Search

Für eine erfolgreiche Integration von Menschen mit Migrationshintergrund in die Gesellschaft ist die Teilhabe am Arbeitsmarkt grundlegend (Scheller, 2015; Klimont et al., 2022). Die Einstellung der österreichischen Bevölkerung gegenüber Migration war dabei 2019 überdurchschnittlich negativ, die Asylpolitik besonders restriktiv (Biffl, 2012). Aus der Arbeitslosen- Statistik geht hervor, dass Menschen aus den sogenannten Fluchtherkunftsländern – die häufigsten Nationalitäten jener Personen, welche einen Asylantrag gestellt haben – die Statistik anführen (Klimont et al., 2022). Folgt dem Antrag ein positiver Bescheid, so geht der Aufenthaltstitel und das Recht auf Asyl oder subsidiären Schutz, welche beide unter dem Begriff internationaler Schutzstatus zusammengefasst werden, mit einher. Zudem führt dieser zu einem freien Arbeitsmarktzugang. Die Disparität am Arbeitsmarkt zwischen allochthoner und autochthoner Bevölkerung kann jedoch nicht vollständig erklärt werden (vgl. Verwiebe et al., 2016; Hofer et al., 2013; Esser, 2006), weshalb Diskriminierung als Begründung offen bleibt (Scherr, 2020). Ziel der Arbeit ist es daher, eventuell bestehende subjektive Diskriminierungserfahrungen, als auch objektive Diskriminierung von Menschen mit internationalem Schutzstatus aufzuzeigen. Zu Beginn der Arbeit wurden dafür die institutionellen Rahmenbedingungen des Arbeitseinstiegs angeführt. Die aktuelle Asylpolitik lässt auf mögliche Unterscheidungen schließen, welche daraufhin anhand des Diskriminierungsverbotes betrachtet wurden. Daran schließt ein theoretischer Teil an, in welchem die Definition und Konstruktion sowie die Arten sozialer Diskriminierung angeführt werden. Weiterhin wird im Unterschied zur objektiven und „faktischen“ Diskriminierung auf subjektive Diskriminierung eingegangen. Die Voraussetzung für letztere ist dabei die subjektive Wahrnehmung der Erfahrung als diskriminierend. Im empirischen Teil sollten bestehende objektive Diskriminierung als auch subjektive Dis, Masterarbeit Universität Innsbruck 2023

Dies ist der sechste Menschenrechtsbericht, den das Deutsche Institut für Menschenrechte in seiner Funktion als Nationale Menschenrechtsinstitution Deutschlands dem Deutschen Bundestag vorlegt. Der Bericht erfasst den Zeitraum vom 1. Juli 2020 bis zum 30. Juni 2021. Aus den vielfältigen menschenrechtlichen Fragestellungen, wie sie beispielsweise in den Empfehlungen der Menschenrechtsgremien der Vereinten Nationen und des Europarats an Deutschland erkennbar werden, greift der Bericht verschiedene Themen auf, die Menschen betreffen, die aufgrund ihrer Lebenslage besonders verletzlich sind.

Der Beitrag untersucht, wie das AnKER-Zentrum als machtvolle Organisation der Asylverwaltung konzeptionell entworfen wird. AnKER ist ein Akronym für "Ankunft, Entscheidung und Rückführung". Im Mittelpunkt des Beitrags steht eine objektiv-hermeneutische Analyse eines Auszugs aus dem Koalitionsvertrag der Großen Koalition aus dem Frühjahr 2018. Ziel ist eine Rekonstruktion der Mechanismen der Asylverwaltung, die in diesem Dokument zum Ausdruck kommen. Zentrales Ergebnis ist, dass der Koalitionsvertrag das AnKER-Zentrum als Kontrollinstanz konstruiert. Die Unterbringung geht mit einem Zugriff auf Körper, Biografie und Bewegung der Betreffenden einher. Sie werden vermessen, klassifiziert und letztlich ihren Herkunftsländern oder den Kommunen in Deutschland zugewiesen. Mit Michel Foucault lassen sich AnKER-Zentren als Disziplinarinstitutionen fassen. Sie zielen auf ein Einhalten behördlicher Regularien, während sozialarbeiterisches Handeln fall- und lebensweltbezogen ausgerichtet sein soll. Der Beitrag reflektiert auf Basis der Analyseergebnisse die Notwendigkeit Sozialer Arbeit, sich als organisationsbasierte Profession zu begreifen und in die Ausgestaltung von Geflüchtetenunterkünften zu involvieren.

