impossible made their absence from Australia non- voluntary. While dichotomies such as forced and voluntary seem straightforward, reality, though, points to positions along a continuum closer to the middle than the ends. Non-voluntariness can take different forms: in the age of temporary visas, it may not be possible to extend a visa, the conditions under which the visa was granted might have changed abruptly, or the personal situation of the visa holder might have changed, to name but a few reasons for non-voluntary departure51.

Participant 45, whose family came to Australia on an intra-company transfer, arrived as a small pre-school child; the family’s migration seemed to have always been planned for a certain timeframe, ten years, so that the Participant would finish school in Germany and be able to attend a German university. The participant had no role in the decision to return, the fact that she grew up as 1.5 generation had a lasting impact on her. While she desired to live in Australia, migration governance in conjunction with economic circumstance made a realisation of that desire impossible.

There was always this longing and feeling of homesickness. I also considered emigrating at one point and citizenship, together with my husband when I was about 40. … I did look at that point scale for immigration, but it was all a bit out of reach. …My husband had studied [profession] in Germany and that didn’t work at all in Australia, so he would

51 There are a number of visa categories which in exchange for a considerable investment in Australia allow one to bypass the ordinary eligibility criteria, however, none of the participants in this study were able to raise that amount of money. The Premium Visa scheme for instance would require a minimum investment of $15 million for an accelerated 12-month pathway to citizenship.

203

have had to start from scratch, so it just didn’t work out and I had to accept that at some point (Participant 45, Germany, 2013).

Other participants did not share such close links to Australia and, consequently, their situation was not defined by intense feelings of homesickness but dissatisfaction at being denied access to their location of choice.

In our case the return was work-related … The situation in the company changed from one day to the next and they started cutting jobs, so it all happened very quickly. … Otherwise, we would have definitely stayed there. … Australia, unfortunately, isn’t an option because of the age limit (Participant 44, Germany, 2013).

In Participant 46’s case the return to Germany was the consequence of a calamitous change in her material situation due to a difficult divorce. Divorce, while it does not necessary lead to return migration, is also not an uncommon reason for the consideration of long-term return migration in this study. And while the participant was starting to appreciate living in Germany again, especially due to the realisation of Europe’s cultural offerings and varied experiences, she was still dissatisfied as migration governance denied her agency in the choice of her preferred location.

For these participants the dissatisfaction lay in the fact that the structural impositions of Australian migration governance denied them any agency in the decision whether or not to return to and live in Australia.

7.5 Bi-local and pluri-local orientations The largest group of participants in the study were those who kept considering long- term/permanent return but had not made a decision. Returning to Germany permanently or semi-permanently was a future option but one that remained vague. “Never say never”, a phrase used by two participants, serves as an appropriate description of the attitude of this group.

[T]here is always that question ‘so are you coming back or are you staying there?’ … Yes, ok, what’s the answer? – I always say ‘you never say never’. We actually don’t have plans to come back but of course, you never know. You could change your mind if the circumstances should change. … And we’ve been living here for so long; my daughter is enrolled in school and … I mean ‘never say never’ but I don’t want to have to start all

204

over again. … If the economy was really terrible and my husband maybe lost his job and couldn’t find anything else – maybe then. My parents are of course a reason. … It’s difficult to say – but I think these are my reasons…or if our child is maybe going back, who knows (Participant 20, Australia, 2013).

Participant 20’s position encapsulated the issue: on the one hand she was emplaced. Emplacement had happened gradually and she did not want to establish a new life. This was reminiscent of those participants who were strongly structurally and socio- culturally integrated into Australian society and showed no desire to return to Germany because they were ‘established’ in Australia. So if nothing untoward happened, then return was unlikely. On the other hand, if life in Australia were to become too difficult, if the economic viability of her continued residency were threatened, then Germany could offer a safe haven, so a putative ‘failure’ might lead to a putative return. The other two drivers of a return were family related. Drivers as well as the inhibitors of return, as outlined by Participant 20, were representative of a number of the participants in this study. The concern about and necessity of caring for aging parents as a driver for long-term return migration was mentioned by many participants—apart from those in the age group 20–30 whose parents were presumably still young. However, at the same time, most participants did not envisage this as a driver for permanent return.

Economic considerations as a cause for a return, unsurprisingly, were important to most participants, however, in some cases, especially with older participants, economic consideration also functioned as a barrier to return migration:

Every time I’m in Germany, I think, what would it be like to live here again? … I ask myself what it would look like in reality, what we would live on—I’ve got very limited retirement funds saved up …. I don’t think, I mean, if we sold everything here, then we could have a humble life there, even if there were nothing in the health fund [Krankenkasse]—the practical problems certainly wouldn’t all be solved, and one would just have to see how it went (Participant 1, Australia, 2013).

Here as elsewhere the desire to ensure children had an understanding of parental culture was an important consideration. Employment opportunities and staying open to adapting life plans featured strongly in particular for younger participants. And

205 while most participants saw a movement back to Germany as a return, there was also a different conceptualisation that relocating to Germany could not be classed as a return.

Purpose is very important … and that’s a career. I guess it might change if I had children, things would change again. … I would want them to understand Germany. … I’ve got strong relationships in Germany. ... And going back to Germany doesn’t work because I would never go back to my life as it was before. … So I think this whole idea of return doesn’t really work for me. Because I don’t see it as return, it’s not that I'm in Germany and I'm German and I'm leaving for an adventure and I'm coming back. … My trajectory, yeah, moving along my life path. If that happens to be in Germany it would still not feel like going back. It’s not back home, it’s just – it’s the place I grew up (Participant 3, Australia, 2013).

Physical absence was not classified as a departure as it did not preclude strong relationships and a connection to Germany. Thus, no departure meant no return. Moreover, even if physical absence were classed as a departure, return was impossible because the place one left existed only in the past; and as such was only ever imaginary. Therefore, relocating to Germany could only be seen as moving forward along life’s continuum. This might include (temporary) presence in a geographical location one had lived in in the past. In this conceptualisation, it was not return but forward mobility that propelled a person into places which might not be dissimilar to what one had known before but that did not make them the same. This position was closely related to that which did not see physical mobility to Australia as a migration but classed it as spatial relocation.

7.5.1 Bi-national partnerships Bi-national partnerships inhabit a special place in the examination of the development of bi-local or pluri-local orientations and transnational social fields. They are by their nature affected by the dichotomy of two countries of origin and two host countries, by individualised and globalised biographies (Beck & Beck- Gernsheim 2001) and the tension between the deterritorialisation of life trajectories and the concurrent desire of the individual to belong.

206

But it is not only the impact of mobility that has brought change to the institution of marriage. The removal of economic constraints in particular for women has reshaped the nature of marriage (or committed partnerships) overall in the last century from a pragmatic “community of need” to one of “elective affinities “(Beck & Beck- Gernsheim) where the notion of personal choice is the overriding factor. Moreover, the weakening of limitations on what constitutes an acceptable partner has broadened the ‘field’ a partner can be chosen from considerably. Thus, the coming together of two individuals from different contexts to form a (reproductive) union requires the construction of their own, personal life-world. This is a life-world which requires melding individual values, lifestyles, ways of thinking, rituals, ideas and preferences into a shared arrangement.

In bi-national relationships the complexity of working out shared arrangements is even greater as the elements in the construction process also include cultural differences, possibly legal and economic power imbalances and the experience of being the “stranger”. These experiences, in turn, require the partners to engage with their own origin, the question of one’s own identity, and the desires and plans for one’s own life, leading back to the observation that contemporary biographies are individualised; that they require the individual to take ownership and make choices, thus assembling their own life course out of a range of experiences as outlined in section 6.5.

The tension between the individual’s mobility and the attendant weakening of connections between people, places and cultures on the one hand and the need to belong, the desire for rootedness on the other (King & Christou 2011, p. 461) manifested itself in different ways for the partners in bi-national relationships in this study. For some the orientation was towards the host country and a conscious decision to convergence with host society values and norms. This behaviour was most clearly observable in the trajectories of Participants 5 and 23, who in terms of Berry’s acculturation model as outlined in Chapter 2 were located closer to assimilation than integration, and who, while still maintaining ties with family and some friends, had not developed a strong transnational social field.

207

Other participants reflected a much stronger transnational orientation, such as Participants 7.1 and 20, whose transnational social fields were extensive, strong and durable. Not surprisingly and in line with approaches theorising the individualisation of society and the individual’s assemblage of a biography by choosing experiences from a broad range of possibilities (outlined in section 6.5),transnational orientations and the development and maintenance of transnational social fields were strong in those participants whose duration of stay had been relatively short—between one and five years—and who were at the beginning of their working life trajectories, ensuring that their options staid as broad as possible by developing pluri-local networks.

Another group who had maintained strong transnational networks were those participants in relationships in which both partners had a migration background, either as first or second generation migrants. Children were one factor impacting positively on the maintenance of transnational social fields as parents attempted to ensure intergenerational and cultural continuity. The notion of keeping one’s options open was broadened to ensuring the establishment of as many options for the children as possible. This included ensuring the possibility of long-term return via dual citizenship for the second generation.

The strongest bi-local orientation and transnational social ties were observed in those bi-national partnerships where a long-term return migration to Germany had been initiated by the German partner. This was true regardless of the explicitly stated52 reason for the return migration, be it employment related or affective, i.e. a need/desire to live in the country of origin.

While this might seem paradoxical, in particular in the case of an affective need for living in Germany “It was almost like my batteries had run out and I had to go back right now” (Participant 54, Germany, 2013), it was inspired by the fact that a return to a familiar culture and familiar norms and values for the German partner results in a role reversal as the Australian partner is now in the role of “stranger”.

52 As set out in the literature on return migration (e.g. Gmelch 1980) responses by research participants may not necessarily be completely accurate as participants might provide what they deem an acceptable response.

208

“Yes, he [husband] came along, as mentioned, and it was very difficult in the beginning. He didn’t like it at all to start with, in Germany, … so he didn’t want to stay here. … Things sorted themselves out, eventually, but there were quite a few teething troubles here in Germany (Participant 51, Germany, 2013).

“It was most difficult for my husband … And I can’t even say to him, Listen, it was your choice. There’s always that awareness in the background that he gets up at 4 am [for work purposes], because I wanted to go to back to Germany, … I do know that he’s really given up a lot in that respect” (Participant 54, Germany, 2013).

As the participant responses show returning long-term to Germany had a further dimension for the partners, namely that of volition and sacrifice. Unlike the German partner’s original migration, the Australian partner’s migration did not seem to be entirely volitional, thus requiring a greater sacrifice than the participant’s in the original migration. While the return migration might satisfy the participant’s personal needs, it creates new needs for their partner, thus shifting the tension between mobility and belonging from themselves to their partner, creating the ever present possibility of the need for a return to the partner’s country of origin. This, in turn, requires the maintenance of a strong transnational field.

7.6 Promoters and inhibitors of mobility Despite the broad variation in the sample as regards age, length of stay in Australia, socio-economic status, original migration and return migration experiences and intentions, and even beliefs about the nature of return migration, promoters and inhibitors of long-term/permanent return migration were remarkably consistent across the sample. In most cases, the return migration decision was underpinned by a range of motives; the weight attached to individual motives, though, was participant- dependent.

7.6.1 Family-related promoters and inhibitors The main promoters/inhibitors were family related; children (and grandchildren) were the most powerful factor in return migration decisions, followed by aging parents and their needs. Spouses/partners were mentioned less often.

The role of children (and grandchildren) is ambiguous, though, as—depending on the context—they can act as a powerful promoter but also as an inhibitor of mobility

209 or intended but as yet unrealised mobility: even the interview participants in the age group 20–30 who at the time of interview were all childless had incorporated the scenario of what having children might mean into their future projections.

Let’s assume I stay with my partner then that would be a problem because her parents are in [Australian city] and mine in Germany and everyone wants to see the child; I think that might be a challenging thing. … It’s really hard but I would probably say Germany. I think it’s down to the basic education (Participant 55, Australia, 2014).

For parents of school aged children ensuring stability in the children’s school life was the main inhibitor of return migration executions “so I decided we need some sort of stability, so they can finish school” (Participant 51, Germany, 2013). Conversely, the geographical location of adult children, in particular in cases that also included grandchildren, was a significant consideration in return decisions.

Returning to Germany, at least for me, is very much related to the emotional realm, because my son is there and might start a family at some point and have children and I would be a grandmother and couldn’t see my grandchildren (Participant 6, Australia, 2013).

Carer responsibilities for aging or ill parents was the second most powerful promoter of return. While none of the participants had any economic or material responsibilities towards their parents, many of the participants felt some obligations towards aging parents. This obligation was amplified in cases where no siblings were able to take care of the parent and less pressing in the case of siblings close at hand. Therefore, a number of participants were considering returning to Germany to take care of or participate in caring for parents.

My parents are getting older. … My father has been in the hospital for three weeks, and during those three weeks my mother has been somewhat overwhelmed. … So I have a need or duty, I’m responsible for my parents; … and I don’t want them to find themselves alone when they need help, so I’ll take care of them. That’s my main reasons at the moment (Participant 22, Australia, 2013).

However, return migration considerations framed around the needs of aging parents were usually conceptualised as possibly long-term but temporary return “At some point, and then I will feel guilty; my parents, who gave me so much—but would it

210

mean a definite return? Probably not; maybe I would just go back for a while” (Participant 20, Australia, 2013). Once that perceived obligation was removed, either through the death of the parents or the move into a care facility, some migrants reframed or gave up their return considerations altogether.

Look, for years, I kept an open mind because I thought maybe one day I’ll have to go nurse my parents. Well, my dad passed away a few years ago and my mum’s 93 and well, I think, into the process of moving her into a nursing home, but—no (Participant 17, Australia, 2013).

Spouses/partners, if included in the return migration narrative, were generally perceived as inhibitors of return migration due to their inability to speak German. In the cases where the return migration to Germany included an Australian spouse/partner, usually male, it was not an easy endeavour “he came along, … and it was very difficult in the beginning. He didn’t like it at all to start with … so he didn’t want to stay here” (Participant 51, Germany, 2013).

7.6.2 Economic considerations A second complex of promoters and inhibitors of return migration were economic considerations. This broad complex encompassed a number of different contexts and its function as inhibitor or promoter was context-dependent. Factors influencing return migration decisions in this complex were: (1) low income, especially in old age; if the participant was located in Australia, the perception of having to survive on a small pension was an inhibitor to return migration considerations; whereas if the participant was located in Germany it was a contributor to the return migration decision; (2) economic necessity due to adverse life course events such as divorce; return migration then provided a “safety anchor of ‘family’” (Participant 46, Germany, 2013) and became a promoter of return migration; (3) career options. These were generally seen as promoters of return migration for all age groups across the participants who had either returned/were planning a definite return or who were undecided. Most of the participants who had returned to and were still residing in Germany cited career options as one of the drivers of their return decision. “I always go were the work is” (Participant 51, Germany, 2013) was a common attitude among participants.

211

7.6.3 Quality of life factors A third complex of factors influencing return migration decisions can be summarised as quality of life factors. Whether a quality of life consideration becomes an inhibitor or promoter can be context and/or location dependent. Climate considerations are at the forefront of reasons given by all participants. Compared to the Australian climate, the German climate is unfavourable, in particular winters.

Climate considerations are an inhibitor or promoter depending on the location of the migrant. If located in Australia, climate is usually an inhibitor to return migration decisions: “some things pull me back to Germany, but what pushes me away is the long winter” (Participant 18, Australia, 2013); but when the participant is located in Germany it becomes a promoter: “Winter in general; you can’t get out … It’s better to choose the Australian weather” (Participant 19, Australia, 2013).

Quality of life can also encompass considerations of age and related physical ability to travel, ability to readapt and considerations regarding the quality of the welfare system, factors a number of participants saw as important in the decision making process of return to Australia in later life.

They [daughter in Australia and her family] bought a property there and are now building a house and my daughter says they have already planned a room for me. Yes, but like I said, I’m over 80 now, so I have to really think about whether I want to do something like that again. … And, I have to say, it’s not as good in Australia for old people, I had the impression back then, than for younger ones. Maybe I’m wrong there, but that was my observation at the time, that you might be better off here in Europe as an older person (Participant 42, Germany, 2013).

Thus, quality of life considerations in regards to aging can be an inhibitor of return migration decisions despite family connections and the existence of the powerful promoter of return executions, children and grandchildren.

A third consideration in the quality of life complex concerns what Participant 52 calls ‘downsizing’ (Participant 52, Germany, 2013). ‘Downsizing' did not only relate to the financial realm, it affected all areas of her life.

212

I mean the way houses are built in Germany are much better, the health system is much better – also of course expensive but good for the ones who don’t have that much money. I think downsizing in many ways; definitely moneywise. … And then of course I’m a quite open and communicative person so I did have a lot of friends and people around me and my family is a very important part of me being me and I didn’t have that anymore, I didn’t have that network. If you are going through a variation of challenges and you don’t have anybody to talk to, that’s a massive downsizing of your possibilities.

While the above description of ‘downsizing’ is a portrayal of the liminality of the migrant experience—in particular that from a position of relative affluence to one of relative marginalisation—one which requires adaption and re-establishment, it may provide an insight into why return migration rates were quite high. It might be that some migrants experience the phase of liminality as unacceptable or unbearable.

Another factor that influences return migration desire—if not necessarily decision making and execution—is that of voluntariness of decisions. Not strictly speaking a quality of life factor, it nevertheless influences the individual migrant’s quality of life considerably. Non-voluntariness had two forms for participants in this study: the non-voluntariness of the original migration for (mostly female) partners and the associated long-term return migration to Germany (in some cases more than once). In some cases return migration led to the Australian partner being the non-voluntary migrant with the possibility of a return to Australia currently open. In other cases, it ultimately led to voluntary return to Australia. A special case is that of participants who are unable to return to Australia due to migration governance issues; the nation state asserting its power to determine admittance and membership.

7.7 Discussion and conclusions This chapter commenced with an exploration of short-term return visits and their possible connection to long-term return migrations. As has been argued short-term return visits are an integral part of migrants’ lives (Baldassar 2001; Colic-Peisker 2006; O’Flaherty, Skrbis & Tranter 2007), and conceptual linkages between short- term and long-term/permanent return migration have been made with the argument that return visits can facilitate social reintegration. As early as 1980 Gmelch drew attention to the fact that migrants often made decisions regarding long-term return

213 migration during a visit to their home region53. Frequent short-term visits could be an indicator for a close connection to the country of origin, ultimately leading to a long-term/permanent return, in particular taking into account that according to O’Flaherty, Skrbis and Tranter (2007, p. 817) only about eleven per cent of migrants in Australia undertake return visit to the country of origin frequently.

