Long Term Residents and Commuters: Change of Patterns in Migration from Poland to Germany

CHAPTER 1. POLAND AND UKRAINEIN THE EAST-WEST EUROPE

MIGRATION SYSTEM

Long Term Residents and Commuters:Change of Patterns in Migration from Poland

to Germany

Frauke Miera

ABSTRACT. This article analyses the impact of the bilateral Polish-German migration regulations on patterns of Polish migration to Germany.A shift is revealed from the long-term, legal settlement of the Post War pe-riod to an increase in commuter migration of both legal and undocumentedmigrants since the 1990s. Included are two cases of migrant women fromPoland that exemplify and explore the interface between migration policiesand migrants’ individual decisions. Migration policies constitute an opportu-nity structure for individual migrants which is modified by socioeconomic,

Frauke Miera, PhD, is affiliated with Faculty of Social and Cultural Studies,Cultural and Social Anthropology European University, Viadrina, Germany.

Address correspondence to: Frauke Miera, PhD, Faculty of Social and CulturalStudies, Cultural and Social Anthropology, European University Viadrina, Post-fach 1786 15207 Frankfurt/Oder, Germany (E-mail: [email protected];[email protected]).

Journal of Immigrant & Refugee Studies, Vol. 6(3), 2008Available online at www.haworthpress.com

C© 2008 by The Haworth Press. All rights reserved.doi: 10.1080/15362940802371028 297

298 JOURNAL OF IMMIGRANT & REFUGEE STUDIES

gender and political relations. The two cases illustrate the discrepanciesbetween the intended effect of migration policies and the actual strategiesthat migrants employ, which is largely reliant on the migrant’s individualchoices and social networks. Upon examination of how migration policiesshape migration and integration patterns, it becomes clear that restrictive mi-gration policies, intended to prevent people from migrating, rather have theeffect of pushing migrants into insecure circumstance and hampering theirintegration. Under scrutiny, integration policies are shown to be less ableto achieve their intended effect when faced with insufficient interculturalcompetence of the relevant host country institutions and a lack of genderspecific integration measures.

KEYWORDS. Migration policies, permanent migration, temporary mi-gration, Aussiedler, undocumented migrants, gender, social networks,Poland, Germany

Since the political transformation processes in Eastern Europe, migra-tion from Poland to Germany has increased while the types of migrationhave also significantly diversified. In addition, following Poland’s acces-sion to the European Union (EU) in 2004, patterns of migration have onceagain modified. The most significant change can be seen in the increasein commuting migration since the late 1980s. Prior to this, permanent mi-gration was the dominant form of migration.1 This shift in the pattern ofmigration from long term settlement towards more dynamic patterns, suchas circular and commuting migration, and changes in the shape of transna-tional social spaces has been observed in various contexts since the 1990s(e.g. Glick Schiller, Basch, & Blanc-Szanton, 1995; Pries, 2001). Transna-tionalism is not a new phenomenon of the late 20th century since cross-border social ties were also alive in migration processes of the late 19thcentury.2 Nevertheless, the dynamics of transnationalism have certainlyincreased through modern communication and transportation technology,economic globalisation and international migration. These developmentsalone do not sufficiently explain the change in the dominant types of migra-tion. Drawing on the case of Polish-German migration since the late 1980s,this chapter asks how migration policies influence patterns of migrationand integration. After a brief outline of the relevant types of migrationthe concept of ‘nodal points’, as outlined in the introduction of this issue,is applied. Exemplified in the cases of two migrant women, the interfacebetween individual decisions and migration policies and the relevance ofother interacting factors will be analysed.3

Frauke Miera 299

Along with secondary literature and statistical data, the case study isbased on interviews with four policy makers or other local figures (twoof which were conducted by telephone) and two migrants from Poland.One of the individual migrants had been recommended by an expert of aPolish NGO situated in Berlin, the second through informal networks. Allof the interviews were semi-structured and problem-centred, following theMigration Systems (MIGSYS) interview guides for migrants and policymakers. The interviews with the migrant women were predominantly nar-rative; both lasted about 90 minutes. The interviews took place betweenOctober 2006 and January 2007; they were audio-recorded and transcribed.

