The Challenges of Diaspora Migration

Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Israel and Germany

Rainer K. Silbereisen, Peter F. Titzmann

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2016
• Print ISBN:
  9781138246324
• eBook ISBN:
  9781317039129
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Emigration & Immigration
• Index: Social Sciences

Diaspora or 'ethnic return' migrants have often been privileged in terms of citizenship and material support when they seek to return to their ancestral land, yet for many, after long periods of absence - sometimes extending to generations - acculturation to their new environment is as complex as that experienced by other immigrant groups. Indeed, the mismatch between the idealized hopes of the returning migrants and the high expectations for social integration by the new host country results in particular difficulties of adaptation for this group of immigrants, often with high societal costs. This interdisciplinary, comparative volume examines migration from German and Jewish Diasporas to Germany and Israel, examining the roles of origin, ethnicity, and destination in the acculturation and adaptation of immigrants. The book presents results from various projects within a large research consortium that compared the adaptation of Diaspora immigrants with that of other immigrant groups and natives in Israel and Germany. With close attention to specific issues relating to Diaspora immigration, including language acquisition, acculturation strategies, violence and 'breaches with the past', educational and occupational opportunities, life course transitions and preparation for moving between countries, The Challenges of Diaspora Migration will appeal to scholars across the social sciences with interests in migration and ethnicity, Diaspora and return migration.

PART I
Diaspora Migration and
the Consortium “Migration and
Societal Integration”

Chapter 1
Introduction: Migration and Societal Integration: Background and Design of a Large-Scale Research Endeavor

Rainer K. Silbereisen, Peter F. Titzmann, Yossi Shavit

Migration is not a new phenomenon – nevertheless with increased globalization, growing economic uncertainty, and political turmoil in many countries of the world, rising levels of migration have been seen in recent decades. This trend seems likely to continue. From 2010 onwards, the number of people of working age living in high-income countries will begin to decline, whereas the number of working-age people in low-income countries will very likely increase, as Hugo (2010) reported with reference to World Bank data. This disparity will be a major force for further migration from low-income to high-income countries. Other developments, such as affordable transportation facilities and modern communication technologies, mean that today’s immigrants can keep in close and regular touch with their heritage society. Frequent visits to the heritage country, for example, are rather normative today so that immigration also needs to be seen from an increasingly dynamic perspective (Leyendecker, 2011; Portes, 2003).

New Migration Trends: Leaving and Returning

Macro-level economic changes and the comparably low costs of transportation mean that migration no longer follows the traditional paradigm of permanent migrant settlement and that temporary or circular migration is becoming more prevalent (Global Commission on International Migration, 2005). To demonstrate this point, and to show the complexity of migration systems, we can use Australia as an example, primarily because, in contrast to most other countries, Australia has a comprehensive system for recording data concerning immigration and emigration.

In Australia, one of the largest flows of migrants is between Asia and Australia. Here, migration is “best depicted as one in which circularity, reciprocity, and return are key elements” (Hugo, 2010, p. 2). At closer scrutiny, a number of different migration patterns can be distinguished – permanent movement (settlers), long-term movement (stay for 12 months or more), and short-term movement (usually stay for less than 12 months) as described by Hugo. Permanent movement, the classical case, occurs as flow in and flow out of the destination country; although immigration research tends to focus more on the incoming migration, the numbers from Australia show that the counter flow is about 50 percent for some heritage regions. In other words, for some areas about half as many migrants return to their heritage country as arrive in Australia. The same circularity, reciprocity, and return apply to long- and short-term movements. Returning migrants take home the skills, networks, resources, and experiences they made in the destination country, which can be seen as an asset for the country of origin. Return migration, therefore, can be seen as part of an interacting system between countries or regions, and whose size may have been underestimated due to a lack of reliable national data.

A particular case under the rubric of return migration is that of migrants returning from a Diaspora. The term Diaspora historically refers to the exile and dispersion of Jews from Roman Judaea that started around the 6th century BC, and resulting in people of Jewish descent living over many generations outside their ancestral homeland. Some left their ancestral homeland in pursuit of opportunity while others fled into the Diaspora to escape ethno-political persecution. Today, and in this book, the term Diaspora migration is used in a much broader sense so that it also includes the migratory return of ethnic groups to their ancestral homeland for economic and other opportunities, or due to non-migratory changes in country borders, for example as result of military conflicts and political decisions. In addition to Israel, many European countries, including Germany, serve as ethnic home countries with Diaspora spread across the world. These are groups of people who have lived away from their ancestral territories for many generations, and return to what they deem their traditional home, motivated by political, social, economic, or cultural reasons (Brenick and Silbereisen, 2012). Tsuda (2009) lists 24 countries from all around the globe that are confronted with the situation of returning migrants that share ethnic roots with the receiving society. Given, however, that data on immigration/emigration flows are limited, it is safe to assume that this is a conservative estimate. Such returning immigrants are typically well acculturated and established in the country of their birth but, in contrast to other immigrant groups, such as work migrants, ethnic return migrants (or Diaspora migrants) have often maintained their own ethnic or cultural communities and shared dreams of returning to their ethnic homeland (Weingrod and Levy, 2006).

