L 168 - 2010-11 (1. samling) - Bilag 7: Materiale fra høring om L 168 den 4/5-11

Association of Language Testers in EuropeArticle(s)Act on the Residence, Economic Activity and Integration of Fo-reigners in the Federal Territory (Residence Act),Gesetz über denAufenthalt, die Erwerbstätigkeit und die Integration von Ausländernim Bundesgebiet (Aufenthaltsgesetz)(German)Ordinance Governing Residence,Aufenthaltsverordnung(Ger-man)Aliens Act,Ausländergesetz(German)Federal Office for Migration and Refugees, Bundesamt für Mi-gration und Flüchtlinge (German)Federal Ministry of Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women andYouth, Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen undJugend (German)Federal Ministry of the Interior,Bundesministerium des Innern(German)Printed papers of the GermanBundesrat(Federal chamber),Drucksachen des Deutschen Bundesrates(German)Printed papers of the GermanBundestag(Parliament),Drucksa-chen des Deutschen Bundestages(German)Common European Framework of Reference: Learning, Teach-ing, AssessmentCompare withDeutsch als FremdspracheDeutsch als ZweitspracheGerman Institute for Human Rights, Deutsches Institut fürMenschenrechte (German)German Test for Immigrants,Deutsch-Test für ZuwandererFor exampleincorporated society,eingetragener Verein(German)Ibidem = ‘in the same source’European Community/European UnionEuropean Convention for the Protection of Human Rights andFundamental Freedoms,Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention(German)Editor(s)European Economic AreaEuropean Integration FundEuropean Migration Network

and othersfollowing pagesBasic Constitutional Law,Grundgesetz(German)Pivate limited company,Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung(German)that isAssociation of Dual Nationality Families and Partnerships,Ver-band binationaler Familien und Partnerschaften e.V.(German)Institute for Migration Research and Intercultural Studies,Insti-tut für Migrationsforschung und Interkulturelle Studien(German)Conference of the German Federal Ministers of the Interior In-nenministerkonferenz (German)Fact Sheet for Alien Legislation,Informationsblatt für Ausländer-recht(German)Legal Journal,JuristenzeitungCritical Justice,Kritische JustizKenyan ShillingLiteraMillionNational Integration Plan,Nationaler Integrationsplan(German)New Legal Weekly, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (German)NumberNew Journal of Administrative Law,Neue Zeitschrift für Verwal-tungsrechtHigher Administrative Court,Oberverwaltungsgericht(German)PageParagraphAct to Implement Residence and Asylum-Related EU Directives(Directives Implementation Act), Gesetz zur Umsetzung aufen-thalts- und asylrechtlicher Richtlinien der Europäischen Union(Richtlinienumsetzungsgesetz) (German)Code of Social Law,Sozialgesetzbuch(German)Nationality Act,Staatsangehörigkeitsgesetz(German)Syrian poundTurkish Community in Germany,Türkische Gemeinde Deut-schland(German)Turkish liraTeaching units,Unterrichtseinheiten(German)US–dollarAdult Education Center,Volkshochschule(German)Administrative Ordinance,Verwaltungsvorschrift(German)Journal for Alien Legislation and Policy,Zeitschrift fürAusländerrecht- und Ausländerpolitik(German)

IntroductionObjectives, Sources and Research MethodsThis report reviews the reasons for and effects of the German language test,the test of basic knowledge of the legal and social system and the way of lifein the Federal territory. The tests have become a recent condition for admis-sion to Germany within the context of the subsequent immigration of aspouse, a settlement permit, or naturalisation. The aims of the study are toidentify the legislation and the practices of these so-called integration and na-turalisation tests and to analyse their effects.Sources and MethodsThe legal basis and legal reasons for the introduction of the various testswill be described on the basis of the law in force at the time and the respec-tive legislative materials. They will be compared, in part, with the former le-gal situation. A limited literature review should provide an overall picture ofthe backgrounds and legal issues surrounding the tests. The current imple-mentation practices have been considered in official documents and statisticsby the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF), the Federal Gov-ernment Commissioner for Migration, Refugees and Integration and the Fed-eral Statistical Office of Germany, among others. Semi-structured interviewsfollow from these sources and provide an empirical basis for analysing theeffects of the tests. Interviews will be conducted with immigrants who sat thetests, immigrants who are preparing for the tests and immigrants who arenot sure if they want to do the test or who decided not to do the test, as wellas with teachers of integration courses, advisory services for immigrants andmunicipal officials.

Selection of Respondents and ResponseForty-nine persons were interviewed between 9 March and 20 May 2010. Thelength of interviews varied from ten minutes, for interviews with immi-grants, to 130 minutes for interviews with migrant advisory services andmunicipal officials. The interviews took place in ten towns in eight federalstates (Bundesländer): Berlin (in the districts of Mitte, Kreuzberg, Neuköllnand Spandau), Cologne (North Rhine-Westphalia), Frankfurt am Main (Hes-sen), Hamburg, Munich (Bavaria), Osnabrueck (Lower Saxony), Potsdam(Brandenburg), Stuttgart (Baden-Wurttemberg), Wesel (North Rhine-Westphalia) and Weyhe (Lower Saxony). The main focus was on interviewswith immigrants. Twenty-seven immigrants were interviewed: 12 womenand 15 men.

Immigrants were mainly contacted through Adult Education Centres(VHS) and/ or test centres, supported by staff members. Persons with a mi-gration background aged 22 to 50 as well as three immigrants aged 18 andyounger, who took part in integration courses for youth, were interviewed aspart of the study. Respondents with a migration background came from thefollowing 18 countries of origin: Egypt, Argentina, Bosnia, Brazil, China, In-dia, Indonesia, Iraq, Kenya, Lebanon, Nicaragua, Romania, Russia, Serbia, SriLanka, Syria, Thailand and Turkey. The length of their respective stays inGermany was at least one month and at most 20 years. The respondents weremostly course participants and test candidates. Most course participantswere unemployed at the time of the study. The test candidates were (self-)employed and/or qualified in professions such as architect, orchestral con-ductor, postgraduate student at the Law Faculty, waiter, cook, taxi driverand shop assistant. At least four respondents had obtained a settlement per-mit. Twelve out of the 27 respondents had passed the integration test at thetime of the study. Eight respondents had passed the integration test as a con-dition for admission. Ten respondents had passed the integration test for na-turalisation at level B1. One woman had passed the ‘Deutschfür Beruf’test atlevel B2; the language ability of two respondents was tested as part of the vi-sa procedure by officials abroad. Two immigrants had been awarded an aca-demic degree in Germany and fulfilled the requirements for naturalisationwithout taking part in integration tests.Two staff members from the Goethe Institute and three teachers of inte-gration and basic language courses who had acquired long-term experiencewith various test formats took part in the interviews. The interviews wereconducted with two Heads of Language Department at the VHS, seven offi-cials from Foreigners’ Authorities or Naturalisation Authorities and an offi-cial from the Office of Multicultural Affairs. Overall, the authorities ex-pressed either very little interest in participation and critical attitudes.Espe-ciallynoteworthy in this regard isthe particularparticipation of the local au-thorities(Kreisverwaltungsreferat)in Munich.In addition, interviews were conducted with two adult migrant advisersfrom the Workers’ Welfare Association (AWO), a team member from an In-ternet portal (http://www.info4alien.de), a staff member of the Association ofDual Nationality Families and Partnerships (Iaf e.V.) and three representa-tives of the following migration organisations: Turkish Community in Ger-many (TGD), Association Against International Sexual and Racist Exploita-tion (Agisra e.V.) and BAN YING e.V.The AWO was founded more than 90 years ago. It has 145,000 employeesand is divided nationwide into 29 district associations andLandassociations,480 regional associations and 3,800 local associations (http://www.awo.de).The AWO has made efforts to integrate migrants and advised them for over40 years. It also provides advice on long-term care, pensions and legal mat-ters.

Info4alien.de is a commercial-free Internet portal for the Aliens Act andthe Naturalisation Act that is also free of charge. Current and former officialsas well as concerned users offer information (laws and links), professional fo-rums and regular chats for interested people and officials from foreigners’authorities, voluntarily and without public subsidies. The public Board hasnearly 14,000 members, while 1,800 members are registered on the internalBoard.The Association of Dual Nationality Families and Partnerships wasfounded in 1972 as a ‘Community of Interests for Women Married to Fo-reigners’ (Iaf e.V.). It supports dual nationality partnerships and families asan intercultural family association and lobbies for their legal and social equaltreatment (http://www.verband-binationaler.de/). Iaf e.V. has a nationwidestructure. It offers advisory services in 25 towns. Around 10 full-time staffmembers guarantee the framework of its activity and continuity. On average,it receives 16,000 inquiries from throughout Germany per year. The centraloffice alone receives 800 inquiries via e-mail.TGD was founded in 1995 in Hamburg. It is currently an umbrella orga-nisation of 270 associations in Germany (http://www.tgd.de). The aim of theactivity of the TGD is to achieve equal rights for all minorities. In particular,it represents interests of the Turkish community in Germany.Agisra e.V. was founded in 1993. It is an autonomous, feminist advisoryservice organised by migrants for migrants, black women, Jews and refugeewomen who face problems because of the situation in their country of origin,migration or life situations in Germany (http://www.agisra.org/). Agisra e.V.is a member organisation of theParitätische(Welfare Organisation) and theGerman Nationwide Activist Coordination Group Against Trafficking inWomen and Violence against Women in the Process of Migration.BAN YING e.V. provides informational events concerning the social andlegal systems with translation into the mother tongues of immigrants. It alsoorganises integration courses and German language courses for Thai womenin cooperation with the VHS of Berlin Mitte and supports monthly meetingsof a Thai integration group (http://www.ban-ying.de/). It also offers advisoryservices for women with a migration background, predominantly Asianwomen who have marriage problems or are concerned about human traffick-ing.

Three different integration tests were introduced in Germany in the period2005-2010: a German language test before entry, tests after entering the Fed-eral territory at the end of an integration course – consisting of a Germanlanguage test and an orientation course test (referred to here as an integra-tion course test) – and a naturalisation test. There have been various chrono-logical developments regarding the legal basis: the integration courses afterentry (into the country) were first introduced in accordance with the Immi-gration Act 2004; the language tests for admission to Germany (abroad) wereintroduced as statutory requirements in 2007. Furthermore, the possession of‘basic knowledge of the legal and social system and the way of life in theFederal territory’ was imposed as a further condition for naturalisation. SinceSeptember 2008, this knowledge has been demonstrated in the nationallystandardised naturalisation test.With the introduction of this legal integration policy, the ImmigrationAct (ZuwG) marked a legal turning point compared to the previous legal sit-uation: In the Aliens Act 1990, the fact of immigration itself was ignored.Formal access to the job market and issues of legal equal treatment – socialrights, residence or citizenship rights – formed the cornerstone of the debate(cf. 7.Lagebericht 2007).Moreover, language ability at a basic or at an ‘ade-quate’ or intermediate level of proficiency was particularly relevant as a con-dition to a permanent residence permit as well as – since the reform of theNaturalisation Act in 2000 – for (entitlement) naturalisation (Anspruch-seinbürgerung).An overview of the relevant language assessment criteria inthe Aliens Act 1990 (in force until 2004) is given in table 1.1Since 2005, integration in Germany has meant, above all, language inte-gration. The new ZuwG contains integration courses as the central and onlyintegration instrument. These courses comprise, above all, a basic languagecourse and an advanced language course. In addition, the so-called orienta-tion course is supposed to impart a basic knowledge of the legal system, cul-ture and history (Hentges 2010). Both the language course and the orienta-tion course (also nationally standardised since the end of 2007) have to cul-minate each in a final examination and together they constitute the integra-tion test. The integration course programme is intended to facilitate newlyarrived immigrants’ first steps in integration. Immigrants for family reunifi-cation, for employment or refugees or residents whose stay in Germany isnot temporary are the target group. Immigrants who stay temporarily in

Germany should be exempt from the integration course.1The aim is theCEFR (Common European Framework of Reference: Learning, Teaching, As-sessment) level B1 – the previous intermediate level of proficiency. Immi-grants who reach level B1 should be able to produce a simple connected texton topics that are familiar or of personal interest and to understand the mainpoints of standard input about work, school, leisure, etc. The integrationcourse is aimed not only at newly arrived immigrants, but also permanentresidents in Germany to promote so-called sustainable integration (cf. e.g.Coalition Agreement, 2009). For both groups, newly arrived immigrants andimmigrants with long-term residence, CEFR level B1 is a condition for apermanent residence permit and naturalisation.For the first time, the German language testbeforeentry was introducedin accordance with the Directives Implementation Act (RLUmsG) in 2007.The background was adaptation to Community Law in the area of migration,developed in parallel. Now, spouses of a third-country national or a Germanmust prove a basic oral and written command of language at CEFR level A1before entering Germany.The integration requirements for naturalisation were also changed. Since2007, level B1 has been a national standardised requirement. Moreover, proofof ‘knowledge of the legal and social system and the way of life in the Feder-al territory’ was introduced in Germany. This regulation is based on theorientation course, which has been required for the settlement permit since2005. To prove this societal knowledge, immigrants must pass a naturalisa-tion test, in force since September 2008. An overview of the legal situation inthe Immigration Act (ZuwG) 2004 is given in table 1.2.

For example, students, au pairs, trainees, seasonal workers, etc. This also excludes mi-grants who have been granted a temporary status on the basis of a decision by theCouncil within the meaning of Directive 2001/55/EC (Temporary protection). The resi-dence permit can be limited in this case by the possibility of renewal for six months at atime. They have access to the (self-employed) labour market and have to live in a placeassigned to them. The residence permit will not be withdrawn if the country fled be-comes safe or if the person requests social security assistance (Section 24 Residence Act).The general rules apply to the possibility of changing to a permanent status.

The chronology of legal developments shows that the introduction of variousintegration tests was not the original idea. The reform process in the area ofmigration policy was gradual, but the debate on it had already started at theend of the 1990s. A changed legal and political understanding of immigrationis supported by this reform process, after summing up the lack of consistentimmigration and integration policy in the final report of the ‘SüssmuthCommission’, named after its head. As a comparison, the commission par-ticularly referred to Dutch and Swedish experiences in the area of integrationprogrammes for newly arrived immigrants available at that time. Their pro-posals for the introduction of promotional material for newly arrived immi-grants (besidesSpätaussiedler)based on these ‘models’ were voted at cross-party level (Michalowski, 2007) and were utilised in the draft law. The re-quirement of the Immigration Act 2004 was to initiate a historical paradigmshift in issues of immigration in modern law. The perspective of Germanimmigration law has been moved from the entry and immigration to resi-dence and integration. In general, the introduction of the first national inte-gration concept was positively emphasised. Furthermore, section 43 of theResidence Act (former version) reads as follows: ‘Foreigners living lawfullyin the Federal territory on a permanent basis are provided with support inintegrating into the economic, cultural and social life of the Federal Republicof Germany and are expected to undertake commensurate integration effortsin return’.

These resulted in two fundamental developments during the subsequentyears: On the one hand, a shift in terms of content took place. Knowledge ofthe German language was regarded as a key to successful integration and isthe main focus of integration policy now (7.Lagebericht 2007).Language abil-ity is also a central issue in the discourse on social integration (cf. Zwengel &Hentges, 2010). In accordance with the Coalition Agreement 2009, ‘commandof the German language is a basic prerequisite for education and training, forintegration into a profession, for civic participation and for social advance-ment’. It also justifies most statutory measures. On the other hand, imple-mentation took place between the two poles of the principle known as ‘pro-moting and demanding’.2The statutory possibility of obliging an immigrant to attend an integra-tion course was an important instrument from the beginning. It was justifiedby the meaning of integration assistance as well as by the argument thatwomen who are isolated at home can be accessed and brought into Germansociety using this tool (Administrative Ordinance). Since 2007, the aspect of‘demanding’ has definitely become more important. Section 43 of the Resi-dence Act, mentioned above, says: ‘Foreigners *<+ are expected to undertakecommensurate integration efforts in return’. The tool of legal obligation wasexpanded gradually: the obligation to attend the course was coupled withthe obligation to take the final test. The statutory aim of successful atten-dance on the course was extended to successful completion of the course.Failure to pass the final test is tied to possible sanctions. In addition, thebinding language test before entry was introduced for spouses, based on ar-guments in favour of integration assistance and the prevention of forcedmarriages. Since the end of 2007, the orientation course has culminated in thepassing of the nationally standardised test. A naturalisation test with an ap-propriate (non-binding) course was introduced nationwide in 2008. The cur-rent idea of an integration agreement according to the French model shouldalso help ‘to increase commitment levels in individual integration assistance’and create an integration agreement instrument ‘that will apply to both newimmigrants as well as those that have lived in the country for some time’ (cf.Coalition Agreement 2009, in further detail see in 2.1.3 at the end).