Dieser Beitrag befasst sich mit Möglichkeiten und Begrenzungen sozialarbeiterischen Handelns in Geflüchtetenunterkünften in Deutschland. Er zeigt auf Basis einer Fallvignette Strategien einer pädagogischen Fachkraft auf, ihr pädagogisches Mandat auszufüllen, dabei aber an Grenzen des Machbaren und der eigenen Belastbarkeit zu stoßen. Ausgehend von diesem Fall reflektiert der Beitrag die Bedeutsamkeit einer menschenrechtsbasierten und interprofessionellen Verortung Sozialer Arbeit im Spannungsfeld von nationalstaatlichen Partikularinteressen und universalistischem Gleichheitsanspruch.

This publication collects contributions to understanding and addressing migration flows from Africa to Europe and supporting social coexistence in the destination countries. Written by experts in psychology and social work, the articles approach the topic of immigration based on empirical research in their academic and professional specialties. The book focuses on issues of intervention, letting the research be the starting point for further plans. This focus makes the book valuable for professionals as well as policy makers. The book unfolds through the following themes: the representation of security and governance in Germany and Italy, the emotional representation of migrants and refugees in a hosting town in Germany, the current state of art of European laws and agreement about immigrants and refugees rights, emergencies in human trafficking: how to recognise the victims, how to protect the trafficked women and how to recover them through social inclusion, the social and educational inclusion considering the mother tongue competence in children at school age, mediating different cultures and languages,a multicultural approach to psychopathology, working with the trauma providing migrants with a trusty relationship as a secure base, the importance of family bonds in migrants' wellbeing.

Religious actors in public life and political work have been argued to break with secular assumptions about their expected role in modern societies. Previous interdisciplinary research in the field of international relations has analyzed this development for organizations as religious actors but tends to overlook the individual. The current study investigates this individual experience and explores the positioning of self-identified Christian religious actors as they reflect on the implications of their engagement in church asylum practice in Germany. Through semi-structured interviews with sanctuary actors operating from the summer of 2018 to the winter of 2020 in Berlin and Brandenburg, it provides insights into the challenges of church asylum in Germany during its most recent impactful happening, the nationwide changes of the application of the EU Dublin III Regulation. Supported by theories related to migration, religion, and (post-)secularism, the study identifies three areas in which sanctuary actors may position themselves when reflecting on the implications of their involvement: the personal, institutional, and societal. The research demonstrates that in their reflections, sanctuary actors both differentiate between and unite Christian being and political action. It concludes that, in their self-reflections, church asylum actors both reproduce and challenge a secular narrative of contingent "religious" and "secular" categories and situate themselves through this in the midst of German secularizing society.

Nothilfelager sind Orte innerstaatlicher Grenzziehungen im europäischen Grenzregime. Sie schließen abgewiesene Geflüchtete ein und damit aus der Gesellschaft aus. Die Autorin analysiert in einer ethnografischen Studie die herrschende "politische Rationalität" von Migrationsbehörden bei der Etablierung und Legitimierung des Nothilfe-Regimes. Im Fokus stehen dabei die Nothilfelager, die sie als totale Institutionen beschreibt. Zentral sind zudem die Bewältigungsstrategien abgewiesener Geflüchteter gegen die Demütigungen und Entwürdigungen, die der institutionellen Logik der Nothilfelager innewohnen.

The effects of the intra-African and European deportation regimes brought about since the European Union's externalization of its migration and development policy by transferring it to countries of sub-Saharan Africa remain largely understudied - especially their effects on people's everyday life after forced returns. Based on extensive field research, this book analyses the supposedly "failed" migration of Malian men, the social situations in which they find themselves following deportation, and the implications of their "failure" for their social environment and broader society. This important ethnographic study creates empirical knowledge on key issues in migration research, policy, and practice in the context of a charged debate.