Short-term return visits often take the form of what has been termed ‘Visiting Friends and Relatives’ (VFR). Travel can be defined as VFR if purpose of travel and/or type of accommodation includes a visit to friends or relatives (Backer 2007, p. 369). Short-term visits are vital to migrants and their families and friends and act as a means of maintaining family and friendship networks through co-presence. Visits are often related to special and/or annual events; co-presence in particular at special moments is one of the central functions of VFR mobility, combining the fulfilment of social obligations with tourism activities, often relying on free accommodation, thus making it a type of travel which also works for those migrants facing financial constraint (Janta, Cohen & Williams 2015, pp. 588, 593). As has been shown, much of the short-term visits undertaken by the participants in this study fell into the category of visiting friends and family to ensure the maintenance of networks through co-presence. However, these short-term visits were not unidirectional; family and friends also visited the participants in this study, creating a reciprocal network of co-presence.

The link between long-term return migration and repeated return visits is not clear cut: while some research has observed a relationship between (repetitive) return visits and possibly longer-term return, this may or may not lead to permanent return (King & Christou 2011, pp. 458-461). Duval (2004), in his study of Eastern Caribbean migrants in Toronto emphasizes the dual nature and purpose of return visits—strategic and social—as an integral part in the migration process either by assisting with acculturation in the host country or serving as means of readaptation to the country of origin.

53 This observation seems to be applicable to the early post-war German migrants to Australia in as much as the return visit, often only feasible after a considerable number of years, was the catalyst for the decision to become an Australian citizen (Biedermann 2006, p. 70).

214

When the return visit takes place, it represents a specific stage in a wider migration process that may in fact incorporate the permanent return. … the role of the return visit should be considered as both a mechanism through which adaptation is fostered in the diaspora and by which reintegration in the external homeland is aided (Duval 2004, pp. 63-64).

The duality of the short-term return visits as outlined by Duval could also be observed in this study: while in some cases short-term return visits were the precursor to a permanent return, other participants saw visits as a way of ensuring their psychological well-being by maintaining their relationships in the country of origin.

There is a significant body of literature which deals with the concept of long-term return migration. Much (but not all) of that literature takes an economic perspective, often in the context of how economic factors influence migrants’ decisions to return (Bijwaard, Schluter, & Wahba 2014; Constant & Zimmermann 2011; de Haas & Fokkema 2011; de Haas, Fokkema & Fihri 2014; Fokkema & de Haas 2011; Waldorf 1995). Other empirically focused investigations view migrants’ decisions to stay or return as significantly influenced by their satisfaction with life in the host country and the social and material relationships in both host country and country of origin (Amit & Bar-Lev 2015; Massey & Redstone Akresh 2006).

Return migration also features in theoretical approaches to migration and can have radically different interpretations. According to Cassarino

The neoclassical economics and NELM54 approaches differ in so far as they posit contrasting sets of interpretations regarding return migration. When neoclassical economists argue that people move permanently to raise and maximise their wages in receiving countries, return migration is viewed as a failure, if not an anomaly. When NELM contends that people move on a temporary basis to achieve their goals or targets in receiving countries, as a prerequisite to returning home, return migration is viewed as a success story, if not a logical outcome (Cassarino 2004, p. 256).

54 New Economics of Labour Migration, one particular theoretical approach in economics-focused migration research, discussed in sections 2.3.4 and 2.6.1.

215

Other approaches which incorporate return migration are the structural approach which focuses not on the migrant but on the possible impact of their return on the society of origin, an approach not well suited to this study as the number of return migrants from Australia to Germany is small in real numbers and not easily measurable. The transnational and network approaches view return migration as one possible stage in the migration project (Cassarino 2004, pp. 264-268).

In the context of this study it is a questionable whether theoretical approaches with a basis in economic reasoning of rational actors and their utility maximising strategies can provide much useful insight or are even applicable. Most of the participants had not migrated with idea of raising or maximising their income; most migrations were experiential in nature and/or originated in a variety of emotional and passionate attachments, therefore viewing these long-term return conceptualisations and experiences through a transnational lens may be more fruitful. A transnational lens seems better suited to deal with the contemporary diversification of the patterns of mobility (Castles & Miller 2009, pp. 10-12) as it allows for a broadening of the focus to include host country and country of origin perspectives. Integrating both host and country of origin perspectives enables the observation of the interplay of individual preferences, socialisation within the norms of different societies and familial ties in more than one country—important consideration in the context of bi-national relationships. As the example of Participant 54 shows, bi-national relationships, especially when children are involved, are lived between two geographical locations and have to deal with the “here” and the “privileged elsewhere” (Colic-Peisker 2006, p. 212), wherever in that particular constellation the privileged elsewhere is. While Participant 54 seemingly favours Germany and its societal norms, there is a clear connection to Australia in her relationships and of course with her Australian husband’s family. And while it would be her preference to not have to engage with a continuous travel plan, there is an awareness that this may well be ‘wishful thinking’. Transnationalism is a useful lens in these contexts as it can account for all forms of mobility, but most importantly, it acknowledges that migrants can and do identify with more than one nation state (Hugo 2013, p. 2). Moreover, a transnational lens is more compatible with the emic approach taken in this study to the return narratives.

216

The analysis of the return narratives identified three broad approaches to long-term return migration considerations and conceptualisations: the return conceptualisation of those emplaced in Australia which include recurrent medium-term but not long- term return; return intentions and lived experiences of return; and an approach in which return/relocation to Germany had not been ruled out but where no need for decision had been identified at that particular point in time. This approach was based on two conceptualisations.

One conceptualisation saw a movement back to Germany as a spatial relocation not a return; it was argued that a return to Germany was not possible. Due to the linearity of time the place which had been left no longer existed. This view makes a connection to the views expressed by some of the participants who had naturalised and given up their German citizenship because their gaze was directed towards the future and not a past. However, this conceptualisation did not rule out the possibility of a relocation to Germany for the same reasons cited by other participants who viewed it as a return—employment-related reasons, familial obligations and children.

The second reason why a move to Germany was not considered a return was because physical absence did not constitute a departure if virtual co-presence and intermittent co-presence through short-term visits was ensured. This is a similar argument to that encountered in the discussion on why a relocation to Australia should not be considered a migration and leads back to the idea that in an individualised society in which the individual is responsible for assembling the script of their self-narrative, their DIY biography, disparate and idiosyncratic experience will be woven into the reflexive or elective biography (Lawrence & Dodds 2007, p. 409). Self-exploration and self-development through geographical mobility can be seen as development of one’s life, an exploration of personal and professional possibilities (Conradson & Latham 2005b, pp. 290-295) and thus form a valuable building block of one’s life trajectory.

These participants kept their options open. Differentiations here were related to a stronger focus on mobility in general than to long-term return to Germany. While not disregarded as a destination it was also not a preference, rather a by-product of

217 employment options. Migrants engaged in weighing different reasons for remaining in Australia and reasons for a long-term return to Germany. These differed according to the age of the migrant. Younger migrants in general were more focused on employment considerations and thus more on general mobility; all participants cited familial obligations as a reason for a long-term but not permanent return.

The second conceptualisation was located in the space between being emplaced in Australia with an established life but also being aware that certain disruptions to that established life could result in the necessity to return to Germany long-term or permanently. One of the disruptions imagined were carer obligations for family, a common theme not only in this study but in the migration context (Baldassar, Baldock & Wilding 2007; Baldassar & Merla 2014; Janta, Cohen & Williams 2015; Robertson 2013). The second disruption envisaged was that of the emplacement becoming financially unviable, or in the terminology of push-pull frameworks, failure of the migration. However, in the two instances where economic viability was the root cause of the return migration, that of Participants 44 and 46, the return was not seen as a failure but as a part of the migration experience, caused by a confluence of incidents outside the participants’ influence, and their considerations and conceptualisations did focus more on their relationships with both countries than on failure or success.

The return conceptualisations of those emplaced were many-faceted and ranged from no interest in any other than a short-term return in the form of VFR—in a number of cases the consequence of a conscious decision to return to Australia after a long-term return to Germany triggered by a range of motives usually including children in Australia, economic and climate considerations—to a strong but unfulfilled and possibly unfulfillable desire due to familial obligations and economic constraints. Volitional aspects were raised as an important factor in migrants’ satisfaction with migration decisions, a factor which ultimately impacted on quality of and satisfaction with life.

While most of those emplaced saw their lives as more successful or saw themselves as having a better quality of life, a position which seems to affirm research evidence that satisfaction with life after migration and naturalisation are good indicators for

218

settlement (Amit & Bar-Lev 2015; Massey & Redstone Akresh 2006), there is also evidence that in some cases the emplacement is not voluntary. The possible impact of volitional aspects and adverse circumstance on quality of life is illustrated by Participant 10 who suffers from the fact that she feels unable to return to Germany due to familial considerations and duties. A medium position between these two poles was occupied by a group whose conceptualisation of return as a recurrent annual event of approximately six months’ duration showed some transnational attachments in conjunction with lifestyle migration elements. Return migration as envisaged by most of these participants did not take the form of reintegration into an ordinary German working life; possibly due to the migrant’s age and the duration of stay in Australia. As it was envisaged as a retirement option, ordinary working life considerations were no longer applicable, therefore spending approximately equal time per year in both countries was the preferred option—this could be interpreted as maintenance of transnational social fields or as a kind of lifestyle migration. This is not an uncommon conceptualisation of migrant behaviour; it has been shown, for instance, for such diverse groups and countries as Italian migrants in Australia, Indian migrants in the UK (Baldassar 2001; Lakha 2009; Raj 2003) and for groups of migrants in the Netherlands from a variety of countries (van Bochove 2012, pp. 77-81).

Return intentions and executions were informed by a variety of reasons; some grounded in the non-volitional aspect of the original migration, loss of agency and self-efficacy. Return intentions were mostly inspired by a preference for Germany based on a feeling of familiarity with and belonging to Germany, of not being different to the mainstream, of not being the ‘other’ and should not be interpreted as a rejection of Australia as such. This was in line with SVR-Studienbereich (2015, pp. 42-45) findings which identified dissatisfaction with the host country as a factor in return decision whereby the dissatisfaction was less related to the host country than missing certain aspects of the country of origin. The majority of migrants who detailed their return intentions were unequivocal in their desire for the return to be the endpoint of their migration journey. For them no duality of home seemed to exist.

219

Migrants’ reasoning in executed returns emphasised the employment factor but also showed a range of motives, inclusive of children and other family-related reasons. Return migrants differed in their attitude towards further mobility: while some viewed the return as the desired closure of their journey, others continued to be mobile and could imagine further onward migrations or a return to Australia. Where closure was desired, the transnational orientation inherent in most bi-national relationships caused apprehension in the German partner.

This chapter also explored the promoters and inhibitors associated with long-term or permanent return and established three clusters of interrelated factors which influence long-term and permanent return migration decisions: family-related factors, economic considerations and quality of life factors. Factors tend to be context and/or location dependent, that is they can function as inhibitors or promoters of return migration decisions depending on the particular situation.

Comparing promoters and inhibitors with those identified globally for German return migrants in the recent SVR-Studienbereich (2015) study shows considerable similarities as to motives: family and employment related reasons were the most often cited reasons for long-term return decisions followed by what was termed a dislike for life in the host country. In this study reasons cited for return intentions in particular did not show a dislike for Australia so much as a strong preference for Germany.

And while this was a small study of only 41 individual participants and therefore does not claim generalisability, the trend of more Germans emigrating than returning as outlined in SVR-Studienbereich (2015, pp. 10-13) and OECD (2015b, pp. 75-97) could also be observed in this study. However, the finding that return migrants were less likely to be of working age, less active in the labour market and less highly qualified (OECD 2015b, p. 97) could not be confirmed. This may be related to Australia’s skills requirements as most return migrants were very highly qualified55, had been in employment before their return and where in employment after their return to Germany, which may also serve as a refutation of neoclassical economic

55 The lowest qualification was a Master’s degree for contemporary return migrants. Those who had returned as adults in the 1970s while not tertiary qualified were nevertheless at managerial level when they returned to Germany.

220

theory explanations of return migration as a strategy employed in the case of a failed emigration and settlement attempt. While some of the reasoning employed by those who did not intend to return concentrated on the difficulties of re-establishing a life in Germany, interpretable as a cost of returning, none of the return migrants saw their migration as a failure and the failure as a reason for return56.

7.8 Summary This chapter investigated long-term return migration conceptualisations and long- term return migration trajectories.

Findings included that a sizeable number participants considered a long-term return to Germany unlikely, however, unlikely did not necessarily mean not desired but considered impossible due to various kinds of constraints.

Others showed a clear preference for Australia. This was particularly true for those migrants who had returned to Australia after a long-term return to Germany, for those who were securely established in employment and those who had extensive family networks in Australia.

Those migrants in Australia who had strong and clear intentions to return displayed a preference for German-European culture and identity and while there was not open dislike of Australia, there did not seem to be much socio-cultural integration.

A number of those who had returned long-term to Germany were open to further migrations. In some cases, this was due to the transnational family configuration and/or due to employment considerations.

The greatest number of interview participants, though, was in general open to the idea of mobility related to employment options whereby Germany was one of many options but not the preferred one. In general, these participants did not consider a spatial move back to Germany a return but a relocation.

This chapter also investigated drivers and inhibitors and found three major complexes of promoters and inhibitors of long-term return migration:

56 In Participant 46’s case, it was not the failure of her migration but of her relationship that made Germany a safe haven.

221

 family related considerations  economic considerations  quality of life factors

Depending on the individual migrant’s circumstances a factor could function as a promoter or inhibitor.

In summary, overall conceptualisation of long-term return migration to Germany was varied but the concept of return played a significant role in most migrants’ lives regardless of whether a long-term return was considered, considered an option, had been undertaken, or was considered reversible.

222

8 Conclusion

8.1 Introduction The purpose of this study was to explore long-term return movements between Australia and Germany, investigating the development of return migration between the two countries since 1952 and in this way contribute to knowledge of long-term return between developed countries. This research used a qualitative approach in an interpretivist/constructivist framework with data collected through semi-structured in-depth interviews conducted in Australia and Germany. While some statistical data and research into contemporary German migration trajectories globally was utilised in particular in the comparison of long-term return from Australia to other German emigration destinations, the emic perspective was this study’s focus. This was the most appropriate methodological choice because of the primary focus on the experiences, beliefs, thoughts, and opinions of the participants which are inevitably their own construction rather than an objective perception of reality. A further factor in the choice of this approach was the relevance of the constructivist concept of multiple, situated realities to adequately manage the participants’ variety of backgrounds and migration trajectories. Essentially, the goal of this research was not to construct generalisations about return migration, but rather to uncover patterns and understand the variety of possible trajectories within the broader contexts of globalisation, transnationalism but also general societal transformations. A further reason for the use of this approach was the language factor: as the participants were offered the choice of language for the interview, most but not all interviews were conducted in German which required a translation – in itself an act of interpretation and co -construction by the translator.

The study was built around four research questions:

1. How have the patterns and determinants of long-term return migration between Australia and Germany changed in response to macro-level socio-spatial conditions? 2. How do macro- and micro-level socio-spatial conditions intersect in migrants’ envisagement, negotiation and experience of return?

223

3. How can the exploration of return migration between developed countries illuminate the dynamics of globalisation and transnational movements? 4. How do the findings of this study compare with current German studies which concentrate on return from the major German emigration destinations, the US and EU countries such Austria and Switzerland?

These questions were answered through the analysis of the empirical data presented in Chapters 5 to 7. The investigation in this study revealed that patterns, determinants and migration flows as well as individual’s migration trajectories between Australia and Germany have undergone not only manifold but fundamental transformations. Mobility dynamics of the last 60 years between the two countries reflect profound shifts in Australian political orientation towards nation-building, represented and enacted through the socio-economic and political frameworks associated with migration governance and migrant incorporation models which have affected composition of migrant flows and stocks in Australia.

However, there are also German developments which have shaped migration to Australia such as the assisted passage agreement between Australia and Germany, the economic miracle which all but ended mass migration not only to Australia, and the changes to citizenship laws which make the acquisition of dual citizenship a possibility. And while access to Australia and incorporation into the Australian polity likely had the greatest impact on the selection and settlement of migrants, these were not the only factors to influence migration dynamics between the two countries.

Globalisation but also regional socio-political developments resulting in much greater mobility such as the continued expansion of European Union and the incorporation of an ideology of mobility as a value in and of itself have also shaped migrants’ personal trajectories. The time-space compression through technological advances, in particular in transportation and communications technologies, coupled with a decrease in cost, has mobility as an achievable objective. Associated with these factors is a general societal shift— at least postulated for the Global North— towards an individualisation of society with the individual responsible for their own goal setting and coordination of their life.

224

8.2 Patterns

8.2.1 Temporal patterns While definite patterns and changes to these patterns were observed some constants were also observed, in particular when looking at statistical data57. As outlined in Chapter 3 according to statistical data, the rate of permanent departures of Germans from Australia has consistently exceeded twenty per cent of settler arrivals since the 1960s. A peak occurred in the 1970s. This was due to two distinct phenomena, the superior economic and employment situation in Europe which not only induced more Germans to return to Germany and the fact that it also extinguished any residual interest in emigration which had already been waning all through the 1960s. The findings from this study confirm outcomes from research that puts the departure rate of immigrants from OECD countries at between 20 to 50 per cent, and more specifically, around twenty per cent for ‘classic’ immigration countries like Australia; and around fifty per cent for Europe.

Statistics (as presented in Chapter 3) show that the number of German migrants leaving within the first four years of arrival is lower than that of German migrants leaving Australia after more than five years of residence, a finding that was confirmed in this study. While four out of the thirteen returned participants residing in Germany in this study returned before the five-year milestone, the other nine stayed between five and thirty years before a return to Germany took place. What has also been shown is the impact of macro-level socio-political and spatial conditions in both the country of origin as well as the host country.

The very clear differentiation between the early assisted passage years, the migrations of the late 1970s to the mid-1990s and the migrations from the mid-1990s onwards clearly reflect the shifts in the Australian migration program from the low skilled employment of the post-war decades to an increasingly high skilled migrant intake which resulted in a changed immigrant demographic and as such show the impact of migration governance.

57 Even though the focus of this thesis is not on statistics, they are still useful in showing trends in mobility.

225

The German perspective can provide motivations for migration: as Chapter 6 has shown, a number of different motivations came into play. Assisted passage migrations were in some cases conceptualised as permanent settlement, inspired by networks of family and friends but also as an interlude from ordinary Germany working life with guaranteed work and a return after a predetermined number of years, or as a practice termed medium-term migrations motivated by a thirst for adventure, the idea of acquiring English language skills, and generally picking up some useful practices and knowledge, a behaviour that became more common from the late 1950s onwards.

