Der Familiennachzug zu Drittstaatsangehörigen

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeneka Manoharan

With the initial two-year suspension of family reunification for beneficiaries of subsidiary protection in 2016, their wives and children in crisis areas as well as unaccompanied minors suffered cuts in their right to family. Embedded in this political situation, the author examines the relevant national and international legal sources with regard to family, women’s, and minors’ rights and discusses the recitals of limiting family reunification, taking into account state sovereignty. The work concludes with a legal assessment and balancing of interests using the example of the suspension of family reunification and opens the view for affected-oriented reunification regulations.

2017 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 744-767 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew Lorenzen

A growing body of literature has argued that the distinction between forced and voluntary migration can be, in practice, unclear. This literature points out that each individual migrant may have mixed motives for migrating, including both forced and voluntary reasons. Few studies, however, have actually set out to analyze mixed-motive migration. This paper examines the mixed-motive migration of unaccompanied minors from Central America's Northern Triangle states (Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador), using data from a small 2016 survey carried out in 10 shelters for unaccompanied child migrants run by a Mexican government child welfare agency. Using this survey, the paper identifies the immigrating minor's motives, which are oftentimes mixed, and details differences by nationality, gender, and age groups. Some of the key findings include: • Around one-third of the child migrants surveyed had mixed motives, including both forced and voluntary reasons for migrating. • Violence appears most often as a reason for migrating among minors with mixed motives, as opposed to the search for better opportunities, which appears more often as an exclusive motive. • Significant differences between the three nationalities are observed. Relatively few Guatemalan minors indicated violence as a motive, and few displayed mixed motives, as opposed to Hondurans, and especially Salvadorans. • The minors fleeing violence, searching for better opportunities, and indicating both motives at the same time were largely mature male adolescents. • The minors mentioning family reunification as their sole motive were predominantly girls and young children. The results indicate that binary formulations regarding forced and voluntary migration are often inadequate. This has important implications, briefly addressed in the conclusions. These implications include: • the need for migration scholars to consider forced reasons for migrating in the context of mixed-motive migration; • the fact that mixed motives call into question the established, clear-cut categories that determine whether someone is worthy of humanitarian protection or not; • the need to have in-depth, attentive, and individual asylum screening because motives may be interconnected and entangled, and because forced reasons may be hidden behind voluntary motives; and • the need for a more flexible policy approach, so that immigration systems may be more inclusive of migrants with mixed motives.


1995 ◽  
Vol 4 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 233-252 ◽  
Author(s):  
Graziano Battistella

International standards provide for protection of the family as the fundamental unit of society. However, a consequent right to family reunification for migrants is not sanctioned and continues to be resisted. This article reviews the formulation of the possibility for family reunification as provided for in international and regional standards and by migration policies. It argues that family separation, if inherent in some forms of migration, should not be institutionalized by migration policies and that state sovereignty is limited when dealing with human rights. More specifically it argues that labor migration, as currently developing in Asia, will require appropriate family reunification policies, because it will evolve into some form of settlement.


Author(s):  
Claire Fenton-Glynn

This chapter focuses on children and the immigration system. It considers the separation of children and their parents in three contexts: deportation of parents without a right to reside; expulsion of a parent following the commission of a criminal offence; and expulsion of a child following the commission of a criminal offence. It then goes on to analyse the case law on family reunification and the obligation on states to allow children to enter a state where their family is currently residing. Finally, it examines the situation of children in immigration detention—both as unaccompanied minors and where they have been detained with their parents.


Author(s):  
Deborah Shnookal

This book concludes that by the time the Cuban Missile Crisis occurred in October 1962, Operation Pedro Pan had largely served its purpose in the U.S. covert action program and propaganda war against the Cuban revolution. The cancellation of direct flights between the United States and Cuba and Washington’s policy to keep Cuba isolated meant that the children’s reunification with their families was made very difficult and delayed. While Cuban parents may have had many motives in sending their children as unaccompanied minors to Miami, the author argues that, in general, U.S. government political objectives overrode humanitarian concerns for the children’s welfare and Cuban family reunification. She concludes that Operation Pedro Pan was largely unjustified and based on a fabricated Cold War scare about patria potestad that manipulated Cuban parents’ fears and resulted in the unnecessary separation of thousands of Cuban children from their families—in many cases for several years and, in some cases, with tragic consequences.