Higher level of proficiency and societal knowledge for permanent residence.Thesettlement permit has been combined with higher language requirementssince 2005: ‘Adequate (oral and written) knowledge of the German lan-guage as well as basic knowledge of the legal and social system and theway of life in the Federal territory or if an integration course has beensuccessfully completed’. The requirements are different from the perma-nent residence permit in the Aliens Act 1990 in that (only) basic oral lan-guage ability had to be demonstrated, not the societal knowledge. In thisrespect, the orientation course is a novelty of the integration policy(Hentges 2010).Higher level of proficiency and societal knowledge for naturalisation.As a con-sequence, the level of knowledge required for the settlement permit hasalso influenced the level required for naturalisation: the proof of the lan-guage ability at the level B1 has been a nationally standardised conditionsince 2007. As a result, the level of language proficiency for permanentresidence and naturalisation were brought more into line insofar as thosewho passed the language test at the end of the integration course havefulfilled the language requirement for naturalisation.Interaction between the orientation course test and the naturalisation test.Theorientation courses were introduced in 2005 and, since 2007, have beensupplemented by passing the nationally standardised test. By contrast,the naturalisation course (test), introduced in 2008, should be based onthe subjects from the orientation course within the integration courses. Inthe mean time, the high content overlap raises the question of a long-term merger of the tests.Higher and previous language requirements for spouses.The statutory inte-gration concepts are different for family immigrants. Since 2004, the lawhas provided for the obligation to attend a German language course inGermany in the event of the lack of any basic command of the language.With the introduction of the pre-entry tests in 2007, the underlying as-sumption of the targeted promotion of initial language integration afterarrival through integration courses did not ssem sufficient for spouses.Compared to other immigrants, proof of language ability or initial lan-guage integration has already been required of them abroad. The concep-tual contradiction with the obligation to attend an integration course hasbeen fixed, while the level of spouses’ proficiency was raised: the degreeof obligation to attend an integration course after arrival is derived fromthe criterion of adequate (intermediate) language ability – the (previous)level for naturalisation.No further exception for illiteracy in the naturalisation procedure.‘To be ableto communicate on topics which are familiar or of personal interest with-out any significant problems’ (to some extent, without including writtenlanguage ability), is no longer sufficient for naturalisation in cases theyapply under Article 10 StAG (‘entitlement naturalisation’,Anspruchsein-

bürgerung).While this question had been treated differently before, illit-eracy has also been a statutory obstacle to entitlement naturalisationsince 2007, after the requirement of written language ability came to beconsidered in conjunction with admission to Germany and the integra-tion course.4Reduction in the privileged position of marriage to a German in the ResidenceAct (AufenthG) and the Nationality Act (StAG).Marriage to a German is nolonger sufficient for the assumption of integration into the host country.Persons wishing to join a spouse in Germany have been obliged to meetthe integration requirement through the language test before entry since2007. Privileged early naturalisation of spouses and civil partners ofGerman nationals has so far also built on the particularly favourable in-tegration situation brought about by conjugal community with a Germanpartner. Proof of language ability at level B1 is a new condition now.Effect of the Residence Act (AufenthG) on naturalisation: less stringent andstricter requirements.The incentive system for the so-called last integra-tion step towards naturalisation is new: The term for the ‘entitlementnaturalisation’(Anspruchseinbürgerung)may be reduced from eight toseven years based on successful attendance of an integration course.Moreover, the possibility exists of reducing the required length of timespent in Germany to six years by submitting special integration achieve-ments, such as language ability above CEFR level B1.

The language requirements as a condition for ‘integration in advance’ andadmission to Germany concern spouses of a German or a foreigner5living inGermany who intend to live together in the Federal territory. The followingsection will debate and discuss the procedure in which the required languageability of spouses may be tested or should be valid as achieved. Higher inte-gration requirements also exist for the subsequent migration of children whoare between the ages of 16 and 18 and whose parent(s) are already been liv-ing in Germany (Section 32, par. 2, Residence Act). Generally, a positive inte-gration forecast is decisive for the settlement permit. It depends on whetherthe child possesses the language ability at CEFR level C1 or if it appears, onthe basis of the child's education and way of life to date, that the child will beable to integrate into the German way of life.6This consideration has alreadybeen expressed in the Aliens Act 1990. However, only a sufficient commandof language was required. Moreover, a principal consideration in the policyregarding foreigners and a decisive factor in the language test for admissionin cases involving ethnic Germans (Aussiedler) was that they were not immi-grants and were able to integrate more easily into the way of life in Germanyas repatriates because of their German ethnicity. The use of a German dialecthas served as an indication of their German ethnicity. A basic command oflanguage has been required of spouses and descendents of ethnic Germanapplicants in order to improve their integration capacity before entry sincethe Immigration Act came into force on 1 January 2005 (cf. Seveker 2008: 198-226). Jewish immigrants7as well as their spouses and descendents who areaged 15 and over also have to prove their language ability at level A1 in theadmission procedure before entry.

See, for the reasons for the requirement of means of subsistence with regard to targetgroups, footnote 17.The certificate, issued by a reliable and appropriate organisation after passing the lan-guage acquisition test, which may not be dated more than one year previously, servesas proof of language ability (BRat-Drs. 669/09, p. 260). It is assumed that children aremore easily able to integrate if they have grown up in a Member State of the EU or EEA(cf. § 41 paragraph 1, sentence 1, Ordinance Governing Residence) or if they come froma German-speaking parental home or have attended a German-speaking school abroadfor a substantial period.Pursuant to the Immigration Act, the test before entry was extended to that populationgroup. Jewish immigrants may obtain the settlement permit with a specific residenceimmediately after arrival in Germany.

2.1.1 Description of the TestTarget GroupsThe subsequent migration of the spouse of a German or a foreigner wasmade dependent on demonstration of language ability before entry after theintroduction of the Directives Implementation Act (RLUmsG) on 28 August20078. Spouses have to prove, as part of the visa procedure, that they are ableto communicate in German at least at a basic level (Section 30, par. 1, sen-tence 1 no. 2 and Section 28, par. 1, sentence 4 Residence Act).Exemptions- By NationalityExemptions are made from the language criterion for spouses of a sponsorfrom the USA, Australia, Israel, Japan, Canada, the Republic of Korea andNew Zealand, as well as Andorra, Monaco, San Marino and Honduras (new:Brazil and El Salvador) in the interests of close economic relations. Spousesof the nationals who may enter Germany without a visa pursuant to Section41AufenthVand may obtain the residence permit in the Federal territory arealso excluded from having to demonstrate language ability.- For certain groups/on humanitarian groundsSpouses of a third-country national or a German must pass the German lan-guage test before entry. Some exceptions are made in relation to spouses of athird-country national: firstly, the subsequent migration of spouses who aremarried to a highly skilled person, a researcher or a self-employee as well asa (mobile) permanent resident is possible without taking a test before entry(‘because of migration policy-related interest from the Federal Republic’).Secondly, exceptions are made to the language criterion in cases involvingmarriage to a resident on humanitarian grounds: Spouses of a foreigner whois recognised as being entitled to asylum or a refugee according to the Refu-gee Convention 1951 (including after naturalisation) do not have to take theGerman language test. Pregnancy is not an exception on humanitariangrounds.- Illness or handicap/No exception for illiteratesFurthermore, the exceptions to the language criterion are considered forspouses of a third-country national or a German, who are unable to provideevidence of a basic command of language on account of a physical, mental or

psychological illness or handicap9. Illiteracy10is not accepted as an illness orhandicap (Higher Administrative Court of Berlin-Brandenburg, ruling of 14November 2008). Pregnancy is not regarded as an illness either.- Temporary stay/Minimal need for integrationSpouses whose need for integration is discernibly minimal (Section 4, par. 2,Ordinance on Integration Courses) and spouses whose stay in the Federalterritory is temporary (Section 44, Ordinance on Integration Courses) are alsoexempt from the language test abroad. Therefore, the spouses’ need for inte-gration is discernibly minimal if they are in possession of an academic degreeor a comparable qualification11or if they are employed as managing execu-tives, professional sportsmen, journalists, scientists, researchers or teachers.Moreover, business people who have been transferred by the Head Office ofan enterprise to a branch in Germany for a maximum of three years (Section31, BeschV) and their spouses (Section 4, par. 2, no. 2, Ordinance on Integra-tion Courses) are also covered by this exception. The Foreigners’ Authorityhas to give consideration to the integration and employment forecast in astatement on the visa granting procedure (no. 30.1.4.2.3.1 Administrative Or-dinance - Residence Act).In practice the requirement is targeted at poorly-educated spouses fromcertain non-Western third-party countries, i.e. Turkey, Kosovo, Russia orThailand respectively spouses of a foreigner in Germany.Type of test‘Reliable and appropriate certificates of language acquisition are accepted asproof of language ability in the visa procedure: certificates of successful at-tendance of one of the following standardised language tests should be rec-ognised: ‘StartDeutsch 1’test set by the Goethe Institute or telc GmbH;9In individual cases, proof of language ability is not required of spouses, e.g., if theywere 65 years of age on 31 December 2009 (BRat-Drs. 669/09, p. 561). According to theGoethe Institute, German Diplomatic Missions abroad have some latitude in dealingwith the age limit (WS 30039 interview of 29 April 2010).Initial literacy in the mother tongue is the competence of educational institutions in therespective country of origin, which is why the Goethe Institute has only limited meansfor offering language courses for functional and primary illiterates. However, prelimi-nary courses in the German language have recently been offered in Thailand and Ghana(WS 30039 interview of 29 April 2010).In conjunction with the Foreigners’ Authorities, the German Diplomatic Mission shouldcontrol whether such an exception is made and whether the foreigners can start work-ing in the Federal territory in line with their qualifications within a reasonable period(no. 30.1.4.2.2 General Administrative Ordinance - Residence Act). Nevertheless, a de-tailed inspection of the qualification in the country of origin can often be debatable if apositive employment situation and integration cannot be predicted for the foreigner(BTag-Drs. 16/10732, p. 14).

‘GrundstufeDeutsch 1’test for the Austrian Language Diploma (ÖSD); or‘TestDaF’ organised by the TestDaF Institute e.V. (ibid. p. 257). The GoetheInstitute, telc GmbH and the TestDaF Institute are German members of theAssociation of Language Testers in Europe (ALTE). Language tests at ahigher level administered by other members of the ALTE should be also rec-ognised in the visa procedure. If an appropriate language certificate cannotbe obtained in the country of origin, the Diplomatic Mission has to ascertainin an appropriate way whether the applicant possesses a basic command ofthe German language at CEFR level A1 (BRat-Drs. 669/09, p. 247). This canoccur in a free ‘interview’ based on the ‘StartDeutsch 1’test. In this regard,the ‘StartDeutsch 1’test is of indicative value for family reunification. There-fore, this test format will be considered below in more detail.The ‘StartDeutsch 1’test can be taken in Germany as well as abroad atthe Goethe Institute or telc GmbH (at VHS in Germany and at the telc officein Istanbul). The Goethe Institute is closely involved in providing proof oflanguage ability abroad. Its current responsibility consists of creating an in-frastructure and offering examinations to cover the new need, which origi-nated from this amended legislation. Currently, 149 Goethe Institutes and tenliaison offices exist in 91 countries, as well as test centres in at least 104 coun-tries. The introduction of the test as a condition for admission implied a re-orientation of language services or an expansion of language courses for theGoethe Institute in new regions and provinces,12as well as a new targetgroup that is no longer represented by an academic clientele and is consulta-tion-intensive (WS 3003913interview of 29 April 2010).In this regard, teachers and 80 multipliers were trained, new coursemodels and information and consultation services were offered, e.g., thewebsite of the Goethe Institute in 18 languages, phone hotlines dealing withthe subsequent migration of spouses in German, English and French in Ger-many and in the respective national languages in Turkey and Thailand(ibid.). Two EU projects are financed by the European Integration Fund (EIF)and the BAMF, and the EIF and the Goethe Institute that are dedicated to a‘pre-integration language test’, set by the Goethe Institute and aimed at ex-panding consultation and information services (1), improvement of languagecourses (2) and language learning materials (3), safety measures and expan-sion of the network (ibid.). The experience of the Goethe Institute shows thatthe duration of language acquisition varies between 80 and 200 teachingunits (UE) depending on individual learning conditions (WS 30039 interviewof 29 April 2010). The Goethe Institute offers language courses at CEFR levelA1, which usually consist of 160 UE with a duration of 45 minutes per UE12The institute’s networks and the licensee’s networks were extended. The test centres inTurkey were also extended from three to eight (soon to be nine); in addition, eight testcentres were established in Morocco (WS 30039 interview of 29 April 2010).This is an automated filename of the WS 300-M Digital Recorder Olympus.

and last for about two or more months, depending on the frequency of theteaching units. In order to fulfil language requirements for the subsequentmigration of spouses, it is not important how – independently or as part ofthe course – the spouse has achieved basic oral and written language abilityin German.14The ‘StartDeutsch 1’test requires payment of a fee. It is offered by theGoethe Institute and telc GmbH jointly. It consists of a written individual ex-amination and an oral examination in a group. Two testers evaluate the testachievements. The tasks of the language test are action-oriented and involveall four language skills. The written examination lasts 65 minutes and con-tains listening, reading and writing. The oral examination lasts approxi-mately 15 minutes and is taken in a group: each candidate has to introducehimself, provide information and ask for information, as well as make a re-quest and respond to it. The maximum number of test candidates in thegroup oral examination is four. Every task in the oral examination is compli-cated and involves several cognitive operations: test candidates have tocommunicate basic information about their name, age, country, address, ac-tive working languages, profession and hobby. They also have to be able tospell their names and to deal fluently with numbers. Every task should be in-troduced with a sample. Furthermore, the appropriate situational use of lin-guistic means is decisive. This means the candidate’s knowledge of certaineveryday situations in Germany in which they know how to react linguisti-cally. That means that candidates must be familiar with text types such assigns, posters, catalogues, e-mails, postcards, and similar forms. They mustalso possess specific information about the country, culture and everydaylife. To pass the test, the candidates must score 60 points.15ProofsThe statutory condition of being able to communicate in German at a basiclevel corresponds in practice to the definition of CEFR level A1 (BRat-Drs.669/09, p. 246, BTag-Drs. 16/5065, p. 311). Proof of language ability is basi-cally led in the visa procedure. Nevertheless, proof of the language acquisi-tion is not required if it is evident from a personal conversation that thespouse possesses German language ability at least at level A1 (BRat-Drs.669/09, p. 248). Level A1 is the lowest level of proficiency. It includes all four14The ‘place of language acquisition’ is of particular importance for ethnic German appli-cants. Since 1996, they have had to demonstrate German language knowledge that hasbeen acquired in a family and is sufficient for basic communication in German in an in-terview (Anhörung) organised in the country of origin (Seveker 2008: 199).It is to be emphasised here that the test of language acquisition for dependants of ethnicGermans (Aussiedler) is also based on the directives of the ‘StartDeutsch 1’test. If theyhave non-German spouses aged 60 and over or descendants aged 14-16, knowledge ofthe German language at a reduced level of 52 points is accepted as adequate (Seveker2008: 211).

basic language skills (listening, speaking, reading and writing). Proof of so-cietal knowledge16before entering Germany is not required. It is differentfrom granting a settlement permit, or the naturalisation procedure.Costs of the (preparation for the) testAccording to the Goethe Institute, the amount of the test fee is adapted to thelocal conditions, to cover the costs of management and administration of thetest (WS 30039 interview of 29 April 2010). Moreover, no allowances aremade. Internal test candidates pay reduced fees; internal test candidates arepeople who have taken part in a language course at the Goethe Institute. Insome countries, internal test candidates have only to pay the course fee andare exempt from the test fee (to some extent in Turkey). A reduced fee is re-quired in few countries to retake the test: The test fee in Kenya amounts to5,000 KSh (approximately €50) for internal test candidates (3,500 KSh for re-takes) and 6,500 KSh for external test candidates (5,000 KSh for retakes); thefee for the test preparatory course at level A1 amounts to 2,000 KSh (ap-proximately €18, situation on 6 July 2010). No language courses are offered inIraq, the test fee here is 200 USD (approximately €135). The test fee in Syriaamount to 3,500 SYP (approximately €58) for internal candidates and 4,500SYP for external candidates. The test fee in Bangkok (Thailand) is 2,500 THB.The course fee in Turkey is normally 990 TL (approximately €490) and thetest fee (e.g. in Istanbul) 140 TL (approximately €68, external) and 120 TL(approximately €60, internal). Payment by instalment is possible at theGoethe Institute of Ankara.Spouses have to acquire the required language skills at their own ex-pense. The test fee at the Goethe Institute in Germany does not differ consid-erably from the fee abroad. Internal test candidates at the Goethe Institute inGermany should pay €60 for the test (external €80). A higher test fee of €150is due at telc GmbH (situation on 6 July 2010). A standard fee of €60 may benormally charged for issuing visas (Section 46AufenthV).The costs for an immigrant from Turkey, for example, in order to fulfilthe integration requirement for admission amount to €610 (€490 course fee,€60 test fee and €60 visa fee).The visa may not be granted if a spouse has not passed the language testbefore entry. Therefore, it is not possible to enter the Federal territory. Thetest can be repeated unlimited times. This does not imply legal consequencesfor the affected parties. However, it does imply high financial costs and along period of separation. The language certificate issued by the Goethe In-stitute does not expire. Nevertheless, the Goethe Institute emphasises that16The TGD offers orientation courses for spouses who live mostly in the eastern areas ofTurkey and throughout Turkey and wish to join a spouse in Germany. The aim of thesecourses is to improve the integration of Turkish families in Germany (WS 30029 inter-view of 25 April 2010).