Two principle driving forces behind the return to the ancestral territories can be distinguished (Berry, Kim, Minde, and Mok, 1987). Push factors emerge if and when life in the country of residence deteriorates in political, cultural, or economic terms. Pull factors originate in the country of destination such as the wish to gain from the groups’ cultural, social, and human capital. In some instances, countries attempt to affect their demographic composition by offering Diaspora migrants economic and other incentives to immigrate, the prime example being Israel, which has managed to maintain a solid Jewish majority by attracting immigrants in large numbers from the Jewish Diasporas in Europe, the Arab world, and the former Soviet Union.

Until the complexity of migration streams became obvious, the possible positive impact of migration for the countries from which people are migrating, such as the promotion of trade and, more importantly, remittances sent to lower income countries, was widely overlooked. Indeed, the OECD has suggested that through such money transfers, “a three per cent expansion in international migration could add more to world incomes than a complete liberalization of all trade” (Katseli, Lucas, and Xenogiani, 2006, p. 48).

Nevertheless, there is still a lack of research focusing on the unique and understudied experiences and psychosocial outcomes of immigrants from Diaspora populations. Special issues of journals (Brenick and Silbereisen, 2012; Silbereisen, 2008) on a better understanding of return migration from the Diaspora in Europe represent an important step, but they have concentrated on psychological research only. In spite of the overall positive reception in the new country, the political promotion of immigration from the Diaspora, and independent of the actual or presumed cultural linkages, Diaspora immigrants seem to experience the typical strain associated with immigration found in other immigrant groups (see Titzmann and Stoessel, this volume). They have to align the interests of self, home country, and host country, which may be quite different from expectations nourished by cultural tradition. Of particular relevance for the acculturation to the new context is that their legal status as Diaspora migrants differs from the status of other immigrants, and that the acculturation expectations of the host society call for quick and comprehensive adaptation to the new circumstances. Indeed, the mismatch between the idealized hopes of Diaspora migrants and the high expectations for social integration by the new host country can result in a particularly difficult adaptation, often with high social costs.

Diaspora Migration to Germany and Israel

This book project evolved from the collaborative work of a group of researchers from various disciplines (psychology, sociology, education, criminology, linguistics) on migration from ethnic German and Jewish Diasporas originating in Eastern Europe and Central Asia (mostly countries of the former Soviet Union or the socialist block) to Germany and Israel. The drastic political and economic changes following the breakdown of the communist system opened up borders and allowed dreams to become true for many individuals in the Diaspora. That many individuals used this opportunity to return to their homelands is particularly evidenced by the major streams of migration from countries of the former Soviet Union to Germany and Israel in the early 1990s (see Figure 1.1). Earlier waves of Diaspora migrants entering Germany had been much less pronounced, although a few thousand ethnic Germans had immigrated to Germany shortly after World War II and both Israel and Germany received a noteworthy share of Diaspora migrants in the 1970s (Bundesverwaltungsamt, 2010). Israel, however, has received several very large immigration waves of Diaspora Jews throughout its existence, as well as in the period preceding its establishment as a state (DellaPergola, 1998).

Figure 1.1 Number of immigrants to Israel and Germany 1955-2009

The more recent, post-Soviet, waves of immigration have caused a public debate and instigated substantial amounts of research in both Israel and Germany, largely because of the high numbers of immigrants, but also because of the crucial economic and social importance for the receiving societies that these groups adapt well to their new society. Research into the accommodation and integration of Diaspora migrants to Germany and Israel is also discussed in many other countries around the world because these groups are seen as prototypical cases of ethnic Diaspora migration.

As can be seen in Figure 1.1, in Israel, two waves of Diaspora immigration from the former Soviet Union can be clearly identified (Jewish Virtual Library, 2013; Mesch, 2003). The immigration wave of the 1970s is often referred to as the first immigration wave, and that of the 1990s as the second. The unprecedented return migration to Israel after World War II, and especially after the breakdown of the Soviet Union, was driven by push factors rooted in history, such as ethno-political discrimination, combined with bleak economic perspectives. At the same time, Israeli policy of providing a safe haven for those under pressure of discrimination and hardship represented a pull factor for people of Jewish descent and their families. The wish to increase the Jewish share of the population was certainly also relevant. The migrants themselves saw the chance to realize the romanticized dream of coming home to the ancestral land. All of the above was reinforced by media and personal contacts with those who had already left for Israel (Remennick, 2007).

With regard to the return migration of ethnic Germans and their families from their birth countries in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, although this had already begun in the years before the breakdown of the Soviet Union, it gained tempo and increased substantially in numbers after the political changes at the end of the 1980s (Dietz, 2006). In principle, these people shared roots with the German minorities that had migrated to Russia and other countries in the region as early as the reign of Catherine the Great in the 18th century. Mainly due to their skills as craftspeople, they were offered land and financial privileges and were allowed to keep their German culture and traditions. However, growing nationalism changed Russian attitudes toward these once welcomed ethnic Germans so that, especially after World War II, ethnic Germans were deported to Siberia or Kazakhstan, and were no longer allowed to maintain their German culture, or even to speak German in public, thus forcing them to adapt to Russian culture and Soviet society.

