This article is an introduction to the forum that compares Austria and today's Czech Republic as immigration countries.

This article revisits Austria's migration history from the end of World War II until the end of the Cold War. Recent research has challenged the persistently commemorated welcoming Austrian attitude toward refugees who had been living under communism. The initial humanitarian efforts in 1956 and 1968, respectively, were remarkable. However, an analysis beyond the first weeks of both events reveals that (though to different degrees) public and political attitudes toward refugees took a negative turn. Throughout the 1970s, asylum for dissidents was portrayed as a continuation of the country's humanitarian tradition. However, in 1981, refugees from Poland were immediately perceived as unwanted labor migrants. In 1989/90, the scenario was similar: while the transiting East German refugees were welcomed, migrants from other countries (like Romania) were not. In the early 1990s, Austria decided on a reform of its asylum and foreigner policies. But when and why did the (supposedly welcome) refugees from countries under communist rule turn into unwelcome labor migrants? The analysis in this article explores the potential impact of the age of détente and the repercussions of the 1970s economic crises and the resulting end to active recruitment of foreign workers.

This article addresses the impact of the fall of the Iron Curtain on migration and migration policy in Austria. The introduction explains Austria's reasoning for prioritizing trade over migration policy relative to the Central and Eastern European countries after the fall of the Iron Curtain. This decision was a paradigm shift, abandoning the guest worker model of migration and introducing immigration legislation with family migration as a core element. The legislative reforms brought about changes in all areas of migration governance. Despite the restrictive policy stance toward migration, in-migration gained momentum to the extent that, by 2022, Austria had one of the highest shares of migrants in its population in the European Union. As the official understanding of Austria is to be an immigration country by chance rather than by choice, it has consequently been unable to develop the necessary instruments to promote innovation and economic growth with the help of migrants. Instead, restrictive policies that guide the settlement and integration of migrants in general, and of asylum seekers in particular, may jeopardize social cohesion and the sustainability of economic growth.

Like other European countries, Austria introduced employment restrictions for foreigners after World War I. Access to the labor market was to be reserved primarily for Austrian citizens. These new regulations related exclusively to dependent employees and allowed exceptions in view of family reunification, among other things. They were based on official labor market categories and reflected widely accepted imaginations of gender-specific abilities and responsibilities. However, many foreigners earned their living in a household context and their activities hardly matched the official categories of work and family. Since decision-making on employment permits required unambiguous categorization, this situation posed a dilemma for the authorities in charge. Given the vast variety of work arrangements and relations, they struggled to clearly draw the line between “employed” and “not employed” workers. Using the example of domestic help and Bulgarian gardeners, this article investigates administrative authorities' attempts to make such distinctions and it examines migrants' efforts to occupy labor market niches. While migrants un/intentionally circumvented regulations and made their living in Austria, the ongoing disputes paradoxically contributed to an enforcement of restrictions. Administrative authorities gradually increased their endeavor to locate unauthorized foreign workers even within households and they sharpened the criteria for their categorization.

Foreign workers were a common feature in the economy of postwar Czechoslovakia in various periods of the second half of the twentieth century. This article focuses on foreign labor practices during the first economic plans, namely the two-year plan and the first five-year plan between 1947 and 1950. The number of foreign workers at this time didn't exceed twenty thousand persons and their stays in the country were, with only individual exceptions, short. Workers, who found employment in Czechoslovak agriculture and industry in this period, came from different countries including neighboring Poland, Bulgaria, and Romania, but also from Italy. Recruitment of other groups such as workers from Hungary, the Netherlands, or even China is also considered by the article. These foreign laborers worked in Czechoslovakia under various conditions depending on their methods of recruitment and contracting, the duration of their employment, and other important factors. The basic question this article aims to answer is what the role of Gastarbeit was in Czechoslovakia's communist economic policy. It also examines the motivations of countries that sent workers as well as those of the workers themselves. Finally, the article also attempts to analyze the opportunities and limits of these workers’ strategies in the Czechoslovak labor market.

As a part of the conversation in the forum “Austria and the Czech Republic as Immigration Countries: Transnational Labor Migration in Historical Comparison” this article revisits the history of refugees in the Bohemian Lands and Czechoslovakia, from World War I until the occupation by Nazi Germany in 1939. Taking stock of existing research, it suggests alternative lines of thinking about the management of migrants' labor and contributes to the wider discussion about how to conceptually combine refugee studies and research on labor migration. For analytical purposes, it focuses on three distinct state approaches to managing refugee labor that often existed in parallel: mobilization of refugee labor in a crisis situation, the support of labor as a pathway to future citizenship, and the denial of work as a sign of statelessness. These three approaches show how refugees' work impacted their status, communicated ideas about the future, and reproduced hierarchies defined by ethnicity, class, or political persuasion.