Transnationalisation, Migration and Transformation: Multi Level Analysis of Migrant Transnationalism (TRANS NET)

Transcription

1 The report is a working paper and cannot be quoted without permission from the authors. Transnationalisation, Migration and Transformation: Multi Level Analysis of Migrant Transnationalism (TRANS NET) 7 th Framework Programme Socio Economic Sciences and Humanities COUNTRY REPORT (WP2): GERMANY Jürgen Gerdes, Eveline Reisenauer University of Bielefeld October

2 Heterogeneities and Transnational Social Practices among Turkish Migrants in Germany 1. Introduction This country report gives an overview of the interviews conducted in Germany in the scope of the project "Transnationalisation, Migration and Transformation: Multi Level Analysis of Migrant Transnationalism" (TRANS NET). The report is still in a preliminary state because not all interviews of our sample have been transcribed and analysed yet. Certain significant aspects and tendencies, however, are already discernible. In the second chapter some general information about migration movements and migration policies in Germany are given. The third chapter describes how the interviews in Germany were conducted and reports the personal characteristics of the interviewees. Chapter four and five address the first results of the German study. In the fourth chapter some information about the migration processes and the return orientations of our interviewees are given. The main part of the country report consists of chapter five and the following sections. After developing a typology of transnational practices, we illustrate transnationalism of Turkish migrants interviewed in the German survey concerning the political, economic, socio cultural and educational domain. The country report closes with some concluding remarks in chapter five. 2. Migration Movements and Migration Policies in Germany Germany as Country of Immigration The official government position that Germany is not and should not be a country of immigration was dominant until the late 1990s. Despite of significant immigration processes and the fact that what was initially thought of as temporary labour market immigration in the 1960s developed into a settlement process already from the 1970s onward, official immigration and immigrant integration policies on the federal level were absent (Bade & Bommes 2000; Geddes 2003; Martin 2004). This first changed with the enactment of a new Nationality Law in 2000 and a comprehensive Immigration Law in The 2000 Nationality Law accepted the immigration processes of the past by easing substantively the conditions of citizenship acquisition of immigrants and their descendants who already resided in 2

3 Germany for many years. Furthermore, the 2005 Immigration Law allowed regularly for additional immigration as well as defined the integration of immigrants as a responsibility of the state (Groß 2006). Sources of Immigration to Germany After World War II, there were mainly four different sources of immigration to Germany. First, with its post war restructuring, the West German state witnessed an influx of displaced persons and so called Aussiedler fleeing persecution in Soviet bloc countries, which amounted to around 12 million people between 1945 and 1955 (Geddes 2003: 80). Immigration of re settlers of German origin from East European countries continued during the Cold War, when it had also an important ideological function, but, however, was limited to moderate numbers because of the strong exit restrictions in the Soviet bloc states. The extensive immigration of re settlers was possible, because the newly founded West German state accepted a historical responsibility to admit unconditionally people of German descent, who were deemed to be victims of persecution, forced resettlement and expulsion during and after the Nazi rule due to their ethnic German origin in several East European states. Thus, article 116 of the German constitution of 1949 guaranteed a privileged access to West German territory and citizenship for these re settlers of German nationality (Volkszugehörigkeit) and their descendants. After the fall of the iron curtain, however, the number of immigrants from East European countries who claimed access by invoking their German origin rose sharply. The second source of immigration to post war Germany was the recruitment of so called guest workers. During the very successful economic restructuring of Germany, known as the economic miracle, additional labour demand, especially in agricultural and industrial sectors, became obvious. Until 1955 German re settlers had filled labour market gaps, but thereafter it turned out that there numbers were insufficient in order to maintain the level of economic growth. Therefore, between 1955 and 1966 Germany signed several guest worker recruitment agreements with Italy, Spain, Greece, Turkey, Portugal, Yugoslavia, Tunisia and Morocco (Martin 2004: 225). The recruitment of guest workers was initially regarded primarily as an economic issue to be handled predominantly within the usual German corporatist institutions, i.e. by the Federal Labor Office in collaboration with the employer organizations and trade unions. The assumption that these guest workers would finally return home was initially shared on all sides, namely by the German state, the corresponding sending states and the immigrants themselves as well (Joppke 1999: 65). 3

