Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T02:37:11.816Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Deserving the Right to Work? Immigration Officials and the Work Permit in Germany

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 April 2021

Caroline Schultz
Caroline Schultz*
Affiliation:
University of Bamberg, Germany E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article investigates the role of deservingness conceptions in the implementation of labour market access policies for migrants with precarious legal status. It explores how immigration officials frame the deservingness of work permit applicants, considering also the political, legal and societal context in which they work. The analysis takes account of the Control, Attitude, Reciprocity, Identity and Need (CARIN) criteria, and uses primary data of semi-structured interviews with senior officials in German municipal immigration offices. It finds that officials frequently employ deservingness frames inbuilt into the relevant parts of the law, but also behavioural norms that go beyond legal requirements. The article makes two main contributions. Providing empirical insight into the migration bureaucracy’s part in the implementation of labour market policy, it seeks to help advance understanding of the complex processes of differential in- and exclusion in countries of immigration. Furthermore, the research design allows putting the CARIN criteria to an empirical test.

Keywords

Labour market accessdeservingnessmigrationpolicy implementation
Type
Themed Section: The (Un)deserving Migrant? Street-Level Bordering Practices and Deservingness in Access to Social Services
Information
Social Policy and Society , Volume 20 , Issue 3 , July 2021 , pp. 497 - 508
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Asad, A. L. (2019) ‘Deportation decisions: judicial decision-making in an American immigration court’, American Behavioral Scientist, 1–29.Google Scholar
Ataç, I. (2019) ‘Deserving shelter: conditional access to accommodation for rejected asylum seekers in Austria, the Netherlands, and Sweden’, Journal of Immigrant and Refugee Studies, 17, 1, 44–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ataç, I. and Rosenberger, S. (2018) ‘Social policies as a tool of migration control’, Journal of Immigrant and Refugee Studies, 17, 1, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bansak, K., Hainmueller, J. and Hangartner, D. (2016) ‘How economic, humanitarian, and religious concerns shape European attitudes toward asylum seekers’, Science, 354, 6309, 217–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barglowski, K. (2018) ‘Where, what and whom to study? Principles, guidelines and empirical examples of case selection and sampling in migration research’, in Zapata-Barrero, R. and Yalaz, E. (eds.), Qualitative Research in Migration Studies, Cham: Springer Open, 151–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, A. and Schreyer, F. (2019) ‘Ausländerbehörden und Ungleichheit: Unklare Identität junger Geflüchteter und der Zugang zu Ausbildung’, Zeitschrift Für Rechtssoziologie, 39, 1, 112–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonjour, S. and Duyvendak, J. W. (2018) ‘The “migrant with poor prospects”: racialized intersections of class and culture in Dutch civic integration debates’, Ethnic and Racial Studies, 41, 5, 882–900.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bundesagentur für Arbeit (2017) ‘Zustimmungen und Ablehnungen für Asylbewerber und Geduldete), special analysis requested by the author, 23.02.2017, Nuremberg.Google Scholar
Chauvin, S., Garcés-Mascareñas, B. and Kraler, A. (2013) ‘Working for legality: employment and migrant regularization in Europe’, International Migration, 51, 6, 118–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellermann, A. (2014) ‘The rule of law and the right to stay: the moral claims of undocumented migrants’, Politics and Society, 42, 3, 293–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eule, T. G. (2014) Inside Immigration Law. Migration Management and Policy Application in Germany, Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Eule, T. G., Borrelli, L. M., Lindberg, A. and Wyss, A. (2019) Migrants Before the Law. Contested Migration Control in Europe, Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
FRA (2011) Fundamental Rights of Migrants in an Irregular Situation in the European Union, Vienna, https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/1827-FRA_2011_Migrants_in_an_irregular_situation_EN.pdf [accessed 25.05.2020].Google Scholar