The very limited sample may illuminate the processes and dynamicswithin selected cases; though obviously, it may not provide general con-clusions about the very heterogeneous Polish-German migration and inte-gration processes.

POLES IN GERMANY AND TYPES OF MIGRATION

The categorisation of ‘temporary’ or ‘commuting’ migration in contrastto ‘permanent’ migration needs further clarification.

First, the demarcation between ‘permanent’ and ‘temporary’ migrationmay be fluid. The category of ‘permanent’ migration does not exclude thepossibility that migrants maintain cross-national networks; ‘temporary’migration encompasses stays abroad lasting from a few days to somemonths, where normally migrants repeat these trips several times, oftenover years, and hence ‘commute’ between two (or more) countries.

Second, the official classification ‘permanent’ versus ‘temporary’ or‘commuting’ migration may only roughly describe the social reality; there-fore this needs to be specified according to the following categories: rel-evant migration policies, including the border regimes from the homecountry as well as entrance options and integration measures of the coun-try of destination; the socioeconomic and political situation in the host andhome country; the role of social networks.

Third, the various types of migration may certainly not be equated withthe social reality of individual migrants, as individuals may pass throughvarious types in the course of their life. With respect to these considerationsthe following types can be identified in the history of recent Polish-Germanmigration.

Permanent migration—which was often illegal in terms of exit, accord-ing to Polish authorities4 and legal from a West-German viewpoint—has


been typical during the post-war period. Admittedly, this took placeless frequently since Poland only opened its borders selectively. WestGermany strongly encouraged ethnic Germans, so-called Aussiedler, toimmigrate and liberally granted Polish citizens’ permanent residencyas political refugees from communism (Stola, 2005). Aussiedler wereconfirmed as German citizens and, in contrast to any other immigrantgroup, were broadly supported by official integration measures. Apartfrom the political and socioeconomic circumstances, the Polish bor-der regime hindered Aussiedler and refugees to return to Poland evenfor short visits.5 The restrictive border regime on the Polish side andthe open, even attractive migration regulation on the German side area reference to the tense historic-political relationship between the twostates, the then global competition between capitalism and state so-cialism, as well as, regarding the privilege of ethnic Germans, to theethno-national self-conception of the German nation state. These pre-dominately political factors resulted in the fact that long term migrationwas almost the only form of migration possible (Miera, 2007; Pallaske,2002).

Accompanying the liberalisation processes that took place in Polandfrom 1987/88, long and short term migration to Germany sharply in-creased, with immigration figures rising to 455,000 in 1989, comparedto 105,000 in 1986.6 In order to reduce and channel this new dimensionof migration—coming also from other Eastern European countries – theGerman government restricted the options for permanent settlement andat the same time implemented a recruitment scheme for temporary labourmigration (see below).

First, in the early 1990s asylum law was amended step by step. Asa result, numerous political refugees who had not applied for politicalasylum in the years before, as the easily acquired status of ‘toleration’allowed them to stay and even to work, now lost their legal status. Manyrefugees were ordered to leave the country; others deliberately returnedto Poland because of the changing political situation there or remained,undocumented, and became ‘illegal’ permanent migrants. Other migrantslost their residence permits because they over-stayed their short term visaas temporary ‘guest workers’ (see below).

Second, since 1990 the criteria of Aussiedler admission have been tight-ened up; the option to enter Germany from Poland via this route has becomeimpossible. Consequently, the only way to enter and stay for a permanentresidency in Germany was within the framework of family re-union.7 Inthe context of gender specific role models and a lack of other options for

Frauke Miera 301

settlement, marriage migration of Polish women gained increased rele-vance during the 1990s. Many of these women had to endure problematicor even violent relationships, as their husbands abused their power as theirlegal stronghold (Miera, 2007).