4 The third major source of immigration was that of family member of the guest workers. Family immigration increased drastically after the recruitment stop, which was decided on in 1973 after a second economic recession in the context of the oil price crisis and corresponding rising rates of unemployment. Ironically, that what was intended as a tighter immigration control measure turned out to lead to additional immigration in terms of family immigration. Because a policy of forced repatriation was ultimately not a serious political option and the guest workers feared that they would not permitted to return if they leave Germany, many of them decided to stay and, moreover, to unify with their families as far as that was legally possible. Hence, the foreign population of West Germany grew from a little lower of 4 millions in 1973 to nearly 4.5 millions in At that time, the largest group of the non German population was of Turkish origin, by per cent were Turks. Fourth, due to its initially most generous asylum law in the Western World, Germany also faced an immigration of refugees applying for asylum. Prior to 1980, there were relatively few asylum applications. This year, however, witnessed about asylum applications, for which Turks accounted for over a half due to a military coup d'état in Turkey. After Germany responded by requiring visas and prohibiting asylum applicants from working for five years, the asylum applications dropped again to fewer than in 1983 (Martin 2004: 236). In the late 1980s and the beginning of the 1990s, the number of asylum applicants rose sharply as a consequence of the opening of borders of the former socialist East European states and the civil war in former Yugoslavia. Refugee immigration was reduced substantively again through a far reaching reform of asylum policy, including a constitutional amendment, in Immigration and Integration Policy In the following the main stages of immigration and integration policy in Germany will be described briefly. After the recruitment agreements with different labour migrant sending states, the first policy initiative on the federal parliamentary level was the enactment of a Foreigner Law in 1965, which replaced the until then still valid Nazi Foreigner Edict (Ausländerpolizeiverordnung) from Although it was presented as a liberal and even cosmopolitan policy, the new foreigner law was aimed at upholding unconstrained national sovereignty. Immigrants as foreigners were considered mainly as objects and means of labour demands. The granting of a residence permit was a matter of state discretion only and, crucially, renewals and first time applications were handled on an equal basis, so that a consolidation of stay could be legally avoided. This, after all, led to an unlimited latitude of more concrete administrative interpretations, so that even behaviors such as lack of 4

5 integration, disturbance of labor peace and lesbian relations have been viewed as contravening state interests (Schönwälder 2006: 11). The one sided focus on national interests and administrative discretion was changed in 1990 by introduction of a new Foreigner Law, which provided for some individual rights to residence and the improvement of status over time, thus enhancing legal clarity, certainty and predictability (Davy 2005: 132). In contrast to the 1965 Foreigner Law, which was aimed at preserving unconditional national sovereignty towards immigration, the new Foreigner Law of 1990 was justified with reference to the necessity of balancing the legitimate claims of foreigners with the national interests of the German state. Although it upheld the basic distinction between Germans and non citizens, foreigners now had statutory residence and family rights against the discretional power of the state, as long as certain conditions were fulfilled. The next noteworthy step in immigration policy was the reform of Asylum Law of In the late 1980s and the beginning of the 1990s, Germany faced an ever growing number of asylum applicants due to the opening of borders of the former socialist East European States, which reached a peak of applicants in Because of the individual right to asylum, enshrined in the German constitution, also includes the right to appeal, Germany faced an increasing overload of legal asylum procedures. The Christian Democrats had advocated a constitutional change of the right of asylum already since the mid 1980s, but failed to reach a two third majority which is necessary for a constitutional amendment. In the summer of 1990, during the beginning of the actual election campaign the Christian Democrats started to mobilize the public for a constitutional reform (Herbert 2001: 299). They succeeded to make the asylum problem the most important topic of public debate between 1991 and The result was a general climate of suspicion against asylum seekers, who were accused increasingly to be using the asylum claim as an opportunity for immigration without really being politically persecuted. As a consequence, numerous assaults and violent attacks against foreigners, including several assassinations, from right wing extremist groups happened at that time. Finally, it was found an inter party compromise concerning the amendment of the individual right of asylum in the German Basic Law. The changed Article 16 restricted access to the constitutional right of asylum especially by two new provisions. First, asylum seekers arriving through so called safe third countries, i.e. states who had signed the Geneva Convention and the European Charta of Human Rights, are definitely excluded from the asylum procedure and are denied entry or subjected to immediate deportation without suspensiveness. Secondly, asylum seekers from so called safe countries of origin, as determined by a list to be assessed by parliament, now faced a fast 5