In later migrations a number of different factors also played a role: in the 1970s Australia with its bourgeoning resources sector was seen as a bridgehead into Asia and a number of German companies established branches in major Australian cities, staffed by senior personnel from Germany initially. A number of those did either elect to stay in Australia at the end of their contracted time or after retirement, some of whom are reported to be engaged in regular, iterative movement between the two countries. A different class of migrants were the relatively smaller number of those who arrived in the eighties; disaffected activists who had chosen Australia due to its perceived status as less regulated but also because of its nature and space. Migration became individualised based on better quality of life in Australia.

With the shift towards temporary visas and focused on attracting the highly skilled, the time around the turn of the twenty-first century finally saw a different kind of medium-term migration taking place. Students formed a sizeable group of migrants—but also reasonably young highly qualified professionals for whom Australia offered an interesting and convenient place for further study and/or gaining overseas experience and language skills; the young professionals’ and the students’ residence in Australia had a clear time frame at the outset. However, after a successful entry into the education/labour market and often coupled with entering into a bi-national relationship with an Australian these highly skilled migrants decided to extend their stay without a definite timeframe.

Others decided to relocate to Australia to escape stagnation in Germany, not unlike migrants in the 1980s. These migrants deliberately set no timeframe—highly

226

qualified and financially well off, they left behind functioning family, social and work networks. Not making a decision—leaving the often mentioned ‘back door’ open, labelling the act of migrancy a relocation or a move—made it easier for family and friends but also for the participants themselves as it avoided the potential risks and losses associated with a decision for settlement. On the other hand, the indefinite timeframe also means that the idea of a long-term return as one potential future option influences the present. This makes keeping up one’s ‘Germanness’, that is speaking German at home and engaging in German traditions especially when children are involved, essential, and contributes to global and transnational orientations as a number of examples showed.

The diversity of the migrant cohorts from the late 1990s onwards but in particular in the last ten years is reflected in the variety of visa classes held post 2000, but even more so by the fact that most post 2000 migrants gained entry on temporary visas. All of these developments reflect the macro-structural influence of Australian migration governance with its emphasis on skills and youth but also the globalisation of education and qualifications, a considerable change to those university-educated Germans purportedly returned because their qualifications were not accepted on the migration trajectories of Germans in Australia.

While the patterns outlined above related to entry to Australia, entry conditions can affect long-term return conceptualisations and execution. The early assisted passage years cohort was overwhelmingly described as working class, trades people, who sought the company of compatriots, whereas the more contemporary migrants were considered middle-class based. This is an important distinction to be made for it may be more a reflection of incorporation of the early migrant cohorts into Australia’s segmented labour market than a reflection of the actual class base of the German immigrants at arrival. This cohort, despite their structural integration into the majority society were considered the least integrated because of their preference for engaging with co-ethnic migrants instead of the majority society. Considered ‘Germans in Australia’ identifiable not only by accent but also mindset, these were the members and clientele of German clubs and German social services organisations who, in spite of general interaction between them and the majority society, lived in an ‘ethnic bubble’ similar to other post-war ethnic migrant groups

227 but quite distinct from later co-ethnic arrivals. These migrants arrived with little to no English skills and despite an official policy of assimilation their segregation from majority society as a factor of labour market integration in low paying manual jobs, coupled with geographical isolation, did not offer much opportunity to learn the language or mix with the majority society. It also often led to an inability to return to Germany due to financial constraints58. Thus, it can be said that structural factors shaped this cohort’s settlement, incorporation and continued presence in Australia.

8.2.2 Bi-national relationships Bi-national relationships formed the largest category in the individual participant sample and stretched across all decades. Most partners in the bi-national relationship were female, thus to a degree overlapping with the organisational ‘most integrated’ category. In general, it was the relationship of an Australian citizen with a German citizen, formed on holidays or while one of the partners participated in some kind of exchange program. There were also a smaller number of relationships with both partners non-Australian citizens initially, with one of the partners—usually the non- German partner—acquiring citizenship lat er.

When investigating incorporation of migrants into the host society, marriage to (or having a committed relationship with) a native of the host country is generally considered an indicator of integration as it provides access to networks, language, unwritten laws of the country and possibly the labour market, however, for this cohort this was only applicable to a degree.

Bi-national relationships face more problems than other relationships due to the fact each partner’s construct of what marriage/partnership entails is influenced by social norms defining what is an acceptable relationship in any given society, the inequalities in status which may arise from the insider/outsider status of citizenship and which may result in dependency of one partner on the other, but also the possibility of different geographical preferences for continued residence.

58 It has to be stated that none of the individual interview partners would be able to be classified into this group for two reasons: while some participants where in the right age group, those who were living in Australia had all returned to Germany long-term at least once and then made the decision to return to Australia, and thus were engaged with Australia in a different way; all other individual participants were younger.

228

While there were a number of relationships that had led to incorporation, others had relocated to Germany, a number had disintegrated prompting thoughts of return to Germany, yet others showed an unresolved and possibly unresolvable conflict regarding the preferred location and some had not come to a decision regarding any location.

In this study, while being a partner in a bi-national relationship was one of the prime drivers of the original migration project, it did not provide any indication regarding the likelihood of a long-term or permanent return.

8.2.3 Host country orientation At the time of interview approximately forty per cent of individual interview partners in Australia indicated that they had no intention to return to Germany long-term or permanently, although some could and did envisage medium-term returns.

For those who decided to reorient their lives towards Australia after a long-term return to Germany, the time they spent in Germany included a constant comparison between Australian ways of life and cultural constructs and those of Germany; in this process of identity definition a decision point for one of the countries had to be reached. As the long-term return to Germany had at its core the desire for contact with family and friends, diminishing family contacts through death of family members and increasing family in Australia through the birth of grandchildren had a defining impact on the decision making process of these migrants.

Characteristics which applied to this cohort included naturalisation and renunciation of the German citizenship, assessment of life in Australia as more successful, socio- economically or professionally, or as more satisfactory—including life style elements such as weather—than in Germany, a position which seems to affirm research evidence that satisfaction with life after migration and naturalisation are good indicators for settlement.

Socio-economic and familial constraints also played a considerable role in emplacing participants through (assumed) non consent of non-custodial parents for a return to Germany in cases of broken down relationships, the desires of children who saw themselves as Australian (even when born in Germany), but also the difficulty of

229 establishing a financially viable life in Germany. Establishing a financially viable life was mentioned by individual participants who had indicated no intention of return and by one of the organisational representatives making a personal comment. While none of these participants had migrated under circumstances which would have allowed the application of any of the theoretical approaches which employ rational actor and utility maximisation concepts, the outcome of the migration project conformed to the principles of neoclassical theory. Return was treated as an unlikely option as they were ‘successful’ migrants, i.e. having established themselves successfully in the labour market and society of the host country, Australia, and thus the cost of returning to Germany was considered much higher than that of staying.

8.2.4 Contemporary patterns—fluid life courses A number of contemporary migrants did not see themselves as migrants. While the basis for the self-ascription of ‘not migrant’ was dissimilar, the reasoning for both groups can be found in their conservative interpretation of the narrative of migration as a one-off, unidirectional event that is predicated on leaving one’s country of origin for settlement purposes in the host country. In contrast this cohort did not perceive Australia as a definite choice of place, a decision for the duration but a location for the present. The future was seen as open and undecided, and configuration was situational and contextual. Similarly, a future long-term return to Germany—while always a possibility—was not considered a return but one (possible) relocation among many others still possible in the future. Moreover, there was a strong transnational element in their orientation which manifested itself in the maintenance of strong links with country of origin through the use of ICTs and bi-directional visits of family and friends.

Contemporary patterns of German migration reflected the experience and a belief that there is no permanency. Thus, this leads to a breakdown of the dichotomy of temporary and permanent migration; shifting one’s geographical location from Germany to Australia or from Australia to Germany becomes forward movement; therefore, the participants did not identify with the label ‘migrant’ as they perceived their movements as a relocation in space, not a final decision for or against Australia or Germany. This resonates in an age in which the individual is continuously advised

230

there are no certainties; that jobs are not forever and will disappear; this requires continuous update of skills and willingness to relocate. Moving to Australia, adding to one’s intercultural competence and multicultural experience, and updating the toolkit with better language skills is in line with theories of individualisation where the individual is required to actively direct their own lives by choosing among a variety of options, constructing their DIY biography which, though, can turn into the risk or breakdown biography through the wrong choice or simple bad luck.

In summary it can be said that a number of distinct patterns of incorporation could be distinguished. The early assisted passage cohort’s migration and settlement experiences presented as primarily influenced by macro-structural economic and socio-political incorporation regime factors and led to being firmly emplaced with an ethnic German orientation for those who arrived in Australia as adults, a common way for migrants of dealing with attachments to the country of origin while incorporating into the host society; for 1.5 generation migrants, though, it led to assimilation into Australian society.

A further cohort who had oriented themselves decisively towards the host society demonstrated a conformity with indicators of socio-cultural integration such as family connections in the host country, naturalisation and renunciation of the German citizenship, and satisfaction with life in Australia deemed as more successful or satisfactory than life in Germany, and most importantly, length of duration of residence in Australia.

Two further cohort patterns established point to mixed results regarding incorporation. Being a partner in a bi-national relationships was the largest driver of migration to and longer-term residency in Australia and cut across all decades of arrival. However, there was a multiplicity of conceptualisations of the initial project and, similarly, outcomes, which may be a reflection of the complexity of a space where not only are idiosyncratic constructs influenced by societal norms but also issues of volition and geographical and cultural preferences collide.

The last cohort illustrates the influences of globalisation and transnationalism as circumstances around their residence in Australia are not fixed, nor are they intended to be fixed. These migrants saw their residence in Australia as part of the narrative of

231 their biographies, assembled out of a range of experiences, thus embodying the individualisation of modern society.

8.2.5 Citizenship patterns Citizenship patterns were much less diverse than patterns of incorporation. Overall it can be said the different citizenship strategies employed depended on the individual participant’s situation and unsurprisingly, identification of the most suitable option for the individual’s needs was the basis for all considerations.

Three broad citizenship strategies were available to participants in this study. One was acquisition of the Australian citizenship with automatic loss of the German citizenship prior to the year 2000, a strategy chosen by four participants—one of whom was regretful that dual citizenship had not been available to her59; and voluntary loss by not applying for a permit to retain the German citizenship upon acquisition of the Australian citizenship after the year 2000, chosen by one participant. All five of the participants who had chosen this option showed a conscious orientation towards Australia and away from Germany.

Another strategy was acquisition of dual citizenship favoured by those of working age with an interest in accessing labour market options in the European Union and Australia, as dual citizenship not only ensured full entry and exit rights in both countries, but also residency, labour market participation, and access to welfare provision rights. This was seen as essential for a speedy decision-making process and actioning of that decision, important in employment decisions.

As outlined in Chapter 5, this was an option usually chosen in preparation for a return to Germany, highlighting the intrinsic relationships between global mobility regimes, subjective motivations and situational context. Other participants who showed an interest in acquiring dual citizenship saw it as a way of acknowledging their bi-directional identification with country of original but also Australia as not so much host country but location of one’s life, of the present home. Another reason cited for dual citizenship was security, a theme with two strands. For temporary

59 This finding differs from Berchem’s (2011, pp. 479-491) study which reported widespread regret at the unavailability of dual citizenship prior to 2000 and the loss of the German citizenship.

232

migrants security was related to job losses in a volatile labour market with the necessity to leave Australia as an outcome of loss of employment. For permanent residents the issue of security was related to continued right of entry, unlimited stay, and continued access to health, education and welfare provisions of the host country.

A third option was that of retaining the German citizenship and one’s permanent residency. This option was taken up by a number of participants who did not share security concerns and who felt their status as permanent resident did not require any change as their belonging to Australia did not require official confirmation.

The most surprising aspect was the strong emotional and identificational value the German citizenship and its embodiment, the passport, carried. Most participants in this study stated clearly that they would never give up their German citizenship as it was intimately connected to their identity. In this context the idea that the nation state provides a space in which people locate their histories and in that way their identities, and that the nation state may also be seen as synonymous with home, may offer some insight into the phenomenon of the strong identificational value of the German citizenship in particular for those Germans in Australia who did not see themselves as migrants—but also not as tourists.

And while the identificational aspect resonated more strongly with the participants in this study, the pragmatic or institutional aspects of citizenship were also mentioned. Instrumental aspects were emphasised by those migrants who had naturalised (or were in the process of naturalising) and had—voluntarily or involuntarily— renounced their German citizenship, and by those who had acquired/were in the process of acquiring or were intending to acquire dual citizenship. This is of course, as outlined in Chapter 5, in line with general behaviour in Australian citizenship acquisition behaviour, a complex of emotional and instrumental factors and decisions.

233

8.2.6 Patterns of return Patterns of (non-) return

Long-term or permanent return migration, especially from a country like Australia with a more temperate climate than Germany, is still often viewed as a failure, in particular in economics-based migration theory such as neoclassical economics, where migrants supposedly return when they are unable to realise their goals and/or fail to achieve integration into the host society.

This conceptualisation of long-term return migration is in contrast to the findings of this study. While there were a small number of returns which could possibly be classified as necessity, return migration in the context of this study was in most cases seen as decidedly agentic and voluntary, often in pursuit of superior employment or life style options.

The patterns which could be discerned in this study included the following four possibilities: all participants who had naturalised and held sole Australian citizenship indicated no interest in a long-term return to Germany or even longer holidays there, a fact that seems to lend further credence to the Massey and Redstone Akresh (2006, p. 969) claim that naturalisation is a good indicator for staying. The opposite holds true for those who would like to leave but cannot do so due to familial and financial constraints.

However, medium-term return for part of the year, spending the Australian winter in Germany and then returning to Australia for the Australian summer, was an option desired by a number of participants and showed that attachments to the country of origin can stay strong even after years in the host country.

Return intentions and executions

Return intentions showed a preference for permanent return and were based on pragmatic aspects such as Australia’s distance from the rest of the world, the comparatively higher cost of living in Australia, and the comparatively lower standard of welfare provisions; but in general pragmatic considerations were not as pivotal as the psycho-social factors of a preference for Germany based on feelings of belonging and familiarity, increased agency due to familiarity and having family and

234

friends in Germany. The number of return visits undertaken was also greater than by those who did not entertain the idea of a return. In that sense the idea that short-term return visits may be an indicator for a later return seems to hold some value in the context of German long-term return migration trajectories.

Executed returns all entailed the possibility of further movement, even when in the cases of the return migrants of the 1970s age was now inhibitor and a permanent or long-term return to Australia was no longer considered. For younger return migrants, in particular those in bi-national relationships, return, even if not desired, remained a possibility if the partner or the children desired a return to Australia, facilitated by the access rights bestowed by a dual citizenship. For others who did not retain access rights to Australia movement might take a different direction.

8.3 The impact of globalisation and intra-EU mobility Political discourses which privilege migration in a borderless Europe and its effects such as mandatory study semesters abroad, and scholarship schemes, coupled with technological advances, have had an impact on migratory behaviour of the young. Leaving one’s country of origin has shifted from the narrative of the unidirectional move to something far less delimited and reflects the increasing transnational or bi- national ties migrants develop. These ties are also reflected in the desire of a retirement lifestyle of spending time in both countries made possible by technological advances and portability of some social welfare entitlements due to bi- lateral governmental agreements.

These macro-structural developments have led to a stronger focus on mobility in general; while that of course has an impact on possible long-term return to Germany, Germany is not the focus of this mobility, much in the same way as Australia is not the endpoint of geographical trajectory planning. Germany, while not disregarded as a destination, was also not a preference but a by-product of employment options. Migrants engaged in weighing numerous reasons for remaining in Australia and reasons for a long-term return to Germany. These differed according to the age of the migrant. Younger migrants in general were more focused on employment considerations and thus more on general mobility (however, one older participant

235 also fell into this category), and all participants cited familial obligations as a reason for a long-term but not permanent return.

8.4 Return trajectories from Australia compared to other regions Promoters and inhibitors associated with long-term or permanent return showed three clusters of interrelated factors which influence long-term and permanent return migration decisions: family-related factors, economic considerations and quality of life factors. Factors tend to be context and/or location dependent, that is they can function as inhibitors or promoters of return migration decisions depending on the particular situation.

Comparing promoters and inhibitors with those identified globally for German return migrants in the recent SVR-Studienbereich study shows considerable similarities as to motives: family and employment related reasons were the most often cited reasons for long-term return decisions followed by what was termed a dislike for life in the host country. In this study reasons cited for return intentions in particular did not show a dislike for Australia so much as a strong preference for Germany.

And while this was a small study of only 41 individual participants and therefore does not claim generalisability, the trend of more Germans emigrating than returning as outlined in SVR-Studienbereich (2015, p. 10) and OECD (2015b, p. 97) could also be observed in this study. However, the finding that return migrants were less likely to be of working age, less active in the labour market and less highly qualified (OECD 2015b, p. 97) could not be confirmed. This may be related to Australia’s skills requirements but most return migrants were very highly qualified60, had been in employment before their return and where in employment after their return to Germany, which may also serve as a refutation of neoclassical economic theory explanations of return migration as a strategy employed in the case of a failed emigration and settlement attempt. While some of the reasoning employed by those who did not intend to return concentrated on the difficulties of re-establishing a life

60 The lowest qualification was a Masters degree for contemporary return migrants. Those who had returned as adults in the 1970s while not tertiary qualified were nevertheless at managerial level when they returned to Germany.

236

in Germany, interpretable as a cost of returning, none of the return migrants saw their migration as a failure and the failure as a reason for return61.

8.5 Contribution to knowledge in the field of return migration studies The contribution of this project to the field of migration studies is two-fold. It firstly makes a contribution to Australia’s migration history by illuminating the contemporary migration history of one of the larger post World War II European migrant groups in Australia whose presence has remained largely unobserved, especially in the last few decades. While comparable groups such as the Italian and Greek migrants have had much more of a scholarly focus aimed at them, the Germans (and the Dutch) have remained relatively invisible.

Secondly, by adopting an approach of investigating return migration trajectories between developed countries, this study provides an exploration of the development of migration and mobility and the interdependency of micro-level decision making and macro-level political and economic developments. It clearly showed the impact of migration governance regimes, political developments but also the impact of general societal transformations and how these change (self-) definition of migration and migrants.

Thirdly, by adopting an approach focusing on middling migrants between two developed countries, the study was able to investigate the promoters and inhibitors of movement in a globalised world in a far more fine-grained manner as advocated by Favell, Feldblum and Smith (2007, pp. 16-17). German passports are among those which offer relatively unconstrained access to a broad range of countries. Viewing the migratory trajectories through a transnational mobility lens allows for a two- pronged approach to migration decision making, taking into account factors of emplacement and factors encouraging return, more in line with migration decision making processes which usually involve weighing a variety of motives.