Apart from these types of permanent migration, new forms of undocu-mented and legal commuting or temporary migration became most relevant.Due to open borders and the geographic proximity of Poland and Germanyand immense differences in ranges of goods and currencies, petty trade orworking in the informal labour market in Germany whilst maintaining ahousehold in Poland became a highly lucrative pattern. A further elementof Germany’s new migration regulation and a symbol of the gradual bilat-eral rapprochement was the introduction of tourist regulations in the 1990s.Since April 1991 Polish citizens have been permitted to visit Germany with-out a visa—and vice versa—for periods of no longer than three months butare not permitted to take up employment. Regardless of this prohibitionnumerous ‘tourists’ work in Germany and it is through this that their statusbecomes illegal. This was especially relevant as the informal labour mar-ket in cleaning, care work and construction grew. By commuting betweenGermany and Poland these migrants could benefit from low-paid jobs aslong as living costs in Poland were far lower than in Germany and differ-ences in exchange rates were quite high. At the same time they normallypaid the price of bad working and living conditions in Germany (ibid.,Cyrus & Vogel, 2002).

The new ‘guest worker’ recruitment scheme institutionalised legal tem-porary migration. Based on bilateral agreements with Poland and almost allEastern European countries (Honekopp, 1997), seasonal workers, projectbound contract workers, border commuters and specialists had the op-portunity to work in Germany for a limited period of time. Poland was,and still is, the most significant country of origin of workers within thenew ‘guest work’ scheme. In 2002 a recruitment scheme for temporarydomestic workers was implemented which is less relevant in quantitativeterms. Informal domestic work or care work on the basis of the cross-border provision of services (since 2004, see below) is obviously cheaperfor employers.

Dual passport holders constitute another type of commuter, even ifsome of these decide to stay in Germany on a permanent basis. Despitethe aforementioned restrictions of Aussiedler admission, Polish citizens ofGerman origin may still obtain a German passport. These ethnic Germansno longer qualify for the special benefits and integration measures offeredto Aussiedler but many Poles who gained German citizenship through this


procedure keep their first citizenship and live and work legally in bothcountries (Palenga-Mollenbeck, 2006).

Apart from these patterns of commuting migration, former permanentmigrants also revitalised cross-national ties, with some starting to commutefrom Germany to Poland.

The accession of Poland to the EU changed the legal framework forPolish migrants in Europe; nevertheless, the effect on Polish migration toGermany was limited as Germany applied transitory restrictive measures.8

On the other hand, new options for temporary and permanent migrationopened up. Since the accession, the possibility of setting up businesses hasgained growing relevance among Polish migrants in Germany, even from2003 when an amendment to the Trades Code lowered the barriers to self-employment for trade’s people. This made settlement for the self-employedeasier, when the freedom was introduced in 1994 (Cyrus, 2006).9 Thequestion of whether the majority of these entrepreneurs stay permanentlyin Germany or if they commute between Poland and Germany—even asan entrepreneurial strategy—would require further investigation.10

Another new legal option for working in Germany is the cross-borderprovision of services within the EU. Firms based in Poland are permittedto send employees to Germany to fulfil a particular service order. There isevidence to suggest that numerous women work as domestic workers andcarers for sick or elderly people within this framework (e.g. Holch, 2006).The demand for Polish nursing and care personnel in Germany is growingand the costs of regular domestic home-care services are immense. ManyPolish women work as live-ins being on call 24 hours a day; some sharethe post so that they can commute to Poland after a period of some weeksor months (ibid.; Rerrich, 2006).11

On the whole, the legal framework of migration regulation in the Polish-German case has had a decisive impact on the shape of migration and inte-gration patterns. At the same time migration policies cannot be evaluatedas isolated factors; migration patterns—as well as the policies—are alsoinfluenced by the geopolitical and socioeconomic setting of the migrationsystem, by social networks, gender relations and individual biographies.