6 track application procedure where the burden of proof was shifted to them to present evidence that their case is not obviously unfounded. The Social Democrats, however, succeeded in incorporating some other immigration and integration measures as well, so that the so called asylum compromise would have been better described as an immigration policy compromise (Angenendt 1997: 91). Besides the constitutional amendment of the right to asylum, the agreement included the adoption of a separate asylum status for war and civil war refugees, the establishment of maximum quotas for so called German re settlers from Eastern Europe and provisions on foreign contract workers. Furthermore, naturalizations were alleviated further. Already the Foreigner Law of 1990 had reduced the required periods of legal residence for naturalizations, to fifteen years for the first and eight years for the second immigrant generation. Now, former discretionary decisions were changed into as ofright naturalizations. However, due to continuous extreme low naturalization rates, the debates on Germanys Nationality Law, which still stemmed in its main provisions from 1913, persisted, and, during the 1990s, numerous reform proposals by different political parties have been presented. However, the main topics of proposed citizenship law reforms, an ius soli amendment and an increased tolerance of dual citizenship, were highly controversial, so that a majority could not be reached. When the Social Democrats and the Green Party, immediately after they entered government in 1998, presented a draft law proposing a general tolerance of dual citizenship, the Christian Democrats, by organizing a public campaign against it, succeeded to press the government parties to accept finally a compromise where acceptance of dual citizenship in general was cancelled again. However, the new Citizenship Law of 2000 introduced, most importantly, a qualified ius soli for the second immigrant generation and a significant reduction of the period of legal residence required for naturalisation, from fifteen to eight years (Gerdes, Faist and Rieple 2007). In the beginning of 2000s, Germany witnessed extensive political, public and academic debates on a comprehensive immigration policy in the context of increasing economic globalization and a nation state based competition of knowledge based societies. In an climate of rising expectations concerning economic growth due to a boom in the so called New Economy of the information and communication technology sectors, the conception gained importance that Germany should join the race for talent (Shachar 2006) and to canvass especially highly skilled migrants. However, because an envisaged new immigration policy was also aimed at relying on a broad political majority and at the same time integrating, reworking and simplifying the host of disparate provisions of former different laws and decrees, the policy process as a result of many party controversies concerning all the 6

7 details took several years. However, after intensive debates and negotiations, finally with collaboration of the mediation committee of the two parliamentary assemblies, a political compromise was reached. The 2005 Immigration Law especially provided for immigration opportunities of high skilled immigrants on a permanent basis and for entrepreneurs willing to make substantial investments temporarily. Furthermore, foreign students, after finishing their education, were offered a one year residence permit for job search. The topic of immigrant integration was explicitly addressed and provided for integration courses. Since the debates on the immigration law, public discourses as well as policies in Germany changed significantly, favouring highly skilled immigrants but restricting access of immigrants who are deemed costly. In recent years, a number of debates have focused on naturalisation exams and integration courses. During the reign of Social Democrats and the Green Party so called activation policies such as workfare programmes have gained increasing influence in public discourses as well as in policies. The relevant, and prominent, phrase in Germany of demanding and supporting ( Fordern und Fördern ) together with demands for a general revision of the relationship between rights and duties in the areas of labour market and social policies is increasingly applied also to matters of integration (Bommes 2006). Political debates between the major parties in Germany turn increasingly on questions of how heavy the sanctions should be in terms of social assistance, residence permits and barriers to naturalisation, if integration requirements are not fulfilled. 3. Data and Methods Sample of Participants So far, the German survey involves 73 persons. The interviews were conducted with Turkish migrants as well as with children of Turkish migrants. The interviewees were recruited through gatekeepers, such as associations (operating especially in the political, economic, socio cultural and educational domain), internet platforms but also the social networks of the interviewers. After the first interviews also snowball sampling was used to recruit future respondents. The semi structured and life course interviews took place from February 2009 to August 2010 in various German cities. We carried out interviews in Augsburg (1), Berlin (17), Bielefeld (8), Bremen (20), Esslingen (1), Göppingen (1), Mühlheim an der Ruhr (3), Munich (16) and Stuttgart (6). Not all respondents live directly in the respective city but also in the region. Some of the interviewees have a registered residence in Turkey in addition to the one in Germany (e.g. J 20). 7

8 The German survey is interested in transnational contacts and practices of Turkish migrants whereby the emphasis is on the political, economic, socio cultural and educational domains. Due to the diversity of the subject a pre defined sampling plan was not suitable. The aim was to select rather different cases with a wide variation (Seipel, Rieker 2003: 110). It was looked for interviewees who are diverse concerning their personal characteristics, such as gender, age, education, marital status or place of residence in Germany. It was also considered diversity concerning the type of migration. In Germany the cases include guest workers, labour migrants, international students, refugees, marriage migration and family reunification. The diversity of interviewees is to ensure the consideration of combinations of characteristics but also of contrasts despite the commonalities migration and transnationality. Our survey is not representative for Turkish migrants and children of Turkish migrants living in Germany. The German country report makes statements about the social reality of the 73 respondents. It aims to provide a better understanding of Turkish migrants transnational contacts and practices. Conducting Interviews in Germany When the interviewees were contacted first, they were informed that we are interested in their migration history and their personal contacts to Turkey. The interviews were arranged in different locations depending on the choice of the interviewees. This could be the respondents working place or their home as well as a café. For the interviews we have chosen a thematically focused initial question (see Fischer Rosenthal, Rosenthal 1997: 414). The interviewees were pleased first to tell about their migration history and its relevance for their life. Combining the life history with a thematic focus allows us to state our topic and ensure that the interviewees speak about it, while still leaving enough room for relating other biographical strands. (Rosenthal 2005: 51) The initial question produced different beginnings of the narration. For example, while one interviewee started with the sentence, On my emigration from Turkey I had no influence. (E 22), another interviewee told about the first generation of Turkish immigrants in Germany (E 09). Even if Küsters (2006: 45) argues for using always the same initial question to achieve comparability, it was not always possible. For example, we had to be flexible when another person was present at the beginning of the interview or in the case when the interviewee started to tell his or her story before we had the change to ask our initial question. During the narrative phase it was often necessary to encourage the interviewees to continue the narration. And if the interviewers felt it was relevant, they also asked questions. Especially when the interviewees talked about transnational contacts and practices they were pleased 8

