Turkish migration to germany pdf

Her works, however, are different from the works of other immigrant writers. One reason is the language Ozdamar uses. Download or read online The Turkish Immigration to Germany written by Angela Schomisch, published by Unknown which was released on Germany and its Turkish Migrants Meaning of Collective Identity Features of Collective Identity of Turkish Migrants Available in PDF, ePub.

DIVAn anthropological history that traces shifts in s German immigration policy regarding those within the Turkish diaspora, along with portraying the lives of Turkish immigrants. The same argument had prevailed in the Sevince case. The Advocate- General concluded, that, in effect "the German Government asks the Court to reverse that case law. It argues, in the first 17 place, that the Court cannot interpret the decisions of the Council of Association, which is not a Community institution but an authority of the Association.

The Court has already refuted that argument in paragraph 10 of the Sevince judgment" [33]. Due to the fact that member-states could decide and implement the required rules did not mean, the Decision could be removed from the Community legal order. He reiterated his opinion in the Sevince case that Article 6 1 is not "outside the Community legal order. Nor does it mean that the Court has no jurisdiction to interpret it" [34].

The Advocate-General responded to the German suggestion of invoking Article 25 of the Ankara Agreement allowing the Association Council to settle disputes by repeating his opinion in the Demirel case, whereby, the particular article in question could only be invoked when the issue concerned could not be brought before the Court. Quite obviously this was not the case in this instance. It is interesting to note that the representative of the German Government, Ernst Roder, who had put this point forward as a legal argument to prove to the Court it did not have jurisdiction decided not to argue the point at the hearing.

One would have expected an expansive defence for such a reason which determined the absence of jurisdiction. There could be no expansive defence as the reason given was indefensible. The Advocate-General went onto declare, in response to the German Government's written observation that, "The Court therefore clearly does have jurisdiction" [35].

From the above arguments put forth by the German Government concerning the Court's jurisdiction, it is clear to see, even for non-legal scholars, that these agreements could not be defended with genuine sincerity. It is quite remarkable for the German Government to reject wholesale the right of the Court to judge without at least bringing forth defence or dissenting opinions against case law. The actual Treaty articles quoted are either very much misinformed and incredibly extrapolated or simply irrelevant.

When considering the whole stance portrayed by the German government it is very difficult to believe or understand the position taken. Such actions, it seems, could not have been taken primarily due to legal interpretations. As evidenced, from the outset, they were so predictable that other explanations seem more apt in this instance.

As Burrows [36] states, "The judgment was given at a time when the governments of the Member States had proved to be too cowardly to confront the issues head on" [37]. Suclr Member States were reluctant to seek solutions for free movement of Turkish workers; thus, it is quite plausible to infer that a non-legal reason, a political factor did play a much more decisive role in the decision to object to the Court's jurisdiction.

Looking at the evidence, it is very hard to dispute 18 this. Furthermore, incongruities and inconsistencies are abound: whereas, in one matter, the Sevince judgment is defended and advocated, in another, it is totally dismissed as in the original argument for the Court lacking jurisdiction. This makes a fallacy of the credibility of the arguments submitted. Either a judgment is accepted as valid, or contested. Within the same case, both sides cannot be defended, depending on whichever stance suits the party's position best.

Having mentioned the political influence created by the Kus case one must turn now to its substantive legal effects. The Court pdecided in response to the German Governments insistence to reconsider its jurisdiction "that nothing has emerged from the observations submitted in this case which might cause it to depart from what it held in that respect in its judgment in Sevince" [38].

This was a double blow for the German Government's position. Not only was the Sevince judgment still valid, it gave effect to the Kus case being brought before the Court. As for the first question, the Court held that, as in Sevince, if a part of the period of residence was due to pending an outcome of a final decision as to the status, then that would not be considered a stable and secure position.

Thus, the answer would have to be negative. As for the second question, the original intent behind entry into a member-state did not disqualify any Turk from rights granted by virtue of working for more than a year for the same employer with a valid work permit to have it renewed.

National law covered the conditions of entry. Once a Turkish worker fulfilled the required criteria, then there had to be a right to an extension of a work permit. Concerning the final question of the linkage between residence and work permit renewals being undertaken together, the Court referred to its Sevince judgment that member-states could not via Article 6 3 restrict the rights of Turkish workers.

The Court went onto state that "In the observations which it submitted to the Court, the German Government expressly challenged the view that there was necessarily a link between the right of access to the employment market and the right of residence. Even as regards freedom of movement for workers within the Community, it claimed that situations might arise where the two aspects did not necessarily coincide" [39] The German Government had given two instances which illustrated the case put.