2.1.2 Purpose of the TestThe language test was introduced with reference to non-compulsory restric-tions of the Family Reunification Directive, pursuant to the Act on the Im-plementation of the Directives of the EU on the Right of Residence and Asy-lum that came into force on 28 August 2007. Although there is no direct rela-tionship, the Directive constituted the ‘folio of new rules’ (Kreienbrink &Rühl 2007).The debate showed the clear influence of the politics of other countries:in the legal policy debate about the restrictions on the reunification ofspouses, reference was made to the integration requirements of the neigh-bouring country and it was pointed out that Denmark and the Netherlandshad had ‘positive experiences’ with raising the age limit for spouses. Thelanguage test was also extended to spouses of Germans. However, an explicitdistinction between Germans, or a special legal justification of Germans asopposed to third-country nationals, is lacking in terms of restrictions. The re-strictions initially apply to both. Although the restrictions on the family re-unification of spouses are phrased neutrally in the wording of the law andapply to reunification with German nationals as well as foreign nationals,they are meant to avoid the situation where Turks, in particular, who holdtraditional values and who are living here, bring very young wives uninflu-enced by Western values from their country of origin to Germany. This objec-tive is the direct result of the Explanatory Memorandum as far as it argues infavour of application of the language requirement for third-country nation-als. According to this, the language requirements are geared towards certainnaturalised immigrants on the assumption of a certain ‘family concept of theaffected groups’: They are justified by promoting or demanding integration(through language), protection from forced marriages and violations of hu-man rights as well as the protection of the social welfare state (BT-Drs.16/5065 of 23 April 2007, pp. 307-314).17This objective is the result of the17The position of German law regarding Germans with a migration background becomeseven clearer in the justification of economic discrimination, which was introduced withrespect to family reunification with Germans. Concerning the requirements guarantee-ing subsistence, a decisive factor is whether it is possible to build family unity in the→

regulation system after the deduction of numerous exceptions concerninghighly skilled persons, researchers or self-employed persons and, in the caseof permanent residence status, of the sponsor, or in the interests of close eco-nomic relations with certain countries (see 2.1.1).Protection from forced marriages through the introduction of the lan-guage test before entry was crucial in public debates and the media. This led,above all, to the death of the young Kurd, Hatun Sürücü, in the spring of2005, a victim of a so-called ‘honour killing’ after the separation of a forcedmarriage.18In public discussions in Germany, forced marriage is often de-fined a human rights question (Ratia & Walter 2009). The participants in thepublic debates on forced marriages are intellectuals (such as philosophers),politicians, and women’s rights advocates with a Turkish background. Biele-feldt and Folmar-Otto, both philosophers at the DIMR (German Institute forHuman Rights) and leaders of intellectual debates on the multicultural soci-ety, and the Berlin NGO Papatya for migrant women, stress that forced mar-riage is a breach of human rights.One can consider the introduction of forced marriage as a specific offencein 2005 as the first legal outcome of this debate.19Since then, the debates havemostly focused on how to prevent forced marriages in the area of migrationlaw, especially through the two new additional entry requirements – theminimum age as well as a basic knowledge of the language prior to entry –for spouses of third-country nationals and Germans. By this time, the formerred-green Government had been followed in 2005 by the new coalition part-ners CDU/CSU and SPD. Afterthepresentation ofthe official draft of theRLUmsG by the Government on 28 March 2007, numerousexperts, officials oftheBundesländer,NGOs, migrant organisations as well as representatives of thechurches, gave their statements in a session of the Bundestag in May 2007.20On the

country of origin of a spouse. The law makes a distinction between German nationals:in future, family reunification cannot only be denied to third-country nationals but alsoto Germans if the sponsor cannot guarantee a sufficient income (cf. Section 28, par. 1,sentences 2-4 Residence Act). The former privilege for spouses of a German ceases toapply. Pursuant to the Explanatory Memorandum, ‘special circumstances’ exist for per-sons of whom matrimonial cohabitation abroad can reasonably be expected. This espe-cially concerns holders of dual citizenship with regard to the country whose nationalitythey possess in addition to German nationality, or Germans who have lived andworked for a fairly long time in the spouse’s country of origin and who speak the lan-guage of this country (BRat-Drs. 224/07, p. 293 f.).TheTerre des femmesGerman organisation has already drawn particular attention to theproblem through various campaigns since 2002.Political parties, such as the SPD and the CDU/CSU, have also argued for banningforced marriages in their election programme’s for the Bundestag elections of 2005.See the materials: http://fluechtlingsinfo-berlin.de/fr/gesetzgebung/2_AendG.html#mozTocId858737. The hearing of the Committee on Internal Affairs in March 2006 was simi-→

one hand, therewas strong disagreement concerning the constitutional con-formity of the provisions, criticised for example by the German Institute forHuman Rights,Verband binationaler Familien und Partnerschaften(iaf),Deutscher Juristinnenbund(djb), Jesuit Refugee Service, Amnesty Interna-tional, TGD or German Bar Association (DAV). On the other hand, alterna-tive measures with more of a trend towards victim protection have been de-bated. The green party (Bündnis90/DieGrünen)and human rights organisa-tions proposed a further enhancement or establishment of protective provi-sions, especially the right to return after six months in cases of forced mar-riage where the right of residence has expired in the foreign country (Sect. 51AufenthG).21Other critics argue that the phenomenon of forced marriageneeds more research before the introduction of legal measures. In the view ofthe Ministry of the Interior these alternatives are an invitation to abuse andthe preventive concept of the official draft is more favourable.22In spite ofnumerous statements in the legal procedure, the language requirement en-tered into force in 2007.Finally, in the Explanatory Memorandum much emphasis was alsoplaced on protection from forced marriages in terms of human rights. Ac-cording to the Explanatory Memorandum, in-law families use the lack of theGerman language ability deliberately or indirectly to prevent the victim(usually female) from having an independent social life. The legislator arguesthat the obligation to attend the integration course after entering Germanyshould not apply equally because of the time delay before the beginning ofthe course and the process of language learning, while the victim would besubjected to the will of the family-in-law. Besides, German language learningwould be possible in the country of origin and guarantees (result-oriented)successful language acquisition. The regulation would have a more preven-tive effect than the attendance obligation after arrival in Germany. Educatedmen and women would be more unattractive, according to the family con-cept of affected circles, and would be difficult to ‘control’, which is allegedlysignificant for those applying force. A basic command of the language wouldalso be imparted by this education (BRat-Drs. 224/07, pp. 298f.). In general,the Courts also accept these arguments.23The Goethe Institute collects the data on language tests within the con-text of subsequent migration of spouses. The ‘test centres’ are the Goethe In-stitutes and the German Diplomatic Missions. An evaluation report on the

practices for demonstrating language ability has been prepared by the Fed-eral Foreign Office, the Federal Ministry of Internal Affairs and the FederalGovernment Commissioner for Migration, Refugees and Integration (BTag-Drs. 17/3019 of 24 September 2010).Effects of the TestStatisticsA downward trend in visas granted for spouses becomes obvious after theintroduction of the proof of the language ability as a condition for admissionin 2007 (cf.8. Lagebericht 2010:469). The comparison of the visas issued beforethe amended legislation with visas issued after the legal amendment resultedin a decrease of 25% for the reference period, in general (BTag-Drs. 16/13978,p. 1), and of about 35 to 42% (BTag-Drs. 16/10215) in four main countries oforigin (Turkey, Kosovo, Russia and Thailand), and of about 38% only in Tur-key (BTag-Drs. 16/13678, p. 1).The quarterly comparison of visa statistics in 2009 shows an irregulardevelopment. An increase in visas issued of about 2.91% is evident from7,825 visas issued in the first quarter to 8,053 visas granted in the secondquarter and an increase of approximately 12.1% to 9,027 visas issued in thethird quarter (BTag-Drs. 16/13978, p. 2; BTag-Drs. 17/194, p. 2). In the fourthquarter of 2009, the number of visas issued amounted to 8,289. Therefore, itwas lower than in the previous quarter (BTag-Drs. 17/1112, p. 2).Table 2.1: Family Reunification of Spouses 2007-2009 (main countries of origin)I/2007TurkeyKosovoRussian Fed.ThailandMoroccoIndiaChinaBosnia Herz.SerbiaTunisiaMacedoniaKazakstanUkraineVietnamIranWeltweit25839177314994122771942722182201811841571741579449II/200723148687755303583275332572052321702001531691549267III/200720687136644333263111902263052011831601461511228603IV/2007673313468191161288201158160931161051531041125147I/20081405413453266268380167150184138133431791191106458II/200817786314773293294462322362551551441052291131087771III/200820038505403833544192602192181511531182621381468445IV/200817007945473543383932632062142091471142541401578093I/20091798732419340262469278169173194144832001341117825II/20091714615494353322450269177173156155892281311438053III/20091771809609294436466281198210191181972561561549027IV/20091622693635338393380258203158161129932441461338289

In 2008, 30,767 visas as part of the subsequent migration of spouses weregranted and 33,194 similar visas in 2009 (ibid.). This means a general increaseof about 7.89% over the whole year 2009. Generally, a downward trend in vi-sas has become obvious between 2002 and 2006. In 2002, 64,021 visas weregranted and 39,585 in 2006 or before the relevant law amendment. Its causecan be found in the accession of ten new Member States (BTag-Drs. 16/13978,p. 3). A sample comparison with the figures for spouses who entered Ger-many at municipal level – e.g. in Munich – also shows a clear decrease be-tween 2006 and 2008 of on average about 41% (from 4,725 to 2,795); note inparticular 34% in cases of the subsequent migration of the spouse of a Ger-man and 45% for family reunification with a foreigner. From the municipalofficials’ point of view, this decrease is related to the introduction of the lan-guage tests before entry as well as to the accession of Romania and Bulgaria.Without the observed avoidance cases, the decrease would have been evenmore significant (WS 30038 interview of 28 April 2010). Entering Germany ona Visitor’s Visa to learn German in the country and subsequently applyinghere for family reunification is only an example of bypassing the tests abroad(ibid.).Since the amendment in August 2007, the number of tests at the GoetheInstitute abroad has risen rapidly within a very short time. According to theGoethe Institute, the number of the test candidates has decreased from 60,111in 2008 to approximately 45,242 in 2009 (situation on 9 April 2010). TheGoethe Institute explained this by the fact that some of those affected becamestuck because of the introduction of new language requirements (WS 30039interview of 29 April 2010). The success rate24was to 59% (54% external and73% internal test candidates25) in 2008 and to 64% (61% external and 74% in-ternal test candidates) in 2009 (data from the Goethe Institute, situation on 9April 2010). In this respect, a clear increase in the number of the external testcandidates who passed the test is noticeable. On the one hand, this is pre-sumably related to the attendance of future spouses at language courses inGermany, who had given a different purpose for their stay in Germany, inthe visa procedure, than language acquisition or family reunification. Theteachers interviewed in this study emphasised an increase in interest in the24Interestingly, the data on the success rate in 2008 provided by the Goethe Institute(situation on 9 April 2010) did not coincide with those in the printed papers from theBundestagfor the same period (situation on 13 March 2009). The comparison of the suc-cess rates in 2008 with those in 2009 given in the printed papers from theBundestagshows a decrease from 66% (BTag-Drs. 16/3978, p. 13) to 64% (61% externally (in thiscase a stagnation) and 78-74% internally). This reduces the validity of success rates andcan (presumably) be explained by technical problems concerning the data collection,which currently mean that the data on the retakes have not yet been collected by theGoethe Institute.Internal test candidates are people who have taken part in a language course at theGoethe Institute.

language course at level A1 in Germany (WS 30044 interview of 30 April2010, WS 30056 interview of 20 May 2010). Language courses for self-supporting participants at levels A1.1 and A1.2 were offered on request inStuttgart. To some extent, Serbian citizens have taken part in these courses inorder to return subsequently to Belgrade to take the test there. Moreover, itshould be pointed out that external possibilities for learning German inde-pendently are also available on the Internet or by attending a languagecourse given by private providers in the country of origin, for whom the testbefore entry makes the market attractive because of interest from spouses in-tending to live together in Germany as a couple.On the other hand, the increase in the number of the external test candi-dates who had passed the language test before entry is also dependent on‘test tourism’, as migrant advisory services referred to this trend (WS 30023interview of 16 March 2010). According to the Goethe Institute, the fact thatthe test candidates made their first attempt, for example in Albania, and theirsecond attempt in Macedonia, makes it difficult to collect data on retakes.‘There are rumours concerning the tests that it is easier to pass the test in onestate than in another. We usually prove this if it becomes known. We inspectthe institutes and carry out audits. So, there may be a difference with regardto external conditions, but the test itself corresponds closely to uniform stan-dards’ (WS 30039 interview of 29 April 2010). With this ‘test tourism’ inmind‚ a special regulation was introduced by the Goethe Institutes in Alba-nia, Kosovo and Macedonia, specifying that these countries’ nationals shouldbe tested in the country of origin (ibid.).Looking at the statistics for success rates, the situation is different, it ismore of a rising trend from 59% in 2008 (54% externally and 80% internally)to 65% in 2009 (61% externally and 81% internally) in 15 main countries oforigin (ibid.). This is an indication of a clear increase, looking at the successrate in Turkey, from 60% in 2008 (92% internally and 57% externally) to 68%in 2009 (92% internally and 64% externally) (data from the Goethe Institute,situation on 9 April 2010). This is (presumably) related to the improved di-dactic aspects of language learning at the Goethe Institute26abroad and theactivities of the TGD in Turkey. On the one hand, a detailed comparison ofthe success rates in the main countries of origin shows that the internal can-didates usually perform better in the test before entry than in the external

test. On the other hand, there is no indication of a constant increase in thesuccess rates for internal candidates. This can be illustrated by the successrates in Macedonia, which were 99% in 2008 and 85% in 2009 (internally).Moreover, an analysis of available statistics shows that available figures cancurrently provide only limited reliable data for evaluating the effects of thetest for entry27from outside Germany.SelectionFrom the migrant advisory services’ point of view, the test before entry con-stitutes a form of selection because it is regarded as an obstacle only for a cer-tain population group with regard to origin, level of education and languagelearning experiences: ‘Only men and women who can read and write maymarry de facto’ (WS 30027 interview of 14 April 2010). From the teachers’point of view, the test format is an obstacle for a certain population group aswell (WS 30038 interview of 28 April 2010 and WS 30044 interview of 30April 2010). To some extent, the distinction is blurred between CEFR levelsA1 and A2, which can be recognised through the use of text types and is anadditional difficulty for test candidates, e.g., it causes problems when dealingwith a written task. The tasks of the test are related to living situations inGermany, which are unfamiliar to the test candidates abroad. It makes thelanguage standards more difficult because not only language ability, but alsocertain cultural patterns must be demonstrated by the test (WS 30025 inter-view of 9 April 2010 and WS 30048 interview of 5 May 2010 with a Thaiwoman, 26 eyars old), it is ‘a sort of colonial education’ (WS 30027 interviewof 14 April 2010) if, for example, a Thai woman has to explain snow or activi-ties within associations in Germany during the test, with which she is notfamiliar (ibid.).Which part of the test is the most difficult?From the immigrants’ point of view, listening is the most difficult disciplinein the test abroad. The spoken language in the recordings for the test and thespeech of officials in the Diplomatic Mission is regarded as rapid. To someextent, migrants explain the high number of retakes by the fact that the test27Furthermore, looking at the statistics for the success rates in the tests before entry, dataare also available for the success rates of the ‘StartDeutsch 1’test candidates collected in2009 in Finland, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Japan, Canada, New Zealand, Norway,Portugal, Scotland, Sweden and Uruguay (situation on 9 April 2010). There are no dif-ferentiated data on the test candidates to explain the participation of this populationgroup in the test before entry. It mainly concerns a small number of test candidates. Thelanguage ability of Union citizens does not have to be demonstrated in family reunifica-tion. This means that changes caused by the rulings in the Metock case do not seem tohave reached every country. Besides, it is interesting to note here that success rates havebeen optimum in the countries mentioned above as well as in Singapore, Sudan andUruguay.

candidates do not pass the listening part of the test or they sit the test with-out being prepared for it. The Goethe Institute also confirms that somespouses intending to migrate to Germany register for the test to learn moreabout it without being prepared (WS 30039 interview of 29 April 2010). ‘Na-ive perceptions’ by the immigrants with regard to language learning thatpersist after admission to Germany, when course participants assume thatthe language can be learned automatically without making any attemptwhile the learner is regularly present on the course, can be also recognised inthe language courses abroad (WS 30056 interview of 20 May 2010). Further-more, it is remarkable that teachers abroad as well as teachers of integrationcourses in Germany have to motivate the participants, not only regarding thepurpose of the law concerning the subsequent migration of spouses but also,to some extent, regarding language learning in the obligatory integrationcourses (ibid, WS 30039 interview of 29 April 2010).FraudThe Goethe Institute had to address its efforts not only to language teaching,but also to safety measures in some countries. ‘A virtual industry was builtup – with brand-name ball pens, headscarves and walkie-talkies, as well aspassport forgeries. Teachers and course participants have been threatened’(ibid.). There have been cases of avoidance as well as attempts at fraud. Toimprove identity controls, registration for the test takes place in person andon a different day from the test itself. It is seen as a burden by those affectedbecause of distances to the examination location and the financial expense(WS 30027 interview of 14 April 2010). For an unknown reason, the oral ex-amination also takes place, in some cases, for instance in Egypt, three dayslater than the written examination (WS 30025 interview of 20 May 2010). Inaddition, an applicant’s fingerprints can be checked during the visa proce-dure in some countries – West Africa, Nigeria or Guinea – to identify the per-son in the light of apparently false statements about a previous stay in Ger-many.Furthermore, the uncertain source of documents, such as in Nigeria, con-stitutes serious problems in the visa procedure, let alone in demonstratinglanguage ability. ‘The issue of documents and certificates is not based ondocuments that are registered there, but hearsay. The result of this is differ-ent spelling variations and doubts concerning authenticity. However, thedocument can also be authentic, but with the wrong content. Real life is notstraightforward and people get stuck at the edges and corners’ (WS 30025 in-terview of 9 April 2010). The visa procedure is repeatedly criticised in that itlacks transparency and constitutes, in addition, a tripwire.Test abroad: are the goals achieved?The purpose of the test is to promote integration and to provide protectionfrom forced marriages. Not only teachers of integration courses, but also mi-

grant advisory services and migrants regard the courses as positive but seethe costs and efforts involved in the test as a burden for those affected. Onthe one hand, those affected as well as the municipal officials in Germanyview the possibility of learning German through courses abroad as positivebecause a basic command of the language may help the persons involved tomake purchases by themselves, to ask questions independently and makesthe newly arrived immigrants more self-confident (WS 30045 interview of 30April 2010 with a migrant woman from Turkey, 22 years old, a woman fromKenia (24 Jahre alt) and a migrant woman from China (23 years old) and WS30054 interview of 17 May 2010). A migrant woman from Turkey inter-viewed in Stuttgart was graded at a level higher than A1 at the VHS on ac-count of her present language ability in German. In her opinion, this was in-dicative of the quality of the courses in Turkey. On the other hand, migrantsand migrant advisory services have repeatedly closed the discrepancy be-tween what is demanded and the knowledge that those involved actuallypossess after the test abroad. ‘I do not think it is good because people do notspeak German after passing the test’ (WS 30055 interview of 20 May 2010with a migrant from Egypt, 30 years old). Some of the immigrants inter-viewed failed the test several times. Several of the migrants interviewed tookpart not only in the German language courses at the Goethe Institute but alsoin private German classes, e.g., in Egypt and Kenya. None of the interviewedmigrants emphasised that the language requirements for the subsequent mi-gration of spouses were easy to fulfil.The fulfilment of language requirements is associated with strenuous ef-fort, psychological burdens, partner stress and family stress: ‘Many peopleare at breaking point over it, which means that I give these couples adviceabout family reunification and then transfer them to my colleague in the de-partment of separation and divorce’ (WS 30025 interview of 9 April 2010).From the migrant advisory services’ point of view, this regulation reinforcesthe imbalance of power between women and men and makes a wife emo-tionally and financially dependent on her husband. It was quite incompre-hensible to all the interviewees how the language test could prevent forcedmarriages. Migrants, their spouses and migrant advisory services have re-peatedly felt that the language test does not prevent forced marriages, butdoes select or prevent entry from outside Germany: ‘A mixed marriage wasonce forbidden, today, it can be prevented or broken’ (WS 30048 interview of5 May 2010). ‘We often had dramatic cases; a girl in Afghanistan had to go toKabul, through enemy territory, not only to take the course, but also to applyfor a visa. Then she was smuggled across the border. *<+ We will not get agrasp of the problem of forced marriages through measures provided pro-vided for in the migration law’ (WS 30039 interview of 28 April 2010). Ac-cording to the evaluation of the government however, teachers abroad hadnoticed in some cases that women deliberately failed the examination in or-der to avoid a forced marriage in Germany (BTag-Drs. 17/3090, p. 5).

