Ambiguous goals, uneven implementation – how immigration offices shape internal immigration control in Germany

Abstract

This paper investigates regional variation in migration policy implementation, focusing specifically on the underexplored role of policy ambiguity. It chooses a salient case study of internal migration control implementation: the application of labour market access policies for migrants with precarious legal status in German municipal immigration offices. Studying the implementation approaches of eleven offices within one Land by means of semi-structured interviews with senior officials, the research design allows for drawing inter-agency and inter-policy comparisons. The data provides empirical evidence for the claim that the more conflictive and hence ambiguous a policy, the more importance can be placed on local determinants of implementation. Different logics (economic welfare and regulatory control logic) legitimizing more restrictive or expansive implementation are identified and linked to the broader migration policy context. Moreover, the difficult task of officials to determine applicants' identity clarification effortsa condition for receiving a work permitserves as basis for conceptually distinguishing between collective and individual discretion of street-level bureaucrats.

Making asylum work? Civic stratification and labor‐related regularization among rejected asylum seekers in Germany

“…The vocational toleration and the employment toleration are not “regular” statuses. However, they are an important first step toward regularization, because “tolerated” individuals can proceed from vocational toleration or employment toleration to the abovementioned types of residence, further securing their status (Schammann, 2019; Schultz, 2020). Both vocational and employment toleration respond to labor market needs and reflect the meritocratic turn in German refugee policymaking and thus can be considered elements of market citizenship (Nawyn, 2011).…”

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

“…a temporary suspension of deportation. Of the latter, many are former asylum seekers whose application has been finally rejected, but who cannot be returned to their country of origin (see for details regarding this status in Germany and elsewhere FRA, 2011;Rosenberger and Küffner, 2016;Schultz, 2020b). At the end of 2018, 296,060 persons with asylum decision pending and 180,124 'tolerated' persons lived in Germany (publication of the German Parliament no.…”

“…Apparently, trustworthiness is less of an issue in bureaucrat-employer than in bureaucrat-client interactions, which might be explained by the shared socio-economic and ethno-cultural 'identity' of the latter. Employers can also support to solve deadlocks regarding identity clarification by establishing trust between immigration officials and migrants (Schultz, 2020b).…”

“…To control for state government involvement, one state was chosen (most-similar-systems-design). Based on a compilation and comparative analysis of relevant decrees of thirteen Länder (all but the three city-states), a Land was selected that can be considered neither generally liberal nor generally restrictive regarding labour market access of migrants with precarious legal status (Schultz, 2020b).…”

“…Deciding about work permit applications constitutes a central part of the day-to-day work of officials in German immigration offices. As employment can constitute a step toward legalisation of status, the decision is essentially about a chance of societal membership (Schultz, 2020b). The article takes into account the wider public and political discourse around asylum policies and regularisation of rejected asylum seekers in Germany, arguing that this context is crucial for understanding how ideas about deservingness shape implementers' work (Lipsky, 2010).…”