The Court answered by stating "Neither of those examples is relevant. Far from demonstrating that an individual may enjoy a right to the employment market without a right of access to the employment market without a right of residence, they underline the fact that the right of residence is indispensable to access to and engagement in paid employment".

Thus, both the first and third indents of Article 6 1 had direct effect on the renewal of the residence permit as well as the work permit renewal. Eroglu joined her working father in Germany in April She enrolled as a student at Hamburg University, graduating in She then began to study for her PhD.

In October , Mrs. Eroglu moved to Hardheim and from March to April worked for Company "A" on a hotel project, then undertook practical training with the same company.

From April until May , she worked as a trainee with Company "B". Concerning her residence permit she was issued with limited permits allowing for her to continue her studies and then to work for Company A and then Company B. As regards her work permits, she was given specific permits granting her to work first as a trainee, then as a marketing assistant.

In February , Mrs. Upon rejection at the hands or that court, Mrs. The Court found the refusal to renew the residence permit to be in accordance with German law, though asked the ECJ to give a ruling concerning two questions. The first related to the first indent of Article 6 1 : whether it gave the right for a renewed work permit for returning to work with a first employer of a Turkish citizen who is a university graduate and been working for more than a year for her first employer and some ten months for another employer.

The Court decided in response to the first query that the answer would have to be negative. The reason for such a result arose from the fact that the first indent of Article 6 1 clearly specified that a Turkish worker after working for a year with one employer was entitled to the renewal of the work permit; but only for the same employer. In this case, Mrs.

Eroglu had changed her employer and sought the extension of her work permit to allow her to return to her original employer and not for 20 continuing with her original employer, whilst the end result is the same, it could not be permitted on account of the very thin line between the first and second indent of Article 6 i. A positive response to the question would effectively mean Turkish workers could change employers under the first indent, before the expiry of the three years required under the second indent.

The second indent would be rendered ineffective. Furthermore, such a decision would erode the rights of member-state workers, as their priority would then be negated. Due to these arguments, the Court declared Article 6 i did not give Mrs. Eroglu any direct rights due to her particular employment record. Considering the decision made, it is quite understandable that the Court arrived at such a verdict as any other verdict would, in effect, have reduced the plausibility of the second indent of Article 6 i.

As regards the second question, this covered new ground: for the Court had never been asked to consider the direct applicability of Article 7. Reiterating its judgment in the Sevince case, the Court declared the close correlation that exists between work and residence permits and referred to its Kus judgment as it had already followed this reasoning in its deliberations concerning that particular case.

The Court within its judgment also referred to the objections made by the German Government: ''Contrary to the assertions of the German Government, the right to respond to any offer of employment, conferred by the second paragraph of Article The German Government had proposed that the original intention behind entry was a factor to consider when arriving at a decision, what was obvious behind this stance concerned the children of Turkish workers were permitted solely to study and the intention was not for family reunification or long term settlement.

The Court in response, further stated that "The fact that right was not given them with a view to reuniting the family but, for example, for the purposes of study does not, therefore, deprive the child The Court had once again totally repudiated the German argument.

One can see from the case law concerning the free movement of Turkish workers that the German government is an active participant. The German government has found itself supporting decisions by the ECJ which restrict the rights of Turks with regard to free movement and oppose measures granting direct effect.

Quite obviously, the nature of potential domestic implications which may arise from such results has played a part in the German government's stances. Given that so many Turks reside in Germany, this is not surprising. In the final analysis, it is evident that there is a clash between German national considerations and rights granted to Turkish workers by the European Community. It is the European dimension of this issue that has forced the German government to pay so much attention towards the rights of Turkish migrants.

Although the Treaty made no specific mention of any measure or extension of any rights concerning association agreements with third states, it nonetheless altered the status quo. Turkish workers, working and residing in the EU, like other non-EU nationals were affected by the introduction of EU citizenship for citizens of the Member States.

As the Treaty did not mention an extension of free movement or associate citizenship status for persons granted a preferential status in the Association Agreement and Association Council decisions, the result has been the further erosion of the status and rights of Turks in the European Union. The Treaty grants various rights to Union citizens. The most important and noteworthy of these are: 1- The right to move and reside freely within the EU 2- The right to vote and stand as a candidate at municipal, regional and European Parliament elections in the Member State in which the Union citizen resides 3- The right to benefit from diplomatic protection in the territory of a third country 4- The right to petition the European Parliament 5- The right to complain to the Ombudsman Turks, aiongwith other third country nationals, are neither granted Union citizenship, since they are not nationals of a Member State, nor do they enjoy the rights of Union membership except one: ail third country nationals may also petition the EP.