9 to tell more about that. Thus, the interviews sometimes had an interactional nature (Rapley 2004: 26). After the narration phase questions were asked to the political, economic, socio cultural and educational domains especially in relation to transnationalisation. Mostly topics to the four domains were already mentioned by the interviewees during the main narration. In this case the interviewers asked follow up questions to the four domains based on the notes they have taken during the narration. For topics not mentioned by the interviewee, in a second step external questions were asked which introduced new and additional aspects to the four domains. After the tape recorder was switched off, a brief questionnaire with socio statistical data were filled out and it was talked about contact persons in Turkey for follow up interviews. All interviews are recorded and transcribed. In addition research diaries were written immediately after the interview. The duration of the interviews varies from around half an hour to two and a half hours. On average an interview took one hour. Personal Characteristics of the Interviewees Concerning gender the distribution in our survey is balanced. We interviewed 34 female and 39 male respondents. With 60% the biggest part of our interviewees is between 30 and 50 years old. 18% are younger than 30 years and 22% are older than 50 years. More than the half of the interviewees are married and the average number of children is 1,3. The higher the level of education of persons in the target group, the higher was the response rate. With 48 persons the biggest part of our interviewees has completed grammar school (Gymnasium). Out of that 29 interviewees have a university degree and 1 interviewee has obtained his PhD. Another 10 interviewees completed intermediate school (Realschule) and 8 secondary general school (Hauptschule), 5 interviewees attended only primary school. 1 Concerning their current occupation 35 interviewees indicated they are employed and 19 are self employed. The remaining interviewees are students or pupils, unemployed or retired. 1 Moreover, there are two non responses on the question of the highest level of education. 9

10 The place of birth of 51 out of 73 interviewees is Turkey. 19 were born in Germany and three in other countries. A part of the foreign born applied for the German citizenship. Currently 29 interviewees have the Turkish citizenship, 30 the German and 14 obtain dual citizenship. Cross border Contacts of the Interviewees In the Turkish German case information about the interviewees were shared on an early stage of the interview phase. Nevertheless, it was only in a small number of cases possible to exchange data of respondents contact persons in the respective other country although the majority of the interviewees in Germany maintain cross border contacts. The interviewees indicated that either they or their contact persons are not agreeable to follow up interviews. One reason was for example that the interviewee (E 04) is of the opinion that would say nothing about his person. In another case (E 10) the possible contact person in Turkey would be the mother who lives partly in Germany and partly in Turkey. When the interviewee was asked about setting up a contact to her, he was irritated and expressed concerns because his mother cannot read and write. He said that he does not want to burden her too much. In a lot of other cases interviewees informed us after talking to their family members, relatives, friends or other persons in Turkey, that the contact person does not agree to the follow up interview. Even if the non response concerning contact persons living in the respective other country was rather high there are a few cases of follow up interviews with cross border contacts of respondents. In total 12 interviewees in Germany and in Turkey mentioned contact data of persons in the respective other country. And here again not in all cases an interview was possible. For example, when we twice tried to contact a friend of an interviewee in Turkey, we could only reach his wife who could not speak German. Then a Turkish speaking colleague called her but this also has not resulted in getting contact to the target person. In contrast, in another case the mediation of a contact trough an interviewee in Turkey resulted in three follow up interviews in Germany. We could make interviews with the respondent s sister (E 42), her brother in law (E 43) and her father living in Germany (E 44). In this family the father came to Germany in 1963 as one of the first guest workers. He lived in Germany for around twenty years without his family. In this time he sent money to his family in Turkey every month. Then his wife and the youngest daughter followed him to Germany. For example, his daughter E 42 could not go with them because at that time she was already older than 16 years and thus not allowed to come to Germany in the course of family reunification. She only came in 1995 to Germany when she married the son of her father s best friend who is born in Germany (E 43). All in all, most family members travelled forth and back between Turkey and Germany several times. Nowadays, the parents live in Germany 10