Drawing on the cases of two migrants the interface between migrationpolicies and individual agency are analysed in more detail.

CASE STUDY: TWO MIGRANT WOMEN FROM POLAND

Each of the two migrant women interviewed represent a member ofa typical migrant group at their time. Katarzyna12 arrived in Berlin as a

Frauke Miera 303

German Aussiedler in 1988 and stayed permanently; Beata came to Berlinas an undocumented, commuting domestic worker in 1992, returning toPoland in 1995. She returned to Berlin with her husband and their daughterin 2005 as registered self-employed EU citizens. The analysis of thesecases is likely to give only specific insights into the interplay betweenindividual decisions and migrant policies, rather than general conclusionsabout migrant patterns.

Long Term Resident of the 1980s

Katarzyna, today in her forties, migrated from Poland to Germany in1988 with her husband Jacek, a German Aussiedler, and their two yearold son. Although she was unsure about migrating to Germany, she even-tually decided to do so because her husband wanted to and they had ayoung child together. Jacek’s motivating factors seem to have been socio-economic improvement, while Katarzyna was quite pleased with her pro-fessional and social situation in Poland. Family networks facilitated thedecision to migrate. Her husband’s relatives had already moved to Ger-many in previous years. All of them had been accepted as Aussiedler bythe German authorities. These relatives constituted Katarzyna and Jacek’smain sources of information. The main thrust of their narratives was that“everything is so nice” and “it doesn’t cost much”13, which did not turn outto be true for Katarzyna, which of course she only found out having leftPoland.

Just like many others, Jacek and Katarzyna pretended to be going toGermany with their child for a three day visit, as they did not want topursue the arduous and perhaps unsuccessful path of applying for a visafor permanent emigration. This practice was of course considered illegalby Polish authorities; hence, although they retained their Polish passports,even a short term return could have put them at risk of legal prosecution.Jacek and Katarzyna were aware of these consequences. Because of thisstrict migration regime the emigration decision was definite, at least at thattime, although Katarzyna was not certain of the decision.

The process of integration was generally shaped by the supporting legalframework including some financial benefits. But again, social networksfacilitated the adaptation process in the new country. Difficulties in inter-action with German authorities had been adjusted by the help of relatives.At the same time, gender relations within the family and the Germanlabour market influenced the integration processes. Both Katarzyna andJacek were entitled to take German classes for six months. But Katarzynaattended the German classes only for a period of two months in total,


because she had to take care of her son in the frequent phases when he wasill and could not go to kindergarten. At the end of the course she still didnot understand very much German.

German bureaucracy and lack of intercultural competence in the Germanauthorities further hampered her advancement. After the German coursehad ended she had to report to the labour office. It was the first time thatshe was unaccompanied by a relative. When she was asked to fill out aform, she said she did not understand it and could not write in German. Theperson in charge said she had attended a German course and that she hadto speak German if she lived in Germany. The officer could not understandthat it had been impossible for Katarzyna to attend the class because of hersick child. Although she could justify her absence she had no opportunityto repeat the course.

As a consequence of a set of factors—the incapacity of the bureaucracyand the gender specific division of labour within the family and the seg-mented labour market in Germany–Katarzyna, an engine-fitter by training,ended up working as a part-time cleaner and kitchen-hand in a state schoolwith a regular work contract, while also working as an informal domesticworker. Jacek trained as a car mechanic in Poland and since absolving theGerman course he has been working as a foreman in a metalwork firm.

During the first two years after their emigration Katarzyna had felthomesick and considered going back to Poland every day. Only in 1990she independently came to terms with the decision to stay. This turningpoint was influenced by the Polish migration regime that changed at thetime and by her desire to come to an independent decision. After twoyears in Germany, when the borders in Eastern Europe opened to theWest, she visited her sister who now lived in Katarzyna’s old flat. Secretly,Katarzyna went to Poland to decide between separating from her husbandand returning to Poland with her son, or accepting her life in Germany. Backin her Polish hometown she saw the different living standards; everythingseemed “grey,” and she saw “no future” in Poland. She decided to goback to her husband and his family in Germany. From that point onwardsKatarzyna accepted her situation and made the best of it. In that momentshe emancipated herself from her previous subordination to her husband’sdecision. The opened Polish borders facilitated this individual processbecause now she could keep in touch with her relatives in Poland.

