‘I’m not entitled to be married in Germany? Am I German or am I not?’ Narratives and discursive strategies of citizen sponsors in the German spousal migration context

ABSTRACT

The state interferes with the intimate spheres of families and couples via family migration policies, which have grown increasingly restrictive in many European countries. Mixed-status couples engaging in spousal migration develop coping strategies in order to adapt to hurdles and overcome them. This article explores the under-researched perspectives of sponsor spouses on (family) migration policies. When interacting with authorities, politicians or counselling services, the sponsors often react discursively, using arguments relating to human rights, citizenship, membership as well as gender and marriage/family norms. Based on a qualitative analysis of case dossiers of a German NGO counselling mixed-status couples, the article explores the narratives and strategies developed by the (mostly White) German citizen sponsors, thereby analysing the ways they ‘perform citizenship’ at the crossroads of migration control, marriage and family norms, and membership.

KEYWORDS:

• Mixed-status families
• marriage migration
• immigration policy
• citizenship
• belonging
• membership

Acknowledgments

Many thanks to Saskia Bonjour and Betty de Hart for their helpful comments on earlier versions of this paper as well as everyone at the Verband binationaler Familien und Partnerschaften, especially Hiltrud Stöcker-Zafari, for sharing the fascinating insights into their important work.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1. Citizens from outside the EU are described as third-country nationals within EU law.

2. While in Germany, the term ‘individuals with a migration background’ is very common, I have chosen to employ the term ‘ethnic minority’ since it better captures discriminatory practices relating to ethnicity (see El-Mafaalani 2016 for a critique of the concept ‘Migrationshintergrund’).

3. The IAF disseminated a call for experiences with the new language requirement in 2007. The organisation compiled these accounts, together with regular consultation requests that touched upon the language requirement into the case archive I analysed. This archive was also used by the IAF to draw up its own publication on the language requirement (Verband binationaler Familien und Partnerschaften 2008).

4. Denying visitors’ visas to individuals that allegedly lack a ‘willingness to return’ occurs frequently, and was mentioned in numerous other case dossiers (n = 7). Courts have confirmed this practice, see VG Berlin, 29 K 186.10 V, judgement of 23 June 2010.

5. Filing an individual or public petition regarding the government or administration is a constitutional right; petitioners must receive an answer how their petition has been ‘dealt with’. If public petitions garner more than 50.000 supporting signatures within four months, a public hearing on the issue is held in the petition committee and the petitioner may speak.

6. TCN family members of EU citizens living in Germany are subject to the more favourable family migration provisions laid down in the Free Movement Directive. Among other things, they are exempted from the language requirement (see Block 2016, 167–171).