By approaching the phenomenon of long-term return migration from a number of different directions investigating incorporation and return factors and by tracing

61 In Participant 46’s case, it was not the failure of her migration but her relationship that made Germany a safe haven.

237 longitudinal patterns, the study also offers an insight into German migrant incorporation into Australian society.

One of the more interesting findings of the study is that the rate of long-term German return migration from Australia has been consistently high and at the same time many German migrants stay longer than five years in Australia. This contradicts the commonly held belief by many Germans migrants and those working in the intercultural Australian–German sector that long-term return migration from Australia is rare and minimal and only applies to those who cannot integrate. What it does illuminate, though, is common knowledge conceptualisations of migration are still focused on migration as a unidirectional move.

While among those who intended to return and who had returned some explicitly cited their German identity and their preference for Germany (and by extension Europe), the most common reasons cited for return were employment and family related.

It is worth mentioning that the concept of long-term return migration overall no longer seems to be seen by contemporary migrants as an endpoint in their migration trajectories but as one possible stage in their ‘do-it-yourself’ biography. This shifts return migration firmly into the paradigm of temporary migration and possibly even further into the realm of general mobility as it was related to the overall observation that most of the contemporary migrants had left their migration decisions deliberately open, to be adapted to future needs or opportunities.

These future needs and opportunities were conceptualised as global, employment related and often centred on the EU area, seen to offer better employment opportunities than Australia.

Citizenship strategies, though, reflected this global orientation only to a degree. The identificational aspect of the German citizenship was surprisingly strong. Dual citizenship was an aspiration of a number of younger migrants but surprisingly few interview participants had actually obtained one. Those who had obtained it, had usually done so to secure access to Australia before a return to Germany. Others felt it offered them more security at a time when being a migrant did not meet with as

238

much acceptance as before in Australia. A further reason for the acquisition of dual citizenship was as an acknowledgment of the migrant’s attachment to both the old home, the country of origin, and the new, the host society.

But for a number of migrants the attachment to the ‘new’ home was stronger than to the old home; therefore, they naturalised and became Australians. None of these entertained any idea of a long-term return.

This is one of the more noteworthy finding of this study: long-term return migration has always been part of the migration experience and its prevalence has likely increased with increasing overall mobility as found in this study. However, even a rate of more than twenty per cent of return migration means on the other hand an approximately eighty per cent incorporation rate. Thus, in the Australian context, more Germans immigrate than leave, and this finding is in line with the findings of the German studies utilised in this project.

Returning to Hannerz’ notion of the somewhat footloose cosmopolitan engaging the alien culture but with an ever present exit strategy, despite globalisation, increased mobility and transnational attachments, this is not the reality as encountered by most migrants.

Kreutzer and Roth’s (2007, p. 16) typology captures the varied nature of German migrants more accurately: While some are expatriates and do indeed return, considerably more remain immigrants and some become the locally anchored identity.

By examining the migration decision-making with a particular emphasis on long- term return decisions of middling German migrants to Australia, this project has added analytical and empirical insight to the field of migration studies in regards to the discussion around the influence of globalisation and middling transnationalism. It has contributed to Australian migration history by concentrating on a migrant group often unnoticed.

239

8.6 Implications for future research Although this study made important contributions to the field of migration studies and also contributed to the field of Australian history, further research based on a broader sample should be undertaken to gain a more complete understanding of return migration; it would be particularly instructive to include more male participants, and participants from the former German Democratic Republic and compare experiences.

Secondly, the experiences and decision making processes of those who return to Australia after a long-term return to Germany, while included to a degree in this study, merit further investigation.

Third, future research could incorporate a comparative examination of other post- World War II migrant groups such as the Dutch, British, Italian and Greek to investigate similarities and differences; a further comparison could be undertaken with groups from other broad regions such as South East Asia.

Fourth, given the variety of outcomes of partner/spousal migration in this project, the development of return trajectories in bi-national partnerships with a particular focus on volition and transnational orientations merit further investigation.

240

References

Al Ariss, A & Crowley-Henry, M 2013, ‘Self-initiated expatriation and migration in the management literature’, Career Development International, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 78-96.

Alba, RD & Nee, V 2003, Remaking the American mainstream: Assimilation and the New Immigration, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

Amit, K & Bar-Lev, S 2015, ‘“Immigrants” sense of belonging to the host country: The role of life satisfaction, language proficiency, and religious motives’, Social Indicators Research, vol.124, no. 3, pp. 947-961.

Andresen, M, Bergdolt, F, Margenfeld, J & Dickmann, M 2014, ‘Addressing international mobility confusion – developing definitions and differentiations for self-initiated and assigned expatriates as well as migrants’, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, vol.25, no. 16, pp. 2295-2318.

Anniste, K & Tiit Tammaru 2014, ‘Ethnic differences in integration levels and return migration intentions’, Demographic Research, vol. 30, article 13, pp. 377-412.

Appleyard, RT 1962a, ‘The return movement of United Kingdom migrants from Australia’, Population Studies, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 214-225.

Appleyard, RT 1962b, ‘Determinants of return migration–A socio-economic study of United Kingdom migrants who returned from Australia’, Economic Record, vol. 38, pp. 352-368.

Appleyard, R, Ray, A & Segal, A 1988, The ten pound immigrants, Boxtree, London.

Arango, J 2000, ‘Explaining migration: A critical view’, International Social Science Journal, vol. 52, no. 165, pp. 283-296.

Arends-Tóth, JV & van de Vijver, FJR 2006, ‘Assessment of psychological acculturation: Choices in designing an instrument’, in DL Sam & JW Berry, The Cambridge handbook of acculturation psychology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 142-160.

Australian Bureau of Statistics 2012a, Cultural diversity in Australia - reflecting a nation: Stories from the 2011 census, cat. no. 2071.0, ABS, viewed 18 June 2013, .

241

Australian Bureau of Statistics 2012b, Year Book Australia, 2012, Population, Country of Birth, cat, no. 1301.0, ABS, viewed 05 May 2014, .

Australian Bureau of Statistics 2013, QuickStats, Country of Birth, viewed 4 July 2015, .

Backer, E 2007, ‘VFR travel: An examination of the expenditures of VFR travellers and their hosts’, Current Issues in Tourism, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 366-377.

Bade, K & Brown, A 2008, Migration in European history, Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester.

Bade, KJ 1992, Deutsche im Ausland-Fremde in Deutschland: Migration in Geschichte und Gegenwart (

Germans abroad—Strangers in Germany: contemporary and historical migrations), CH Beck, München.

Bade, KJ & Oltmer, J 2004, Normalfall migration (Migration is not unusual), Bundeszentrale für Politische Bildung, Bonn.

Bakewell, O, de Haas, H & Kubal, A 2011, Migration systems, pioneers and the role of agency, International Migration Institute Working Papers Series, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Baldassar, L 2001, Visits home: Migration experiences between Italy and Australia, Melbourne University Press, Melbourne.

Baldassar, L, Baldock, CV & Wilding, R 2007, Families caring across borders. Migration, ageing and transnational caregiving, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.

Baldassar, L & Merla, L 2013, Transnational families, migration and the circulation of care: Understanding mobility and absence in family life, vol. 29, Routledge, New York & London.

Bartram, D, Poros, M & Monforte, P 2014, Key concepts in migration, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Battaglia, M 2008, ‘Nonprobability sampling’, in PJ Lavrakas (ed.), Encyclopedia of survey research methods, Sage Publications Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 524-527.

Bauböck, R 2012, ‘Constellations and transitions: Combining macro and micro perspectives on migration and citizenship’, in M Messer, R Schroeder, R Wodak (eds), Migrations: Interdisciplinary perspectives, Springer, Wien, pp. 3-14.

242

Bauböck, R & Faist, T (eds) 2010, Diaspora and transnationalism: Concepts, theories and methods, Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam, NLD.

Bauman, Z 1998, Globalization: The human consequence, Polity Press, Cambridge.

Bean, FE & Brown SK 2014, ‘Demographic analyses of immigration’, in CB Brettell & JF Hollifield (eds), Migration theory: Talking across disciplines, 3rd edn, Taylor and Francis, EBL ebook library, pp. 67-89.

Beck, U & Beck-Gernsheim, E 2001, Individualization: Institutionalized individualism and its social and political consequences, SAGE Publications Ltd., London, e-book, .

Benson, M & Osbaldiston, N 2014, Understanding lifestyle migration: Theoretical approaches to migration and the quest for a better way of life, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.

Berchem, DJ 2011, Wanderer zwischen den Kulturen: Ethnizität deutscher Migranten in Australien zwischen Hybridität, Transkulturation und Identitätskohäsion (Wanderer between cultures: Ethnicity of German migrants in Australia between hybridity, transculturation and identity cohesion), Transcript Verlag, Bielefeld.

Berloge, S 2002, ‘Auswandern nach dem Krieg: Deutsche Frauen in Australien’ (Emigration after the war: German women in Australia) Zeitschrift für Geschichtswissenschaft-Berlin-Veb Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften, then Metropol Verlag, vol. 50, no. 4, pp.330-340.

Berry, JW 1997, ‘Immigration, acculturation, and adaptation’, Applied Psychology, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 5-34.

Bertone, S 2013, ‘Precarious bystanders: Temporary migrant workers and multiculturalism’, in A Jakubowicz & C Ho (eds), “For those who’ve come across the seas...”: Australian multicultural theory, policy and practice, Australian Scholarly Publishing, North Melbourne, pp. 171-183.

Betts, K & Birrell, B 2007, ‘Making Australian citizenship mean more’, People and Place, vol. 15, pp. 45-61.

Biedermann, B 2006, Eine bezahlte Passage: Die Auswanderung von Deutschen nach Australien in den 1950er Jahren (Assisted Passage: Emigration of Germans to Australia in the 1950s), Metropolis Verlag, Marburg.

Bijwaard, GE, Schluter, C & Wahba, J 2014, ‘The impact of labor market dynamics on the return migration of immigrants’, Review of Economics and Statistics, vol. 96, no. 3, pp. 483-494.

243

Birrell, B 1995, ‘Spouse migration to Australia’, People and Place, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 9-16.

Birrell, B 2014, ‘Migration: The Australian experience’, in S Baglay & D Nakache (eds), Immigration regulation in Federal states, vol. 9, Springer, Netherlands, pp. 139-158.

Bloemraad, I, Korteweg, A & Yurdakul, G 2008, ‘Citizenship and immigration: Multiculturalism, assimilation, and challenges to the nation-state’, Sociology, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 153-179.

Boccagni, P 2012, ‘Rethinking transnational studies’, European Journal of Social Theory, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 117-132.

Bommes, M & Morawska, ET 2005, International migration research: Constructions, omissions, and the promises of interdisciplinarity, Ashgate Publishing Ltd., Farnham.

Bommes, M, Castles, S & Withol de Wenden, C 1999, ‘Post-1947 migration to Australia and the socio-political incorporations of migrants’, IMIS Beiträge, vol. 13, pp. 13-42.

Bönisch-Brednich, B 2002, Keeping a low profile: An oral history of German immigration to New Zealand, Victoria University Press, Wellington, NZ.

Bönisch-Brednich, B 2006, ‘Migrants of choice’, Liminalität in transnationalen Lebenswelten’ (Liminality in transnational lifeworlds), in J Moser & T Hengartner (eds), Grenzen und Differenzen. Zur Macht sozialer und kultureller Grenzziehungen (Borders and differences. The power or social and cultural boundaries), Leipziger Universitätsverlag, Leipzig, pp. 461-468.

Borjas, GJ 1987, Self-selection and the earnings of immigrants, no. w2248, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.

Borjas, GJ 1989, ‘Immigrant and emigrant earnings: A longitudinal study’, Economic Inquiry, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 21-37.

Borjas, GJ & Bratsberg, B 1996, ‘Who leaves? The outmigration of the foreign- born’, The Review of Economics and Statistics, vol. 78, no. 1, pp. 165-176.

Borrie, WD 1954, Italians and Germans in Australia: A study of assimilation, Cheshire Pty Ltd., Melbourne.

Bosniak, L 2006, The citizen and the alien: Dilemmas of contemporary membership, Princeton University Press, EBL ebook library.

Bovenkerk, F 1974, The sociology of return migration: A bibliographic essay, Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague.

244

Boyatzis, RE 1998, Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Braun, V & Clarke, V 2006, ‘Using thematic analysis in psychology’, Qualitative Research in Psychology, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 77-101.

Braun, V & Clarke, V 2013, ‘Teaching thematic analysis: Overcoming challenges and developing strategies for effective learning’, The Psychologist, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 120-123.

Braun, V & Clarke, V 2013, Successful qualitative research: A practical guide for beginners, Sage.

Brettell, C 2003, Anthropology and migration: Essays on transnationalism, ethnicity, and identity, Altamira Press, Lanham, US.

Brettell, CB & Hollifield, JF 2008, Migration theory: Talking across disciplines, 2nd edn, Routledge, London.

Brettell, CB & Hollifield, JF 2014, ‘Introduction’, in CB Brettell & JF Hollifield, Migration theory: Talking across disciplines, 3rd edn, Taylor and Francis, EBL ebook library, pp. 1-36.

Brown, G 2002, ‘Political bigamy: Dual citizenship in Australia’s migrant communities’, People and Place, vol. 10, pp. 71-77.

Brücker, H 2010, ‘Deutschland leidet unter einem Brain Drain’ (Germany is suffering a brain drain), Wirtschaftsdienst, vol. 90, pp. 138-139.

Buchanan, SE 2007, The construction of cultural identity: Germans in Melbourne, LIT Verlag, Berlin.

Bürgelt, PT 2010, ‘Contemporary migration between developed countries: Transformation processes towards actualising authentic selves and lives’, unpublished PhD thesis, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand.

Bürgelt, PT, Morgan, M & Pernice, R 2008, ‘Staying or returning: Pre-migration influences on the migration process of German migrants to New Zealand’, Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 282-298.

Burrows, R & Holmes, M 2011, ‘Ping pong Poms? Emotional reflexivity in contemporary return migration from Australia to the UK’, Australian Journal of Social Issues, vol. 47, issue 1, pp. 105-123.

Čapo Žmegač, J 2010, ‘Return migration: The changing faces and challenging facets of a field of study’, Ethnologia Balkanica, vol. 14, pp. 227-245.

245

Carling, J & Erdal, MB 2014, ‘Return migration and transnationalism: How are the two connected?’, International Migration, vol. 52, no. 6, pp. 2-12.

Carling, J, Erdal, MB & Ezzati, R 2014, ‘Beyond the insider–outsider divide in migration research’, Migration Studies, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 36-54.

Carling, J, Mortensen, EB & Wu, J 2011, A systematic bibliography on return migration, PRIO Paper, Oslo, Peace Research Institute, Oslo (PRIO), viewed 3 April 2012, http://www.prio.no/sptrans/318527519/Carling,%20Mortensen%20and%20Wu%202 011%20(A%20Systematic%20Bibliography%20on%20Return%20Migration).pdf

Cassarino, J-P 2004, ‘Theorising return migration: The conceptual approach to return migrants revisited’, IJMS: International Journal on Multicultural Societies, vol. 6, pp. 253-279.

Cassarino, J-P 2008, ‘Conditions of modern return migrants - Editorial introduction’, International Journal on Multicultural Societies (IMJS), vol. 10, pp. 95-105.

Castles, S 2010, ‘Understanding global migration: A social transformation perspective’, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, vol. 36, no. 10, pp. 1565- 1586.

Castles, S 2012, ‘Understanding the relationship between methodology and methods’, in C Vargas-Silva (ed.), Handbook of research methods in migration, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK, pp. 7–25.

Castles, S, de Haas, H & Miller, MJ 2014, The age of migration: International population movements in the modern world, 5th edn, Palgrave McMillan, New York.

Castles, S, Hugo, G & Vasta, E 2013, ‘Rethinking migration and diversity in Australia: Introduction’, Journal of Intercultural Studies, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 115-121.

Castles, S & Miller, MJ 2009, The age of migration: International population movements in the modern world, 4th edn, Guilford Press, New York.

Castles, S, Vasta, E & Ozkul, D 2014, ‘Australia: A classical immigration country in transition’, in JF Hollifield, PL Martin & PM Orrenius (eds), Controlling immigration: A global perspective, Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA, pp. 128-150.

Castles, S & Wise, RD 2008, Migration and development: Perspectives from the South, IOM (International Organization for Migration), viewed 18 March 2014, .

246

Cerase, FP 1974, ‘Expectations and reality: A case study of return migration from the United States to Southern Italy’, International Migration Review, vol. 8, no. 26, pp. 245-262.

Chaban, N, Williams, A, Holland, M, Boyce, V & Warner, F 2011, ‘Crossing cultures: Analysing the experiences of NZ returnees from the EU (UK vs. non-UK)’, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, vol. 35, no. 6, pp. 776-790.

Christou, A 2006, Narratives of place, culture and identity: Second-generation Greek-Americans return ‘home’, Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam.

Cigler, M & Harmstorf, I 1985, The Germans in Australia, AE Press, Melbourne.

Clifford, J 1997, Routes. travel and translation in the late Twentieth Century, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Clyne, MG 1981, Deutsch als Muttersprache in Australien, Steiner, Wiesbaden.

Cohen, N & Kranz, D 2015, ‘State-assisted highly skilled return programmes, national identity and the risk(s) of homecoming: Israel and Germany compared’, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, vol. 41, pp. 795-812.

Colic-Peisker, V 2004, ‘Doing ethnography in “One’s Own Ethnic Community”’, in L Hume & J Mulcock (eds), Anthropologists in the field: Cases in participant observation, Columbia University Press, New York, pp. 82-94.

Colic-Peisker, V 2006, ‘“Ethnic” and “cosmopolitan” transnationalism: Two cohorts of Croatian immigrants in Australia’, Migracijske i etničke teme, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 211-230.

Colic-Peisker, V 2010, ‘Free floating in the cosmopolis? Exploring the identity- belonging of transnational knowledge workers’, Global Networks, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 467-488.

Collins, J 2013, ‘Rethinking Australian immigration and immigrant settlement policy’, Journal of Intercultural Studies, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 160-177.

Committee on social patterns, Commonwealth Immigration Advisory Council 1967, The departure of settlers from Australia: Final report, Department of Immigration, Canberra.

Conradson, D & Latham, A 2005a, ‘Transnational urbanism: Attending to everyday practices and mobilities’, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 227-233.

Conradson, D & Latham, A 2005b, ‘Friendships, networks and transnationality in a world city: Antipodean transmigrants in London’, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 287-305.

247

Constant, A & Massey, D 2002, ‘Self-selection, earnings, and out-migration: A longitudinal study of immigrants to Germany’, Journal of Population Economics, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 631-653.