The fact that spouses willing to migrate to Germany for family reunifica-tion can be repeatedly controlled by the visa procedure based on their lan-guage ability is perceived by those affected individuals as trickery and arbi-trary measures on the part of the authorities. The Diplomatic Mission provesthe authenticity and the correct content of documents suitable for an applica-tion, including proof of language ability on the basis of the lists of partici-pants issued by the test centres and asks them for a statement if there are anydoubts. If there are considerable doubts about the correctness of the languagecertificate in the visa procedure, the language ability of the applicant can beproved in a basic conversation in German (BTag-Drs. 17/1112). Those af-fected were asked, at the Embassy in Thailand, for example, what colourtheir blouse was and they had to write down their name and address despitehaving passed the language test (WS 30027 interview of 14 April 2010). Therewere also complaints about spouses who had migrated to Berlin and weretested by the Foreigner’s Authority a second time (WS 30023 interview of 16March 2010). These administrative procedures and costs on the part of theauthorities, as well as the efforts made and expenses incurred by those af-fected would appear to be disproportionate to a low success rate, taking intoaccount the statements of the teachers in Germany.Most of the teachers of integration courses interviewed as part of thisstudy considered that the output of the language test before entry is low andthe costs for those involved are high. Generally, the teachers in Germany donot regard the results of the language test at level A1 as significant because ofdifferences in the language ability at the first level of proficiency: ‘[the resultof the language assessment test in Germany] is very low, although the par-ticipants had passed the language test abroad. As a rule, they decline a littlebit’ (WS 30044 from 30 April 2010). ‘The tests at levels A1 and A2 contributenothing. Since the introduction of the ‘Deutschtestfür Zuwanderer’(DTZ),other tests are dispensable’ (WS 30047 interview of 5 May 2010). ‘Many par-ticipants are only present, they do not say a lot, they can do nothing, andthey say proudly that they passed the test at level A1. They have a certaindegree of trust in the test; they also do not want to be graded in spite of theirobvious lack of language ability’ (WS 30056 interview of 20 May 2010). Amore or less clear line of reasoning is also adopted by migrant advisory ser-vices in Germany interviewed for this study. They do not question that mi-grants must learn the German language; however, they have spoken outagainst the fact that this is bound to the tests in the visa procedure. From themigrant advisory services’ point of view, attendance of the language courseat the Goethe Institute constitutes the best preparation for the test in terms ofquality. The fact that more language courses have been offered and teachershave been trained does not change the regulation governing the languagetest before entry and considered absurd by the migrant advisory services(WS 30025 interview of 9 April 2010). From the migrant advisory services’point of view, it is incomprehensible that those affected have to learn by rote

to pass the test. This practice explains, to some extent, the different languageabilities of spouses who migrated to Germany after passing the test abroad(WS 30027 interview of 14 April 2010 and WS 30029 interview of 15 April2010). A Thai woman residing regularly in Germany founded a private lan-guage school in Thailand, in which an obvious drill is used to prepare thecourse participants for the test (WS 30048 interview of 5 May 2010). In addi-tion, the fact that a visitor’s visa could not be granted, in some cases, meantthat some of those affected felt compelled to marry. The refusal of visa appli-cations to some extent forces quick decisions about getting married or proc-esses of corruption. Reasons for the refusal of a visa application in Germanyhave only been required since April 2011. Those interviewed explained therefusal of their application because of doubts about their readiness to returnto the country of origin. The visa applications of citizens from African coun-tries and Turkey have been most frequently refused (Guinea 54%, Turkey20%28). A person in Thailand whose visa application was refused by the em-bassy was offered the opportunity to move to Germany via the Netherlands.This method of entering Germany would have cost her up to €600 instead ofthe regular visa fee. According to her information, she would have had topay €1,000 for the direct route into Germany (ibid.).In summary, integration assistance through language courses is an ad-vantage. The causal connection between the proof of language ability and theclaim to family reunification is a problem. However, it is not possible tojudge whether the test protects those affected from forced marriages. Thepractice of taking the test before entry makes it clear that the regulation has aselective effect and is associated with an invasion of the private family life.The inferior position of Germans compared to EU CitizensThe language test before entry, cases of suspected fake marriage and the re-quirements of sufficient earnings have the potential to be an obstacle to fam-ily reunification. On the one hand, the procedure shows that the position ofnaturalised Germans as well as native polyglot Germans is inferior to that ofGermans who are native and not multilingual, with regard to handling of theeconomic situation. On the other hand, the position of Germans that is infe-rior to EU citizens whose spouses are not subjected to the language test canbe also considered: ‘I did not understood it, why I am suddenly in a minor-ity?’ (WS 30048 interview of 5 May 2010). To avoid the language test beforeentry, Germans take up temporary residence in a European neighbouringcountry in order to enable the subsequent migration of a spouse as an EUcitizen without ‘official red tape’ or the spouse can avoid the language test asa condition for admission, e.g. through pregnancy because the parents of aGerman child do not have to take the German language test before entry.

JurisprudenceThe compatibility of the new language requirements before entry with supe-rior rules of law (Article 3 of the Basic Law, the Family Reunification Direc-tive and Article 8 ECHR) is still very controversial in the literature29and isincreasingly a subject of legal proceedings. The Federal Administrative Courthanded down the first ruling on 30 March 2010 (Reference no. 1 C 8.09). TheFederal Administrative Court of Germany confirmed that the regulation iscompatible with the Constitution, the Family Reunification Directive and theEMRK Article 8. The consideration involving the principles of proportional-ity is central here. The Higher Administrative Court of Berlin-Brandenburg(OVG) argued in its ruling of 28 April 2009 (Reference no. 2 B 6.08) regardingfamily reunification with a German. Moreover, it ruled that the proof of lan-guage ability would not be limited to the appropriate certificate, issued bythe Goethe Institute or its cooperating partners, but can also be demonstratedin another way. In the mean time, the Foreign Office envisages, in appropri-ate regulations, that proof can be also produced by other means; in cases in-volving applicants whose required language ability is obvious, it can beproved by a personal conversation with a consular employee. The embassiesand consulates should also accept the application upon request if the lan-guage certificate is not attached (cf.8. Lagebericht2010: 478). In addition, theissues of inferior treatment in cases of family reunification with Germanscompared to EU citizens are dealt with by the courts (regarding the conflictas a result of so-called ‘reverse discrimination’ see Walter, 2008). Until now,the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany has not commented on this.However, the invalid application of language requirements in the family re-unification of EU citizens’ spouses that had initially been practised waschanged as a consequence of the judgment of the European Court of Justiceon 25 May 2008 in the ‘Metock’ case (Case C-127/08, cf.8. Lagebericht2010:475).

The entitlement to an integration course, which is envisaged for both spon-sor30and dependants, was first introduced in 2004.31It commences with the29Critically: cf. Huber,Die geplante ausländerrechtliche Pflicht zur Teilnahme an Integration-skursen,Barwig & Davy (eds.),Auf dem Weg zur Rechtsgleichheit?,2004, pp. 250 ff., Mark-ard & Truchseß, NVwZ 2007, pp. 1025 ff., Kingreen, ZAR 2007, pp. 13 f., Fischer-Lescano, KJ 2006, pp. 236 ff.; DIMR in the statement of January, 2006; Funke-Kaiser, In-fAuslR 1/2010, pp. 9 ff. as well as Gutmann, ZAR 2010, pp. 90 ff. Different from, e.g.:Hillgruber, C., ZAR 2006, pp. 304 (308 f.).Pursuant to section 44, no. 1 a) and c) Residence Act, this relates to residents for thepurposes of their economic activity as well as residents on humanitarian grounds. TheDirectives Implementation Act also includes mobile long-term residents (d).

first issue of the residence permit. Exceptions are made for children, youthand young adults who have attended a school or continued their school ca-reer in the Federal territory, migrants whose ‘need for integration is discerni-bly minimal’, or for third-country nationals who already possess intermedi-ate language ability in German32. The entitlement becomes an attendance ob-ligation if the third-country national is not able to communicate in German atthe basic level and applies correspondingly to the spouses of Germans or of athird-country national who are not in possession of a sufficient command ofthe language33. According to the concept of sustainable integration, all for-eigners are considered admitted to an integration course if they fulfil the re-quirements of lawful, permanent residence and in order to promote theirown integration efforts.

2.2.1 Description of the TestTarget groupsNumerous critical opinions of the integration course in 2005-2006 led to sub-stantial changes as well as the new Ordinance on Integration Courses in 2007.Firstly, cases of obligation or admission to an integration course were ex-tended. Now, institutions in charge of the basic state insurance for applicantsfor social security benefits pursuant to the Code of Social Law (SGB II) canalso force migrants to attend the integration course because of the inclusionof the integration course in the agreement on integrating the individual intoemployment (Section 44a, par. 1, sentence 1 no. 2 and sentence 3, ResidenceAct). Secondly, test attendance was written into the Ordinance on IntegrationCourses of 5 December 2007; a general aim concerning attendance of an inte-gration course as well as preparation of candidates for the test was intro-duced as an integral part of the course in practice in order to raise the successrate (Section 14, par. 5, Ordinance on Integration Courses, new version).Thirdly, the aim of successful course completion is currently explicitly estab-lished in the law (Section 43, par. 4, Residence Act). This will ensure in thefuture that more participants pass the final test. In the future, test attendanceis also expected to increase even further. With the entry into force of the Im-migration Act and these regulations of the Residence Act, the task of officialsof Foreigners’ Authority is not to prove language ability within the context ofgranting permanent residence status, but to prove who should be obligedand who should be given permission for the integration course.313233Section 44, par. 1, no. 1 b) Residence Act.Section 44, par. 3, nos. 2 and 3 Residence Act.Section 44a, par. 1, sentence 1, no. 1 a) and b) Residence Act. The latter point was in-creased as a result of newly-introduced language requirements for spouses before entryby the Directives Implementation Act.

Those who do not possess adequate language ability in German and whoobtained their first residence permit for the purpose of family reunification,as well as Jewish immigrants who usually obtain a settlement permit afterentry and their dependants who hold a residence permit are obliged to par-ticipate in the integration course. The obligation is also acknowledged inother cases of the first-time issue of a residence permit, if the foreigner is notable to communicate in German in a personal conversation without the helpof third parties. Furthermore, third-country nationals who are ‘in specialneed of integration’ can be also obliged to attend the course within theagreement on integrating the individual into employment according to theCode of Social Law (SGB II), regardless of their residence status and thelength of time spent in Germany. The officials establish whether the third-country national is able to communicate in German or not, e.g. during hisfirst personal appearance at the Foreigners’ Authority or if he is unemployedor speaks to the official about his poor knowledge of German.German nationals who do not possess an adequate (intermediate) lan-guage ability (level B1) are also in need of integration if they have not yetsucceeded in integrating into the economic, cultural and social life of theFederal territory without public funds or state assistance (Section 5, par. 3,Ordinance on Integration Courses). However, refugees and foreigners withsubsidiary protection are not in need of integration in accordance with thelaw because of their residence for purposes of an inherently temporary na-ture34. As soon as this population group obtains its first residence permit, en-titlement to the integration course should be also reserved for this populationgroup35. Participation in the integration course may be also envisaged for EUcitizens if places are available on integration courses so that they can be ad-mitted to attend the integration course. The BAMF decides on the admittanceof EU citizens and their dependants who are entitled to freedom of move-ment (Section 11, Freedom of Movement Act and Section 44, par. 4, Resi-dence Act). Long-term residents may not have been obliged to attend the ori-entation course since 2007 if they have already taken part in integrationmeasures in another Member State and this was intended to acquire perma-nent residence pursuant to the Directives Implementation Act (Section 44a,par. 2a).

Persons in possession of a residence permit persuant to Section 25, par. 3, par. 4, sen-tence 2 and par. 5, Residence Act have not been entitled to an integration course yet.The settlement permit for freelance workers who are in possession of the language abil-ity at level B1 can be granted because of their self-employment within the three-yearlimit. Persons entitled to asylum and Convention refugees can obtain a settlement per-mit because they have held a residence permit for three years (Section 25, par. 1 and 2).Persons who migrated on humanitarian grounds obtain a settlement permit becausethey have held a residence permit for the required seven-year period (Section 26,par. 4).

Furthermore, another new aspect is that parents with the sole duty ofcare for minor children living in Germany and in possession of a settlementpermit or residence permit, who are dependent on state assistance and arenot able to communicate in German at a basic level, are accepted as personsin special need of integration and are thus obliged to attend the integrationcourses (Section4, par. 3,Ordinance on Integration Courses). Moreover,one ofthe duties of public agencies should include reporting to the competentForeigners’Authority,pursuant to section 87, par. 2, sentence 2, Residence Act, if they obtainknowledge of a special integration need in accordance with theOrdinance on Inte-gration Courses, within the context of the fulfilment of their duties. Thisregulation was criticised in particular by welfare organisations and unions.From their point of view, schools, for instance, are related to public bodiesand parents could regard the teachers with distrust because of this regula-tion. However, the Foreigners’ Authority is currently criticising the coopera-tion of public bodies that could push forward the integration not only ofadults but also of children. ‘The opinion still prevails that the foreignershould be deported if a complaint can be filed with the Foreigners’ Author-ity’ (WS 30038 interview of 28 April 2010).ExceptionsPermanently disabled persons who are aged 65 and over or persons who areexcluded from the labour market because of the early retirement regulation,are not obliged to participate in the integration course. Foreigners are exemptfrom the course obligation if it is permanently unacceptable for them to at-tend an integration course because of special family-related or personal cir-cumstances, for example, if a person is handicapped or cares for handi-capped dependants. Nevertheless, a permanent hearing or visual impairmentmay not be accepted as a reason for not attending the course. Teaching one’sown children is also not a reason for failing to attend the course; this is a con-sideration in particular in conjunction with the possibility of complementarychildcare assistance.A foreigner may be exempted from the language test and the test of basicknowledge of the legal and social system at the discretion of the authority incharge if a physical, mental or psychological illness or handicap make it im-possible or permanently difficult to meet these requirements. In accordancewith the law, age does not justify an exemption from the requirements. Nev-ertheless, an exemption from the language and societal requirements may begranted if the foreigner was already aged 50 or older when he entered Ger-many or if it was unreasonable or impossible in the long term to attend an in-tegration course because of the dependent’s need for care.Type of testThe integration course consists of a basic language course and an advancedlanguage course amounting to a total of 600 UE, as well as an orientation

course36currently consisting of 45 UE37. The final language test, as well as theorientation course test, have been part of the integration courses since 5 De-cember 2007 and must be completed. Successful participation in the integra-tion course is certified by the BAMF. The ‘ZertifikatIntegrationskurs’will beissued after passing the orientation course test as well as the language test(Section 17, par. 4, Ordinance on Integration Courses). The successful com-pletion of the integration course before the introduction of the new Ordi-nance on Integration Courses was certified by the BAMF with the‘Bescheinigungüber den erfolgreichen Abschluss des Integrationskurses’.TheBAMF issues the ‘Bescheinigungüber das erreichte Ergebnis des Abschlusstestes’following correct participation in the integration course, but unsuccessfulcompletion according to the Residence Act (= B1).The nationally standardised test following the orientation course hasbeen in force since 1 January 2009. The orientation course test was developedby the Institute for Development of Quality in the Training System at theHumboldt University of Berlin and contains 250 tasks that are handled inmodular fashion. Test candidates have to answer at least 13 out of 25 ques-tions correctly in the orientation course test in order to pass.The ‘ZertifikatDeutsch’test was conducted in the integration courses untilJuly 2009. The Goethe Institute and the German Adult Education Associationdeveloped the test at the beginning of the 1970s. The ‘ZertifikatDeutsch’testhas also been conducted in German-speaking countries and worldwide bysimilar directives following revisions to the test at the end of the 1990s, madeby the respective institutions in Austria and Switzerland. The ‘ZertifikatDeutsch’test is a globally-recognised certificate at level B1 that is usually in-tended by German language learners to be their first certificate.The ‘ZertifikatDeutsch’test was replaced by the ‘Deutschtestfür Zuwan-derer’(DTZ) in the integration courses on 1 July 2009. The test was developedby the Goethe Institute and the telc GmbH on behalf of the Federal Ministryof the Interior in the years 2006-2009 and is customised to the special lan-guage requirements of immigrants. The DTZ is a scaled language test at lev-els A2 and B1. The aim of the scaling is to document the language acquisitionachieved in some areas of language competence in a sophisticated manner.The scaling is developed to motivate the participants on the integrationcourse to further language learning. CEFR level A2 does not imply the ‘suc-cessful’ completion of the integration course test according to the law, since itis a condition for the issue of the settlement permit or for naturalisation.Level B1 is required for a settlement permit or naturalisation.From the teachers’ point of view, the levels were grouped together in thenew test to give the participants the chance to confirm their success (WS3637On the planned increase in teaching units from 45 to 60, see section 2.2.2 at the end.The whole integration course can comprise 945 UE in accordance with certain condi-tions at present; the maximum duration is 1,200 UE.