It is only this right granted to Union citizens that is not exclusive. The" definition of Union citizenship used inevitably excludes Turks and any other long term resident from a third country, regardless of how long they have lived in a Member State. Some individuals have lived and contributed socially and fiscally to these member-states even before the conception of the EEC. This method of defining Union citizenship not only damages Turkish workers exclusivity vis-a-vis other third country nationals, but is also needlessly divisive and contradicts the Community's commitment to integrate and further the social cohesion of Turks within the Community.

In sum, the creation of Union citizenship has had a negative impact on Turkish workers and persons living in the Community. The Member States were so concerned about the inclusionary nature of Union citizenship that they annexed a declaration on nationality to the Treaty which stated that, for the purposes of the Treaty, nationality is to be determined according to the domestic law of each Member State.

Therefore, Turks in Europe face a double blow: firstly, being considered as no different than all the other third country groups and secondly, the detrimental status of this latter group due to the Treaty. By the exclusion of Turkish nationals governed by the Association Agreement and the Additional Protocol from the application of the Treaty, the Member States have made clear that one of the characteristics of the Union is an inability or perhaps the failure in coming to terms with its multicultural identity and a tendency to exclude all others whom it docs not consider as belonging, as "we", as "us" from the benefits of European integration.

In so far as their position is affected by Community law, Turkish workers have no political rights to influence how Community law is shaped. Due to the fact that certain Member States, most notably Germany, do not fit in with the norm of citizenship accepted in the majority of other Member States, those Turks living and working in such states arc, in effect, penalised by the Treaty. As with all nation-states, the national identity of each particular state is found in response to the question of who may belong and who may not belong to it, essentially a response to inclusion against exclusion.

The German state in defining its own national identity bases its arguments on a volkisch, or ethnic character.

The basic notion that is emphasised is the unity of Volk and State, whereby all peoples have the right to their own existence as a sovereign state. The conclusion reached via this ideological basis is that nations can only be composed of one Volk. The Basic Law, or the temporary constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany when it was founded in retained an ethnic concept of citizenship, based on the Reich citizenship law of In effect it was seen as the legal expression of a basic political commitment to German national unity.

It refused to accept the loss of former German territories cast of the Oder- Ncissc Line, and it sustained a jus sanguinis notion, essentially a "blood-right" acceptance, of German citizenship. The Basic Law referred to Germans and not to German citizens. Using the word "Germans" indicated a more inclusive notion, whereby all German 23 citizens as well as certain categories of ethnic German refugees and expellees and their spouses and dependents were included.

This approach towards citizenship created major ohstacies to integrate immigrants into the body politic. Therefore, within the parameters of the ideology of such a voikisch nation, ethnic minorities can be regarded as a threat to national unity and to the purity of the ethnic national culture. Thus, an ethnic nation-state cannot be open to the immigration of foreigners, nor can it become an immigration country [43]. Leskien [44] gives Several examples of discrimination based on citizenship.

To highlight this accepted anomaly, Leskien refers to a case brought before the Federal Administrative Court, whereby an administrative district council had decided to charge foreign publicans selling alcohol higher taxes than their German counterparts. To browse Academia. Log in with Facebook Log in with Google. Remember me on this computer. Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link. Need an account? Click here to sign up. Download Free PDF.

Modelling Turkish Migration to Germany. Boriss Siliverstovs. Sule Akkoyunlu. A short summary of this paper. Download Download PDF. Translate PDF. A single cointegrating relation between the migration flow variable and the relative income ratio between Germany and Turkey, the unemployment rates in Germany and Turkey, and the trade variable, that captures intensity of bilateral economic cooperation, is found. By including the trade variable in the empirical migration function we investigate whether trade and migration are complements or substitutes: a question on which the theoretical literature does not provide a definite answer.

Our results support the former view. Especially now, when in the wake of ongoing globalisation the travelling costs and informational barriers, that in the former time hindered mass migration from economically less developed areas of the world into the richer countries or regions represented by the Western Europe, North America, and Australia, fall continuously. Hence, now more than ever expectations of potentially large inflows of workers from the developing countries to the rich migration target countries raise fears about adverse labour market and government budget impacts therein.

Our study contributes to understanding of the migration phenomenon in the following aspects. First, as the case study we look at the developments of Turkish migration to Germany for the period - Arguably, this is a very interesting topic to study given the massive migration of the Turkish labourers into Germany during this period of time. As a result of the guest-worker agreements, that were initialised by the German authorities in the early sixties throughout the early seventieth, and then of family unification, refugee and asylum programmes, net migration from Turkey to Germany measured as the balance of outward and inward migration totalled 1.

This resulted in estimated population of 2. Second, in the wake of the recognition of Turkey as a candidate for accession at the Helsinki European Council meeting in December and in the anticipation of the start of accession negotiations between European Union and Turkey in October , a number of studies Togan, ; Lejour et al.