Undocumented Commute and Return in the 1990s

When Beata, at the age of 19, moved to Berlin in 1992 she faced acompletely different policy setting than Katarzyna. At that time thousands

Frauke Miera 305

of Poles had already been commuting between Poland and Germany asthere were no barriers to exit or re-entry into Poland, no barriers to entry intoGermany, the informal German labour market demanded cheap and flexibleworkers, and the attainable income in Germany was significantly higherthan the average Polish income. In the interviews the representatives of aPolish NGO situated in Berlin and the Berlin Commission for Integrationand Migration explained that in this situation the prohibition to take upemployment did not dissuade migrants but rather, meant they found waysto circumvent prohibitions with the help of social networks.14

In Beata’s case, decisive aspects in favour of the decision to emigrate toGermany were transnational social networks and, on the individual level,her independence and willingness to change her life. In the end, the lack ofintegration policies in the form of social welfare programmes influencedher non-integration and her return to Poland.

After Beata had finished school she attended a Police Academy, butunexpectedly failed the exams. She “wanted to do something” with herselfand “could not stay at home”.15 When a friend asked her if she wanted totake over her job as a babysitter in Berlin, she agreed straight away.

Beata emigrated to Germany as a tourist and worked in the informallabour market, being aware of the illegality of her status, while simultane-ously studying in Poland. She continued to commute between both placesbecause she was able to further her qualifications while taking advantageof higher German wages and lower Polish costs, and was able to travel aswell as enjoying an active social life in a big city.

She could have maintained this way of living as long as nothing un-foreseen happened. But, when in 1995 she had an accident she did notseek medical care in Berlin because as an ‘illegal’ migrant she had nohealth insurance in Germany. Undocumented migrants hardly receive anysocial benefits in Germany. Although emergency help may not be deniedby physicians many undocumented Polish migrants choose to return toPoland in case of the need for medical care. Effectively, the lack of socialwelfare policies has decisively influenced Beata’s decision to return toPoland.

Self-Employed EU-Citizen

When Beata decided to move to Berlin about ten years later, theGerman-Polish migration regime had again changed; but she also actedfrom quite a different social and individual standpoint. For the time being,she became a permanent settler whilst still keeping her transnational tiesalive.


Again, her outgoing personality and her desire to get out of the constric-tions of her environment were still driving forces behind her decision. Butthis time she had a family to move, she had to close down a flourishingfirm and leave a newly built house in order to move to Berlin.

Informal social networks played a fundamental role in the organisationof the family’s migration and adaptation processes. In fact, the decisionto migrate depended on her social capital, i.e. the ability to activate socialnetworks for her needs. Beata reports that she would have stayed in Polandif her friends had not been able to find her a flat quickly.

While the legal framework of being able to set up firms and legallyoperate in Berlin decisively fostered the integration process, it was onlyher social network that provided her with information about these oppor-tunities. A representative of a Polish migrants’ organisation16 confirmedthat many migrants are not well-informed or even receive false informationthrough social networks and the internet about the possibilities of estab-lishing a business in Germany. This certainly contributes to the failureof many of these entrepreneurial projects. Apparently, the administrationin Berlin is not prepared to provide group-oriented information, but isgradually starting to open up for a multicultural clientele.17

Therefore, Beata and her husband Marek were lucky to have a verywell informed Polish couple among their Berlin friends. With their help,Beata and Marek had gathered all the necessary information to registerbusinesses with the trade office in only a few days; they also applied forchildcare allowance immediately.