Constant, A & Zimmermann, K 2011, ‘Circular and repeat migration: Counts of exits and years away from the host country’, Population Research and Policy Review, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 495-515.

Conway, D & Potter, RB 2009, Return migration of the next generations: 21st century transnational mobility, Ashgate Publishing Ltd, Farnham.

Corkhill, A 2001, ‘German settlement in Queensland 1838-1939’, in J Jupp (ed.), The Australian people: An encyclopedia of the nation, its people and their origins, Cambridge University Press, Melbourne, pp. 369-370.

Cousin, G 2010, ‘Positioning positionality’, in M Savin-Baden & C Major (eds), New approaches to qualitative research: Wisdom and uncertainty, Routledge, London & New York, pp. 9-18.

Cresswell, T 2006, On the move: Mobility in the modern western world, Taylor & Francis, Oxon, UK.

Creswell, JW 2009, Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches, 3rd edn, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Crotty, M 1998, The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process, Allen & Unwin, St Leonards, NSW Australia.

Currle, E 2006, ‘Theorieansätze zur Erklärung von Rückkehr und Remigration.’, Informationszentrum Sozialwissenschaften: Migration and ethnische Minderheiten, vol. 2, pp. 7-23.

Dahinden, J 2010, ‘The dynamics of migrants’ transnational formations: Between mobility and locality’, in R Bauboeck & T Faist (eds), Diaspora and transnationalism : Concepts, theories and methods, Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam, NLD, pp. 51-71.

Dahinden, J 2012, ‘Transnational belonging, non-ethnic forms of identification and diverse mobilities: Rethinking migrant integration?’, in M Messer, R Schroeder, R Wodak (eds), pp. 117-128Migrations: Interdisciplinary Perspectives, Springer, Wien.

DaVanzo, J 1976, ‘Differences between return and non-return migration: An econometric analysis’, International Migration Review, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 13-27. de Haas, H 2010, ‘Migration and development: A theoretical perspective’, International Migration Review, vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 227-264.

248

de Haas, H & Fokkema, T 2011, ‘The effects of integration and transnational ties on international return migration intentions’, Demographic Research, vol. 25, pp. 755- 782. de Haas, H, Fokkema, T & Fihri, MF 2014, ‘Return migration as failure or success?’, Journal of International Migration and Integration, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 415-429.

Denzin, NK & Lincoln, YS (eds) 2011, The Sage handbook of qualitative research, 4th edn, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Department of Immigration and Border Protection 2013, Fact Sheet 15: Population growth, Commonwealth of Australia, Belconnen, ACT, viewed 17 November 2013, .

Department of Immigration and Border Protection 2014, Australia’s migration trends 2012–2013 , Commonwealth of Australia, Belconnen, ACT, viewed 24 November 2014, .

Department of Immigration and Border Protection 2015a, Australia’s migration programme-Country position based on 2013–14 data, Commonwealth of Australia, Belconnen, ACT, viewed 16 May 2015, .

Department of Immigration Border Protection 2015b, Permanent departures overseas born by selected country of birth by length of stay - financial year 2012-13, Commonwealth of Australia, Belconnen, ACT, viewed 16 May 2015, .

Department of Immigration and Citizenship 2007, Emigration 2005-2006 Australia, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, ACT, viewed 23 August 2012 .

Department of Immigration and Citizenship 2011, Emigration 2010-2011 Australia, Commonwealth of Australia, Barton, ACT, viewed 23 August 2012, .

Department of Immigration and Citizenship 2012a, Permanent departures overseas born by selected country of birth by length of stay - financial year 2011-12, Commonwealth of Australia, Belconnen, ACT, viewed 18 June 2013, .

249

Department of Immigration and Citizenship 2012b, Trends in migration 2010-2011, Commonwealth of Australia, Barton, ACT, viewed 23 August 2012, .

Department of Immigration and Citizenship 2013a, Australia’s migration trends 2011–12, Commonwealth of Australia, Belconnen, ACT, viewed 17 November 2013, .

Department of Immigration and Citizenship 2013b, Temporary entrants and New Zealand citizens in Australia as at 30 June 2013, Report Id BR0169, Commonwealth of Australia, Belconnen, ACT, viewed 23 October 2013, .

Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs 2001, Immigration: Federation to century’s end, Commonwealth of Australia, Belconnen, ACT, viewed 23 August 2012, .

Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs 2006, Settler arrivals 2005-06, Australia, States and Territories, Commonwealth of Australia, Barton, ACT, viewed 23 August 2012, .

Department of Social Services 2014, The people of Australia – Australia’s Multicultural Policy, Commonwealth of Australia, Belconnen, ACT, viewed on 15 May 2015, australias-multicultural- policy>.

Department of Social Services 2015, The Germany-born community, Commonwealth of Australia, Belconnen, ACT, viewed on 15 March 2015, .

Duarte, F 2005, ‘Living in “the betweens”: Diaspora consciousness formation and identity among Brazilians in Australia’, Journal of Intercultural Studies, vol. 26, pp. 315-335.

Dustmann, C 1996, ‘Return migration: The European experience’, Economic policy, vol. 11, no. 22, pp. 213-242.

250

Dustmann, C & Görlach, JS 2015, ‘The economics of temporary migrations’, CESifo Working Paper Series no. 5188, viewed 6 March 2015, .

Dustmann, C & Weiss, Y 2007, ‘Return migration: Theory empirical evidence from the UK’, British Journal of Industrial Relations, vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 236-256.

Duval, DT 2004, ‘Linking return visits and return migration among Commonwealth Eastern Caribbean migrants in Toronto’, Global networks, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 51-67.

Erlinghagen, M & Stegman, T 2009, ‘Deutschland ein Auswanderungsland?’ (Germany—a country of emigration?), Wochenberichte des DIW Berlin, no. 39, pp. 663-669.

Ette, A & Sauer, L 2010, Auswanderung aus Deutschland. Daten und Analysen zur internationalen Auswanderung deutscher Staatsbürger, (Emigration from Germany. Data and analysis on international migration of German citizens), VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden.

Eubel, S 2010, ‘“German girls are really nice” - Gender as structure in migration context: West German migration Western Australia in the 1950s and 1960s’, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Western Australia, Perth.

Faist, T 1997, ‘From common questions to common concepts’, in T Hammar, G Brochmann, T Faist, & K Tamas (eds), International migration, immobility and development: Multidisciplinary perspectives, Berg, Oxford, pp. 247-276.

Faist, T 2000, ‘Transnationalization in international migration: Implications for the study of citizenship and culture’, Ethnic and Racial Studies, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 189- 222.

Favell, A 2008, ‘Rebooting migration theory: Interdisciplinarity, globality and postdisciplinarity in migration studies’, in C Brettell & J Hollifield (eds), Migration theory: Talking across disciplines, 2nd edn, Routledge, New York, pp. 259-278.

Favell, A, Feldblum, M & Smith, MP 2007, ‘The human face of global mobility: A research agenda’, Society, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 15-25.

Fechter, A-M 2007, Transnational lives: Expatriates in Indonesia, Ashgate Publishing Ltd., Farnham.

Fischer, G 1989, Enemy aliens: Internment and the homefront experience in Australia, 1914-1920, University of Queensland Press, St. Lucia, Brisbane.

Fischer, G 1995, ‘“Negative integration” and an Australian road to modernity: Interpreting the Australian homefront’, Australian Historical Studies, vol. 26, no. 104, pp. 452-476.

251

Fischer, G 2009, ‘Debating the “German presence” in Australia: Notes on research and research desiderata’, in A Bandhauer & M Veber (eds), Migration and cultural contact: Germany and Australia, Sydney University Press, Sydney, pp. 131 -151.

Fitzgerald, DS 2014, ‘The sociology of international migration’, in CB Brettell & JF Hollifield (eds), Migration theory: Talking across disciplines, 3rd edn, Taylor and Francis, EBL ebook library, pp. 115-147.

Flick, U 2014, An introduction to qualitative research, 5th edn, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Fokkema, T & de Haas, H 2011, ‘Pre- and post-migration determinants of socio- cultural integration of African immigrants in Italy and Spain’, International Migration, vol. 53, issue 6, pp. 3-26.

Foner, N 1997, ‘What’s new about transnationalism?: New York immigrants today and at the turn of the century’, Diaspora: A Journal of Transnational Studies, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 355-375.

Fozdar, F & Spittles, B 2010, ‘Patriotic vs. proceduralist citizenship: Australian representations’, Nations and nationalism, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 127-147.

Fozdar, F, Spittles, B & Hartley, L 2015, ‘Australia Day, flags on cars and Australian nationalism’, Journal of Sociology, vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 317-336

Furtado, D & Theodoropoulos, N 2010, ‘Why does intermarriage increase immigrant employment? The role of networks’, The BE Journal of Economic Analysis and Policy, vol. 10, no. 1, article 101.

Fussell, E 2012, ‘Space, time, and volition: Dimensions of migration theory’, in MR Rosenblum & DJ Tichenor (eds), The Oxford handbook of the politics of international migration, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 25-52.

Gabaccia, D 2014, ‘Time and temporality in migration studies’, in CB Brettell & JF Hollifield (eds), Migration theory: Talking across disciplines, 3rd edn, Routledge, New York, pp. 37–66.

Ganga, D & Scott, S 2006, ‘Cultural “insiders” and the issue of positionality in qualitative migration research: Moving “across” and moving “along” researcher- participant divides’, Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, vol. 7, no. 3, viewed 11 November 2013, .

Gans, H.J. 1979. ‘Symbolic ethnicity: the future of ethnic groups and cultures in America’. Ethnic & Racial Studies, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 1–20.

252

Giddens, A 1991, Modernity and self-identity: Self and society in the late modern age, Stanford University Press, Palo Alto, CA.

Glick-Schiller, N, Basch, L & Blanc-Szanton, C 1992, ‘Towards a definition of transnationalism’, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, vol. 645, pp. ix-xiv.

Glick-Schiller, N, Basch, L & Blanc-Szanton, C 1992, ‘Transnationalism: A new analytic framework for understanding migration’, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, vol. 645, pp. 1-24.

Glick-Schiller, N, Basch, L & Blanc-Szanton, C 1995, ‘From immigrant to transmigrant: Theorizing transnational migration’, Anthropological Quarterly, vol. 68, no. 1, pp. 48-63.

Glorius, B & Matuschewski, A 2009, ‘Rueckwanderung im internationalen Kontext: Forschungsansaetze und -perspektiven’ (Return migration in the international context: Research approach and perspectives), Zeitschrift fuer Bevoelkerungswissenschaft, vol. 34, no. 3-4, pp. 203-225.

Glorius, B 2013, Mobility in transition: Migration patterns after EU enlargement, Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam.

Gmelch, G 1980, ‘Return migration’, Annual Review of Anthropology, vol. 9, pp. 135-159.

Gordon, MM 1964, Assimilation in American life: The role of race, religion, and national origin, Oxford University Press, New York.

Grigg, DB 1977), ‘EG Ravenstein and the “laws of migration”’, Journal of Historical geography, vol 3., no. 1, pp. 41-54.

Guarnizo, LE, Portes, A & Haller, W 2003, ‘Assimilation and transnationalism: Determinants of transnational political action among contemporary migrants’, American Journal of Sociology, vol. 108, no. 6, pp. 1211-1248.

Guba, EG 1990, The paradigm dialog, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.

Guba, E & Lincoln, Y 1994, ‘Competing paradigms in qualitative research’, in NK Denzin & Y Lincoln (eds), The Sage handbook of qualitative research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 105-117.

Guest, G, MacQueen, K & Namey, E 2012, Applied thematic analysis, Sage, Los Angeles.

Hammersley, M 2012, What is qualitative research, Bloomsbury Publishing, London.

253

Hammersley, M & Atkinson, P 2007, Ethnography: Principles in practice, Routledge, London.

Hammerton, AJ & Thomson, A 2005, Ten pound Poms: Australia’s invisible migrants, Manchester University Press, Manchester.

Hannerz, U 2002, Transnational connections: Culture, people, places, Taylor & Francis, NY.

Harmstorf, I 1987, World War II: South Australia’s Germans, The German Club, viewed 18 June 2013, .

Harmstorf, I 2001, ‘German Settlement in South Australia until 1914’, in J Jupp (ed.), The Australian people: An encyclopedia of the nation, its people and their origins, Cambridge University Press, Melbourne, pp. 360-365.

Harris, JR & Todaro, MP 1970, ‘Migration, unemployment and development: A two-sector analysis’, The American Economic Review, vol. 60, no. 1, pp. 126-142.

Harvey, D 1990, The conditions of postmodernity: An enquiry into the origins of cultural change, Blackwell Publishers, Cambridge, MA.

Hatton, TJ & Williamson, JG 2002, What fundamentals drive world migration?, no. w9159, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.

Heckmann, F 2005, Integration and integration policies, European Forum for Migration Studies, Bamberg.

Heimer, A & Pfeiffer, I 2007, Gründe für die Auswanderung von Fach- und Führungskräften aus Wirtschaft und Wissenschaft (Reasons for emigration of experts and leaders in business and research), Prognos AG, Basel, viewed 1 June 2012, .

Held, D 1999, Global transformations: Politics, economics and culture, Stanford University Press, Palo Alto, CA.

Ho, C 2013, ‘From social justice to social cohesion: A history of Australian multicultural policy’, in ACH Jakubowicz (ed.), “For those who’ve come across the seas ...”: Australian multicultural theory, policy and practice, Australian Scholarly Publishing, North Melbourne, pp. 31-41.

Hoerder, D 2002, Cultures in contact: World migrations in the second millennium, Duke University Press, Durham.

254

Hugo, G 1994, The economic implications of emigration from Australia, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra.

Hugo, G 2003, Circular migration: Keeping development rolling?, Migration Information Source, viewed 19 August 2013, .

Hugo, G 2005, ‘Migrants in society: Diversity and cohesion’, in A paper prepared for the Policy Analysis and Research Programme of the Global Commission on International Migration, The Global Commission on International Migration, Geneva.

Hugo, G 2009, ‘Returning youthful nationals to Australia: Brain gain or brain circulation’, in D Conway & RB Potter (eds), Return migration of the next generations: 21st Century transnational mobility, Ashgate Publishing Ltd., Farnham, pp. 185-219.

Hugo, G 2011, ‘Geography and population in Australia: A historical perspective’, Geographical Research, vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 242-260.

Hugo, G 2013, ‘From permanent settlement to transnationalism – Contemporary population movement between Italy and Australia: Trends and implications’, International Migration, vol. 52, issue 4, pp. 92-111.

Hugo, G, Rudd, D & Harris, KR 2001, Emigration from Australia: Economic implications, Committee for Economic Development of Australia, Melbourne, Vic.

Hugo, G, Rudd, D & Harris, KR 2003, Australia’s diaspora: Its size, nature and policy implications, Committee for Economic Development of Australia (CEDA), Melbourne, Vic.

Inkson, K, Carr, SC, Allfree, N, Edwards, MF, Hooks, JJ, Jackson, DJ & Thorn, KJ 2008, ‘The psychology of migration and talent flow: A New Zealand perspective’, in AI Glendon, BM Thompson, & B Myors (eds), Advances in organisational psychology, Australian Academic Press, Bowen Hills, QLD, Australia, pp. 301-321.

IOM 2013, World Migration Report 2013: Migrant well-being and development, International Organization for Migration, Geneva.

Irvine, A, Drew, P & Sainsbury, R 2013, ‘“Am I not answering your questions properly?” Clarification, adequacy and responsiveness in semi-structured telephone and face-to-face interviews’, Qualitative Research, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 87-106.

Janta, H, Cohen, SA & Williams, AM 2015, ‘Rethinking visiting friends and relatives mobilities’, Population, Space and Place, vol. 21, issue 7, pp. 585-598.

255

Joffe, H 2011, ‘Thematic analysis’, in D Harper & AR Thompson (eds), Qualitative research methods in mental health and psychotherapy: A guide for students and practitioners, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK, pp. 209-223.

Johnston, R 1972, Future Australians: Immigrant children in Perth, Western Australia, vol. 2, Australian National University Press, Canberra.

Johnston, R 1979, Immigrants in Western Australia, University of Western Australia Press, Perth, Western Australia.

Jones, F & Lancaster, L 1967, ‘Ethnic concentration and assimilation: An Australian case study’, Social Forces, vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 412-423.

Jupp, J 1966, Arrivals and departures, Landsdowne Press Pty Ltd., Melbourne.

Jupp, J 1995, ‘The hidden migrants: German-speakers in Australia since 1950’, in M Jürgensen (ed.), German-Australian cultural relations since 1945, proceedings of the conference held at the University of Queensland, Brisbane from September 20-23, 1994, Peter Lang AG, Berne, pp. 63-77.

Jupp, J 2002, From White Australia to Woomera: The story of Australian immigration, 2nd edn, Cambridge University Press, New York.

Kaplan, G 1995, ‘From “enemy alien” to assisted immigrant: Australian public opinion of Germans and Germany in the Australian print media, 1945-1956’, in M Jürgensen (ed.), German-Australian cultural relations since 1945, proceedings of the conference held at the University of Queensland, Brisbane from September 20-23, 1994, Peter Lang AG, Berne, pp. 78-100.

Kaplan, G 2001, ‘Post-war German immigration’, in J Jupp (ed.), The Australian people: An encyclopedia of the nation, its people and their origins, Cambridge University Press, Melbourne, pp. 377-379.

Kathmann, T 2012, ‘Die Auswanderung von Deutschen: Migrationsformen und Migrationsgründe’(The emigration of Germans: forms of and reasons for migration), in DGD-Jahrestagung 2011—Schrumpfend, alternd, bunter? Antworten auf den demographischen Wandel (DGD annual conference 2011—decreasing, aging, more colourful? Answers in regards to demographic change), Online Publikation der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Demographie e.V., vol 01 (2012), pp. 107–115, viewed 21 October 2015,

Khoo, S-E 2001, The context of spouse migration to Australia’, International Migration, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 111-132.

256

Khoo, S-E 2014, ‘Attracting and retaining globally mobile skilled migrants: Policy challenges based on Australian research’, International Migration, vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 20–30.

Khoo, S-E, Hugo, G & McDonald, P 2008, ‘Which skilled temporary migrants become permanent residents and why?’, International Migration Review, vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 193-226.

Khoo, S-E, Hugo, G & McDonald, P 2011, ‘Skilled migration from Europe to Australia’, Population, Space and Place, vol. 17, no. 5, pp. 550-566.

Khoo, S-E, Voigt-Graf, C, McDonald, P & Hugo, G 2007, ‘Temporary skilled migration to Australia: Employers’ perspectives’, International Migration, vol. 45, no. 4, pp. 175-201.