30044 interview of 30 April 2010). Level A2 should be certified as a pass if theparticipant has not yet reached level B1. From the teachers’ point of view, theDTZ test is well-designed and is easier than the ‘ZertifikatDeutsch’test be-cause the written tasks seem to have been reduced. However, it is not yet asfully developed as the former test format. It can be recognised that, ‘the taskformulation is to some extent unclear, everything in the DTZ test is quicker,there is no time for preparation for the oral test, no break, and the test is con-tinuous compared to the ‘ZertifikatDeutsch’test. The DTZ test can still be im-proved a little’ (WS 30047 interview of 5 May 2010).The DTZ test consists of an individual written examination and an oralexamination in a group. It lasts approximately 110 minutes per participant(25 minutes for listening, 45 minutes for reading, 30 minutes for writing andapproximately ten minutes for speaking). Level A2 or B1 is certified accord-ing to the number of the correctly completed tasks. Test candidates who at-tain level B1 at least in speaking and in one of the written tasks should becertified at level B1. The test is carried out in Germany, taking into accountthe uniform standards, and has been validated.A renewed obligation to attend an integration course is not considered,unlike previous practice. However, the foreigner should be required to com-plete the course if he has started attending the integration course but has notcompleted it yet and this is confirmed by the BAMF. Participants in the liter-acy courses have not to pass the no longer binding for them final languagetest since November 2009 if they take the possibility to repeat the advancedlanguage course up to 300 UE. The possibility to repeat the advanced lan-guage course was generally limited by the BAMF for all other participants inspring 2010. A participants who has reached level A2, should be permitted torepeat the advanced language course. This change is probimatically for par-ticipants with level below A2 who should not be permitted to repeat the ad-vanced course and are in need of further language promotion.The integration course has aimed to provide intermediate language abil-ity and basic societal knowledge since 2007 (Section 43, par. 2, sentence 2,Residence Act). The lack of a successfully completed integration course isrelevant for the issue of the settlement permit or naturalisation. Nevertheless,sanctions related to the right of residence can be only linked to the lack of‘proper’ participation in the integration course. If the third-country nationalhas not complied with proper participation in the integration course for rea-sons attributable to him, various sanctions are possible by considering certaininformation: ‘recognising’ non-participation related to extension of the resi-dence permit, granting the settlement permit, as well as naturalisation38.Concerning the renewal of the residence permit, it is possible to react with adiscretionary expulsion order to violation of the attendance obligation (not38Section 8, par. 3, 9 par. 2, sentence 1, no. 7 and 8, Residence Act, as well as Section 10,par. 3, Nationality Act.

only as a minor infringement of legal regulations)39. Following a lack of co-operation by a foreigner who has repeatedly and grossly violated the atten-dance obligation, the authority has to justify either ordering him to pay a fineor refusing to extend his residence permit (cf. Section 8, par. 3, sentences 2and 3, Residence Act). Refusing to extend the residence permit is never pos-sible if the foreigner lives in the family home with a German or a nationalfrom another state who cannot, in law or in fact, leave Germany for theircommon country of origin. However, refusal is possible if the foreigner whohas not complied with the proper attendance obligation applies for a settle-ment permit.Moreover, the administrative constraints can be imposed, if necessary,following an infringement: it is possible to impose a fine of up to €1,000 inthe event of violation of the obligation to attend an integration course40.Moreover, there are financial consequences, which were made stricter. In ac-cordance with the former version of 2004, social security benefits were re-duced to foreigners by up to 10% for the duration of the violation of the obli-gation if he was responsible for it. Pursuant to the Code of Social Law (SGBII), these should have been reduced by up to 30% since 2007.41Social securityassistance should be reduced to zero if the recipient of social benefits doesnot follow the official request to participate in an integration course (BTag-Drs. 16/12979).ProofLanguage ability in German at an intermediate level is required for the issueof permanent residence permit. Before the Immigration Act came into force, abasic command of language was proposed as part of the permanent resi-dence permit process; ‘this corresponds today to level A1 and was proved bythe officials in charge and was meant to be sufficient’ (WS 30038 interview of28 April 2010). It involved a simple hearing and simple oral answers. A for-eigner who was in possession of a residence permit or residence status forexceptional purposes before 1 January 2005 was required to have a basic oralcommand of the language and no basic knowledge of the legal or social sys-tem for the purposes of granting the settlement permit (Section 104, par. 2). Itis also still possible to present a certificate of language ability at level B1.Nevertheless, attendance at an orientation course should generally be re-quired in this case in Bavaria (WS 30038 interview of 28 April 2010).

Permanent residence status may be granted in the form of a settlementpermit or EC long-term residence permit.42A migrant who is in possession ofa permanent residence permit not only has the security of being allowed tostay, but also advantages with regard to family reunification, employment,and finding accommodation. The essential difference between the EC long-term residence permit and the settlement permit is the fact that the formerpermit provides those affected with more mobility within and outside theEU. ‘The EC long-term residence permit plays a minor role because it con-cerns people who want to work in other European countries. The conditionsare basically similar and differ only in few respect’ (ibid.). The permanentresidence permit may be granted if the applicant has intermediate languageability and a basic knowledge of the legal and social system. The Foreigners’Authority has to prove that the foreigner has not successfully completed theintegration course (Section 9, par. 2, sentence 2).Societal knowledge usually has to be proved by passing the nationallystandardised orientation course test within the integration course. Proof ofsocietal knowledge is also accepted without taking the test if the foreignercan prove that he has finished German secondary school (Hauptschule), acomparable or an ‘advanced’ German secondary school.The required language ability should generally be regarded as achievedif the foreigner possesses the ‘ZertifikatDeutsch’or has passed the DTZ test atlevel B1, successfully completed at least four classes at a German-speakingschool (and progressed to the following class), finished German general sec-ondary school (Hauptschule) or at least an equivalent German secondaryschool, or if he was moved into the tenth year of an upper German-speakingsecondary school(Realschule, GymnasiumorGesamtschule),if he has beenawarded an academic degree or diploma from a German-speaking universityor University of Applied Sciences or successfully completed vocational train-ing in Germany. If the required language ability is not or not sufficientlydemonstrated by diplomas or certificates, it should be recommended that theforeigner attend a language course. If the Foreigners’ Authority is convinced,during a personal interview, that the foreigner apparently possesses the re-quired language ability, the language test will not be required (BRat-Drs.669/9, p. 98). It was not emphasised within the interviews if this possibilityhas been used in practice yet. Intermediate language ability should be as-sumed if the foreigner is able to communicate on topics covering everydaylife and can carry on a conversation and express himself in writing in accor-dance with his age and educational level.

Costs of preparing for the testIf necessary, the subsidies from the BAMF should cover the costs of travel-ling to the course if the participant is obliged to attend the integration courseby the Foreigners’ Authority (Section 4, par. 4, sentence 2, Ordinance on In-tegration Courses). Participants with an order(Berechtigungsschein43)to attendan integration course (i.e. self-funding participants) have to pay €100 permodule (100 UE). Participants without an order may pay a reduced coursefee (between €200 and €350 per 100 UE). The fee for the orientation course is€45 for participants with an order and €60 without an order (Munich, situa-tion as of May 2010). Recipients of social welfare and unemployment benefitsdo not have to pay for the integration course or the tests within the integra-tion course. The costs for the whole integration course are normally €645. Thecosts for the target group-specific courses are between €945 and €1245 de-pending on UE. Guidelines are set by the examination institutions for testfees; however, the test fees are different in the various federal states: The testfee in Munich for internal candidates is €110; the test fee for external candi-dates is €160 (situation as of May 2010). Self-funding participants have to pay€97 for the test in Brandenburg, applicants for naturalisation pay €78.65. Thefee for the ‘ZertifikatDeutsch’in Osnabrueck is €125. The fee for the ‘ZertifikatDeutsch’in Mainz is €100; it is about €78.65 in cases where the naturalisationprocedure has to be proven.The costs for immigrants to fulfil the integration requirements for thepermanent residence status amount to €85 (the cost of the settlement permit)or €730 (the cost of the settlement permit and the course fee) or at most€1.440 (for the settlement permit, the course fee, and the test fee).On the one hand, analysis of the test format and the language require-ments for residence by immigrants in Germany shows that language coursesare being extended and made available not only to newly-arrived migrants,but also to the so-called ‘long-term residents’ with regard to promotion. Onthe other hand, an obligation to attend the course and to take the test or toprove language ability in order to guarantee the progress made towards in-tegration are required of migrants for the purposes of extending their resi-dence status in Germany. This development will be discussed in the next sec-tion.Purpose of the TestThe Immigration Act 2004, with the new concept of the integration programme, wasagreed on a cross-party basis.The financing of the integration course alone wasthe subject of debates at parliamentary level. It was decided in favour of giv-ing (main) responsibility for funding to the federal government. The centralaim of the integration course is to enable foreigners to act independently as43Der Berechtigungsschein ist amtliches Papier, das dem Migranten sein Recht bestätigt,an Integrationskursen teilzunehmen.

quickly as possible, without state assistance or the mediation of third parties.The aim of the integration course stipulated in the law is to acquaint foreign-ers with the way of life in the Federal territory to such an extent that they canact independently in all areas of daily life. In addition, pursuant to Section43, par. 2, Residence Act, the German language, legal system, culture and his-tory are taught to foreigners [successfully since 2007]. The first two years areconsidered essential in this concept (Michalowski, 2007). Hence, newly-arrived immigrants have a legal basis for attending an integration coursewithin this time.The target group is immigrants whose stay in the Federal territory is nottemporary, which means that they are in possession of a settlement permit ora residence permit for the purposes of employment, for the purposes of fam-ily reunification or on humanitarian grounds. However, the integrationcourse also focuses on so-called sustainable integration and is geared to-wards ‘old immigrants’, which means people who have lived in the Federalterritory for over two years. They should attend the integration course ifplaces are available. Both groups can be also compelled to attend the course:‘old’ immigrants can be requested by the Foreigners’ Authority or the institu-tion in charge of the basic state insurance to attend such a course; new immi-grants can be requested by the Foreigners’ Authority to attend the course ifthey are unable to communicate in oral German at a basic level upon arrival(after the introduction of the language tests abroad in 2007, the same is truefor spouses if they do not possess adequate language ability).The discussion about the integration course was criticised by numerousmigrant organisations and social services. They focused on evaluations andthe underlying effects. Thus, the TGD emphasises the fact that German lan-guage learning and integration cannot be achieved by constraint, but by in-centives. Pro Asyl warned about the nationalisation of the integration policyand its reduction to the integration courses, which may be part of other in-struments of integration policy. Besides, the concrete design of the courseswas criticised44.In spite ofnumerous statements on the legal procedure, theImmigration Act entered into force in 2005.This process, after the introduction of the course concept, is accompaniedby an intensive evaluation. Since then, there has been some debate on theneed for reform of the integration course. Some of the criticism resulted inthe new Ordinance on Integration Courses in 2007. In the same year, legalchanges were made as a result of the RLUmsG (introduction of the languagetests before entry, introduction of the naturalisation test). Evaluations aregiven above all in the following official reports and expert opinions: the inte-44The cost burden for participants with regard to course fees and the costs of travelling tothe course, the number of training units in proportion to the level of language profi-ciency and childcare assistance were criticised, among other things; for further details,see Hentges (2010).

gration courses were evaluated by the BAMF and the results of the languagetests have been determined since 2005. In addition, the Rambøll ManagementConsulting Company evaluated the implementation of the integrationcourses. The final report and the expertise in the potential for improvementin the implementation of the integration courses were published in Decem-ber 2006. Furthermore, it issued opinions in brief on the financing system ofthe integration courses on behalf of the Federal Ministry of the Interior andthe BAMF in December 2009. In addition, the Assessment Commission onthe integration courses was set up by the Federal Office to evaluate the cur-ricula, teaching and learning materials and the contents of the tests and todevelop the quality control procedure as well as the concept of the integra-tion courses on a progressive basis (Section 21, par. 1, Ordinance on Integra-tion Courses45). Working Group 1 ‘Improving the Integration Courses’ sub-mitted its final report on 16 April 2007 to the Federal Ministry of the Interiorwithin the National Integration Plan initiated by the Federal government.Since then, a long-term study has been prepared by the Federal Office: Thisrepresentative longitudinal study has built on the results of the survey ofparticipants, carried out by the Federal Office in 2005, and the evaluation is-sued by the Rambøll Management Company in 2006. Approximately 4,000participants in the integration and literacy courses were interviewed andcompared to a control group in the study at the beginning, at the end, and ayear after completing the course in the period 2007-2010 (8.Lagebericht2010:245).The introduction of the standardised final orientation course test (also)goes back to the recommendations of the Rambøll Company within theevaluation of the language and orientation courses. The test has been justi-fied by the improved and homogeneous measurement of results and im-provements to the course contents (see, for more detail, Hentges, 2010). In theCoalition Agreement of 2009 the increasing number of teaching units in anorientation course (from 45 UE to 60 UE) was explained by the opportunityfor the course graduates ‘to become familiar with how our democratic consti-tutional state functions’.Effects of the TestStatisticsNo quality control is exercised on the language ability of immigrants entitledto attend an integration course not based on results of the tests. The currentnationwide participation rate of immigrants entitled to participate in the in-tegration course is 77% and the course drop-out rate amounts to about 10%(BTag-Drs. 17/194, p. 12). No reliable, differentiated data are available on the45Pursuant to par. 2 the Federal Ministry of the Interior has appointed the members of theAssessment Commission for three years.

immigrants who have not met the obligation to attend an integration course(ibid.). After the highest number of course graduates in 2008, the number ofparticipants newly-entitled to attend the course has fallen to 145,934. Ofthese, 116,052 have begun to attend an integration course; 600,374 personswith a migration background have taken part in the courses since the inte-gration course was introduced (8.Lagebericht2010: 238). According to theBAMF, the current number of people who refused to take part in the integra-tion course is 8-10% (ibid.). Compared to the number of participants in 2007,the proportion of recipients of unemployed benefits in accordance with theSGB II who are entitled to attend an integration course has sharply increasedin recent years. More than half of the attendance obligations were imposedon foreigners with a longer period of stay in Germany (8.Lagebericht2010:239f.).Municipal officials have been able to judge the changes in the languageability of those entitled, beginning in 2010 when immigrants who wereobliged to attend the course applied for permanent residence status afterspending five years in Germany. This means that they have had no means ofproving the figures for this yet. As a rule, the officials estimate the improvedlanguage ability of applicants. According to the officials interviewed as partof the study, it has not been a problem – with a few exceptions – to imple-ment the obligation since the Immigration Act came into force (WS 30039 in-terview of 28 April 2010 and WS 30054 interview of 17 May 2010). Rather,there has been something of a ‘run’ on participation in the language coursesin Munich, regardless of the obligation, whereas teachers of the integrationcourses in Potsdam have had to motivate entitled migrants to learn German:‘I can make them willing to learn only if I am open to methodical approachesand teach them true-to-life. At the moment, I have many English speakers;they usually manage to get by in life because they speak English. It is verydifficult. *<+ It is very difficult to motivate them to take the tests’ (WS 30039interview of 28 April 2010 and WS 30056 interview of 20 May 2010). On theone hand, different perceptions of language courses probably have to dowith employment opportunities for immigrants, which are greater in regionswith a strong economy, such as Bavaria, than in Brandenburg for example.This can be a stronger motivating factor. By externally exerted pressure inregions with economic strength, the courses encourage immigrants to im-prove their integration possibilities, so they gave the municipal officials posi-tive feedback (WS 30039 interview of 28 April 2010). On the other hand, thiscannot be separated from the integration efforts made by the municipalities,which can be additional motivation for the participants and create a climateof integration promotion.Furthermore, the teachers interviewed within the study pointed out thefact that there are no motivation problems in the so-called standard languagecourses, which have been attended optionally by direct fee-payers (WS 30047interview of 30 April 2010). 56.4% of participants have taken part in a course

without being obliged to do so (8.Lagebericht2010: 239). In Munich, the pro-portion of immigrants not entitled to attend the course amounts to 60%: ‘Ifwe look at how many courses have been completed by participants withoutbeing obliged that is a considerable number. There are many voluntary par-ticipants who want to learn without being under pressure. It has alreadybeen successful. The efforts of the participants are remarkable’ (WS 30039 in-terview of 28 April 2010). According to the teachers, the number of courseparticipants in Potsdam and Stuttgart would decrease without imposing theobligation to participate in the integration course, although there would stillbe continued interest in the courses (WS 30056 interview of 20 May 2010, WS30044 interview of 30 April 2010).However, from the municipal officials’ point of view, it is not possible toassess now whether enforced participation in the integration course hasreally improved language ability and whether immigrants have completedthe integration course successfully, although forced to do so, or have justbeen muddling through (ibid.). The teachers have also reported that successrates are always different. On the one hand, from the interviewees’ point ofview, the teachers can train course graduates for the test and can motivatethem, so they play an important role in terms of their success. On the otherhand, the test results are of limited reliability: ‘Passing the examination hasnot resulted in language competence yet’ (WS 30044 interview of 30 April2010). Some participants on the courses in Stuttgart as well as in Potsdam, forinstance, have successfully passed the test at level B1 and have then repeatedthe integration course as voluntary direct fee-payers because their commandof the language was not adequate, or rather not consistent, and a new grad-ing test at level B1 shows that they do not possess intermediate languageability. According to statements by the teachers, the following phenomenonoccurs at the same time: ‘Participants who have completed their moduleshave to fail the DTZ test to obtain further language promotion, so whywould they not want to pass the examination? This must be regulated differ-ently. Course instructors can estimate further participation. Otherwise, it is atorment’ (WS 30047 interview of 5 May 2010). This means that individualparticipants fail the examination for this reason. In 2009, 33,367 persons wereadmitted by the BAMF to retake the course, while 27,174 of them graspedthis opportunity in the same year (8.Lagebericht2010: 242). Since spring 2010,in accordance with a reorganisation by the BAMF, participants may be per-mitted to repeat the advanced language course if they have reached level A2in the DTZ test (ibid. 243). In view of the development described above, thisreorganisation is problematic.According to the teachers interviewed in this study, participants whohave made an effort in the integration courses can reach CEFR level A2. Thatshould not mean many cases of refusal of the settlement permit in the com-ing years because these persons will not apply for this status. Nevertheless,the number of persons who are in possession of the settlement permit will

probably decrease. University graduates can also reach level B1. This is dif-ferent for those not used to learning and for educationally deprived immi-grants. From the teachers’ point of view, this may be partly caused by thelack of motivation, which is the result of excessive demands (WS 30056 inter-view of 20 May 2010). If the proportion of educationally deprived partici-pants is high, the success rate is 40%: ‘I have never known educationally de-prived participants, who have completed the course with 1,200 UE, to havereached level B1, quite possibly level A2’ (WS 30039 interview of 28 April2010). Illiterates and educationally remote participants have difficulties gain-ing a foothold in regular courses and to passing the test46(WS 30044 inter-view of 30 April 2010). At the same time, the teachers emphasised in the in-terviews that literacy courses and courses for women with childcare assis-tance are required, and the number of these places is limited, e.g., in Munich(WS 30039 interview of 28 April 2010). TheLageberichtemphasises that liter-acy courses and integration courses for parents and women have experi-enced nationwide popularity (2010: 240), so that childcare assistance is a cur-rent problem, e.g., in Munich, and no courses with childcare assistance arecurrently offered there (WS 30039 interview of 28 April 2010). Furthermore,courses for shift workers are also required in economically strong regions(ibid.). Another population group which has not been addressed yet is immi-grants who moved to Germany in the years 2005-2007 and were not obligedto attend an integration course and whose entitlement has lapsed because ofthe two-year obligation (ibid.).Table 2.2: Success rates for the integration coursesYearNumber ofcoursegraduatesNumber oftest candi-datesNumber of testcandidates whohave reachedlevel B1 A2)37,438 (B1)21,942 (B1)Success ratetest candi-dates61.3 % (B1)57.3 % (B1)47.2 % (B1)37.8 % (A2)Success ratecoursegraduates50.9 % (B1)66.4 % (B1)66.5 % (B1)53.3 % (A2)