On their journeys to and through Europe, refugees and other migrants are commonly subjected to violence in its multifaceted forms. We argue that these "journeys of violence" are a direct effect of a fundamentally uneven and asymmetric global mobility regime that creates frictions and fragmentations in the European border space and beyond. Our argument is based on: (1) a state-of-the-art literature review on refugees’ mobilities towards Europe and new patterns of involuntary immobilisation through border regimes, (2) a secondary analysis of recent quantitative data from the Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP), which includes a large data set on refugee’s journeys to Germany, and (3) original qualitative interviews that were conducted with migrants in Germany and Bosnia-Herzegovina. We will first show that mobility in the context of violence is highly selective and that trajectories of mobility significantly depend on mobility capital. Second, we consider the fortification of European borders and the externalisation of control regimes as facets of structural violence and demonstrate their effects on refugees’ mobility, namely the fragmentation of journeys and the systemic production of situations of protracted immobility at multiple border sites. Third, we provide insights into refugees’ exposure to and experiences of direct violence on their journeys, which must be understood as immediate consequences of the structurally violent conditions that govern their mobility and the cultural violence of delegitimising and illegalising refugees’ movements.

International migration is one of the most controversial political topics today which demands innovative approaches of global and regional governance. The book provides a fresh theoretical framework to understand European responses to the international migration of people and explains the dynamics of Germany’s migration and refugee policy during the last two decades. Against traditional theories and their inherent focus on the national political sphere, the book highlights supranational and multi-level political processes as increasingly important factors to account for national policy changes. Confronted with the most recent developments of international migration, the study offers students and practitioners the necessary background to participate in today's debates., Internationale Migration ist heute eines der kontroversesten politischen Themen, das innovative Ansätze globaler und regionaler Governance erfordert. Das Buch bietet einen neuen theoretischen Rahmen, um europäische Antworten auf die internationale Migration von Menschen zu verstehen und erklärt die Dynamik der deutschen Migrations- und Flüchtlingspolitik in den letzten zwei Jahrzehnten. Im Gegensatz zu den traditionellen Theorien und ihrer inhärenten Fokussierung auf die nationale politische Sphäre hebt das Buch supranationale und mehrstufige politische Prozesse als zunehmend wichtige Faktoren für die Berücksichtigung nationaler politischer Veränderungen hervor.

Article 21 of the recast Reception Conditions Directive 2013/33/EU (RCD) stipulates that member states shall consider the special needs of asylum seekers with, inter alia, mental illnesses. Similar to other member states, Germany failed to transpose the RCD into national law within the two years prescribed. Due to the inactivity of the federal legislator, the Directive became directly applicable. In the German system of cooperative federalism, this means that the application of the RCD moved downstream to the responsibility of the German Länder (states), which have since found themselves with vague responsibilities, lacking a clear regulation cascade from the federal level. How do Länder implement the RCD and how is its implementation in Germany affected by the federal institutional setting? The objective of this article is to analyse and systematise the patterns of the RCD's implementation on the subnational level in Germany. On the one hand, the findings suggest that the open formulation of the RCD and the federal government's inactivity allow for a higher degree of liberty in applying the Directive on the subnational level. On the other hand, most measures taken hitherto have been rather small and ad‐hoc and some Länder have even failed to adopt any significant changes at all. The RCD's implementation in Germany has consisted of a "tinkering" process, generating an incoherent patchwork of policy outputs. The resulting unequal standards in the reception of asylum seekers displaying mental illnesses present far‐reaching consequences for the people affected.

Die Richtlinienkompetenz ist im Zuge der Auseinandersetzungen um die Asylpolitik die Diskussion geraten. Es zeigt sich, dass ihre Inanspruchnahme zur Konfliktlösung nicht nur ungeeignet war, sondern sich kontraproduktiv, nämlich krisenverschärfend wirkte.