King, R 2000, ‘Generalizations from the history of return migration’, in G Bhimal (ed.), Return migration: Journey of hope or despair, United Nations and the International Organization for Migration, Geneva, pp. 7-55.

King, R 2002, ‘Towards a new map of European migration’, International Journal of Population Geography, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 89-106.

King, R 2012, ‘Theories and typologies of migration: An overview and a primer’, Willy Brandt Series of Working Papers in International Migration and Ethnic Relations, vol. 3, no. 12, Institute for Studies of Migration, Malmö University, Sweden.

King-O’Riain, RC 2014, ‘Transconnective space, emotions and Skype: The transnational emotional practices of mixed international couples in the Republic of Ireland’, in Benski, T & Fisher, E (eds), Internet and Emotions. Routledge studies in science, technology and society, no. 22, Routledge, New York, pp. 131-143.

King, R & Christou, A 2008, ‘Cultural geographies of counter-diasporic migration: The second generation returns “home”’, Sussex Centre for Migration Research Working Paper no. 45, University of Brighton, Brighton, UK.

King, R & Christou, A 2010, ‘Cultural geographies of counter‐diasporic migration: Perspectives from the study of second‐generation “returnees” to Greece’, Population, Space and Place, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 103-119.

King, R & Christou, A 2011, ‘Of counter-diaspora and reverse transnationalism: Return mobilities to and from the ancestral homeland’, Mobilities, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 451-466.

King, R & Skeldon, R 2010, ‘“Mind the Gap!” Integrating approaches to internal and international migration’, Journal of Ethnic & Migration Studies, vol. 36, no. 10, 12, pp. 1619-1646.

257

Kivisto, P 2001, ‘Theorizing transnational immigration: A critical review of current efforts’, Ethnic and Racial Studies, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 549-577.

Kivisto, P & Faist, T 2010, Beyond a border: The causes and consequences of contemporary immigration, SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Klapdor, M, Coombs, M & Bohm, C 2009, Australian citizenship: A chronology of major developments in policy and law, Australian Government Public Service, Canberra.

Klekowski von Koppenfels, A 2009, ‘From Germans to migrants: Aussiedler migration to Germany’, in T Tsuda (ed.), Diasporic homecomings : Ethnic return migration in comparative perspective, Stanford University Press, Palo Alto, CA.

Klekowski von Koppenfels, A 2014, Migrants or expatriates?: Americans in Europe, Palgrave McMillan, New York.

Klekowski von Koppenfels, AK, Mulholland, J & Ryan, L 2015, ‘“Gotta go visit family”: Reconsidering the relationship between tourism and transnationalism’, Population, Space and Place, vol. 21, issue 7, pp. 612-624.

Klinthäll, M 1999, Homeward bound: Return migration from Sweden to Germany, Greece, Italy and the United States during the period 1968–1993, Department of Economic History, Lund University, Sweden.

Klinthäll, M 2004, ‘Return migration at the end of working life. Immigrants leaving Sweden in the period 1979-1996’, Lund Papers in Economic History, no. 95, Lund University, Sweden.

Klinthäll, M 2006a, ‘Immigration, integration and return migration’, Paper presented at the International Symposium on International Migration and Development, Turin, Italy, 28-30 June 2006.

Klinthäll, M 2006b, ‘Retirement return migration from Sweden’, International Migration, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 153-180.

Koleth, E 2010, ‘Multiculturalism: A review of Australian policy statements and recent debates in Australia and overseas’, Research paper no. 6 2010-2011, Parliamentary Library, Canberra.

Koser, K 2007, International migration: A very short introduction, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

258

Kreutzer, F & Roth, S 2006, ‘Einleitung zu Transnationale Karrieren: Biographien, Lebensführung und Mobilität’ (Introduction to Transnational careers: Biographies, life choices and mobility), in F Kreutzer & S Roth (eds), Transnationale Karrieren: Biographien, Lebensführung und Mobilität (Transnational careers: Biographies, life choices and mobility), Springer Fachmedien, Wiesbaden.

Kritz, MM, Lim, LL & Zlotnik, H 1992, International migration systems: A global approach, Clarendon Press, Oxford.

Kurekova, L 2011, ‘Theories of migration: Conceptual review and empirical testing in the context of the EU East-West flows’, paper presented at the Interdisciplinary conference on Migration. Economic Change, Social Challenge, April 6-9, 2011, University College, London, .

Kwiet, K 2001, ‘Inter-war German community life’, in J Jupp (ed.), The Australian people: An encyclopedia of the nation, its people and their origins, Cambridge University Press, Melbourne, pp. 372-375.

Lack, J 2003, ‘Australian immigration: Policy and history’, in D Weiss (ed.), Social exclusion: An approach to the Australian case, Peter Lang, Frankfurt, pp. 113-148.

Lakha, S 2009, ‘Waiting to return home: Modes of immigrant waiting’, in G Hage (ed.), Waiting, Melbourne University Press, Carlton, Vic, pp. 121-134.

Larsen, J, Urry, J & Axhausen, KW 2007, ‘Networks and tourism: Mobile social life’, Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 244-262.

Lawrence, JA & Dodds, AE 2007, ‘“Myself, the project”: Sociocultural interpretations of young adulthood’, in J Valsiner & A Rosa (eds), The Cambridge handbook of sociocultural psychology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 404-422.

Lee, ES 1966, ‘A theory of migration’, Demography, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 47-57.

Leuner, B 2008, Migration, multiculturalism and language maintenance in Australia: Polish migration to Melbourne in the 1980s, Peter Lang, Bern.

Ley, D & Kobayashi, A 2005, ‘Back to Hong Kong: Return migration or transnational sojourn?’, Global Networks, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 111-127

Liamputtong, P 2010, Performing qualitative cross-cultural research, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Lidgard, J 2001, ‘Return migration of New Zealanders: A profile of returnees in 2000’, New Zealand Journal of Geography, vol. 112, no. 1, pp. 10-17.

259

Liebau, E & Schupp, J 2011, ‘Considering emigration: German university graduates are moving abroad - but only temporarily’, Weekly Report, no. 1, pp. 1-8.

Lincoln, YS, Lynham, SA & Guba, EG 2011, ‘Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences, revisited’, in NK Denzin & Y Lincoln (eds), The Sage handbook of qualitative research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 97- 128.

Lukomskyj, O & Richards, P 1986, ‘Return migration from Australia: A case study’, International Migration, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 603-632.

Lüthke, F 1989, Psychologie der Auswanderung (Psychological factors in emigration), Dt. Studien-Verlag, Weinheim.

Mackenzie, N & Knipe, S 2006, ‘Research dilemmas: Paradigms, methods and methodology’, Issues in educational research, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 193-205.

Mai, N & King, R 2009, ‘Love, sexuality and migration: Mapping the issue(s)’, Mobilities, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 295-307.

Mares, P 2012 ‘Temporary migration and its implications for Australia’, paper presented as a lecture in the Senate Occasional Lecture Series at Parliament House, 23 September 2011, Canberra.

Markowitz, F & Stefansson, A (eds) 2004, Homecomings: Unsettling paths of return, Lexington Books, Lanham.

Markus, A, Jupp, J & McDonald, P 2009, Australia’s immigration revolution, Allen & Unwin, Sydney.

Marshall, C & Rossman, GB 2011, Designing qualitative research, Sage. Thousand Oaks, CA.

Massey, D, Arango, J, Hugo, G, Kouaouci, A, Pellegrino, A & Taylor, JE 1998, Worlds in motion: Understanding international migration at the end of the millennium, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Massey, DS, Arango, J, Hugo, G, Kouaouci, A, Pellegrino, A & Taylor, JE 1993, ‘Theories of international migration: A review and appraisal’, Population and Development Review, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 431-466.

Massey, DS & Redstone Akresh, I 2006, ‘Immigrant intentions and mobility in a global economy: The attitudes and behavior of recently arrived US immigrants*’, Social Science Quarterly, vol. 87, pp. 954-971.

Maxwell, JA 2013, Qualitative research design: An interactive approach, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

260

Maydell, E 2010, ‘Methodological and analytical dilemmas in autoethnographic research’, Journal of Research Practice, vol. 6, no. 1, article M5.

McCann, P, Poot, J & Sanderson, L 2010, ‘Migration, relationship capital and international travel: Theory and evidence’, Journal of Economic Geography, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 361-387.

McKeown, A 2011 ‘All that is molten freezes again: Migration history, globalization, and the politics of newness’, in BS Turner 2011, The Routledge international handbook of globalization studies, Routledge, E book , pp. 162- 181.

Meng, X & Gregory, RG 2005, ‘Intermarriage and the economic assimilation of immigrants’, Journal of Labor Economics, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 135-176.

Mennicken-Coley, M 1993, The Germans in Western Australia: Innovators, immigrants, internees, Department of Language Studies, Edith Cowan University, Perth, WA.

Merriam, SB 2009, Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation, John Wiley & Sons, San Francisco, CA.

Minichiello, V, Aroni, R & Hays, T 2008, In-depth interviewing: Principles, techniques, analysis, 3rd edn, Pearson Education Australia, Sydney.

Münstermann, I 1997, ‘German immigration in South Australia after 1945’, unpublished PhD thesis, Flinders University, Adelaide.

Myers, B & Inkson, K 2003, ‘The big OE. How it works and what it can do for New Zealand’, University of Auckland Business Review, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 44-54.

Newbold, KB & Bell, M 2001, ‘Return and onwards migration in Canada and Australia: Evidence from fixed interval data’, International Migration Review, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 1157-1184.

Ngai, M 2011, ‘Brokering inclusion: Education, language, and the immigrant middle class’, in RM Smith (ed.), Citizenship, borders, and human needs, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, pp. 135-156.

Ní Laoire, C 2008, ‘“Settling back”? A biographical and life-course perspective on Ireland’s recent return migration’, Irish Geography, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 195-210.

Nicholls, G 2007, Deported: A history of forced departures from Australia, University of New South Wales Press Ltd., Sydney.

O’Flaherty, M, Skrbis, Z & Tranter, B 2007, ‘Home visits: Transnationalism among Australian migrants’, Ethnic and Racial Studies, vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 817-844.

261

O’Reilly, K 2012, International migration and social theory, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke UK, New York.

O’Reilly, K 2013, ‘International migration and social theory’, in G Peterson (ed.), The encyclopedia of global human migration, Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Cambridge, MA, .

OECD 2008, ‘Return migration: A new perspective’, in OECD International Migration Outlook 2008, OECD Publishing, Paris, pp. 161-222.

OECD 2015a, International Migration Outlook 2015, OECD Publishing, Paris.

OECD 2015b, Talent abroad: A review of German emigrants, OECD Publishing, Paris.

Ong, A 1999, Flexible citizenship: The cultural logic of transnationality, Duke University Press, Durham.

Østergaard-Nielsen, E 2012, ‘Transnational migration’ in J Rath & M Martiniello (eds), An introduction to international migration studies: European perspectives, Amsterdam University Press, EBSCO Publishing: eBook Collection, pp. 107-129.

Oswald, I 2007, Migrationssoziologie (The sociology of migration), UVK, Konstanz.

Patton, MQ 2002, Qualitative research and evaluation methods, 3rd edn, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Payne, PE 2011, ‘Richard Schomburgk: Explorer, natural scientist and botanic garden director’, in P Monteath (ed.), Germans: Travellers, settlers and their descendants in South Australia, Wakefield Press, Adelaide, pp. 126-143.

Percival, J 2013, Charting the waters: Return migration in later life, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Perkins, J 2001, ‘Germans in Australia during the First World War’, in J Jupp (ed.), The Australian people: An encyclopedia of the nation, its people and their origins, Cambridge University Press, Melbourne, pp. 370-372.

Peterson, G 2013, Return migration: The encyclopedia of global human migration, Blackwell Publishing Ltd., Cambridge, MA.

Pietsch, J 2013, ‘Immigration and refugees: Punctuations in the Commonwealth policy agenda’, Australian Journal of Public Administration, vol. 72, no. 2, pp. 143- 145.

Piore, MJ 1979, Birds of passage: Migrant labor Industrial societies, Cambridge University Press, New York.

262

Plöger, J & Becker, A 2015, ‘Social networks and local incorporation—Grounding high-skilled migrants in two German cities’, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, vol. 41, no. 10, pp. 1517-1535.

Pocock, N & McIntosh, AJ 2011, The return from travel: A new beginning?’, Current Issues in Tourism, vol. 14, no. 7, pp. 631-649.

Pocock, N & McIntosh, A 2013, ‘Long-term travellers return, “home”?’, Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 42, pp. 402-424.

Portes, A & Rumbaut, RG 2014, Immigrant America: A portrait, 4th edn, University of California Press, EBL ebook library.

Portes, A & Zhou, M 1993, ‘The new second generation: Segmented assimilation and its variants’, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol. 530, pp. 74-96.

Portes, A 2001, ‘Introduction: The debates and significance of immigrant transnationalism’, Global Networks, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 181-193.

Price, CA 1975, Australian immigration: A review of the demographic effects of post-war immigration on the Australian population, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra.

Price, CA 1998, ‘Post-war immigration: 1947-98 [W. D. Borrie Lecture to the 9th Australian Population Association Conference, Brisbane, 1998]’, Journal of the Australian Population Association, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 115-129.

Pries, L 2004, ‘Determining the causes and durability of transnational labour migration between Mexico and the United States: Some empirical findings’, International Migration, vol. 42, pp. 3-39.

Punch, KF 2013, Introduction to social research: Quantitative and qualitative approaches, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Radermacher, U 1991, ‘Containerdeutsche - Contemporary German immigration to Australia and Canada’, unpublished PhD thesis, University of British Columbia, British Columbia.

Raj, DS 2003, Where are you from? Middle-class migrants in the modern world, University of California Press, CA.

Ralph, D 2014, ‘“Equally at home on Beacon Hill and Hill 16”? Transnational identities among Irish‐born return migrants from the United States’, Global Networks, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 477-494.

Rapley, T 2004, ‘The interview’, in C Seale, G Gobo, JF Gubrium & D Silverman (eds), Qualitative research practice, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 15-33.

263

Rapley, T 2013, ‘Sampling strategies in qualitative research’, in U Flick (ed.), The Sage handbook of qualitative data analysis, Sage Publications, London, pp. 49-64.

Ravenstein, EG 1885, ‘The Laws of Migration’, Journal of the Statistical Society of London, vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 167-235.

Richards, E 2008, Destination Australia: Migration to Australia since 1901, University of New South Wales Press Ltd., Sydney.

Richards, L & Morse, JM 2013, Read me first for a user’s guide to qualitative methods, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Richardson, A & Taft, R 1968, ‘Australian attitudes toward immigrants: A review of social survey findings’, International Migration Review, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 46-55.

Ritchie, J, Lewis, J, Nicholls, CM & Ormston, R 2013, Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Robertson, S 2013, Transnational student-migrants and the state: The education- migration nexus, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.

Robertson, S 2014, ‘Time and temporary migration: The case of temporary graduate workers and working holiday makers in Australia’, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, vol. 40, no. 12, pp. 1915-1933.

Roulston, K 2014, ‘Analysing interviews’, in U Flick (ed.), The Sage handbook of qualitative data analysis, Sage Publications, London, pp. 297-311.

Ryan, L, Klekowski Von Koppenfels, A & Mulholland, J 2015, ‘“The distance between us”: A comparative examination of the technical, spatial and temporal dimensions of the transnational social relationships of highly skilled migrants’, Global Networks, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 198-216.

Salaff, JW 2013, ‘Return migration’, in SJ Gold & SJ Nawyn (eds), International handbook of migration studies, Routledge, New York, pp. 460-468.

Samers, M 2010, Migration (Key ideas in Geography), Routledge, New York.

Sassen, S 1999, Guests and aliens, New Press, New York.

Sassen, S 2001, The global city, Princeton University Press, New York, London, Tokyo.

Sassen, S 2006, ‘The numbers and the passions are not new’, Third Text, vol. 20, no. 6, pp. 635-645.

264

Sauer, A 1999, ‘Model workers or hardened Nazis? The Australian debate about admitting German migrants, 1950 -1952’, Australian Journal of Politics and History, vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 422-437.

Sauer, L & Ette, A 2007, ‘Auswanderung aus Deutschland: Stand der Forschung und erste Ergebnisse zur internationalen Migration deutscher Staatsbürger’ (Emigration from Germany: current state of the research and initial results of the international migration of German citizens), Materialien zur Bevölkerungswissenschaft, vol. 123, Bundesinstitut für Bevölkerungsforschung (BIB), Wiesbaden.

Saunders, K 2003, ‘“The stranger in our gates”: Internment policies in the United Kingdom and Australia during the two world wars, 1914–39’, Immigrants & Minorities, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 22-43.

Schellenberger, U 2011, Transmigration als Lebensstil: Selbstbilder und Erfahrungswelten von Pendlern zwischen Deutschland und Neuseeland (Transmigration as way of life: self-perception and life-worldsof transmigrants between Germany and New Zealand), Waxmann Verlag, Münster.

Schmitter Heisler, B 2008, ‘The sociology of immigration. From assimilation to segmented integration, from the American experience to the global arena’, in CB Brettell & JF Hollifield (eds), Migration theory: Talking across the disciplines, Routledge, London.

Schmortte, J 2005, ‘Attitudes towards German immigration in South Australia in the post-Second World War Period, 1947-60’, Australian Journal of Politics and History, vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 530-544.

Schrover, M & Vermeulen, F 2005, ‘Immigrant organisations’, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, vol. 31, no. 5, pp. 823-832.

Schubert-McArthur, T 2009, ‘Ich hab noch einen Koffer in Berlin. Die Grauzone zwischen Tourismus und Migration am Beispiel des Gepäcks von Neuseelandauswanderern’ (I still have a suitcase in Berlin. The gray area between tourism and migration as exemplified by the luggage of emigrants to New Zealand), in J Moser & D Seidl (eds), Dinge auf Reisen: Materielle Kultur und Tourismus (Things and journeys: material culture and tourism). Waxman, Münster, pp. 179- 196.

Seitz, A & Foster, L 1985, ‘Dilemmas of immigration—Australian expectations, migrant responses: Germans in Melbourne’, Journal of Sociology, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 414-430.

Seitz, A & Foster, L 1989, ‘German Nationals in Australia 1939–1947: Internment, forced migration and/or social control?’, Journal of Intercultural Studies, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 13-31.

265

Sinatti, G 2011, ‘“Mobile transmigrants” or “unsettled returnees”? Myth of return and permanent resettlement among Senegalese migrants’, Population, Space and Place, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 153-166.

Sinatti, G 2014, ‘Return migration as a win-win-win scenario? Visions of return among Senegalese migrants, the state of origin and receiving countries’, Ethnic and Racial Studies, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 275-291.