11 as well as two adult daughters with their families. Two future adult daughters and their families live in Turkey. The family in Germany and Turkey telephones every day. For example, the two daughters of E 42 are calling the interviewee in Turkey sometimes ten times a day. 4. Migration Processes According to the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF), the number of Turkish citizens resident in Germany in 2009 was % of them are born in Turkey and 33% in Germany. Beside Turkish citizens, we interviewed German citizens who were once Turkish citizens and German citizens with at least one Turkish citizen as a parent. Taken together, the German survey includes so called German Turks, that are all people with Turkish migration background. Concerning migration we have mentioned above (chapter 2) the main sources of immigration to Germany. Also among our interviewees are different groups of immigrants. This includes guest workers, international students, refugees as well as family reunification. The biggest part of our interviewees migrated for family reasons to Germany. In addition, we conducted interviews with people who did not immigrate themselves but where at least one parent migrated to Germany. Moreover, during the interviews not only the topic of migration to Germany but also return migration to Turkey was addressed. Immigration of Guest Workers [E 32, E 41, E 44] In October 1961 the Federal Republic of Germany concluded a bilateral agreement on labour recruitment with Turkey. The first generation of the recruited Turkish guest workers initially consisted of single male migrants between 20 and 40 years but also increasingly of women who also came mostly without their family to Germany. Also among our interviewees are migrants who came in the period of official labour recruitment in the 1960s and 1970s to Germany. For example, E 32 tells that he heard one can earn good money in Germany and thus came to Germany in Since he was learnt carpenter the employment office found a job for him in a joinery. At that time he was unmarried. He came with the train from Turkey to Germany. He says, he felt good, also because in Turkey he had a stepmother to whom he had not a good relationship. Thus, in Germany he felt free. Another interviewee who came to Germany as guest worker is E 41 11

12 who made a professional education as machinist in Turkey. Thus, he only had to wait 13 days before he could come to Germany where he started in a big company for tool making. Therefore he got a hourly wage of 4,30 DM. After a German language course he earned 0,03 DM more. He tells that he worked every day for nine hours and on Saturday until twelve o clock. The interviewee worked in different companies and stresses that employers always were very satisfied with him. As closing words he adds that he has not begged, he worked and earned money. E 41 says that he enjoyed working. In the case of E 44 the interviewee came to Germany in 1963 and lived for 20 years alone before he brought his family and daughters from Turkey. First E 44 worked in a big German company for more than ten years. After that he set up his own business and had among other things a Turkish tearoom. Now he is retired and spends some month in the year in Turkey. Immigration of International Students [E 01, E 02, E 07, J 01, J 05, J 07, J 14, J 20] The interviewees E 01 and E 02 only recently came as international students to Germany. For E 02 it was not her first time in Germany. When she was a child her mother worked for some years as teacher in Germany and E 02 and her father joined her for a while. Similar to the case of E 02 is that of J 07 whose father was a guest worker in Germany. He was eleven years old when he came to Germany in the course of family reunification. Because of great problems in school in terms of insufficient language skills and widespread discrimination, he went back to turkey after two years to a boarding school. To Germany he came again after completing school and with the intend to study here. Also J 01, J 14 and J 20 came to Germany as international students. In the case of J 01 his parents already where in Germany as guest workers since he was ten years old. He is grown up in Turkey first with his aunt and later he went to a bordering school. Later he received a university degree in Turkey and three years later he went to Germany for a second degree. J 14 was born in Brussels and as child he visited in Turkey a German high school. After that he came to Germany for his study and with the plan to return afterwards. Also J 20 migrated alone to Germany to study here. All three interviewees met their further spouse in Germany and thus did not return to Turkey immediately after their study. J 01 tells he did not finish his study in Germany. He met a second generation Turk in Germany and due to the marriage he had to earn money. J 14 married a German wife and also because of the military coup d'état in 1980 in Turkey he had no motivation to go back. Also J 20 met her further husband during her study in Germany. In this case it was a Turkish guest worker who was in Germany as shipbuilder. They married, got children and thus decided to defer their return to Turkey until their children are independent, what is the case in the meantime. 12

13 While J 01 and J 14 decided to stay in Germany, J 20 now works in Turkey and thus is commuting between Germany and Turkey. Immigration of Refugees [J 02, J 26; parents migrated as refugees: E 16, J 12] Due to the military coup d'état in 1980 and the outbreak of military conflicts between Turkish security forces and the Partiya Karkerên Kurdistan (PKK) in Turkey's east, thousand of Turks and Kurds sought asylum abroad. One of the main countries granting asylum to refugees from Turkey was Germany. Also among our interviewees are migrants who came to Germany during these refugee movements. J 02 already came to Germany as political refugee in Immediately afterwards, he was involved in organising benefits for politically persecuted persons in Turkey. In Germany J 02 started to study at the university. He explores that the universities in Turkey at the time of his emigration were ideological and organized according to criteria of power. In his opinion, at German universities other information were available than in the Turkish university system. Moreover, in Germany there was the possibility for open and democratic discussions where ideology did not feature at all. In the case of E 14 her parents are Kurds and the whole family fled from south eastern Anatolia in At that time E 14 was one year old. She has ten further siblings of which four are older and five are younger than she is. With the parents E 14 speaks Arabic and with her siblings German. She tells that her mother currently is making a German course. E 14 narrates that her family did not have easy times in the past. Since two years the family has a residence status, before that they were only tolerated. Thus, her father could not work in Germany during that time. The whole family lived in a four room apartment where they missed private sphere. But E 14 says that she had nevertheless a beautiful childhood. Moreover, E 14 tells that yesterday her aunt with the family from Italy came for a visit. Her father has not seen his sister for fifteen years and E 14 only has known her from pictures. E 14 says that the visit is nice for her father. Immigration in the Course of Reunification as Spouse [E 18, E 35, E 37, E 38, E 42, J 03] In many cases former guest workers decided to stay in Germany and thus temporary labour migration turned into a process of family reunification. Woman and children joined the mostly male former guest workers. For example, E 44 stayed for around twenty years without his family in Germany. Then his wife and the daughters also came to Germany to join him. Now E 44 is in Germany since 51 years. He tells that in contrast to his wife he has a lot of contacts in Turkey, for example due to his work. He would prefer to stay alone in Germany 13