Despite Beata’s academic training and both Beata and Marek’s profes-sional experience in their own sales business, they registered their busi-nesses in branches which point to the gender and ‘Pole’ specific segmentedlabour market in Berlin. Beata applied for a business in ‘cleaning work, do-mestic and otherwise’; her husband registered as a low-skilled constructionworker.

Registration with the trade office provided them with the basis of theirlegal stay and permission to work. Job seeking was eased by Polish speak-ing acquaintances and the fact that there is a big Polish community inBerlin with its own infrastructure, such as the Polish Catholic Church andits community notice board.

Beata and Marek’s experience corresponds with the new migration poli-cies, where many formerly undocumented migrants who have apparentlyswitched from cleaning or construction in the informal market to the legalposition of self-employment.18 But the case of this couple also illumi-nates the limits of these migration and integration policies drawn by the

Frauke Miera 307

necessities of the labour market. Beata works officially only as a cleanerin an Italian ice cream parlour; her two other jobs as a domestic workerin private households are still undeclared. Marek works officially as a‘self-employed’, but he has been working continuously for the same clienton big construction sites for months, which in actual fact contradicts theformal definition of self-employment.

CONCLUSION

Polish-German migration decisions and integration processes seem to beprimarily structured by both the general context of the economic imbalancebetween both countries, and the gender and ethnicity-specific demandsof the German labour market. Migration and integration is stimulatedand facilitated by historically developed transnational migrant networks.Within this context, migration policies play an important role in the shiftof migration patterns, although not necessarily in the intended way. Thenew migration regulation of the early 1990s has significantly influencedthe increase of legal and undocumented commuting migration betweenPoland and Germany and the decline of new legal long term settlement.

The two cases in this study illustrated the interface between migrationpolicies and individual biographies which crystallise in nodal points. Inthe case of the German Aussiedler Katarzyna, the encouraging Germanimmigration policies on the one hand and the restrictive Polish re-entryregime on the other constituted a nodal point which was met by the migrantcouple in their decision to emigrate and to permanently stay in Germany.However, it became quite clear that Katarzyna was not convinced of thedecision but was rather heavily influenced by her subordination to herhusband’s wish. In terms of integration processes the general supportinglegal framework valid for Katarzyna and her husband as Aussiedler can beclassified as an actual nodal point. But the fact that Katarzyna could notfinish her German course exemplifies a nodal point which was lost becauseof the gender specific division of responsibilities within the family and theabsence of gender sensitive integration policies. Katarzyna’s final decisionto stay in Germany illustrates another nodal point: the liberalisation ofthe Polish migration regime facilitated her individual wish to make anindependent decision.

The case of Beata, the undocumented commuter, provides an exampleof an ignored nodal point: the fact that overstaying a tourist visa or workingas a tourist is not legal is simply ignored by Beata because socio-economic


and individual factors determine her decision to migrate; the open bordersfacilitate the decision. However, a further nodal point, namely, the absenceof welfare policies, resulted in her decision to leave Berlin.

Finally, the example of Beata as a self-employed EU-citizen shows therelevance of the availability of proper information about migration policies.In her case, due to her well informed informal social network her decisionto return to Berlin interfaced with the legal possibility to settle as a self-employed EU-citizen. Experts report that this level of being informed isquite exceptional and misinformation about raising a business in Germanyoften result in missed nodal points.

This paper has shown that migration policies constitute an opportunitystructure for individual migrants. This opportunity structure may be modi-fied by socioeconomic, gender and political relations, on the levels of bothbilateral relations of the involved states and domestic developments. Asthe two cases in this study illustrate, individual decisions which are em-bedded in households or broader social networks do not necessarily—orfully—correspond to migration policies.

Prohibitions or restrictive migration policies do not prevent people frommigrating but push them into an insecure and vulnerable position as high-lighted in the interviews. Even if migrants circumvent some inconveniencesthrough their own mobility, flexibility and the help of social networks, theirsituation is far from stable; sudden events or accidents may turn their lifeplans upside-down. Social networks are hugely important for support andfor dealing with misleading information. At the same time, institutions arenot sufficiently able to substitute or correct missing or false information. Inturn, the lack of intercultural competence in the bureaucracy and a lack ofgender specific integration measures hamper existing ‘general’ integrationpolicies. They are not adapted to the specific needs of social groups, withrespect to language, culture or gender.