Griffiths, M. (2012) ‘Vile liars and truth distorters’, Anthropology Today, 28, 5, 8–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmes, S. M. and Castañeda, H. (2016) ‘Representing the “European refugee crisis” in Germany and beyond: deservingness and difference, life and death’, American Ethnologist, 43, 1, 12–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holzberg, B., Kolbe, K. and Zaborowski, R. (2018) ‘Figures of crisis: the delineation of (un)deserving refugees in the German media’, Sociology, 52, 3, 534–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopkins, D. J. (2015) ‘The upside of accents: language, inter-group difference, and attitudes toward immigration’, British Journal of Political Science, 45, 3, 531–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joppke, C. (2007) ‘Beyond national models: civic integration policies for immigrants in Western Europe’, West European Politics, 30, 1, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kraler, A. (2019) ‘Regularization of irregular migrants and social policies: comparative perspectives’, Journal of Immigrant and Refugee Studies, 17, 1, 94–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landolt, P. and Goldring, L. (2015) ‘Assembling noncitizenship through the work of conditionality’, Citizenship Studies, 19, 8, 853–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laubenthal, B. (2019) ‘Refugees welcome? Reforms of German asylum policies between 2013 and 2017 and Germany’s transformation into an immigration country’, German Politics, 28, 3, 412–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lipsky, M. (2010) Street-level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Service, 30th Anniversary Expanded Edition, New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Magalhaes, B. (2016) ‘The politics of credibility: assembling decisions on asylum applications in Brazil’, International Political Sociology, 10, 2, 133–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marbach, M., Hainmueller, J. and Hangartner, D. (2018) ‘The long-term impact of employment bans on the economic integration of refugees’, Science Advances, 4, 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenberger, S. and Koppes, S. (2018) ‘Claiming control: cooperation with return as a condition for social benefits in Austria and the Netherlands’, Comparative Migration Studies, 6, 26, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rosenberger, S. and Küffner, C. (2016) ‘After the deportation gap: non-removed persons and their pathways to social rights’, in Hsu, R. and Reinprecht, C. (eds.), Migration and Integration: New Models for Mobility and Coexistence, Vienna: Vienna University Press, 137–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schammann, H. (2017) ‘Eine meritokratische Wende? Arbeit und Leistung als neue Strukturprinzipien der deutschen Flüchtlingspolitik’, Sozialer Fortschritt, 66, 741–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, A. and Ingram, H. (1993) ‘Social construction of target populations: implications for politics and policy’, The American Political Science Review, 87, 2, 334–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schultz, C. (2020a) ‘A prospect of staying? Differentiated access to integration for asylum seekers in Germany’, Ethnic and Racial Studies, 43, 7, 1246–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schultz, C. (2020b) ‘Ambiguous goals, uneven implementation - how immigration offices shape internal immigration control in Germany’, Comparative Migration Studies, 8, 10, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sigona, N. (2018) ‘The contested politics of naming in Europe’s “refugee crisis”’, Ethnic and Racial Studies, 41, 3, 456–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomann, E. and Rapp, C. (2018) ‘Who deserves solidarity? Unequal treatment of immigrants in Swiss welfare policy delivery’, Policy Studies Journal, 46, 3, 531–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valenta, M. and Thorshaug, K. (2013) ‘Restrictions on right to work for asylum seekers: the case of the Scandinavian countries, Great Britain and the Netherlands’, International Journal on Minority and Group Rights, 20, 459–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Oorschot, W. (2000) ‘Who should get what, and why? On deservingness criteria and the conditionality of solidarity among the public’, Policy and Politics, 28, 1, 33–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vollmer, B. and Karakayali, S. (2018) ‘The volatility of the discourse on refugees in Germany’, Journal of Immigrant and Refugee Studies, 16, 1–2, 118–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Will, A.-K. (2019) ‘Die “Guten” in den Arbeitsmarkt, die “Schlechten” ins Abschiebezentrum’, in Arslan, E. and Bozay, K. (eds.), Symbolische Ordnung und Flüchtlingsbewegungen in der Einwanderungsgesellschaft, Wiesbaden: Springer VS, 95–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willen, S. S. (2012) ‘How is health-related “deservingness” reckoned? Perspectives from unauthorized im/migrants in Tel Aviv’, Social Science and Medicine, 74, 6, 812–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar