Creating Uncertainty in the Governance of Arrival and Return: Target-group Constructions in Bavarian AnkER Facilities

Abstract

Germany remains the number one destination for migrants in Europe. After 2015, following a backlash, burdens on municipalities and the inefficiency of the processing of asylum claims were widely problematized, as was the termination of residence and return of those deemed irregular migrants. Policymakers presented so-called AnkER centres, an acronym for central reception, decision-making, and repatriation facilities that translates as ‘anchor’ in German, as a solution that would accelerate procedures. Drawing from an interpretive case study of the AnkER pilots in Bavaria/Germany, we scrutinize meaning-making as reflected in contested constructions of target groups and identify the complex rationales of belonging shared by different ‘communities of meaning’ that pose a challenge to the promise of certainty declared in official documents.

Accommodation centres for asylum seekers as sites of conflict and collaboration: Strategies for the prevention of violence

“…Contrary to findings elsewhere in Germany (Münch, 2021), we found that employees in our case study mostly prefer to engage in mediation and dialogue when conflicts arise, and emphasise the importance of early intervention and de-escalation. This finding is indicated in interviews with employees and residents alike.…”

“…Adding to the sense of stuckedness is often a spatially induced inability to leave the camps and socialise with the local population, even for those living in "open camps." Located mostly in rural or distant areas, residents in mass accommodations are often "stuck" inside the camps, lacking financial resources to travel to the city (Münch, 2021;Christ et al, 2017).…”

“…Similarly, Trammell et al (2018) argue that respectful communication and the fair application of rules improve social relationships in total institutions, and lead to a decrease in the number of violent instances. Indeed, Münch (2021) found that arbitrary conduct of staff in accommodation centres in Germany contributed to a sense of insecurity for residents and led in turn to more tension and conflicts. In an attempt to alleviate these issues, some scholars call for an independent multilingual grievance mechanism (Christ et al, 2017;Böhme & Schmitz, 2022a).…”

“…The accommodation of asylum seekers in Germany is organised differently from state to state. All 16 federal states in Germany are required to offer reception centres and provide housing for a certain number of asylum seekers based on the Königstein Key, a quota system that distributes asylum seekers among the different states based on a calculation of population size and tax revenue (Schmitt, 2020;Münch, 2021). During their initial six months of residency, asylum seekers are prohibited from leaving their assigned state.…”

“…During their initial six months of residency, asylum seekers are prohibited from leaving their assigned state. Since the responsibility for the reception system is relegated to each state (Münch, 2021), the governance of forced migration is highly fragmented and uneven across regions in Germany (Wendel, 2014). Moreover, the system has undergone repeated legal reforms over the years, leading to more fragmentation and constant change.…”