The study shows the importance of making links between individualbiographies, migration policies and other factors. Nevertheless, an empiri-cal study on a much broader scale would be necessary in order to identifyrelevant policy factors amongst the complexity of migration processes.

NOTES

1. This article focuses on migration from Poland to West Germany and respectivelyunified Germany. Migration to the German Democratic Republic (East Germany) hadtaken place on a smaller scale and, in particular, in the form of regulated temporarylabour migration (Rohr, 2001; Miera, 2007).

Frauke Miera 309

2. See the debate in IMR (2003).3. This paper is based on the pilot-study ‘MIGSYS: Immigrants, policies and mi-

gration systems’, funded by the Metropolis Network and the Foundation for Population,Migration and Environment.

4. Apart from selectively issued emigration permits people used their short termvisa to emigrate permanently. In this way their emigration became illegal according toPolish authorities.

5. The liberalisation period from the 1970s until the Martial Law was declared inDecember 1981, where thousands commuted between Poland and West Germany aslabour migrants, is an exception to this strict border regime (Oschlies, 1982). In the1980s Poland again gradually liberalised its return policy for Polish emigrants.

6. Federal Bureau of Statistics.7. Another option was to immigrate as an entrepreneur but only a few made use of

this possibility.8. Migration policies in other EU-countries also influence the migration from

Poland to Germany. Increasing numbers of Poles decided to move to the UnitedKingdom or Ireland, since the EU-extension legal work and residence opportuni-ties in these countries are far less restricted; Kepinska, 2005; Nowak-Lewandowska,2006.

9. In 2004 there were 16,700 businesses registered and the number rose to 35,600the following year. This was fifteen times the 2003 figure according to the FederalBureau of Statistics. This increase is remarkable, even taking into account a certainnumber of ‘fake’ self-employed, who only registered in order to be eligible for theGerman child benefits.

10. On transnational strategies of Polish self-employed migrants in Germany before2004 see Miera, 2008.

11. Interview Polish Social Council Berlin (PSS), 30 October, 2006.12. The interviewees’ names have been changed by the author.13. All quotations in this chapter: Interview with Katarzyna, November 13, 2006.14. Interview PSS (see note 11); interview Berlin Commission for Integration and

Migration, January 22, 2007.15. Interview with Beata, November 9, 2006.16. Interview PSS (see note 11).17. Telephone interviews, Berlin Administration Department of Trade and Industry,

December 7, 2006; Chamber of Industry and Commerce, January 11, 2007; see alsoBerliner Beitrage, 2005.

18. Interview PSS (see note 11).

REFERENCES

Berliner Beitrage zur Integration und Migration. (2005). Vielfalt wahren—Zusammenhaltstarken. Das Integrationskonzept fur Berlin, [Encouraging Diversity—StrengtheningCohesion. Integration Policy in Berlin], Berlin House of Representatives, Printed Matter15/4208, August 23, 2005.


Cyrus, N. (2006). Die Ubergangsregeln zur Einschrankung der individuellen Arbeitnehmer-freizugigkeit—eine kurzsichtige Maßnahme ohne erhoffte Wirkung [Interim Regulationson Individual Employment Restrictions – A Short-Sighted Solution Falls Short of theIntended Outcome]. In Flore, M. et al. (Eds.) Arbeit und Wohlstand im erweitertenEuropa. Beitrage einer Kontroverse uber Konsequenzen und Gestaltungsmodelle dereuropaischen Erweiterung (pp. 90–110). Osnabruck: Secolo.