Sjaastad, LA 1962, ‘The costs and returns of human migration’, Journal of Political Economy, vol. 70, no. 5, pp. 80-93.

Skeldon, R 2013, Global migration: Demographic aspects and its relevance for development, technical paper no. 2013/6, United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division, New York.

Smith, DP & King, R 2012, ‘Editorial introduction: Re-making migration theory’, Population, Space and Place, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 127-133.

Smith, MP 2005, ‘Transnational urbanism revisited’, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 235-244.

Smith, RC 1997, ‘Reflections on migration, the state and the construction, durability and newness of transnational life’, in L Pries (ed.), Transnationale Migration (Soziale Welt Sonderband 12), Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp. 197-217.

Snel, E, Engbersen, G & Leerkes, A 2006, ‘Transnational involvement and social integration’, Global Networks, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 285-308.

Soysal, YN 1994, Limits of citizenship: Migrants and postnational membership in Europe, University of Chicago Press, Chicago & London.

Spiro, PJ 2007, Dual citizenship: A postnational view, in T Faist & P Kivisto (eds), Dual citizenship in global perspective, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, pp. 189- 202.

Stark, O & Bloom, DE 1985, ‘The New Economics of labor migration’, The American Economic Review, vol. 75, no. 2, pp. 173-178.

266

Steinert, J-D 1992, ‘Drehscheibe Westdeutschland: Wanderungspolitik im Nachkriegsjahrzehnt’(Hub West Germany: migration politics in the decade after the war), in KJ Bade (ed.), Deutsche im Ausland—Fremde in Deutschland: Migration in Geschichte und Gegenwart (Germans abroad—Strangers in Germany: contemporary and historical migrations), CH Beck, München, pp. 386-392.

Steinert, J-D 1995, Migration und Politik: Westdeutschland-Europa-Übersee 1945- 1961 (Migration and politics: West Germany – Europe –transcontinental 1945– 1961), Secolo Verlag, Osnabrück.

Sternberg, JP 2012, Auswanderungsland Bundesrepublik: Denkmuster und Debatten in Politik und Medien 1945-2010 (Federal Republic of Germany—country of emigration: patterns of thought in public discourse and debate in politics and the media 1945-2010), Schöningh, Würzburg.

SVR-Studienbereich 2015, International Mobil: Motive, Rahmenbedingungen und Folgen der Aus- und Rückwanderung deutscher Staatsbürger, (Internationally mobile: Motives, parameters and results of emigration and return of German citizens), Forschungsbereich beim Sachverständigenrat deutscher Stiftungen für Integration und Migration (SVR), Bundesinstitut für Bevölkerungsforschung (BiB), Lehrstuhl für empirische Sozialstrukturanalyse an der Universität Duisburg-Essen, Berlin.

Szkudlarek, B 2010, ‘Re-entry—A review of the literature’, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 1-21.

Taft, R 1962, ‘Adjustment and assimilation of immigrants: A problem in social psychology’, Psychological Reports, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 90-90.

Taft, R 1986, ‘Methodological considerations in the study of immigrant adaptation in Australia’, Australian Journal of Psychology, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 339-346.

Tampke, J 2001, ‘Pre-War German settlement in Eastern Australia’, in J Jupp (ed.), The Australian people: An encyclopedia of the nation, its people and their origins, Cambridge University Press, Melbourne, pp. 365-369.

Tampke, J 2006, The Germans in Australia, Cambridge University Press, New York.

Tampke, J & Doxford, C 1989, Australia, “Willkommen”: A History of the Germans in Australia, New South Wales University Press, Kensington, NSW, Australia.

Tharenou, P & Caulfield, N 2010, ‘Will I stay or will I go? Explaining repatriation by self-initiated expatriates’, Academy of Management Journal, vol. 53, no. 5, pp. 1009-1028.

Tsuda, T 2009, Diasporic homecomings: Ethnic return migration in comparative perspective, Stanford University Press, Palo Alto, CA.

267

Turner-Graham, E 2011, “Never forget that you are a German”: Die Brücke, “Deutschtum” and National Socialism in interwar Australia, Peter Lang, Frankfurt.

Uebelmesser, S 2006, ‘To go or not to go: Emigration from Germany’, German Economic Review, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 211-231.

United Nations 1998, Recommendations on statistics of international migration, statistical papers, series M, 58, rev. 1, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, New York.

United Nations 2004, Social Dimensions of International Migration, Division for Social Policy and DESA, New York.

United Nations 2013, International Migration Report 2013, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, New York.

Urry, J 2002, ‘Mobility and proximity’, Sociology, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 255-274.

Urry, J 2007, Mobilities, Polity Press, Cambridge.

Urry, J 2012, ‘Social networks, mobile lives and social inequalities’, Journal of Transport Geography, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 24-30.

Valsiner, J & Rosa, A (eds) 2007, The Cambridge handbook of sociocultural psychology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. van Bochove, M 2012, ‘Geographies of belonging: The transnational and local involvement of economically successful migrants’, PhD thesis, Rotterdam University, Amsterdam.

Van Hear, N 2010, ‘Theories of migration and social change’, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, vol. 36, no. 10, pp. 1531-1536.

Van Mol, C, Mahieu, R, de Clerck, M-L, Piqueray, E, Wauters, J, Levrau, F, Vanderwaeren, E & Michielsen, J 2014, ‘Conducting qualitative research: Dancing a tango between insider - and outsiderness’, in L Voloder & L Kirpitchenko (eds), Insider research on migration and mobility, Ashgate Publishing, Farnham, pp. 69- 84. van Tubergen, F, Maas, I & Flap, H 2004, ‘The economic incorporation of immigrants in 18 Western societies: Origin, destination, and community effects’, American Sociological Review, vol. 69, no. 5, pp. 704-727.

Vasta, E 2006, ‘Migration and migration research in Australia’, in E Vasta & V Vuddamalay (eds), International migration and the social sciences: Confronting national experiences in Australia, France and Germany, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, pp. 13-78.

268

Vertovec, S 1999, ‘Conceiving and researching transnationalism’, Ethnic and Racial Studies, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 447-462.

Vink, MP & Bauböck, R 2013, ‘Citizenship configurations: Analysing the multiple purposes of citizenship regimes in Europe’, Comparative European Politics, vol. 11, no. 5, pp. 621-648.

Voigt, JH 1992, ‘Deutsche in Australien und Neuseeland’(Germans in Australia and New Zealand), in KJ Bade (ed.), Deutsche im Ausland—Fremde in Deutschland: Migration in Geschichte und Gegenwart (Germans abroad—Strangers in Germany: contemporary and historical migrations), Beck, München, pp. 215-230.

Vollmer, R 1998, ‘Assisted emigration from Northern Germany to South Australia in the nineteenth century’, Australian Journal of Politics & History, vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 33-47.

Voloder, L 2014, ‘Introduction: Insiderness in migration and mobility research: Conceptual considerations’, in L Voloder & L Kirpitchenko (eds), Insider research on migration and mobility: International perspectives on researcher positioning, Ashgate Publishing Ltd, Farnham, pp. 1-17.

Vondra, J 1981, German speaking settlers in Australia, Cavalier Press, Melbourne.

Waldinger, R 2008, ‘Between “here” and “there”: Immigrant cross‐border activities and loyalties’, International Migration Review, vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 3-29.

Waldinger, R 2013, ‘Immigrant transnationalism’, Current Sociology, vol. 61, no. 5- 6, pp. 756–777.

Waldinger, R & Fitzgerald, D 2004, ‘Transnationalism in question’, American Journal of Sociology, vol. 109, no. 5, pp. 1177-1195.

Waldorf, B 1995, ‘Determinants of international return migration intentions∗’, The Professional Geographer, vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 125-136.

Wallerstein, I 1974, ‘The rise and future demise of the world capitalist system: Concepts for comparative analysis’, Comparative Studies in Society and History, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 387-415.

Walsh, J 2014, ‘From nations of immigrants to states of transience: Temporary migration in Canada and Australia’, International Sociology, vol.29, no.6, pp.584- 606.

Wende, A-K 2010, German migrants in Western Australia and Queensland: Acculturation and transnational social spaces, Südwestdeutscher Verlag für Hochschulschriften, Saarbrücken, Germany.

269

White, A & Ryan, L 2008, ‘Polish “temporary” migration: The formation and significance of social networks’, Europe-Asia Studies, vol. 60, no. 9, pp. 1467-1502.

White, A 2014, ‘Polish return and double return migration’, Europe-Asia Studies, vol. 66, no. 1, pp. 25-49.

Williams, L 2010, Global marriage: Cross-border marriage migration in global context, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.

Wyman, M 2005, ‘Emigrants returning: The evolution of a tradition’, in M Harper (ed.), Emigrant homecomings: The return movement of emigrants, 1600–2000, Manchester University Press, Manchester, pp. 16–31.

Xiang, B 2014, ‘The return of return: Migration, Asia and theory’, in G Battistella (ed.), Global and Asian perspectives on international migration, Springer International Publishing, Switzerland, pp. 167–183.

Zubrzycki, J 1960, Immigrants in Australia: A demographic survey based upon the 1954 census, vol. 17, Melbourne University Press, Parkville.

270

Appendix 1—Ethics Clearance—SUHREC2012/281

From: Kaye Goldenberg Sent: Friday, 21 December 2012 3:33 PM To: Bruno Mascitelli Cc: Julian Vieceli; Anne Cain Subject: SUHREC Project 2012/281 Ethics Clearance

To: Dr Bruno Mascitelli, FBE/ Ms Maren Klein

Dear Dr Mascitelli,

SUHREC Project 2012/281 Return migration: the case study of German-born Australians

Dr Bruno Mascitelli, FBE/ Ms Maren Klein Approved Duration: 31/12/2012 To 29/01/2015

I refer to the ethical review of the above project protocol undertaken on behalf of Swinburne's Human Research Ethics Committee (SUHREC) by SUHREC Subcommittee (SHESC4) at a meeting held on 30 November 2012. Your response to the review as e-mailed on 19 December was reviewed by a SHESC4 delegate.

I am pleased to advise that, as submitted to date, the project may proceed in line with standard on-going ethics clearance conditions here outlined.

- All human research activity undertaken under Swinburne auspices must conform to Swinburne and external regulatory standards, including the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research and with respect to secure data use, retention and disposal.

- The named Swinburne Chief Investigator/Supervisor remains responsible for any personnel appointed to or associated with the project being made aware of ethics clearance conditions, including research and consent procedures or instruments approved. Any change in chief investigator/supervisor requires timely notification and SUHREC endorsement.

- The above project has been approved as submitted for ethical review by or on behalf of SUHREC. Amendments to approved procedures or instruments ordinarily require prior ethical appraisal/ clearance. SUHREC must be notified immediately or as soon as possible thereafter of (a) any serious or unexpected adverse effects on participants and any redress measures; (b) proposed changes in protocols; and (c) unforeseen events which might affect continued ethical acceptability of the project.

271

- At a minimum, an annual report on the progress of the project is required as well as at the conclusion (or abandonment) of the project.

- A duly authorised external or internal audit of the project may be undertaken at any time.

Please contact the Research Ethics Office if you have any queries about on-going ethics clearance or you need a signed ethics clearance certificate, citing the SUHREC project number. A copy of this clearance email should be retained as part of project record-keeping.

Best wishes for the project.

Yours sincerely

Kaye Goldenberg

Secretary, SHESC4

****************************

Kaye Goldenberg Administrative Officer (Research Ethics) Swinburne Research (H68) Swinburne University of Technology P O Box 218 HAWTHORN VIC 3122 Tel +61 3 9214 8468

272

Appendix 2—Project Invitation and Consent German

Swinburne University of Technology Faculty of Business & Enterprise

EINLADUNG ZUR TEILNAHME AN EINEM FORSCHUNGSVORHABEN INFORMATIONEN ZUR EINWILLIGUNGSERKLÄRUNG

Forschungsvorhaben: Rückwanderung: eine Fallstudie deutschstämmiger Australier

Einladung zur Teilnahme Wir möchten Sie einladen an einem Forschungsvorhaben der Wirtschaftswissenschaftlichen Fakultät der Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Australien, zum Rückkehrverhalten deutscher Auswanderer in Australien teilzunehmen.

Projektinformation Dieses Forschungsvorhaben untersucht Aspekte, Verlaufsformen und Determinanten der Auswanderung und Rückkehr nach Deutschland von deutschen Auswanderern/deutschstämmiger Einwohnern Australiens, die zwischen 1952 und der Gegenwart für mindestens ein Jahr (12 Monate) in Australien gelebt haben. Das Ziel dieses Forschungsvorhabens ist es, Trends und Veränderungen in Trends zu untersuchen und zu dokumentieren. Rückwanderung ist ein wichtiger Aspekt im System der internationalen Wanderungen, der bisher nicht sehr weitgehend erforscht ist. Während es eine Reihe von Studien zur Einwanderung Deutscher nach Australien gibt, ist Rückkehrverhalten generell und speziell das von Deutschen weit weniger extensiv dokumentiert.

Projektteam Das Forschungsvorhaben ist Teil einer Promotionsarbeit von Frau Maren Klein,Projektmitarbeiterin und Doktorandin, Wirtschaftswissenschaftliche Fakultät, Swinburne University of Technology, und wird durchgeführt unter der Leitung von:

Associate Prof Dr Bruno Mascitelli, Projektleiter, Associate Dean (International), Senior Lecturer European Studies, Faculty of Business and Enterprise, Swinburne University of Technology

Dr. Simone Battiston, Co-Projektleiter, Cassamarca Senior Lecturer in Italian, Head of Group - Languages, Cultures and International Studies, Faculty of Business and Enterprise, Swinburne University of Technology

Teilnahmebedingungen Sie können an diesem Projekt teilnehmen, wenn Sie:  deutscher Staatsanbürger sind/waren oder deutscher Abstammung sind, und  zwischen 1952 und heute mindestens ein Jahr (12 Monate) in Australien gelebt haben, oder

 bei einer Organisation, die in bi-lateralen deutsch-australischen Beziehungen involviert ist, beschäftigt sind.

Die Daten für dieses Projekt werden durch ein elektronisch aufgezeichnetes, persönliches Interview erhoben. Die vorraussichtliche Dauer liegt zwischen einer und zwei Stunden, hängt jedoch unter anderem von der Länge der Antworten ab.

273

Rechte der Teilnehmer – Freiwilligkeit und Widerruf der Teilnahme Teilnahme an diesem Forschungsvorhaben ist freiwillig. Sie können Ihre Teilnahme jederzeit ohne weitere Erklärung widerrufen, ohne dass Ihnen daraus irgendwelche Nachteile entstehen. Alle über Sie erhobenen Daten werden anonymisiert, so dass RückschIüsse auf Ihre Person nicht möglich sind. Im Falle eines Widerrufs Ihrer Teilnahme werden alle über Sie erhobenen unverarbeiteten Daten vernichtet. Weiterhin haben Sie das Recht, zu jedem Zeitpunkt Antwort auf etwaige Fragen zu bekommen.

Zum Zeitpunkt des Interviews werden Sie gebeten, eine Einwilligungserklärung zu unterschreiben. Diese Erklärung besagt dass:  Ihre Fragen in bezug auf das Forschungsvorhaben zu Ihrer Zufriedenheit beantwortet worden sind;  Ihre Teilnahme an dieser Untersuchung freiwillig ist;  Sie Ihre Teilnahme jederzeit ohne weitere Erklärung widerrufen können, ohne dass Ihnen daraus irgendwelche Nachteile entstehen, und dass im Falle eines Widerrufs Ihrer Teilnahme alle über Sie erhobenen unverarbeiteten Daten vernichtet werden;  Sie das Recht haben, zu jedem Zeitpunkt Antwort auf etwaige Fragen zu bekommen;  Sie damit einverstanden sind, dass das Interview elektronisch aufgezeichnet und transkribiert wird;  Sie damit einverstanden sind, dass Teile Ihres Interviews unter Wahrung der Anonymität im Rahmen des oben genannten Forschungsvorhabens und damit verbundenen Publikationen und Vorträgen genutzt werden können.

Rechte der Teilnehmer – Datenschutz Alle erhobenen Daten und Materialien werden an einem gesicherten Ort aufbewahrt. Alle elektronischen Transkripte werden in passwortgesicherter Form auf einem Computer der Swinburne University und getrennt von Kontaktaddressen aufbewahrt.

Alle Daten werden entweder in schriftlicher oder elektronischer Form aufbewahrt und in Übereinstimmung mit Swinburne University of Technology Vorschriften in bezug auf die Durchführung von Forschungsvorhaben vernichtet.

Diese Vorschriften und weitere Informationen können hier eingesehen werden: http://policies.swinburne.edu.au/ppdonline/

Die unterschriebene Einwilligungserklärung wird getrennt von allen anderen Daten aufbewahrt und nur Projektleiter und Mitarbeiter haben Zugang zu diesen Daten.

Ergebnisse des Forschungsvorhabens Die Resultate des Forschungsvorhabens werden voraussichtlich in Publikationen und Vorträgen genutzt. Wenn gewünscht können Teilnehmern Kopien von Publikationen zugesandt werden. Die Anonymität der Teilnehmer ist ist zu allen Zeiten gewährleistet.

Kontaktaddressen für weitere Information Für weitere Informationen wenden Sie sich bitte an:

Maren Klein, Projektmitarbeiterin und Doktorandin, Faculty of Business and Enterprise, Swinburne University of Technology; Tel: 03 9214 5617/+61 3 9214 5617; Email: [email protected]

Apl. Prof. Dr. Bruno Mascitelli, Projektleiter, Assoc. Dean (International), Senior Lecturer European Studies, Faculty of Business and Enterprise, Swinburne University of Technology, Tel: 03 9214 5363/+61 3 9214 5363; Email: [email protected]

274

Kontaktadresse für Beschwerden

Dieses Projekt hat die Zustimmung der Ethik Kommission der Swinburne University of Technology (SUHREC) (SUHREC Projekt Nummer: 2012/281 oder eines ihrer Kommittees in Übereinstimmung mit dem National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (Australische Richtlinien zur ethischen Durchführung von Forschungsvorhaben). Mit allen Fragen oder Beschwerden wenden Sie sich bitte an : Research Ethics Officer, Swinburne Research (H68), Swinburne University of Technology, P O Box 218, HAWTHORN VIC 3122, AUSTRALIEN. Tel (03) 9214 5218 or +61 3 9214 5218 or [email protected]

275

Einwilligungserklärung German

Swinburne University of Technology Faculty of Business & Enterprise

[Addresse des Teilnehmers/der Teilnehmerin]

Forschungsvorhaben: Rückwanderung: eine Fallstudie deutschstämmiger Australier

Dieses Forschungsvorhaben untersucht Aspekte, Verlaufsformen und Determinanten der Auswanderung und Rückkehr nach Deutschland von deutschen Auswanderern/deutschstämmiger Einwohnern Australiens, die zwischen 1952 und der Gegenwart für mindestens ein Jahr (12 Monate) in Australien gelebt haben. Das Ziel dieses Forschungsvorhabens ist es, Trends und Veränderungen in Trends zu untersuchen und zu dokumentieren. Rückwanderung ist ein wichtiger Aspekt im System der internationalen Wanderungen, der bisher nicht sehr weitgehend erforscht ist. Während es eine Reihe von Studien zur Einwanderung Deutscher nach Australien gibt, ist Rückkehrverhalten generell und speziell das von Deutschen weit weniger extensiv dokumentiert.