In 2015 and 2016, the enormous increase in asylum seekers travelling along the Balkan Route confronted the Member States of the European Union with an exceptional pressure on national asylum systems. Since then academic literature has revealed a reappraisal of the Common European Asylum System at regulative and policy implementation level, notably regarding the fair distribution of asylum seekers across Member States and regions. Yet we know very little about the locational choices of forced migrants or how those choices evolved and transformed during their journey. In this paper, we aim to shed light on those decision-making processes and (individual, subjective) locational choices based on the aspiration-ability model, drawing from a series of qualitative interviews with migrants held in Luxembourg and Germany in the context of the H2020 project CEASEVAL. We focus on the migrants' journeys to their actual recipient countries, highlighting mobility trajectories from the moment of first departure and on the process of decision-making regarding their choice of location. Then, we examine further mobility aspirations, which may lead to secondary mobility within or out of the country of residence. In the concluding section, we discuss the consequences of our findings for migration and asylum politics against the background of the "autonomy of migration" framework.

This article presents a Finnish perspective on harmonization within the Common European Asylum System (CEAS). The article analyses results from a study of the judgments and experiences of Finnish civil servants concerning the harmonization of the CEAS. The year 2015 constitutes a shift in asylum policies in many European countries, and a key question is how this shift has influenced the process of harmonization of asylum policies and practices. Senior civil servants working in the state administration of asylum and migration issues in Finland were interviewed anonymously as part of a comparative European research project (CEASEVAL). The interviews indicate that EU‐wide administrative cooperation has developed into a broad and diverse cooperation in recent years. The interviewees in Finland generally found harmonization of the asylum system to be necessary, which was connected to a need for greater predictability of the outcomes of the system. The results of the study suggest that Finnish asylum administration is developing toward harmonized practices involving transnational and supranational administrative cooperation in the field of asylum. The results support the conclusion of previous research that there is a process of horizontal Europeanization in which administrative practices develop organically within national asylum administration, independently of political disagreements at the EU level. This is relevant both to the framing of political issues and to research on Finnish migration and asylum policies, which need to take into account the ongoing European harmonization of policies and administrative practices.

The provision of high‐quality reception conditions and the effective inclusion of refugees are permanent challenges in the implementation of the European asylum agenda. The EU legal framework for the reception of refugees has evolved over time through various legislative reforms, notably including those launched in 2016 and the New Pact on Migration and Asylum proposed in 2020. The European Union has also tried to reinforce its non‐binding integration policy with the adoption of the Action Plan on Integration and Inclusion 2021-2027. While this plan is intended to promote an alternative "social resilient" integration model for refugees that emulates community sponsorship in Europe, it also generates great bottom‐up expectations to provide better integration. These legislative reform proposals and their programmatic framework are theoretically intended to consolidate the European reception and integration system, but in practice have increased the dichotomous tension between utopia and dystopia. Drawing on a political interpretation of both concepts, this article critically analyses the real nature of the changes proposed in the legislative CEAS reforms and in the action plans. Both visions are useful to evaluate the desirability, viability, and achievability of these transformative changes in the future asylum system.

After the end of the Cold War, a decade started within which the idea of European unity gained considerable traction. The Maastricht Treaty transformed the Economic Community into the European Union and the scope of collaboration between its member states widened to include justice and home affairs. By the end of the decade, it had become clear this was not enough to address the challenges caused by refugee migration. Thus the Amsterdam Treaty aimed at proper joint policy and law‐making in the sphere of migration and asylum. This ought to be done with full respect to the 1951 Refugee Convention. By 2004, when the Union was joined by ten new member states, the essence of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) had been formulated and turned into Regulations and Directives as part of the Union's body of common law. The system was further fine‐tuned during the next decade, but during the 2015 "refugee crisis" the system collapsed for lack of solidarity and solid agreements on responsibility‐sharing between the member states. Since then, the single goal member states share is that asylum seekers and refugees are best kept from finding a way into Europe - for once they arrive political stress is the unavoidable consequence. Paradoxically, precisely the ideal of a CEAS has introduced practices that deviate from the EU's norms regarding international protection. This thematic issue reviews some of those issues but also finds examples of harmonization and good practices.

