“Refugee” is not a set category expressing a universal and timeless definition. Instead, it is a relational one reflecting the outcome of social negotiations. The methodical reflections on social classifications and individual consequences emphasize the logic of institutional categories of immigration policies and the international refugee regime. To develop a deeper understanding of forced migration, we have to ask who is a “refugee” and who not and by what classification process. National policy has its own procedures for refusing or granting asylum. These procedures try to verify whether a migrant fits the official definition of a person considered a refugee. The article uses Germany to exemplify these measures. Qualitative research is employed to show that these procedures have a strong influence on refugees’ experiences.
The paper discusses current changes of the German labor market for certain groups of refugees. On the one hand, we can observe a partial opening of the labor market. Especially the economy welcomes the idea of opening the labor market for refugees. On the other hand, this policy establishes a perspective that puts a strong emphasis on economical benefits, even in the field of refugee protection. This policy is inconsistent with the idea of human rights, which state a right to work. Some researchers argue that the access to the labor market will be a chance to get citizenship rights. In contrast to this view, I argue that the focus on labor market participation leads to a classification of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ refugees. At the same time, the partial opening is a gateway for ‘activation policies’ with different sanctions intervening into the refugee protection system.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.