The data collected by the BAMF show the following development of the suc-cess rates in the integration courses: 46.3% of course graduates reached thelegitimate target level B1 between 2005 and mid-2008 (BTag-Drs. 16/13329, p.1), while the success rate for course graduates continued to increase in 2008-2009, or since the new regulation was introduced, and was 50.9% in 2008 (8.Lagebericht2010: 244). The table above shows the success rates in the years2008-2009.48It has been possible to present differentiated data on the language abilityof test participants and course graduates since the DTZ test was introduced.On the one hand, an analysis of the data on success rates shows that thecourse graduates have reached level B1 to a greater extent than the test can-didates, i.e. two-thirds of the course graduates have reached level B1. Thisnumber is a little higher than in previous years, however, it represents only asingle-digit change and shows room for improvement. On the other hand,the results of the currently introduced DTZ test show that only half of theparticipants was able to reach level B1, whereas 15% of test candidates or21% of course graduates remain below level A2 (8.Lagebericht2010: 244). Thestatistics for the success rate of the nationally standardised orientation coursetest that have been separately collected since 2009 show that 88.7% of coursegraduates and 91.9% of test candidates passed the orientation course test(ibid: 245).Tests in Germany: are the goals achieved?From the course graduates’ and course instructors’ points of view, regionalaspects within the integration course are particularly interesting (WS 30047interview of 5 May 2010). According to the teachers of integration coursesand the course graduates, a very high level of proficiency in the orientationcourse, as well as the examination vocabulary, which is very difficult for par-ticipants, are drawbacks (WS 30056 interview of 20 May 2010). According tostatements by advanced language learners, the orientation course is the mostinteresting and most important part of the integration course. From theteachers’ point of view, the orientation course is very good in general, ‘be-cause some people have no idea about Germany or may also have a lot ofprejudices, and the relationship between men and women is very important’(ibid.). Furthermore, it was also pointed out in the interviews that some par-ticipants, particularly those who are obliged to attend the course and forwhom it is difficult to pass the orientation course test, want to know exactly48The success rates for the years 2008-2009 cannot readily be compared because the inte-gration course was completed by passing a newly-scaled test in 2009 and the successrate has been separately processed with regard to the language test and the orientationcourse test since 2009. The success rate showed the overall result of the successful lan-guage and orientation course tests until 2008.

the information that is requested in the test in order to cram for the orienta-tion course test, which means that they are not interested in other informa-tion (WS 30056 interview of 20 May 2010). The fact that the integration courseis over-regulated, which causes poor quality, is viewed in a negative light bythe teachers interviewed. For example, a political scientist who taught orien-tation courses in Hamburg in the first few years following their introductionmay not run further orientation courses without additional education. At thesame time, some teachers expressed the view that it would be more advanta-geous if the responsibility for the form, content and implementation of theorientation course were transferred to the Federal Agency for Civic Educa-tion or the State Agency for Civic Education, because they have more expe-rience in this area.Furthermore, not only language aspects but other spin-offs from the in-tegration course were also verbalised in the interviews: ‘It is not the mostimportant aspect, that participants reach level A1 or level B2, but also thatthey can feel good here, that they do not become criminals. We do a lot of so-cial work; make them feel at home, it depends on the course how this can bestrengthened. This is the most important aspect. *<+ the language ability isimportant, but the social aspect is much more important for the process of in-tegration. Passing the examination at level B1 has nothing to do with integra-tion. It is difficult for some participants to contact other people; some partici-pants boycott the group work. The course is important for those participantsto win trust, in general, so that they can be included in a course together withother people, for the first time’ (WS 30056 interview of 20 May 2010); ‘Manyparticipants are also fond of the content of the integration course, it is true tolife, and the composition of the course is often fairly good. Contacts withother people are spin-offs’ (WS 30039 interview of 28 April 2010).Both the teachers and the migrant advisory services expressed the viewthat language ability and test results are overstated in the process of integra-tion. However, the social and integrative implications of the courses wereemphasised in the interviews. Municipal officials, teachers, migrant advisoryservices to some extent, as well as migrants, agreed that integration requiresmore services than integration courses and that the language courses haveonly barely addressed unskilled migrants, so that they do not have thechance to acquire more advanced qualifications through these courses: ‘Theeducational offensive that took place in the 1960s, something like that is im-portant for immigrants and there is too little progress in this direction’ (ibid.).‘Skilled people could manage it without a knowledge of the German lan-guage. Germany’s problem is that there are many unskilled people with amigration background. They are currently learning this by heart. I would dosomething else; I would invest in school education and vocational education.I have almost never used my German language knowledge and was able tostart my business as an architect. *<+ the social laws are wrong if the state is

still afraid of immigration in the social system’’ (WS 30053 interview of 7May 2010 with a migrant woman from Serbia, 50 years old).The migrants’ line of argument in the interviews within this study is rec-ognisible. They identify themselves as a part of German society not throughlanguage ability, but through their employment: ‘Because I work, I feel inte-grated’ (WS 30030 interview of 15 April 2010 with a Turkish migrant, 26years old). ‘I am part of society because I work here, taxes are paid and this isalready enough integration.’ ‘Integration is more than answering a few ques-tions in German about Germany’ (ibid.). In addition, for some immigrants,integration means tolerance of cultural differences: ‘I am a Muslim; I drinkno alcohol and say nothing about people who drink alcohol, so I call this in-tegration. I had a neighbour who told me that my children should not speakTurkish. If Germany demands the same from me, I am not able to do this’(WS 30031 interview of 15 April 2010 with a Turkish migrant, 38 years old).Other migrants assume that some culture-based attitudes may pose more ofan obstacle to integration than inadequate language ability (WS 30053 inter-view of 7 May 2010 with a migrant woman from Serbia, 50 years old). Never-theless, the migrants think otherwise about the relationship between the citi-zenship and language ability. Moreover, they were of a common opinionduring all the interviews, that applicants for German citizenship should beable to speak German.The teachers emphasised that it is generally adequate to require level B1of applicants for German citizenship or a resettlement permit, whereas levelB1 is not adequate for the professions because it is very basic. On the onehand, that means that it is easier to attain level A2. On the other hand, levelB1 should be required from these applicants from the point of the teachersinterviewed. There has recently been a rise in the demand for languagecourses at level B2 for the professions, as well as for general courses at levelC1, which are not for professional purposes (WS 30047 interview of 5 May2010). ‘We receive inquiries from organisations that would like to send peo-ple to us who should be qualified for the next level, B2. Level C1 is obtainedby medical graduates and doctors.49We have offered the language course atlevel C1, including the test, since September 2010. We are receiving inquiriesin this direction, it is quite new. Within the recognition procedure, it will in-crease even further’ (WS 30039 interview of 28 April 2010). The migrant advi-sory services set the following target with respect to integration: ‘Dependingon where I want to go, it deals more or less with knowledge of the Germanlanguage. I do not need level B1 for every profession’ (WS 30025 interview of9 April 2010).49Background: Pursuant to the EC Directive 2005/36 the language ability, which is essen-tial for profession, is admissible (Art. 53). That means in Germany, that the CEFR levelB2 (Federal Law Gazette 2007, I p. 2686) is a condition for the granting of a medical pro-fessional permit and/or a licence to practise medicine.

The experience that the municipal officials have gained is that the re-quirements regarding means of subsistence cause greater difficulties for mi-grants than the language requirements: ‘Especially in Munich, rent costs arehigh and subsistence is expensive. The needs of both spouses must be cov-ered within the family. These requirements should arise if the family hasmany children. Foreigners in the guest worker generation and former refu-gees still have problems with this. That does not mean that they do not work,but that they earn relatively little because their salaries are in the low wagesector’ (WS 30039 interview of 28 April 2010). The ruling by the Administra-tive Court of Luneburg of 18 January 2007 clearly showed that migrants whowork in the low-wage sector have no chance of obtaining the settlementpermit, ‘even if they have not asserted their entitlement to complementarybenefits in accordance with the SGB II for years’ (8.Lagebericht2010: 465). Thenumber of affected persons compared to the general population amounts to25% (ibid.). The ruling of the Administrative Court of Stuttgart of 23 January2006 to require the means of subsistence not only from an applicant for a set-tlement permit, but also from his dependents, was written in the GeneralAdministrative Ordinance-Residence Act, although it has not yet been con-firmed by the Supreme Court (8.Lagebericht2010: 468).An analysis of the residence status of immigrants at the end of 2008shows that two-thirds of foreigners – including third-country nationals andEuropean Union citizens – were granted permanent residence status at theend of 2008 (Rühl, 2009: 39). Taking only the third-country nationals intoconsideration, only about half of the third-country nationals living in Ger-many (55.8%) at the end of 2008 possessed a permanent residence permit.The differentiation according to nationality shows that Croatian, Turkish andUkrainian nationals were most often in possession of the permanent resi-dence status at the end of 2008 (83.9%, 68.9% and 68.8% respectively) andChinese and Iraqi nationals, as well as Kosovars, were the least likely to holdthat status (15.5%, 24.9% and 30.2% respectively) (ibid: 41 f.).JurisprudenceThe federal government reiterates that, ‘command of the German language isa basic prerequisite for education and training, for integration into a profes-sion, for civic participation and for social advancement’ (Coalition Agree-ment, 2009). Besides, the integration courses are described as the most effec-tive federal instrument for language promotion.Spouses are again a target group that plays a special role in the mani-festo: ‘We will incentivise successful learning. We want to improve the man-agement of integration courses specifically to enable persons who have ac-quired preliminary German language skills in their country of origin outsideGermany to join their spouses and be able to transfer to the integrationcourse as quickly as possible’ (ibid.). In accordance with the CoalitionAgreement (2009), an integration agreement should be created to increase

commitment levels in individual integration assistance: ‘*<+ Integrationagreements will contain commitments for the necessary measures to be takento ensure successful integration into German society and into the German la-bour market; they will be reviewed on a regular basis. Emphasis will beplaced on information and advice about the services offered by governmentand community organisations. We will include models featuring individualconsultation such asIntegrationslotsen(integration facilitators). Interfaces be-tween advisory services and education providers will be verifiably im-proved’.Moreover, further ideas for language promotion exist. Nationally stan-dardised and binding language tests should also be expanded to all four-year-olds, if they have not passed the new language acquisition test, but alsofor the purposes of language programmes that should accompany schooleducation: ‘Parents who are responsible for the education of their childrenmust be able to speak our language so they can provide their children withthe best conditions for being successful in school’ (Coalition Agreement,2009). In addition, it should be possible in the future to require parents toparticipate in an integration course because, from the federal government’spoint of view, the welfare of the child is jeopardised by the parents’ lack ofknowledge of the German language (ibid.). In this case the parent’s lack ofthe language ability may be regarded as grounds for expulsion.The federal government puts more emphasis on the language offensiveinstead of the education offensive, which is expected of those affected andthe migrant advisory services. It is doubtful whether further obligations toattend the language courses can produce more rapid success in the process ofintegration. Political interests obviously invade privacy and family life moredeeply.

ble for migrants with no knowledge of the German language to be natural-ised. That practice has changed since the new version of the Nationality Act(StAG) came into force in 2000: this required not only that the length of timespent in Germany50be reduced (to eight years), but also that immigrants in-terested in gaining citizenship had to be in possession of intermediate lan-guage ability. Proof of language ability in the naturalisation procedure waspossible in different ways. There were no nationally standardised tests andeither oral or oral and written language ability was required.In Bavaria, the language tests have already been conducted beforehandin cases where naturalisation is granted at the authorities’ discretion, whereevery official in charge runs his own dictation and conducts a conversationwith a naturalisation applicant (WS 30039 interview of 28 April 2010). For ex-ample, one official read an article from the newspaperBildand the applicanthad to write down that text. Another official used his own text. That was notstandardised. Furthermore, in accordance with the amendment in 2000,knowledge of the German language in oral and written form or proof of lan-guage ability by means of the ‘TestDeutsch’at level A2+ were required in Ba-varia. Since 2007, this has changed to the ‘ZertifikatDeutsch’test in cases ofclaims for naturalisation (ibid.). Since 2000, in Baden-Wurttemberg, the lan-guage test has been conducted by the VHS at a level slightly below the levelthat is required in the present-day naturalisation procedure (WS 30043 inter-view of 30 April 2010). The previous language test (A2+) in the naturalisationprocedure in Baden-Wurttemberg was easier in terms of listening and speak-ing (WS 30044 interview of 30 April 2010). To take the oath of loyalty as partof the naturalisation procedure, when required, the conversation between anapplicant and the official in charge was conducted in Baden-Wurttemberg, inwhich not only verbal expression, but also specific knowledge was furtherexamined. Naturalisation applicants may have been asked what they under-stand by democracy (ibid.).In accordance with the amendments of the Directives ImplementationAct since August 2007, migrants intending to acquire German citizenshipmust be in possession of adequate language ability and – since the respectiveOrdinance of September 2008 – knowledge of the legal and social system andthe way of life in the Federal territory. This also applies to spouses of Ger-mans within the privileged naturalisation process.The requirements of appropriate language ability and civic knowledgeshould be ascertained by the Naturalisation Authority or Nationality Author-

ity51. Only migrants intending to acquire citizenship do not have to be in pos-session of civic knowledge if they applied for citizenship before 31 March2007 and if their naturalisation procedure was completed before 1 September2007.ProofThe prerequisite of language ability within the naturalisation procedure doesnot necessarily require the test to be taken and should be accepted as beingfulfilled upon presentation of the following certificates, which state languageability at CEFR level B1: ‘ZertifikatDeutsch’(German language Certificate)(also ‘ZertifikatDeutsch für Jugendliche’(German Language Certificate forYouth); ‘ZertifikatDeutsch für den Beruf’(German Language Certificate forWork); ‘ZertifikatDeutsch Plus’(German Language Certificate Plus); ‘DTZ52‘at level B1, ‘ZertifikatIntegrationskurs’(Integration Course Certificate) (par-ticipation in the integration course is successful if the number of points thatare sufficient for level B1 is stated, in other words least 180 out of a potentialmaximum of 300 points), TestDaF, ‘ZentraleMittelstufen- oder zentrale Ober-stufenprüfung’(Intermediate Examination or Advanced Level Examination)(ZMP or ZOP), ‘KleinesDeutsches Sprachdiplom’(Basic German Language Di-ploma), ‘GroßesDeutsches Sprachdiplom’(Advanced German Language Di-ploma) and certificates of higher-level tests (e.g. ‘GoetheZertifikat’(the GoetheInstitute Certificate) at level B2, ‘PrüfungWirtschaftsdeutsch’(Business Ger-man Test), etc.).Furthermore, the following school certificates and university diplomas,as well as vocational diplomas, will be recognised as proof of language com-petence in the naturalisation procedure: successful four-year visit to a Ger-man-speaking school; German general secondary school certificate or an up-per secondary school certificate; progress to the tenth year of intermediatesecondary school, comprehensive school or grammar school; diploma from aGerman-speaking university or the University of Applied Sciences; Germanlanguage certificate from theKultusministerkonferenz(the Conference of Min-isters of Education of the Federal States) (levels 1 and 2); and certificate ofhaving completed at least a two-year vocational training course or continu-ing education in German. To meet the civic knowledge requirement, it is suf-ficient to be in possession of a German general secondary school certificate orsimilar, or an upper German secondary school certificate. An academic de-gree does not constitute proof of societal knowledge. In Baden-Wurttembergthis ruling has been adjusted in so far as science graduates in public admini-51Different municipal authorities may be responsible for naturalisation procedure: Regis-try Offices, Foreigner’s Authorities or Residents’ Registration Offices (Thränhardt, 2008:21). The Foreigner’s Authorities and Naturalisation Authorities constitute in some mu-nicipalities one department (in Munich or Stuttgart).Cf. subsection 2.2.1 in this report.

stration, law and politics do not have to take the naturalisation test (WS30043 interview of 30 April 2010). Those who are not capable of acting (Sec-tion 80, par. 1, Residence Act) as well as minor children aged 16 and underdo not have to take the naturalisation test either.If the naturalisation applicant is able to convince the Nationality Author-ity, in a personal interview, that he is in possession of the required languageability, the language test will be renounced in this case (annexe to theBMI-Rundschreibento the Ministries of the Interior of the federal states of 17 April2009, p. 28).ExceptionsExplicit legal exceptions were newly introduced for foreigners who cannotfulfil the required language ability in German because of a physical, psycho-logical or mental illness or handicap or for age reasons (Section 10, par. 6,Nationality Act). This should avoid potential future cases of hardship, whichhave repeatedly occurred in practice, e.g. in the event of the naturalisation ofpeople with a speech impairment. Not every illness or handicap results in theexclusion of the requirements of language ability in German and civicknowledge, only those that prevent the naturalisation applicant from acquir-ing this knowledge, in particular the inability to express himself orally or inwriting, as well as congenital or acquired mental disabilities or age-relatedimpairments. More favourable standards for language ability should be ap-plied to older people, aged 60 and over, who have been living in Germanyfor twelve years.53Naturalisation applicants have to produce a medical cer-tificate if the causes of the aforementioned exclusion are not obvious. Illiter-acy has also been an obstacle to naturalisation since 2007. Illiterates can ac-quire citizenship only at the discretion of the authority pursuant to section 8of the Nationality Act. Moreover, no general regulation exists. In Bavaria il-literates can take the ‘Alpha’ language test at the VHS, which is adequateproof of language ability in the naturalisation procedure and is targeted at il-literates. No special nationally standardised naturalisation test exists for illit-erates (WS 30039 interview of 28 April 2010).Preparation for the testIf naturalisation applicants cannot produce language certificates that statethe required language ability, it will be recommended that they take the lan-guage test or, if necessary, attend the language course. Attendance at the53This rule can be found in the Administrative Ordinance of the federal states (vgl. auchhttp://www.bundes-regierung.de/Webs/Breg/DE/Bundesregierung/BeauftragtefuerIntegration/Einbuergerung/Ermessen/ermessenseinbuergerung.html).

