1. Migration from Poland to Germany Presentation prepared for the European Science Foundation Exploratory Workshop „Where Migration Policies Meet the Migrants: Comparing European and North American Experiences“ Athens (Greece), 2-4 October 2008 Frauke Miera European University Viadrina, Frankfurt/Oder

2. Contents I Background: Migration regimes and migrant typologies II Case I: Katarzyna – German Aussiedler (1988) III Case II: Beata – from an undocumented commuter to a registered self-employed EU- citizen (1992-1995 and 2005) IV Conclusion

3. I Background I.1 Post War period Poland Restrictive emigration and return policies Germany Encouraging immigration Migration regime Migrant typology Ethnic Germans (Aussiedler) Political Refugees  Predominately permanent migration

4. I Background I.2 The 1990s Poland Open borders Germany Restriction of long term settlement Recruitment scheme for temporary labour Migration regime Migrant typology Undocumented commuters and long term migrants Marriage migration/family unification Legal temporary labour migrants (‚guest workers‘) Double passport holders (legal commuters or long term migrants)  Increase of temporary / commuter migration

5. I Background I.3 Since Poland‘s EU-accession (2004) Poland Open borders Germany As before (until 2011): Restriction of long term settlement Recruitment scheme for temporary labour New: Legal self-employment  permanent residence for EU- citizens Cross-border provision of services within the EU (firms based in Poland are permitted to send employees to Germany to fulfil a particular service order) Migration regime

6. I Background I.3 Since Poland‘s EU-accession (2004) Migrant typology As before: Undocumented commuters and long term migrants Marriage migration/family unification Legal temporary labour migrants (‚guest workers‘) Double passport holders (legal commuters or long term migrants) New: Legalisation of former informal practices by registering as self-employed or cross border services  Temporary / commuter migration and permanent settlement (to be investigated more in depth)

7. II Case I: German Aussiedler II.1 Met nodal points and social networks Encouraging German immigration policies Restrictive Polish re-entry regime Decisive source of support and information: Social / family networks  Nodal point which was met by the migrant and her husband in their decision to emigrate and to permanently stay in Germany

8. II Case I: German Aussiedler II.2 Met and missed nodal points: the role of gender relations General supporting legal framework for integration of Aussiedler  Actual nodal point But: Gender specific division of responsibilities within the family and absence of gender sensitive integration policies  Katarzyna could not finish her German course: missed nodal point

9. II Case I: German Aussiedler II.3 Indirect nodal point: migration policies as an opportunity structure Liberalisation of the Polish migration regime and possibility of commuting Katarzyna’s wish to make an independent decision and to keep in touch with her relatives in Poland  Indirect nodal point: open borders as an opportunity structure for her individual emancipation from her husband’s decision

10. III Case 2: From an undocumented commuter… III. 1 Ignored nodal point Overstaying a tourist visa or working as a tourist is not legal Socio-economic and individual factors determine the migrant’s decision to migrate Open borders facilitate the decision Main source of support and information: Social networks  Ignored nodal point

11. III Case 2: From an undocumented commuter… III.2 Absence of nodal points Absence of welfare policies for undocumented migrants  Beata’s decision to return to Poland (after having had an accident)

12. III Case 2: …to a self-employed EU-citizen II.3 Met nodal point and social networks Legal possibility to settle as a self-employed EU- citizen Well informed informal social network  Met nodal point: Beata’s decision to return to Berlin Experts report that this level of being informed is quite exceptional and misinformation about raising a business in Germany often result in missed nodal points.

13. Conclusion Prohibitions or restrictive migration policies do not prevent people from migrating but push them into an insecure and vulnerable position. Social networks are hugely important for information, support and for dealing with misleading information. Institutions are not sufficiently able to substitute or correct missing or false information. The lack of intercultural competence in the bureaucracy and a lack of gender specific integration measures hamper existing ‘general’ integration policies.