Mit weiteren Fragen wenden Sie sich bitte an: Dr Bruno Mascitelli Maren Klein [email protected] [email protected] Tel: (Australien): 03 9214 5363 Tel: (Australien): 03 9214 5617 Tel: (international)+61 3 9214 5363 Tel: (international)+61 3 9214 5617

1. Ich habe das Informationsblatt, auf dass sich diese Einwilligungserklärung bezieht, erhalten und verstanden, und alle meine Fragen sind zu meiner Zufriedenheit beantwortet worden.

2. Hiermit gebe ich meine Einwilligung im Rahmen des oben genannte Forschungsvorhabens an einem elektronisch aufgezeichnetem Interview teilzunehmen, und falls notwendig für weitere Fragen zur Verfügung zu stehen. Ja  Nein 

3. Hiermit erkläre ich, dass:

(a) meine Teilnahme an dieser Untersuchung freiwillig ist und dass ich diese Einwilligung jederzeit ohne Erklärung widerrufen kann, ohne dass mir daraus Nachteile entstehen;

(b) es mir bekannt ist, dass es sich bei diesem Projekt der Swinburne University of Technology um ein wissenschaftliches Forschungsvorhaben handelt; (c) es mir bekannt ist, dass die über mich in diesem Projekt erhobenen personenbezogenen Daten nur in passwortgesicherter Form und getrennt von Kontaktdaten aufbewahrt werden und nur Projektleiter und Projektmitarbeiter Zugang zu diesen Daten haben; (d) dass Teile meines Interviews unter Wahrung der Anonymität im Rahmen des oben genannten Forschungsvorhabens und damit verbundenen Publikationen und Vorträgen genutzt werden können.

276

Hiermit gebe ich meine Einwilligung, an dem oben genannten Forschungsvorhaben teilzunehmen.

Name des Teilnehmers: ......

Datum und Unterschrift: ......

Dieses Projekt hat die Zustimmung der Ethik Kommission der Swinburne University of Technology (SUHREC) (SUHREC Projekt Nummer: 2012/218) oder eines ihrer Kommittees in Übereinstimmung mit dem National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (Australische Richtlinien zur ethischen Durchführung von Forschungsvorhaben). Mit allen Fragen oder Beschwerden wenden Sie sich bitte an : Research Ethics Officer, Swinburne Research (H68), Swinburne University of Technology, P O Box 218, HAWTHORN VIC 3122, AUSTRALIEN. Tel (03) 9214 5218 or +61 3 9214 5218 or [email protected]

277

English

Swinburne University of Technology Faculty of Business & Enterprise

INVITATION TO PARTICIPATE IN A RESEARCH PROJECT PROJECT CONSENT INFORMATION STATEMENT

Project Title Return migration: the case study of German-born Australians

Introduction to Project and Invitation to Participate You are invited to participate in a project investigating aspects of migration and return to Germany currently conducted in the Faculty of Business and Enterprise at Swinburne University of Technology.

What this project is about and why it is being undertaken The project investigates aspects, processes and determinants of migration and return to Germany of German migrants/Australians of German ancestry who have lived in Australia for at least one year (12 months) between 1952 and today. Return is an important element in international migration systems but as yet not well understood. While a number of studies have explored German immigration to Australia return in general and return of German immigrants in particular has not been investigated extensively. The purpose of this research project is to investigate and document trends in migration and return behaviour and changes to the trends over time.

Investigators Associate Professor Bruno Mascitelli, Chief investigator, Associate Dean (International), Senior Lecturer European Studies, Faculty of Business and Enterprise, Swinburne University of Technology

Dr Simone Battiston, Associate investigator, Cassamarca Senior Lecturer in Italian, Head of Group - Languages, Cultures and International Studies, Faculty of Business and Enterprise, Swinburne University of Technology Ms Maren Klein, Student investigator and doctoral candidate, Faculty of Business and Enterprise, Swinburne University of Technology

Project and researcher interests The project is conducted by Ms Maren Klein as part of a Doctor of Philosophy degree in the Faculty of Business and Enterprise at Swinburne University of Technology and supervised by Dr Bruno Mascitelli and Dr Simone Battiston of the Faculty of Business and Enterprise at Swinburne University of Technology.

Eligibility to participate and what participation will involve You are eligible to participate if you are:  a German citizen/former German citizen or of German ancestry, and  have lived in Australia for at least one year (12 months) anytime since 1952, or

 a representative of an organisation that facilitates or is involved in bi-lateral German Australian relations.

The information for this project will be collected through a personal interview which will be audio recorded digitally. The interview is envisaged to last between one and two hours.

278

Participant rights and interests – Free Consent/Withdrawal from Participation Participation in this study is voluntary, and you have no obligation to be involved. You have the right to withdraw your participation at any time, without prejudice. All data collected about you will be de-identified to preserve your anonymity and you have the right to have any unprocessed information withdrawn and destroyed. You have the right to have any questions answered at any time.

At the interview you will be asked to sign an Informed Consent form which will indicate that  all questions about the research have been answered to your satisfaction  your participation in the research is voluntary  you are aware that you may withdraw from the research at any time without explanation and that all unprocessed information you have provided will be destroyed  you are aware that you have the right to have questions answered at any time  you agree to the interview being audio recorded and transcribed  you agree to the possibility of comments made by you in the interview being used directly in any publication that may result from this study.

Participant rights and interests – Privacy & Confidentiality All recorded materials will be stored in a locked filing cabinet. All electronic transcripts will be stored on a password protected computer at Swinburne University.

All data collected will be archived either in hard copy or electronic format and stored and disposed of in accordance with the Swinburne Policy on the Conduct of Research.

For further information please see Swinburne’s Privacy Policy http://policies.swinburne.edu.au/ppdonline/ )

Signed consent forms will be stored separately to any data collected and will only be accessed by the researchers.

Research output It is anticipated that the research findings, upon request to the informants, may be published and/or presented at scholarly conferences and symposia. If requested, the informants will be offered copies of published material. Confidentiality/anonymity will be guaranteed at all times.

Further information about the project – whom to contact If you would like further information about the project, please do not hesitate to contact:

Ms Maren Klein, student investigator and doctoral candidate, Faculty of Business and Enterprise, Swinburne University of Technology. Tel: 03 9214 6517 or +61 3 9214 6517; Email: [email protected]

Associate Professor Bruno Mascitelli, Chief investigator, Associate Dean (International), Senior Lecturer European Studies, Faculty of Business and Enterprise, Swinburne University of Technology, Tel: 03 9214 5363 or +61 3 9214 5363; Email: [email protected]

Concerns/complaints about the project – who to contact:

This project has been approved by or on behalf of Swinburne’s Human Research Ethics Committee (SUHREC Project Number: 2012/281) in line with the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research. If you have any concerns or complaints about the conduct of this project, you can contact: Research Ethics Officer, Swinburne Research (H68), Swinburne University of Technology, P O Box 218, HAWTHORN VIC 3122. Tel (03) 9214 5218 or +61 3 9214 5218 or [email protected]

279

Informed Consent

Swinburne University of Technology Faculty of Business & Enterprise

[Adress block]

Project Title: Return migration: the case study of German-born Australians

The project investigates aspects, processes and determinants of migration and return to Germany of German migrants/Australians of German ancestry who have lived in Australia for at least one year (12 months) between 1952 and today.

Return is an important element in international migration systems but as yet not well understood. While a number of studies have explored German immigration to Australia return in general and return of German immigrants in particular has not been investigated extensively. The purpose of this research project is to investigate and document trends in migration and return behaviour and changes to the trends over time

If you have any questions, please contact Ms Maren Klein Dr Bruno Mascitelli [email protected] [email protected] Tel: (Australia): 03 9214 5617 Tel: (Australia): 03 9214 5363 Tel: (international)+61 3 9214 5617 Tel: (international)+61 3 9214 5363

1. I consent to participate in the project named above. I have been provided with a copy of the project consent information statement to which this consent form relates and any questions I have asked have been answered to my satisfaction.

2. In relation to this project, please circle your response to the following: . I agree to be interviewed by the researcher and to have the interview recorded by electronic device Yes No . I agree to make myself available for further information if required Yes No

3. I acknowledge that: (a) my participation is voluntary and that I am free to withdraw from the project at any time without explanation; (b) the Swinburne project is for the purpose of research and not for profit; (c) any identifiable information about me which is gathered in the course of and as the result of my participating in this project will be (i) collected and retained for the purpose of this project and (ii) accessed and analysed by the researcher(s) for the purpose of conducting this project; (d) my anonymity is preserved and I will not be identified in publications or otherwise without my express written consent.

280

By signing this document I agree to participate in this project.

Name of Participant: ……………………………………………………………………………

Signature & Date: ……………………………………………………………

This project has been approved by or on behalf of Swinburne’s Human Research Ethics Committee (SUHREC Project Number: 2012/218) in line with the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research. If you have any concerns or complaints about the conduct of this project, you can contact: Research Ethics Officer, Swinburne Research (H68), Swinburne University of Technology, P O Box 218, HAWTHORN VIC 3122. Tel (03) 9214 5218 or +61 3 9214 5218 or [email protected]

281

Appendix 3—Interview Schedules Interview Schedule—Possible questions (English/German)

Personal data  Could you tell me about yourself. o What year were you born? o Where were you born? o Where did you live before you migrated? o What kind of qualifications/job/skills/experience did you have when you arrived in Australia? o Did you acquire any other qualifications after you migrated? o What was the reason for acquiring this/these qualification(s)? o What year did you first migrate to Australia? o Length of stay: How many years did you live in Australia? Or, How many years have you been living in Australia? Or How many years will you stay in Australia? o What kind of visa did you gain entry on?

Migration experience

 Before: o What where your reasons to migrate to Australia? o How did you arrive at the decision to migrate to Australia? o What was the reaction of your friends/family? o How did you prepare for migrating to Australia? o What were your expectations? And were they met?  After: o Are there differences between life in Australian and life in Germany? o If yes, could you elaborate on these differences? o To what degree do you feel you have adapted to the Australian way of life? o Are there any German things like food, traditions, etc. you have kept/feel you want to keep? o Who do you have most contact with: Germans and other Europeans or Australians? And where have you met them? o Do you use both English and German? If so, which language do you speak where and with whom? o Where do you usually spend your holidays?

Identity and citizenship

 Do you identify as: German, Australian, both, none, other?  What citizenship(s) do you hold?

 If you are a German citizen and a permanent resident of Australia, have you ever thought about acquiring Australian citizenship?

 If you hold Australian citizenship: why did you become an Australian citizen?  How did you/do you feel about giving up you German citizenship?

282

 If you hold dual citizenship: what are the reasons?  Do you feel differently about your identity now?

 If you are here on a temporary visa: have you applied for/thought about applying for permanent residency?

Motivation for return

 At the outset was your migration intended as permanent or temporary? Has that decision ever changed or did you ever have doubts?  Have you ever thought about return?  If so, what prompted you to think about return?

If your decision was to stay in Australia:

 What were the incentives to stay in Australia/disincentives to return to Germany?  How did you arrive at the decision?  Could you imagine returning to Germany at some later time?  Do you try to stay in touch with Germany? If so, how?  Have you been back to Germany on visits?

If you have made the decision to return but are still in Australia:

 What were the incentives to return to Germany/ disincentives to stay in Australia?  If you are on a temporary visa: Did you ever think about applying for permanent residency?  Where are you going to live in Germany and what influenced your choice of location?  Do you believe you are well-informed about the conditions in Germany you will be returning to?  How would you categorise your return: going home or another migration?  What are your expectations about reintegration into German life?  Is there anything German you miss(ed)?  Do you think there is anything Australian you will miss once you are back in Germany?  Could you imagine returning to Australia at some time in the future?

If you have returned to Germany:

 What year did you return?  What were the incentives to return to Germany/ disincentives to stay in Australia?  What influenced your choice of location in Germany?  Did you have any expectations about life in Germany after your return?  Were those expectations met?  Is there anything Australian you miss(ed)  Could you imagine returning to Australia at some time in the future?

Connection with Australia/Germany

 Have you retained contact with Australia/Australians/Germany/Germans?  If yes, can you please tell me about it?

283

Final questions

 Do you think advances in technology, particularly travel and communications, have changed the migration experience? and  If somebody asked your advice regarding migration, what would you tell them?

284

Angaben zur Person  Könnten Sie mir bitte ein bisschen über sich selbst erzählen.  In welchem Jahr sind Sie geboren?  Wo sind Sie geboren?  Wo haben Sie vor ihrer Auswanderung gelebt?  Was für Qualifikationen/Beruf/Kenntnisse/Erfahrung hatten Sie bei Ihrer Ankunft in Australien?  Haben Sie weitere Qualifikationen nach Ihrer Auswanderung erworben?  Aus welchem Grund haben Sie diese Qualifikation(en) erworben?  In welchem Jahr sind Sie das erste Mal nach Australien ausgewandert?  Wieviele Jahre haben Sie in Australien gelebt/leben Sie schon in Australien? oder wie viele Jahre haben Sie vor, in Australien zu bleiben?  Mit was für einem Visum sind Sie eingereist?

Auswanderungserfahrungen/Auswanderungsverlauf

 Vor der Auswanderung o Was waren die Gründe für Ihre Auswanderung? o Wie haben Sie diese Entscheidung gefällt? o Was war die Reaktion Ihrer Familie/Freunde? o Wie haben Sie sich auf die Auswanderung/Einwanderung vorbereitet? o Was für Erwartungen hatten Sie über Australien und wurden die erfüllt?  Nach der Auswanderung? o Wie weit denken Sie haben Sie sich an die australische Lebensweise angepasst? o Gibt es irgendetwas typishes deutsches wie Essen oder Traditionen die Sie beibehalten wollen? o Mit wem haben Sie den meisten Kontakt: Deutschen und anderen Europäern oder Australiern? Und wo haben Sie Sie kennengelernt? o Welche Sprache sprechen sie am häufigsten und wo und mit wem? o Wo verbringen Sie gewöhnlich Ihren Urlaub?

Identität und Staatsbürgerschaft

 Fühlen Sie sich als Deutsche/r, Australier(in), beides, oder anders?  Was für eine Staatsangehörigkeit haben Sie?

 Wenn Sie deutscher Staatsbürger sind und eine Daueraufenthaltsgenehmigung in Australien haben, haben Sie jemals darüber nachgedacht, die australische Staatsbürgerschaft anzunehmen?

 Wenn Sie australischer Staatsbürger sind: was waren die Gründe, die australische Staatsbürgerschaft anzunehmen?  Mit welchen Gefühlen haben Sie Ihre deutsche Staatsbürgerschaft aufgegeben?

 Wenn Sie eine doppelte Staatsbürgerschaft haben: was ist der Grund für zwei Staatsbürgerschaften?  Hat das zu einer Identitätsveränderung geführt?

285

Rückkehr Motivation

 War Ihre Migration als temporär oder permanent geplant? Haben Sie sich jemals gefragt ob das richtig war?  Haben Sie jemals ueber Ruckkehr nachgedacht?  Was war der Auslöser für Sie über eine Rückkehr nachzudenken?

Wenn Ihre Entscheidung Verbleib in Australien war:

 Was waren die Gründe für Ihre Entscheidung in Australien zu bleiben? o Was gefällt Ihnen hier besser? o Was gefällt Ihnen in Deutschland besser?  Wie haben Sie diese Entscheidung gefällt?  Könnten Sie sich vorstellen in der Zukunft irgendwann einmal nach Deutschland zurückzukehren?  Machen Sie Besuche in Deutschland?

Wenn Sie sich entschieden haben nach Deutschland zurückzukehren, aber bis jetzt noch in Australien sind

 Aus welchen Gründen kehren Sie nach Deutschland zurück? Wenn Sie mit einem befristeten Visum in Australien sind: Haben Sie jemals daran gedacht, sich um eine Daueraufenthaltsgenehmigung zu bemühen?  Wo werden Sie sich in Deutschland niederlassen und welche Faktoren haben diese Wahl beeinflusst?  Glauben Sie, dass Sie gut über die gegenwärtigen Verhältnisse in Deutschland informiert sind?  Als was würden Sie Ihre Rückkehr einordnen: Heimkehr oder eine andere Auswanderung/Einwanderung?  Was erwarten Sie in bezug auf Ihre Reintegration in Deutschland?  Könnten Sie sich vorstellen in der Zukunft irgendwann einmal nach Australien zurückzukehren?

Wenn Sie nach Deutschland zurückgekehrt sind:

 In welchem Jahr sind Sie nach Deutschland zurückkehrt?  Aus welchen Gründen sind Sie nach Deutschland zurückgekehrt?  Welche Faktoren haben die Wahl Ihres Wohnortes in Deutschland beeinflusst?  Hatten Sie bestimmte Erwartungen wie das Leben in Deutschland nach Ihrer Rückkehr sein würde?  Haben sich diese Erwartungen erfüllt?  Könnten Sie sich vorstellen in der Zukunft irgendwann einmal nach Australien zurückzukehren?

Kontakte zu Australien

 Haben Sie noch Kontakte zu Australien/Australiern?  Wenn ja, könnten Sie mir davon erzählen?

286

Abschliessende Frage

 Glauben Sie, dass technologische Entwicklungen wie Internet, Email, Skype oder auch Transport dh Flüge einen Einfluss auf Migrationsverhalten haben?  Wenn jemand Sie in Sachen Auswanderung um Rat fragte, was wäre Ihre Antwort?

287

Interview Schedule—Organisations

Possible questions:

 You have worked in the field of XXX for a considerable time. Could you tell me about the development and major changes since then have you observed?

 The Germans have been called the “hidden migrants”. Is that your experience, too?

 As mentioned earlier, my focus is on return migration of German migrants to Australia since 1952. What are your experiences/your organisation’s experiences?

 Do you think there has been a change in the return behaviour of Germans in the last 50 years?

 As regards xxx (organisation), can you tell me about

o The development over the last few decades?

o The development of the membership?

o And the development of the services offered by xxx (organisation)?

 Do you see a future for the xxx (organisation) and what do you think it will look like?

288