14 because his wife is ill. When they married, his wife was young and they got children before he went to Germany. One of his daughters E 42 could not come to Germany with the family because with more than sixteen years she was too old for a visa in the course of family reunification. Thus, she came only in 1995 when she married the son of his best friend. E 18 was brought to Germany as spouse in At that time she was fifteen years old and her husband was sixteen years older, divorced and had already two children. E 18 says that they did not know each other and even if they have three children together in addition to her stepchildren, they could not come together. J 03 came to Germany to marry a German husband. Later they got divorced and now she has a life partner of Turkish origin. Her former husband and their daughter are now living with German citizenship in Turkey while she is living with Turkish citizenship in Germany. But not only women came to Germany in the course of family reunification but also men. For example, E 38 tells that he met his wife when she was with her family in Turkey. He describes how she has brought him to Germany in 1972 and already found him a job. And also E 35 obtained a visa in 2000 to join his wife who already was living in Germany. Immigration in the Course of Reunification as Child [Migration together with their parents: E 04, E 14, E 16, E 20; migration later than their parents: E 03, E 05, E 06, E 09, E 12, E 15, E 17, E 22, E 23, E 24, E 25, E 26, E 27, E 28, E 29, E 30, E 33, E 36, E 39, E 40, E 45, J 04, J 08, J 09, J 11, J 15, J 16, J 17, J 21, J 25 ] Out of the 34 interviewees who migrated as child from Turkey to Germany, only four interviewees migrated together with the first parent who came to Germany. In all other cases either one or both parents already lived in Germany before the child was fetched. Some interviewees tell that as child they had no influence on their emigration. For example, E 04 says that his parents brought him to Germany without being asked, he was protracted so to say. Also E 22 tells that he had no decision on his emigration from Turkey. His father came to Germany in 1969 and ten years later he made the decision to bring the entire family to Germany to join him. E 45 says with fifteen years he came to Germany and improves himself by adding that he was brought. He tells that at the beginning of the 1980s a visa requirement was introduced in Germany and before that all brought their children to Germany. Some of our interviewees tell that they stayed with their mother in Turkey while the father was as guest worker in Germany. In a few cases the mother first went as labour migrant to Germany and the children were left with their father (e.g. E 27, E 39). In cases when both parents were in Germany mostly the children stayed with their grandparents. For example, E 14

15 23 is grown up until the age of six years at her grandmother's home while her parents worked in Germany. When she also was brought to Germany the relationship to her grandmother changed due to distance and she got strange to her. When E 03 was two years old first her mother came to Germany and then her father. She and her sister were raised by their grandmother in Turkey. Only in 1990 as the grandmother could not look any longer after the children, the sisters were brought to their parents in Germany. As the father of E 09 went to Germany as guest worker the interviewee first stayed in Turkey at his grandparents' home. With three years his parents brought him to Germany. But since they had to work and there was no place in a kindergarten for him, he was brought to an orphanage. The cause for bringing the children which was mostly mentioned during the interviews was that the father wanted the family to join him. For example, the father of E 26 was only for a short time in Germany before he also brought his family because he had no joie de vivre without them. But also children expressed their wish to stay with their father like in the case of E 29. When the family was for holidays in Germany they noticed for the first time what it is like to be together with the father. Thus, they pleased him to bring them also to Germany. But also outside circumstances have occasioned guest workers to bring their children to Germany, such as unrests in Turkey as in the case of E 28 or changing political regulations as in the case of E 45 mentioned above. What is striking in the narrations of the interviewees is that a lot of children of guest workers moved several times between Turkey and Germany before they finally kept staying in Germany. For example, in the case of E 17 the parents are divorced since his birth. In 1979 his mother went as tourist to Germany where already two aunts were living. She kept staying there and worked as cleaning power in a restaurant. Thereby she got to know her further husband, a German. In 1980 the sister of E 17 was brought to Germany but she went back again tree years later. When the mother was in Turkey in 1985 the interviewee thought she would be his aunt because she was in Turkey only once or in two or three years. After that, on the stepfather's recommendation both children were brought to Germany in In another case, the father of E 24 came to Germany as guest worker in Some years later the mother followed and after additional years the four siblings. Two more children were born in Germany. During her childhood the interviewee moved several times between Germany and Turkey, e.g. for school. The first and second class she spent in Germany, than she and her sister went to the grandmother to Turkey. The sister kept staying there but E 24 came back to Germany again etc. Since 1976 she is staying only in Germany. 15