All these studies do not develop the migration functions on their own but instead take the sets of coefficient values of the migration functions estimated in the context of the EU Eastern Enlargement, that took place in May In this paper, we take a different approach to modelling the migration function for Turkey. In particular, we develop a parsimonious, stable-coefficient time-series error correction model using the bilateral data for Turkey and Germany only.

To the best of our knowledge, there is only one reference Hatton, that applies a similar modelling strategy to emigration data from UK using historical data, and at the same time it has never been applied to estimation of the parameters of the migration function for Turkish nationals into Germany. Motivation for including this variable is brought by large literature that investigates how trade affects international labour mobility surveyed in Razin and Sadka , Venables , and Schiff In particular, this literature investigates the interplay between trade and migration, i.

As a result, trade will lead to equalisation of factor prices and hence in a reduction of migration incentives. Thus, from this point of view trade and migration can be regarded as substitutes. This scenario is also stressed in the development literature where it is argued that under these circumstances sustained and equitable growth in migrant sending countries is the only effective strategy to cope with the migration pressure.

Hence, aid policies and other forms of economic assistance and cooperation should be geared to the objective of fostering growth in migration source countries and subsequent reduction of incentives to migrate. Another stream of literature inspired by Markusen shows that, by relaxing some of the under- lying assumptions of the standard Hechscher-Ohlin model, trade and migration in fact are complements, i.

A positive relation between migration and trade could also arise when income growth in the less developed country that have been generated by trade with more economically developed partner may relax financial constraints and may allow more rather than less people to migrate, see Schiff , for the corre- sponding analysis.

In addition, it also is noteworthy to mention, that there are also theoretical models which show that the relationship between migration and trade is ambiguous, e. Summarising, it seems that there is no consensus on the relationship between migration and trade such that in the end an answer depends on a particular model used as far as the theoretical literature is concerned. Hence, the ultimate answer must lie in the outcomes of empirical studies. This provides an additional motivation for our paper, where by adding trade volume variable to the migration function in question we will be able to shed more light on this controversial issue by investigating whether economic cooperation between Germany and Turkey had any influence on the dynamics of Turkish migration into Germany, and if it had then we will be able to assess whether trade and migration in this case have been either complements or substitutes.

The rest of the paper is organised as follows: in the next section, we discuss the theoretical background of the migration model and motivate the choice of explanatory variables. In Section 3 the econometric methodology is described and the empirical results are presented. Due to their increase in numbers it they moved to homes that the Germans frequently vacated.

This brought contention for some of the politicians were not amused by such an integration. In an effort to send the Turks home, they offered a substantial monetary reward for them to return to their native home. Some schools in Germany introduced lessons in Turkish which was to prepare them for their future life in Turkey.

This caused a generation of bilingual illiterates where some students were not very conversant with both languages. This resulted in them not being very qualified in employment because of their lack in fluency. The dynamics changed and the country started demanding for more qualified staff and the chance for the Turks were very slim.

The Germans and the Turks were forever at odds with politics brewing the contention. Politicians used the xenophobic rhetoric for their own political gains and this caused a lot of tension between the two nationalities. Today, the recognition of integration policies has seen the end of a contention that was unnecessary.

Integration is promoted in Germany just as political ideas and academics. The Turkey immigration happened in six ways each with distinct traits. The first set of immigrants migrated for the sake of working in Germany.

The opportunities of work were many due to the high demand for labors as a result of growing economy. As mentioned, after things worsened in in Turkey the second lot of immigrants came to Germany to look for safe refuge. Their native land had problems and the coups that occurred made the Turks to extend their stay in Germany and also bring in their people.

The latest lot came to German to seek asylum and refuge most of them were political actors and professional who found it difficult to prove their worth because of lack of papers. Those are some of the reasons why Turks migrated a clear indication that what prompted the immigration was because of different reasons. The macroeconomic effects on the host country and the Turkish people is different.

Prior, the effects were both positive and negative in the host country as mentioned. Germany was able to meet the demand for laborers and the same time the guest workers were seen as burdens after the oil saga developed. For Turkey, they had the advantage of getting jobs but at the same time they lost skilled laborers. Currently, the rate of immigration between the two counties has declined with even the Turkey people moving back to their own native land McDonald, Remittances are the money generated by the foreign workers and then they send it back homes.

That is what most Turks used to do and are doing at the moment. It is a good source of income for them and development. Remittances have been a great source of revenue and currency since the sixties. The Turkish government need the revenue in order to source or even outsource technology that they need to keep development in their country growing.

The immigration is evidently favors them in that sense. The remittances from the Turkish workers in Germany play an important role in international trade. It is argued that, the fluctuation of remittances have severe consequences to developing countries and in this Turkey is not excluded, Sayan, , pp.