language courses is not obligatory within the naturalisation process. Natu-ralisation applicants who are not in possession of the appropriate languagecertificates may register for the language test at the VHS without having tofinish an integration course. It is possible to try the sample on the Internet orto take a grading test at the VHS to check one’s own language ability in Ger-man. The VHS offers tests and preparatory courses that generally take placeat weekends. Naturalisation applicants can decide between the ‘ZertifikatDeutsch’test and the ‘DTZ’ test. The VHS in Berlin has conducted the lan-guage test for naturalisation since September 2007; it lasts 65 minutes (30minutes for reading, 20 minutes for writing and 15 minutes for speaking).The Berlin language test is based on the level of the ‘ZertifikatDeutsch’test.Test candidates have to achieve at least 60% (36 points) out of a possiblemaximum of 60 points, although at least 15 points are required in both theoral and written parts. Compared to two other tests that generally demon-strate level B1 in the naturalisation procedure, the Berlin language test con-tains no explicit task to demonstrate listening skills. Therefore, it is easier topass this test.Since the introduction of the naturalisation tests, the VHS has offeredpreparatory training. Hardly any preparatory courses or events to provideinformation on the naturalisation test have been offered because of the lackof demand. Most naturalisation applicants prepare for the naturalisation teston the Internet or using published booklets. Booklets are published not onlyby the Government but also by various publishing houses. Individual mi-grants take the test without being prepared. Only a few migrants attend thespecific course. The VHS in Munich offers a one-day course, ‘Concise knowl-edge: History and Politics in Germany’, and at least 20% of the test candi-dates participate in this course. Since the end of the 1970s, Politics classes forimmigrants have been offered in Hamburg. These classes are similar to theorientation course in terms of content. The classes are currently offered in theform of a ten-day seminar, which is recognised as educational leave by thefederal states of Hamburg and Schleswig-Holstein.Type of testsThe naturalisation test is nationally standardised. It is a test of knowledgeand a multiple-choice test. The questions in the naturalisation test relate tothe subject areas of ‘Living in a Democracy’, ‘History and Responsibility’ and‘People and Society’ as well as questions about the federal states. The natu-ralisation test is taken in writing. The VHS has to collect the test forms andforward them to the BAMF. The naturalisation test certificate is issued by theBAMF. The naturalisation test can be taken more than once. Every naturalisa-tion test candidate receives a test form with 33 questions. At least 17 ques-tions have to be answered correctly within 60 minutes in order to pass thenaturalisation test. There are four possible answers for every question, butonly one answer is correct. The naturalisation test bank contains a total of 330

questions (300 questions on German federal subjects and 30 specific ques-tions on the federal states). A residential address has to be given during reg-istration for the test. A test candidate who lives in Schleswig-Holstein, forexample, and works in Hamburg can take the naturalisation test in Ham-burg. His test form with 33 questions will contain three questions that referto the federal state in which he lives. Except for the specific questions aboutthe federal state, the naturalisation test in Baden-Wurttemberg is identical tothe tests in other federal states. The additional form should be used in thenaturalisation procedure in Baden-Wurttemberg with regard to the declara-tion of the free and democratic basic order if there is any suspicion that theactivities of the applicant are not based on the Constitution and an inquiry tothe Office for the Protection of the Constitution (Verfassungsschutz) results inrelevant findings. In this case, the naturalisation applicant has the chance toexplain these activities in a personal interview and to invalidate the reproach.Costs of preparing for the testThe fee for the ‘ZertifikatDeutsch’test, ‘DTZ’ test and language tests at thehigher level is over €100; participation in the language test in all Berlin dis-tricts costs €23. According to the rules of the BAMF, the test fee is €25. If thetest has to be retaken, the fee of €25 must be paid again. The naturalisationfee is €255 not only for adults, but also for children. In cases of the so calledco-naturalisation of minor children, the fee is €51 (Section 10, par. 2, Nation-ality Act). In some federal states, the Naturalisation Authorities may decidein favour of naturalisation. The costs to immigrants in order to fulfil the inte-gration requirements for naturalisation amount to €390 (naturalisation feeand test fees) or €1,035 (naturalisation test, test fees, and course fee).In some federal states, the decision on naturalisation is taken by theNaturalisation Authority. TheRegierungspräsidium(Regional Council) or theMinistry of the Interior of the federal state have to confirm the decision onnaturalisation only in cases requiring approval, e.g., if it is more a matter ofthe acceptance of multiple citizenship. In some federal states, e.g. Branden-burg, the naturalisation decision is taken not by the Naturalisation Authority,but by the Ministry of the Interior.The analysis of exceptional cases shows that societal knowledge carriesmore weight in the naturalisation procedure than language ability in Germanat CEFR level B1. The content of the naturalisation test is based on the sub-jects of the orientation course within the integration course and is thus verysimilar to the orientation course test; the number of questions in each test isdifferent. It is currently not enough simply to pass the orientation course testto demonstrate the civic knowledge required in the naturalisation procedure.Purpose of the TestSeveral proposals by the Conference of the German Federal Ministers of theInterior (IMK) regarding the naturalisation procedure were included by the

legislator in the Directives Implementation Act 2007. The IMK argued in fa-vour of the national chiefly uniform standards within naturalisation in therulings of 4-5 May 2006 and 16-17 November 200654.Since then, the requirements of possession of adequate language abilityhave been defined lawfully on the basis of the ‘ZertifikatDeutsch’test (CEFRlevel B1)55. The background was that various requirements have been appliedin the practice of the federal states so far. In particular, oral language abilitywas to some extent sufficient56. The reason given for this was the purpose ofthe legal requirement – the guarantee of participation in the political deci-sion-making process (cf. BT-Drs. 14/533).The introduction of the naturalisation test was also proposed by the IMKin May 2006.57Until then, the Act and the Administrative Ordinance in-cluded an oath of loyalty, which also led to the different federal states’ prac-tices. The same conditions should currently be created in this respect. Hence,the legal naturalisation requirements were supplemented with ‘knowledge ofthe legal and social system and the way of life in the Federal territory’. Ac-cording to the Explanatory Memorandum, the regulation is based on the ori-entation course or the settlement permit regulation, which requires basicknowledge in this respect. However, this ‘knowledge is required for natu-ralisation; to meet the integration-related levels’, BRat-Drs. 224/07). Thisknowledge can be successfully demonstrated in the naturalisation test or inother manner – possibly by pursuing an appropriate German school educa-tion (e.g., secondary school, see above). Naturalisation courses should be of-fered to prepare foreigners for the naturalisation test. Participation in thenaturalisation course is not obligatory. ‘The regulations on the basic structureand the learning contents of naturalisation courses to guarantee nationallyuniform standards’, which are based on the subjects of the orientation course,have been written into the statutory ordinance. The introduction of the natu-ralisation test was a popular subject in the media, which have presumablyspread the most fear of it. This measure was regarded by some migrant or-ganisations as a strengthening of the immigration regulations and a formal54Moreover, these imply proof of oral and written language ability at the same level na-tionwide, higher requirements for the legal loyalty of naturalisation applicants, the in-troduction of naturalisation courses in which societal knowledge as well as the princi-ples and values of the Constitution have to be provided and the introduction of themethods of proving the appropriate knowledge.The lack of sufficient knowledge of the German language formed the grounds for exclu-sion so far. Now, it is systematically associated with naturalisation requirements.The Administrative Ordinance (86.1.1 Administrative Ordinance-Nationality Act,Bundesanzeiger(Federal Gazette) of 31 January 2001, former version) did not mentionthat written ability is necessary.Naturalisation applicants have been expected to demonstrate not only language ability,but also loyalty to the constitution. This led to the idea of developing and offering natu-ralisation courses in Bavaria.

obstacle to naturalisation (Agisra, 2009: 9). Furthermore, it triggered discus-sions about the tolerance for multiple citizenship in which, theParitätischeWelfare Organisation and the TGD, for example, have actively participated.The federal government58will evaluate the effects and analyse the resultsof the language tests and naturalisation tests five years after this regulation’sentry into force, i.e. in 2012. Moreover, in accordance with the ExplanatoryMemorandum, consideration should be given as to whether the integrationcourses that were evaluated in 2006-2007 contribute to achieving the level ofproficiency required within the naturalisation procedure in advance (seeBRat-Drs. 224/07, Article 5, no. 7, about Section 10, par. 7, p. 435).Effects of the TestStatisticsCompared internationally, the number of naturalisations in Germany is low(Thränhardt, 2008: 4). After the highest figures for naturalisation werereached in 1996 (302,800), a continuous decline was observed until 200659. Af-ter an increase in 2006 (124,566) to 7,325 naturalised persons, compared to theprevious year (117,241) the number of naturalisations decreased in 2007 by9.3% to 113,030 persons. In 2008, 94,470 persons were naturalised (BTag-Drs.16/13707, p. 5). Compared to the previous year, this decline of 16.4% wassharper than in the previous period. In 2009, the number of naturalisationsunexpectedly increased slightly to 96,121 (StatistischesBundesamt,2010: 17).Table 2.3: Number of NaturalisationsYear199619982000200120022003Number of Naturalisa-tions302,8283,6178,1154,5140,7127,2200420052006200720082009YearNumber of Naturali-sations117,2124,6113,094,596,1302,8

several federal states the number of naturalisations decreased in 2009. Thefigures for naturalisation have increased in seven federal states (Baden-Wurttemberg, Bavaria, Brandenburg, Hamburg, Mecklenburg-West Pomera-nia, North Rhine-Westphalia and Saarland); a decline is observable in ninefederal states: Berlin, Bremen, Hessen, Lower Saxony, Rhineland-Palatinate,Saxony, Saxony-Anhalt, Schleswig-Holstein and Thuringia. In addition, inBaden-Wurttemberg and Bavaria, the figures for naturalisation have in-creased for the first time since 2002, e.g. from 11,277 and 9,988 in 2008 to12,212 and 12,053 respectively. In Berlin an increase was observed in theyears 2005-2006 and numbers have now decreased from 6,866 in 2008 to 6,309in 2009 (ibid.). From the point of view of an official, the reason given for thedecline in the figures for naturalisation in North Rhine-Westphalia is the factthat naturalisation applicants need a certain lead time for preparation be-cause of new language requirements (WS 30049 interview of 6 May 2010). In2009, the number of applications for naturalisation in Munich almost reachedthe level of 1999 (2,957 and 3,009 respectively). It amounted to 3,191 in 2005and stagnated below that level in the years 2007-2008. The reason given byofficials for this development was the fact that implementation of the natu-ralisation test was delayed from the start (WS 30039 interview of 28 April2010). In Stuttgart a naturalisation campaign was carried out in 2009. It re-sulted in an increase in the figures for application of 10% compared to theprevious year (WS 30043 interview of 30 April 2010). It should be pointed outhere that naturalisation practices differ in the federal states, in spite of thestandardisation based on the requirements of language ability at level B1 andcivic knowledge in the naturalisation test. Furthermore, the intermediatelanguage ability that should be demonstrated in an interview with the For-eigners’ Authority or the certificate of oral and written language abilitywhich is issued as a result of the ‘previous language tests’ at the VHS are re-quired in cases of naturalisation in accordance with the old law (WS 30044 in-terview of 30 April 2010). This interview shows that in Baden-Wurttemberg,for example, German language knowledge can be further tested at level A2+(using an earlier, easier VHS test). In addition, discrepancies exist not only atfederal level among the federal states, but also at municipal level (cf. Thrän-hardt, 2008: 18). Following Dietrich Thränhardt, the reason given for regionaldifferences can be the fact that ‘the intensity of the processing of applications,the length of the procedure *<+ and the different administrative qualitiescause the extremely irregular legal practices which affect the widely varyingfigures for naturalisation’ (2008: 4).Furthermore, the naturalisation behaviour of immigrants and how thisbehaviour is influenced by naturalisation practices and advisory services, thegeneral integration -policy climate and new requirements also play an im-portant role. No sufficiently valid or significant data or research results areavailable on the naturalisation behaviour of foreigners (8.Lagebericht2010:444). At the moment, 15.6 million persons with a migration background live

in Germany, 8.3 million of these are Germans (8.Lagebericht2010: 38). Thenumber of persons who have acquired their own migration experiences is10.6 million, 5 million of these are Germans (ibid: 39). By the end of 2008nearly two-thirds (65.5%) of foreigners had lived in Germany for at least tenyears, slightly over one-third (36.7%) have lived here for more than twentyyears and nearly one-quarter (23.2%) for as long as 30 years or more (Rühl,2009: 38). The average length of time Turkish nationals have spent in Ger-many was 22.4 years in 2008 (ibid: 39) and about 20 years in 2009 (StatistischesBundesamt,2010: 28). The length of stay by nationals of candidate countriesfor EU membership was the same level as in 2009. The length of stay of Un-ion citizens was 17.4 years or just below that level. The length of stay of na-tionals of the EEA states and Switzerland was higher and amounted to 25.5years in 2009 (ibid.). Naturalised migrants are increasingly becomingyounger. The average age of persons who were naturalised in 2007 was 30.5years and the average age of persons who were naturalised in 2009 was 29.5years. Turkey accounts for the most naturalised foreigners. In 2000, nearly83,000 Turkish nationals were naturalised in Germany whereas, in 2007, thenumber of naturalised persons with a Turkish background was about 29,000(Worbs, 2008: 18) and 24,647 in 2009 (StatistischesBundesamt,2010: 28). In2009, the number of naturalised nationals of candidate countries for EUmembership was 26,019 people and was at a high level (ibid.). The number offoreigners who are eligible for German citizenship because of the length oftime they have spent in Germany is high. In 2007, 2.9% of those eligible onsuch grounds were naturalised (8.Lagebericht2010: 443).The success rate in the naturalisation test is regularly between 98 and99% (8.Lagebericht2010: 449). According to the BAMF’s data of 9 July 2010106,831 people took the naturalisation test between 1 September 2008 and 31March 2010. The success rate was 98.5% (105,205).Which part of the naturalisation procedure is the most difficult?A particular obstacle in the naturalisation procedure is the renunciation ofprevious citizenship. It is often a reason not to apply for naturalisation. Thisis problematic for potential naturalisation applicants for various reasons.Depending on the country of origin, this procedure can imply high fees, longdelays, payment of bribes, blackmails, loss of land ownership, high fees forbeing discharged from military service or negative consequences for relativesin the country of origin (Thränhardt, 2008: 23). In addition, the possession ofa settlement permit is an alternative to naturalisation. The current figuresalso show this development to some extent. The number of settlement per-mits obtained, e.g., in Stuttgart in 2009, amounted to 8,145. This is clearlyfewer than the number of naturalisations (1,280) as well as the number of ap-plications for naturalisation (2,010). In addition, permanent residence statusis sufficient for some migrants and allows them to retain possession of a citi-zenship other than German: ‘If I have German citizenship, I will be not rec-

ognised on the street as a German and may have further difficulties. If I havepermanent residence status, it is good. I cannot vote or become an official.Also, the German jobs could be cut. In this sense, why should I become aGerman national?’ (WS 30029 interview of 15 April 2010). It is also problem-atic for migrants who would like to work or who do work in the academicmedical or paramedical professions. With regard to the licence to practisemedicine, the following system is in place for third-country nationals: ‘Gen-erally, no licence to practise medicine without naturalisation, generally nonaturalisation without a settlement permit, generally no settlement permitwith a limited permit to practise a profession’ (8.Lagebericht2010: 369 f.).Therefore, naturalisation grants access to practise a profession.The municipal officials interviewed within the study cannot judge the ex-tent to which the language test and naturalisation test are an obstacle in thenaturalisation procedure for migrants because those interested in acquiringGerman citizenship produce the relevant proof if they apply for naturalisa-tion and it is difficult to estimate the lead time. However, of particular note isthe fact that self-employees who must prove that they have medical and re-tirement insurance, during the naturalisation procedure, only take out thisinsurance policy before naturalisation (WS 30038 interview of 28 April 2010).Furthermore, it is also problematic for naturalisation applicants who haveworked in marginal part-time jobs and have not had permanent retirementinsurance (ibid.).Migrants interviewed as part of the study largely agreed that every citi-zen must speak the language of his state. Language ability is similar to citi-zenship in their opinion; however, it is not similar to integration. Immigrantswho have no problem meeting the requirements of the naturalisation proce-dure were able to identify with Germany and felt part of the society. Theyfelt positive after passing the test; nevertheless, they believed they were notbetter integrated after meeting the requirements. Naturalisation meant an ex-tension of their opportunities (WS 30019 interview of 9 March 2010 with aman with a Turkish migration background, 26 years old). The reasons givenfor naturalisation were predominantly of a pragmatic nature: to have thefreedom to travel, to have a German passport and avoid stress dealing withauthorities, to join dependents who have already become German. In somecases, the right to political participation was also mentioned as a motive.The migrants interviewed often showed understanding for the naturali-sation requirements: ‘It is positive that people should learn a little bit aboutGermany’ (WS 30034 interview of 15 April 2010 with a migrant from Leba-non, 40 years old). The naturalisation practice was criticised because it is notservice-oriented, but dismissive (WS 30027 interview of 14 April 2010). Onemigrant was surprised how easy it is to become a German national, com-pared to other states, and believes that passing the naturalisation test meansdemonstrating the will to be German: ‘I cannot understand it, why peoplehave protested against the tests. I think an individual must also show the will

to be part of society and it is not possible to take everything as a gift’ (WS30036 interview of 19 April 2010 with a migrant from Indonesia, 38 yearsold). Other migrants who mainly met the requirements for naturalisationpointed out that they knew some people who speak German well, but cannotread or write in German and are avoiding taking the tests as well as applyingfor naturalisation (WS 30033 interview of 15 April 2010 with a migrant fromIndia, 38 years old). Nevertheless, the tests were seldom viewed by the mi-grants interviewed as a problem.The success rate for the naturalisation test is usually between 98 and 99%(8.Lagebericht,2010: 449). According to the BAMF’s data from 9 July 2010106,831 people took part in the naturalisation test between 1 September 2008and 31 March 2010; the success rate was 98.5% (105,205). Interviews also con-firmed that the naturalisation test is not difficult for migrants. Most test can-didates have prepared for the test on the Internet. Some of them have over-looked specific questions about their federal state because they have tried thesample test from another federal state. Migrants equally criticised the primi-tiveness of some questions, false information in the test, as well as the highnumber of questions. Moreover, not only migrants, but also migrant advi-sory services, questioned whether an individual who has not crammed forthe test enough and has not passed the test is a respectable citizen andwhether the naturalisation test makes an individual into a loyal citizen andan equal member of society (WS 30053 interview of 7 May 2010 with a mi-grant woman from Serbia, 50 years old, and WS 30025 interview of 9 April2010).Tests in the naturalisation procedure: are the goals achieved?Officials pointed out in the interviews that most naturalisation applicantshave completed school in Germany and do not have to take the naturalisa-tion test (WS 30049 interview of 6 May 2010). In Stuttgart 50% of applicantshad to take neither language tests nor naturalisation tests (WS 30043 inter-view of 30 April 2010). From the point of view of the officials, naturalisationtests are useful and not difficult: ‘Tests are an appropriate form, I could notimagine any alternative. It is not an appropriate standard to learn just beforenaturalisation. The fact that I am in possession of the knowledge and did notacquire this knowledge at the last minute means that I have already takenpart in social life and have been interested in this matter’ (WS 30049 inter-view of 6 May 2010). From the point of view of officials, it is out of the ques-tion that societal knowledge is essential; however, it is questionable whetherthe naturalisation test is an appropriate form: ‘An individual has answeredthis question, but may not have understood the content or has not dealt withit. So, it happens that an individual asks whether we have a male official incharge, because he does not speak to women *<+. Overall values must beimparted that allow people to deal with the Basic Law’ (WS 30038 interviewof 28 April 2010).