Cyrus, N., & Vogel, D. (2002). Managing Access to the German Labour Market —How Polish (Im)migrants Relate to German Opportunities and Restrictions. IAPASIS-Deutschland Working Paper 1/2002, Oldenburg. Retrieved January 16, 2007, fromhttp://www.iue.it/RSCAS/Research/IAPASIS/Index.shtml.

Glick Schiller, N., Basch, L., & Blanc-Szanton, C. (1995). From Immigrant to Transmigrant:Theorizing Transnational Migration. Anthropological Quarterly, 68(1), 48–63.

Holch, C. (2006). Die 24-Stunden-Polin. Chrismon, 11, 41–45.Honekopp, E. (1997). Labour Migration to Germany from Central and Eastern Europe. Old

and New Trends. IAB Labour Market Research Topics, 23, 1–25.International Migration Review (2003), 28 (3), special issue on Transnational Migration.

International Perspectives, guest editors P. Levitt, J. DeWind, S. Vertovec.Kepinska, E. (2005). Recent Trends in International Migration. The SOPEMI Report

for Poland, CMR Working Papers 2/60, Warsaw. Retrieved January 22, 2007, fromhttp://www.migracje.uw.edu.pl/obm/pix/002 60.pdf.

Miera, F. (2007). Polski Berlin—Migration aus Polen nach Berlin. Integrations- undTransnationalisierungsprozesse 1945 bis Ende der 1990er Jahre [Polish Berlin – Migra-tion from Poland to Berlin. Processes of Integration and Transnationalisation from 1945to the End of the 1990s]. Munster: Westfalisches Dampfboot.

Miera, F. (2008). Transnational Strategies of Polish Migrant Entrepreneurs in Trade andSmall Business in Berlin. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 34(5), 753–770.

Nowak-Lewandowska, R. (2006). Emigro, ergo sum. Die Emigration der Polen und ihreFolgen [The Emigration of Poles and its Consequences]. Osteuropa, 56 (11–12), 167–178.

Oschlies, W. (1982). Exodus Poloniae? Polnische Ausreise- und Emigrationsfragen 1980-1982 [Polish Travel and Emigration Issues 1980–1982]. Berichte des Bundesinstituts furostwissenschaftliche und internationale Studien, 18, Koln: BIOST.

Palenga-Mollenbeck, E. (2006). Transnational Labour Migration between Poland andGermany: The Case of Upper Silesia. Center for International Relations, Reports &Analyses, 4, Warsaw: Center for International Relations.

Pallaske, C. (2002). Migrationen aus Polen in die Bundesrepublik Deutschland inden 1980er und 1990er Jahren. Migrationsverlaufe und Eingliederungsprozesse insozialgeschichtlicher Perspektive [Migrations from Poland into the Federal Republicof Germany during the 1980s and 1990s. Processes of Migration and Integration from aSocial History Perspective]. Munster: Waxmann.

Pries, L. (2001). New Transnational Social Spaces. International Migration and Transna-tional Companies in the Early Twenty-First Century. London: Routledge.

Rerrich, M. S. (2006). Die ganze Welt zu Hause. Cosmobile Putzfrauen in privaten Haushal-ten [The Entire World at Home. Cosmobile Cleaning Women in Private Households].Hamburg: Hamburger Edition.

Frauke Miera 311

Rohr, R. (2001). Hoffnung, Hilfe, Heuchelei. Geschichte des Einsatzes polnischerArbeitskrafte in Betrieben des DDR-Grenzbezirks Frankfurt/Oder 1966–1991 [Hope,Help, Hypocrisy. The History of the Employment of Polish Labour in Companies inthe GDR-Border Region Frankfurt/Oder 1966–1991]. Berlin: Berliner Debatte Wis-senschaftsverlag.

Stola, D. (2005). Das kommunistische Polen als Auswanderungsland. ZeithistorischeForschungen, 2(3). Retrieved January 24, 2007, from http://www.zeithistorische-forschungen.de/16126041-Stola-3-2005.

Documents

Long Term Residents and Commuters: Change of Patterns in Migration from Poland to Germany