16 The So called Second Generation [E 08, E 10, E 11, E 13, E 19, E 21, E 31, E 34, E 43, E 46, J 06, J 10, J 12, J 13, J 18, J 19, J 22, J 23, J 24] Out of the total number of children of Turkish parents a part of our interviewees is born and grown up in Germany. In the following only a few examples are picked out. J 10 is born in 1974 in Germany. Her father came to Germany as guest worker in 1965 with the perspective to stay in Germany. J 10 is the child of his second marriage. His first wife went back to Turkey. During a stay in his hometown in Turkey, the father met his second wife and brought her to Germany. About the language skills of her parents J 10 tells that her father learned German well because he wanted to stay in Germany where he saw a better perspective for his family. J 10 says that she is proud that also her mother learned Germany relatively well although she is illiterate. Also E 46 is born in Germany. His grandmother was the first one of the family who came to Germany for work in She lived in a dormitory and worked in a factory and as a cleaner. She could not read and write. The mother of E 46 married in 1973 and shortly later she followed her mother to Germany. First her husband did not want to come to Germany but then he did so and worked first for the rubbish collection and later for an automobile manufacture. In 1975 the interviewee is born and grown up in Germany. Also J 23 belongs already to the so called third generation in Germany. But in her case the mother is German. The grandparents on the paternal side migrated to Germany as guest workers and her father followed in the age of eleven years in the course of family reunification. The father has finished the secondary general school and has a job as steelworker. Her mother died when J 23 was three years old. Later the father married his cousin and J 23 has two half sisters. Return Migration to Turkey The last category mentioned in this chapter is not a source of immigration to Germany but return migration to Turkey. During the interviews the topic of return to Turkey was very often brought up. Since guest work was initially thought as temporary migration to Germany, returning was always a central motive for Turkish migrants in Germany. Thus, interviewees tell how the return orientation of guest workers affected the whole family, about the return of family members and friends to Turkey as well as about their own ideas concerning their return to Turkey. Most interviewees narrate that the guest worker generation assumed to be temporary guests who will stay for a short time and then return to Turkey. As we know today, only a limited number of migrant workers actually returned. Rather, guest workers used their right 16

17 of family reunification and sometimes brought their entire family to Germany. Returning home then was often repeatedly delayed. For example, E 13 tells that her grandfather with her mother first migrated to Austria and then to Germany where the grandfather worked in a steel plant. He wanted to work in Germany to earn money and then to return. But since his daughter started to work in a shoe factory when she was fourteen years old, the idea of returning after he got money did not fit any longer. Thus, the grandmother and the siblings also were brought to Germany. In other cases the idea of returning still was upheld when the whole family was in Germany. For example, J 06 tells that her parents kept the return orientation of her grandparents what had the consequence that returning to Turkey was under discussion from time to time during her childhood. One consequence was that her brother was sent back to Turkey in the age of five years and only returned to Germany in the age of eighteen years. Also J 09 tells that the return to Turkey always was postponed from one year to another in her family. They always lived out of their suitcase and thought that they would go the next year. J 09 tells that the negative aspect was that she never could have firm targets concerning school but also friends. She says she never could feel at home. Also E 43 tells that his father came to Germany to save money, in this case for a tractor. But then they never returned. The interviewee adds, "Two generations for one tractor...". He says that a part of the so called second generation is still sticking to the dream of returning home. A part of the interviewees tells about family members and friends who finally went back to Turkey. For example, in the case of E 05 his parents and brothers returned to Turkey and he is the only one of his family who still is in Germany. Also two good friends of E 05 returned. And E 14 tells that his sister, who is like he grown up in Germany, is living since some years in Turkey. Recently also his parents returned to Turkey and E 14 also considers it possible to follow them in future. In other cases interviewees tell that their parents in the end returned after retirement. E 26 tells that her parents lived for 40 years in Germany until they returned to Turkey where they have their own house. E 26 describes that it was not so easy for her parents to return and their children had to attend and to help them. E 45 says out of the blue his father wanted back to Turkey. E 45 thinks the reason was an operation his father had. Then, in less than two years his parents went to Turkey and E 45 had no other option than to take notice of this. At that time the father was older than 70 years. E 40 tells about his father who came to Germany to save money for a house in Turkey, that he is back in Turkey since ten years and that he does not miss Germany. E 40 says that his father has kept his promise after 25 years. But not always the parents of interviewees stay in Turkey the whole year. For example, E 06 tells that his father has built a new house in Turkey and now is more there than in Germany. And the retired father of E 33 stays in Turkey between May and 17