2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 245-283
Author(s):  
Chris Downes

Abstract The increase in numbers of children travelling unaccompanied to Europe has provoked a sensitive debate as to how to treat their family members. While EU Member States generally grant family reunification for unaccompanied minors, the UK has opted to permit reunion in only ‘exceptional circumstances’. Widely criticised, the UK government counters that child-sponsored family reunification creates incentives for unaccompanied migration that place children at risk. This article explores both policies from a human rights perspective. It suggests that, as regards children reaching Europe, EU policy is more consistent with human rights norms. However, UK policy raises legitimate questions about obligations towards children beyond Europe’s borders. A rights-based justification for either EU or UK policy can be constructed, but requires recourse to additional principles on the balancing of rights among different groups of children. Clearer articulation and scrutiny of these principles could strengthen the rights rationale for child-sponsored family reunification.


2017 ◽  
Vol 47 (188) ◽  
pp. 495-504 ◽  
Author(s):  
Felix Syrovatka

The presidential and parliamentary elections were a political earthquake for the French political system. While the two big parties experienced massive losses of political support, the rise of new political formations took place. Emmanuel Macron is not only the youngest president of the V. Republic so far, he is also the first president not to be supported by either one of the two biggest parties. This article argues that the election results are an expression of a deep crisis of representation in France that is rooted in the economic transformations of the 1970s. The article analyses the political situation after the elections and tries to give an outlook on further political developments in France.


Author(s):  
Matthew Bagot

One of the central questions in international relations today is how we should conceive of state sovereignty. The notion of sovereignty—’supreme authority within a territory’, as Daniel Philpott defines it—emerged after the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 as a result of which the late medieval crisis of pluralism was settled. But recent changes in the international order, such as technological advances that have spurred globalization and the emerging norm of the Responsibility to Protect, have cast the notion of sovereignty into an unclear light. The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the current debate regarding sovereignty by exploring two schools of thought on the matter: first, three Catholic scholars from the past century—Luigi Sturzo, Jacques Maritain, and John Courtney Murray, S.J.—taken as representative of Catholic tradition; second, a number of contemporary political theorists of cosmopolitan democracy. The paper argues that there is a confluence between the Catholic thinkers and the cosmopolitan democrats regarding their understanding of state sovereignty and that, taken together, the two schools have much to contribute not only to our current understanding of sovereignty, but also to the future of global governance.


Author(s):  
Mary Elise Sarotte

This chapter examines the Soviet restoration model and former German Chancellor Helmut Kohl's revivalist model. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) hoped to use its weight as a victor in the Second World War to restore the old quadripartite mechanism of four-power control exactly as it used to be in 1945, before subsequent layers of Cold War modifications created room for German contributions. This restoration model, which called for the reuse of the old Allied Control Commission to dominate all further proceedings in divided Germany, represented a realist vision of politics run by powerful states, each retaining their own sociopolitical order and pursuing their own interests. Meanwhile, Kohl's revivalist model represented the revival, or adaptive reuse, of a confederation of German states. This latter-day “confederationism” blurred the lines of state sovereignty; each of the two twenty-first-century Germanies would maintain its own political and social order, but the two would share a confederative, national roof.


2018 ◽  
Vol 42 ◽  
pp. 245-255
Author(s):  
Rostislav F. Turovsky

The article is devoted to the study of the party model of Russian parliamentarism in post-soviet period. The focus is on the issues of party representation and its correlation with the distribution of the managerial positions and introduction of collective legislation at State Duma. These issues are examined from the point of view of reaching cross-party consensus and implementation of fair parliament party representation principle. According to the author Russian parliamentarism model aims at reaching full-fledged party consensus that corresponds better to the principles of popular representation than strict parliament polarization along the line of “authority-opposition”. Understanding of those issues by the majority of the players was noted from the very start of the State Duma activities, in spite of the acute conflicts in the 1990-ies.The author draws the conclusion that the equation of party representation continues to grow at the level of managerial positions in the parliament that allows to improve cooperation of the parties and to reduce authority and opposition conflicts. Thereby the Russian parliamentarism model makes an important contribution to the stabilization of socio-political situation of the country.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document