The pull and push factors among the German and Jewish people for immigration to their ancestral homelands, therefore, were alike. A further commonality between the two Diaspora groups, and with immigrants in general, is the link between economic uncertainties in their country of origin and the real or imagined affluence in their ancestral homeland. Although the idea of resettling in one’s homeland gives direction to move to a particular country, the economic underpinnings are also very relevant (Silbereisen, 2008).

Diaspora immigrants in general tend to believe that once in the ancestral territories, acculturation will be easier than it is in reality, and people of the country of destination often share this expectation, although both views may have illusionary aspects. Although the two paradigmatic groups studied here had been born and raised abroad, they are assumed by governments and the public to be culturally similar to the native population in the receiving society (including its own heterogeneity), a view based simply on their historical common roots. In the case of ethnic German migrants (“Aussiedler,” which literally means re-settlers; “Spätaussiedler” means late re-settlers and refers to those who arrived in Germany after January 1993) and the Jewish migrants to Israel, their integration is promoted by pre-migration preparations in the country of birth; by granting of German or Israeli citizenship; and by extensive support, including financial benefits once in the new country. This pro-active reception, especially the immediate granting of citizenship, is quite in contrast to other migrants to Germany and Israel; nor is it the norm for ethnic return migrants in other regions, such as Asia, where integration with full rights as citizens is not the rule (Tsuda, 2009).

Other factors may make assimilation into the new society difficult. For example, Diaspora groups typically are of mixed ethnic origin and it is not unusual for migrant families in Israel and Germany to have one partner of non-Jewish or non-German origin (Dietz, 2006), meaning that cultural affinity may differ within families. The children of migrating families may also find the move to the new country problematic; they were usually fully assimilated in the country of origin and often had to leave close friends behind. In addition, in spite of preferential treatment and extended support in the new country, all family members faced the risk of their prior achievements not being recognized in the new country, often leading to the downgrading of occupational qualifications in the local labor market. This could also lead to a shift in the power balance between generations within families due to the more accelerated adaptation of the young (Titzmann, 2012).

The immigration of both Jewish and German Diaspora groups has a long history, and over time not only the social composition and number of the migrants changed but also, and in part as a response to these changes, the migration regimes in Israel and Germany were modified. For instance, until the end of the 1980s, ethnic German migrants were free to settle in Germany wherever they wanted, whereas later on they were required to settle according to target numbers for the various federal states of the country. Since the early 1990s, the command of German as requirement for immigration was reinforced, including the language competence of dependents who had never used or learned German in their birth country (Dietz, 2000). Moreover, within two years of the onset of immigration in the early 1990s, when only about half of the ethnic Germans in the former Soviet Union had migrated to Germany, the government introduced contingents. These and many other measures to manage the immigration of ethnic Germans changed the conditions for acculturation (Eisfeld, 2013).

Whereas in Germany migration policies enhanced regulation and constraint over time, in Israel the migration regime changed in the opposite direction. In the early decades of immigration, the state played a centralized role in immigration absorption: it built housing, created jobs, established absorption centers and actively directed immigrants to settle in the social periphery of the country. Since the late 1980s, this policy was replaced with a policy of “direct absorption” according to which immigrants from the FSU received a “basket” of cash and services and could choose among various strategies and modes of incorporation with state support. The basket included a lump sum of money, housing subsidies and numerous services including training and educational programs and subsidies (Doron and Kargar, 1993). Immigrants could choose where to live, whether to buy an apartment or rent one, and when and where to enter the labor market (Semyonov and Gorodzeisky, 2012). Nowadays, both Germany and Israel receive only small numbers of newly arriving Diaspora migrants from the former Soviet Union. Nevertheless, both countries still struggle with the integration of the substantial overall numbers of migrants, also because they want to avoid long-term segregation and the development of stable minorities (Al-Haj, 2004).

Despite all the good intentions of the governments involved to support the integration of Diaspora migrants, as Weingrod and Levy (2006) point out, there are many “paradoxes of homecoming,” meaning that the Dias...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• List of Figures
• List of Tables
• List of Contributors
• Acknowledgements
• Series Editor’s Preface
• PART I: DIASPORA MIGRATION AND THE CONSORTIUM “MIGRATION AND SOCIETAL INTEGRATION”
• PART II: FROM HERITAGE TO HOME COUNTRY: THE MIGRATION TRANSITION AND ADJUSTMENT
• PART III: PREPARING FOR A FUTURE: TRANSITIONS WITHIN THE NEW COUNTRY AND RELATED OPPORTUNITIES
• PART IV: RESEARCH ON DIASPORA MIGRATION AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH AND POLICY
• Index