18 September. Since the mother is still working, she is only in Turkey during the summer. The parents of E 33 want to wait until the retirement of the mother to spend more time in Turkey. And the parents of J 22 are just waiting for the graduation of her daughter to return completely to Turkey. Her father already stays in Turkey for six months. And also her mother is more often in Turkey compared to earlier times. But she is physically handicapped which is beside her children also a reason that she cannot stay in Turkey for a longer time. Some of our interviewees themselves return to Turkey. For example, J 20 emphasizes that she always wanted to return to Turkey. Since some years she works in Turkey and also has her main residence there. And her husband who is unemployed since ten years increasingly spends longer periods in Turkey. J 20 still has a secondary residence in Germany and is regularly all three months here, also because her children live in Germany. Also E 20 has concrete plans to return to Turkey. When she was earlier in Turkey for holidays with her parents, there was always the question, when they will return. But they did not have an answer. And the interviewee could not imagine to life in Turkey at that time. This changed since E 20 met her present husband when she was in Turkey for a business trip. They married in 2009 and her husband came to Germany. But their common plan is to stay in Germany for some years and then to move to Turkey together. They as well as her parents already have bought flats in Turkey for this aim. Other interviewees still live the dream of returning to Turkey, like E 05, E 07, E 09, E 26 and E 29, but suspend it continuously. In most of these cases the decision about staying in Germany or returning to Turkey is not experienced as an individual decision. Even if interviewees say that they would like to go back to Turkey, the return is made dependent on external circumstances, like employment, the family, or retirement. For example, E 05 explains that the economic options to return do not exist and the unemployed E 43 tells that he would not get a job in Turkey whereas in Germany he is at least entitled to welfare benefits. Some interviewees narrate that their children are the reason for staying in Germany. They plan to return after their children finished their education and are independent (e.g. E 05, E 09, E 22, E 26, E 32). Often the circle of life of the children is in Germany and it is not foreseeable that it could be an option for the children to life in Turkey. For example, E 29 thinks that his children would not return to Turkey. Because it would be hard for him and his wife without them they maybe will stay some months in Turkey and some in Germany after retirement. Among our interviewees are also cases where Turkish migrants or their children take a critical view on return orientations. For example, E 04 says that it is always the same. The 18

19 people come somehow to Germany and think, now they stay for some years. During thinking, a child is born. He adds that he do not tell something new. Then the people continue to think. And while they are thinking a second child is born and ten or fifteen years have passed. And during nothing than thinking there is no change to get back. Even today they continue to think that they will return. And a problem in any type of willingness to integrate lies in this point. The nonsense, as E 04 puts it, is passed from generation to generation. It does not matter what they do, the idea is there latently. It does not matter what happens, you can return. His parents, also noting unusual as E 04 says, are commuting between Germany and Turkey. Half a year here, half a year there. But he thinks that the next generation is fixed here, what makes it difficult for them to return. Also E 30 is grown up with an omnipresent backward orientation of her parents. The parents lived in Germany since two years at the time when E 30 followed them in the age of twelve years. The family always thought about returning but the teacher of E 30 recommended to stay until she has finished school. As she made a cosmetic school the family wanted to return again but then E 30 met her further husband. She tells that her husband is of Persian origin and thus would also be a foreigner in Turkey. In the meantime E 30 has three children and two grandchildren in Germany. She says, she is living here and will stay here. In contrast to most interviewees, E 38, who came to Germany when he married his wife, says that it was never his intention to go back to Turkey with savings. He wanted to stay in Germany and thus invested his savings here. In the meantime he has bought two flats in Germany. Also J 14 does not want to return. He decided in the middle of the 1980s to stay in Germany and thus naturalized. He says that he would not know what to do in Turkey. Similarly, J 10 has her centre of life in Germany. Also her parents never wanted to return to Turkey. And latest since several stays abroad, among other five months in Turkey and two years in Costa Rica, it became clear for J 10 that she belongs to Germany. 5. A Typology of Transnational Practices In order to get a solid overview about the empirical configuration of the transnational practices of the Turkish migrants in our sample, we decided to construct a typology of their different cross border activities and orientations. We considered this as helpful for concentrating our efforts of analysis, in a first step, to those aspects of our data which are especially relevant for transnational practices, in order to serve our main objective of giving an empirically informed picture of the extent, volume and different facets of transnational contacts, orientations and ties among Turkish migrants in Germany. In a second step, the kind and extent of transnational practices could be related to several other aspects such as 19