Over the past decade, asylum seekers and refugees arriving in Italy were accommodated in reception facilities located not only in large metropolitan centres but also in Small-medium Towns and Rural Areas (STRAs). Italy's reception system evolved quickly to face the peaks of asylum applications, especially in the 2015-2017 period. At the same time, the changes in Italy's reception policies were pushed by the increased polarisation in the asylum debate, which, in turn, has led to great heterogeneity in the development of reception practices. This paper argues that the reception-territory nexus is a critical dimension to focus on when investigating the implications connected to the arrival and establishment of asylum seekers and refugees. This appears particularly true in STRAs where the reception system provided new resources that, when well-managed, showed transformative potential, developing virtuous interconnections with the local territories and communities. These virtuous interconnections have, however, been affected by the continuous changes in reception policies and came to a critical juncture in 2018, when the so-called Security Decree entered into force. While further modifications are currently underway, such legislation profoundly affected the Italian reception system’s functioning and working principles, creating new frictions and tensions among institutional actors and within the local governance of the reception system itself. We argue that the reform contributed to disrupting, both materially and symbolically, the previous virtuous combination of refugee inclusion and local development, especially in STRAs. Our situated qualitative analysis - carried out between 2019 and 2020 through discursive in-depth interviews - investigates the interconnections between territory and reception in three small to medium-sized towns and rural areas before and after this regulatory shift. It does so by introducing a novel analytic framework, focusing on symbolic and mat

The response to the so‐called refugee crisis of 2015 in the European Union was haphazard and inconsistent with the stated mission of solidarity. This article situates the EU's response and its Common European Asylum System (CEAS) as defensive integration producing the lowest common denominator policies. It argues that the rise of right‐wing populism redefines solidarity in narrow and exclusionary terms, in contrast to the inclusive and global solidarity espoused by the EU. Drawing on Germany as a case study of how domestic populist pressures also rise to the European level, the article juxtaposes the demise of the EU's temporary relocation system (an attempt at internal inclusive solidarity) and the success of the EU-Turkey deal (an attempt at externalization and risk avoidance), both initiatives led by Germany. Solidarity efforts championed by Germany were quickly stymied by (Central Eastern European) member states that not only rejected efforts at temporary solutions but blocked efforts to develop permanent mechanisms and a substantive CEAS reform.

Der Ruf nach einer koordinierten Asylpolitik wird angesichts der ungleichen Bedingungen, die Geflüchtete vor und in Europa vorfinden, immer lauter. In diesem Sinne arbeitet die Europäische Union seit Jahren an einem "Gemeinsamen Europäischen Asylsystem", das gerade auch das Verwaltungshandeln vor Ort verändern soll. Dieser Band stellt die Ergebnisse einer Forschungsstudie vor, die das praktische Arbeiten in deutschen und schwedischen Asylbehörden vergleichend untersucht. Im Fokus stehen der behördliche Umgang mit den Vorgaben der europäischen Asylpolitik, das Ausmaß einer Europäisierung des lokalen Verwaltungshandelns und die Schwierigkeiten einer grenzüberschreitenden Verwaltungskooperation.

This article explores the temporal dimension of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) by exposing its teleological character and the effects of the latter on the governance of asylum in the European Union. Drawing on EU policy documents, the article shows how the CEAS has been presented since its inception as a teleology, that is, a process that is inexorably unfolding towards a specific outcome to be reached in an indefinite time in the future. The outcome consists in the establishment of a common area of protection constituted by a level playing field in which asylum seekers and beneficiaries of international protection will be treated alike regardless of the place of residence. Such a teleological narrative informing the CEAS paves the way to overly optimistic expectations on the possibilities of implementation, which in turn result in an overestimation of the potential of harmonisation. By discussing the limitations of harmonisation in relation to the reception of asylum seekers, this article calls into question the possibility of a homogeneous area of protection where equivalent conditions are offered to all asylum seekers across the EU. Such a homogeneous space is utopian because harmonisation does not aim to eradicate differences but rather to mitigate them, thus tolerating diverse arrangements. The article, therefore, argues that the level playing field projected by the CEAS constitutes a promise that has two key effects: First, it depoliticises the CEAS itself by framing problems as technical issues, requiring technical solutions; second, it paves the way to further EU intervention in this field.