Some migrants have supported the need for the naturalisation test andcivic knowledge. Most academic graduates believe that the test is not neces-sary for them because they are already equipped with an appropriate level ofrelevant knowledge (interview of 30 May 2010 with a postgraduate studentfrom Brazil). Other migrants showed little understanding for the meaning ofthe naturalisation tests: ‘I live and work here. What a German does, I am alsodoing. Why should I not vote and why I must take the test?’ (WS 30030 inter-view of 15 April 2010 with a migrant from Turkey, 26 years old); ‘Questionsthat Germans, in some cases those who were born and raised in Germany,cannot answer have made the naturalisation test a formal obstacle that is es-tranged from its intended purpose of naturalisation, an aspect that can bemainly removed by learning the answers by heart’ (Agisra 2009: 9).From the point of view of a migrant advisory service, it is more impor-tant to acquire civic knowledge in the naturalisation procedure than lan-guage ability, the meaning of which is overemphasised: ‘Does less knowl-edge of the German language mean less integration? There are equations thatdo not balance. Integration includes making progress in the non-discrim-inatory space that we do not have here, because people who do not possesslanguage ability in German are deprived of any opportunity to make goodprogress or to take up leadership positions. It is an affront to those who makegreat efforts and do not make progress at the same time. Then other peoplewould think that it has no effects. Rather, it shows a very one-sided shift to-wards migrants’ (WS 30025 interview of 9 April 2010). Demonstrating thisknowledge is not the deciding factor, but creating offers that provide suchcontent: ‘If I want to participate here, I must learn the infrastructure andknow how this system functions socio-politically’ (ibid.).How the authorities deal with language requirements is a problem. Inone case, the authority in charge refused to recognise a language certificatethat was issued on an earlier date, although the naturalisation applicantspoke fluent German. It was evident that his knowledge of the German lan-guage was above the required level, B1 (8.Lagebericht2010: 445). Migrantsdescribed their experiences as follows: ‘I think it is absurd, I completed myAbiturin Germany and graduated from the university there and the officialhas seriously asked me when I was naturalised whether I am able to com-municate in German. I was so insulted and even considered whether I shouldwithdraw my application. In my case, it looked like he would do me a fa-vour. No joy, nothing. In fact, there was only any action because I have actu-ally been a German for a long time. I felt I was being treated like a criminal’(WS 30027 interview of 14 April 2010). It does not mean that the migrantwoman interviewed had no need for naturalisation. She felt she was Germanwithout being naturalised.Furthermore, one migrant advisory service wished there were incentives.It criticised the sanctions with regard to the language requirements, whichmake a bad impression and have a negative effect on public opinion: ‘The

atmosphere is negative and has effects on other areas, e.g., education. It isdifficult to adjust the long-term effects (WS 30029 interview of 15 April 2010).An official pointed out the meaning of dignified procedures or how impor-tant it is to be serious about ‘arrival’ and to make it attractive (WS 30024 in-terview of 9 April 2010). ‘We are on the wrong track if we treat it only as amatter of language. We do not make any efforts to treat people with accentsequally. It is hypocritical to do this in such a way. The nation also has otherattributes that determine who should be a German’ (WS 30025 interview of 9April 2010).Language ability at level B1, as well as longer-term volunteer activities ina non-profit organisation, are considered special integration achievementsand are treated as incentives in the naturalisation procedure. In cases ofnaturalisation granted at the authorities’ discretion, this should be an overallconsideration in individual cases, which allows for justification of privilegednaturalisation based on several achievements and additional rewards for mi-grants for their integration efforts.JurisprudenceTaking into account low or decreasing figures for naturalisation, Sevim Dag-delen, a member of the German Left Party, called for naturalisations afterfive years regardless of income, a reduction in naturalisation fees to a sym-bolic amount, the abolition of naturalisation tests and the option obligation,as well as the acceptance of multiple citizenship (MuB 3/2010, p. 3). The fed-eral states formed a working group under the leadership of Schleswig-Holstein, open to all federal states, on the subject of ‘Making the acquisitionof German nationality attractive’, which presented its review in June 2009.This was used to compile an analysis up to March 2010 (8.Lagebericht2010:442). The following recommendations are made: active advertising for natu-ralisation, improvement of advisory and information services concerningnaturalisation, improved use of existing incentives and measures to facilitatenaturalisation, especially of well-integrated migrants, facilitating the natu-ralisation of the first immigrant generation and appreciation of their life’sachievements and a medium-term merger of naturalisation tests and orienta-tion course tests. Moreover, the pros and cons of multiple citizenship shouldbe weighed up from the legal and integration policy point of view (ibid.).An analysis of naturalisation practice shows that professionally and so-cially integrated immigrants receive little recognition in the naturalisationprocedure and their integration is unappreciated. In certain professionalgroups, naturalisation only represents access to employment and integration.In addition, it is controversial whether naturalisation, as it is currently han-dled, is the culmination of progress towards integration or an essential stepon the way to it. The naturalisation test presumably does not go far enoughand is not an ideal way of enhancing civic knowledge.

ConclusionEffects of the Integration Tests in GermanyThree new, so-called ‘integration tests’ exist in Germany: language tests be-fore entry for spouses willing to migrate to Germany subsequently, teststaken after completing the integration course by immigrants whose stay inthe country is not merely temporary – that means a language test and an ori-entation course test – and language and naturalisation tests for those who areinterested in acquiring citizenship. This conclusion summarises the effects ofthe tests that emerge in this study. The following issues will be discussed be-low: what are the current effects of the new requirements against the back-ground of their lawful aims? What are the respondents’ experiences of theseintegration tests and what is their perception of them? In what way are thesetests connected to the issue of integration? How does the federal governmentreact to this? Are there proposals for improving integration policy?

The Lawful Aims of the Requirements and their Significant EffectsKnowledge of the German language is regarded as a very important part ofthe federal government’s promotion of integration. Thus, the promotion ofintegration courses was a major innovation. Additionally, various tests wereintroduced to promote immigrant integration. Since then, less emphasis hasbeen placed on promoting integration as the course objective, but increasedemphasis has been focused on the principle of making demands within theirimplementation. Compulsory participation in the tests gives the governmentmonitoring options. These federal monitoring options have also been ex-tended to the promotion of knowledge of the legal and social system, whichhas taken on a special significance in recent years within the promotion of in-tegration by the federal government.The legal aim of integration courses is to enable immigrants to becomesufficiently familiar with everyday life in Germany that they can act inde-pendently. The integration courses have positive effects on immigrants be-cause they enable immigrants to enhance their language ability. However,the level of proficiency that migrants have reached only testifies to the devel-opment of a learner’s language variety and do not reflect their integration.Independent use of language cannot be equated with acting independently,i.e. being to support themselves without state assistance or mediation bythird parties. It is essential to provide basic knowledge of German history,culture and politics in order to enable immigrants to act independently. Thisis carried out too quickly because the orientation course is very brief.

Proof of adequate language ability and knowledge of the legal and socialsystem and the way of life in the Federal territory, which are required in thenaturalisation procedure, are far too limited in scope. The introduction ofnaturalisation tests has sent out a signal about the importance of this issue,but it will play a minor role in the future because of the currently high suc-cess rates and the overlap with the orientation course. Presently, passing theorientation test within the integration course does not lead to exemptionfrom the naturalisation test. This will be probably change in the comingyears.Integration requirements involving a basic knowledge of the Germanlanguage before entry are aimed at preventing forced marriages, but their ef-fects seem to run counter to that. It is not sufficient to break cultural rootsand prevent forced marriages. It is therefore hard to assess whether the testhas changed this. The idea that young married women will be able to protectthemselves better if they have at least basic language ability has not beenconfirmed. On the one hand, the number of women entering the country at avery young age remains relatively low. On the other hand, it has not proventhat their acquisition of a German language certificate can change the exist-ing family systems. Instead, women are pressurised by families to produce alanguage certificate as soon as possible.

The Experiences of the Respondents with Different Tests and SpecialDifficultiesThe language requirements before entry are considered one of the greatestdifficulties in the visa procedure as part of the subsequent migration ofspouses. In some cases and in some countries, this represents an additionalobstacle in the visa procedure, which has already been perceived as a non-transparent tripwire. It is also especially difficulty to produce a language cer-tificate for the wife and children of a German who has lived abroad for a longtime, who wish to join him and leave for Germany for family reunification.The existing test formats still fail to take into account the specifics of teachingconcerning educationally and learning-deprived immigrants. The languagetests are a very difficult challenge for these population groups, even if theyattend appropriate courses. In the case of language tests before entry, theyhave hardly any access to opportunities to learn the language. While lan-guage tests are standardised, external conditions vary greatly. This meansthat opportunities to prepare for the language test in individual countries areless than ideal or do not exist at all. In this case, the language requirementsare an obstacle to family reunification.The effects of the language test before entry seem particularly question-able to those affected by the tests. Not only do they have to spend consider-able time and money to pass the test, but their family relationships are also

put severely to the test because of the financial burden and lengthy periodsof separation. This can even lead to a further imbalance of power betweenmen and women. According to the migrants’ advisory services interviewed,practice shows that men are usually in a better financial position, women runthe risk of become emotionally and financially dependent on men, whichcould be extremely unfavourable for them after entering Germany. No statis-tical grounds for this are available.Positive experiences of immigrants are related only to courses wherethey can establish contacts and experience their first learning success. This isespecially true when immigrants find that their newly-acquired languageskills are appreciated in Germany. However, this is rarely the case, since abeginner’s knowledge is perceived as of little significance. This is furtherconfirmed by the way in which the newly-acquired language certificates areofficially handled. Immigrants’ language skills may be tested over and overagain, as the content reliability of their certified language ability is ques-tioned even when they present an officially recognised certificate of languageacquisition. The reason given for this measure is the rapid loss of languageability during the visa procedure. Consequently, a discrepancy exists be-tween what is required and confirmed before entry and the knowledge thatimmigrants should actually possess (or must possess) after taking the test. Inpractice, this means that this takes place at the expense of devaluing lan-guage requirements and raises doubts about their plausibility and meaning-fulness. It becomes clear that the tests have only little effect on languagecompetence, but determine who enters the country and who does not.The respondents have acquired different experiences with integrationcourses after their arrival in Germany. Although the legal obligation to at-tend integration courses results in binding motivation on the part of the re-spondents, on its own it is unable to make them aware of the importance oflanguage skills. However, they have positive experiences with the content ofthe integration courses and the variety of course participants. The problemhere is also the lack of opportunities for uneducated immigrants, employedpersons, or the parents of young children to learn the language. The numberof courses aimed at these population groups is low. Early withdrawal fromlanguage courses upon finding a job for which the acquired language skillsare sufficient (i.e., below level B1) can cause difficulties for an immigrantwho has to submit the relevant evidence when applying for a settlementpermit or naturalisation. Even passing the test at level A2 and having dulyattended the integration courses is insufficient for a settlement permit or fornaturalisation. That means that applicants must improve their language abil-ity and will take the language test to provide a certificate at a higher level(B1). Language tests offered separately or outside the integration courses andpreparation for these tests will therefore retain their relevance.The respondents consider naturalisation tests non-challenging or formal.Compared to this, relinquishing one’s previous citizenship is perceived as a

How the Tests are perceived by the RespondentsIn the view of the respondents, the test before entry has selective effects be-cause it is a formidable obstacle for certain population groups, depending ontheir background, level of education, and language-learning experience. Toavoid both the possibility of selection via the test and costly language-learning pathways, spouses sometimes focus on possibilities for bypassingthe tests. The frequency of this bypass behaviour cannot be estimated now.Presently, the following attempts to bypass the tests are known to have beenmade: so-called ‘test tourism’, or entering the country on a visitor’s visa onlyto learn the language and therefore increasing interest in the courses at levelA1 in Germany, pregnancy and entry without a command of the languagedue to having a German child, and temporary residence in an EU countryother than Germany. However, even in cases where an attempt is made topass the test in the country of origin in order to enter Germany as part of thesubsequent migration of spouses, immigrants often learn, notably by heart,on private language courses.Immigrants with advanced speaking skills often avoid the language testsin the naturalisation procedure because they think they will fail the languagetest due to their inadequate written language ability. Even delinquent mi-grants with a permanent residence permit deliberately avoid the naturalisa-tion procedure because a conviction for a serious criminal offence makes thenaturalisation impossible. However, in most cases, naturalisation tests andorientation courses are considered a good opportunity to learn about Ger-many’s history and current affairs, and to gain an understanding of Germansociety. The obstacle is that orientation courses contain complex vocabularyand require a higher level of proficiency than A2/B1 levels. Meanwhile, im-migrants who possess limited German language skills often pass naturalisa-tion tests by learning the answers by heart.The interviews within the study show that the common feature of boththe tests abroad and in Germany is that teachers should motivate partici-pants towards the legal significance of the tests.Immigrants still have unrealistic ideas about language learning. Thesebeliefs persist despite the obligation to attend the course or to pass the test.Apparently, information on learning strategies and how to use them is

probably still not being adequately provided within the integration courses.Therefore, promoting awareness of language learning and the importance ofa knowledge of the German language is more important than participation inthe test and the obligation to pass the test. This knowledge can also have apositive effect on the learning processes of immigrant children. Acceptanceof the required societal knowledge is clearly much higher than acceptance ofthe required language skills. Meanwhile, there is no doubt that languagecourses can improve language competence. It is not possible to say whetherobligatory attendance of an integration course can result in advanced lan-guage competence.

The Connection between Different Tests and the Issue of IntegrationIn the opinion of the respondents, integration courses (but not taking the fi-nal tests) affect integration in two ways. Firstly, the importance of societalknowledge must be emphasised. Immigrants can become more closely in-volved with Germany and their life in German society, discuss the view-points of other people and learn tolerance, if the course provides them withbasic societal knowledge in a form that is comprehensible to adults. Sec-ondly, integration courses are a social learning space where immigrantsmake contacts, and social and intercultural skills are provided and acquired.During the integration courses, participants start to feel like part of the soci-ety and to participate in this society.Language ability allows access to culture and society. However, this istrue only to a limited extent with regard to access to the labour market,which requires the immigrant to demonstrate complex skills, professionalknowledge and experience. Still, the language test, which was developed onthe basis of uniform standards, makes it possible to assess the level of theparticipants’ language ability. However, it is not an entry ticket to profes-sional life. The certified level B1 is not sufficient for any profession, becausethe language ability at this level is quite elementary. This is why immigrantswho pass the tests can improve their economic situation only to a limited ex-tent. Meanwhile, near-native command of the language cannot be a sign ofhow well-integrated the respective participants are.Tests as an instrument for assessing the progress of integration arehardly suitable for testing the degree of progress in society. Moreover, withregard to progress in integration, the language ability is overemphasised.Immigrants define themselves as integrated by their job, not by their inter-mediate language ability. Therefore, attributes other than language skills areused by immigrants to determine their integration. However, language as anattribute of ‘being German’ is widely accepted by immigrants. Therefore,progress in integration is not to be equated with naturalisation. Nowadays,

The Federal Government’s Response to the Effects of the New RegulationsThe compatibility of language requirements for admission to Germany withconstitutional law is not only increasingly the subject of court proceedings;the Parliamentary fraction ofBündnis 90/Die Grünenalso reject more stringentrules on family reunification and have been putting forward parliamentaryinitiatives for their abolition. The partyDie Linkeis also urging an immediaterepeal of restrictions on the subsequent migration of spouses via the lan-guage test before entry. The federal government has not made any decisionsyet that could lead to amendment of these regulations. Nor does the federalgovernment see any current need for further rules regarding hardship cases.The federal government continues to call for the language offensive and em-phasises binding language courses and tests together with the commitmentto individual progress in integration. Now, this will be agreed upon in inte-gration agreements and should be systematically reviewed afterwards. Thefederal government will continue to target people who move to Germany tobe with their spouses. According to the Coalition Agreement, the compul-sory language courses should, under certain conditions, be extended nation-wide to four-year-olds, as well as to parents whose lack of knowledge of theGerman language could be interpreted as being detrimental to the welfare ofthe child.As a result of the low figures for naturalisation,Die Linkeis in favour ofrelaxing the rules relating to the naturalisation procedure (naturalisation af-ter five years of residence even without proof of income, abolition of natu-ralisation tests and the option obligation and enhanced acceptance of multi-ple citizenship). The federal government has formed a working group opento all federal states, which has already outlined initial recommendations fornaturalisation (incentives for naturalisation and improvements to advisoryand information services, preferential conditions for well-integrated immi-grants and first-generation immigrants, merger of the naturalisation and ori-entation course tests, and a debate on tolerance of multiple citizenship).

Suggestions for ImprovementThe discrepancy between the costs and the tangible language ability of mi-grants who have moved to Germany to be with their spouses shows that thetests before entry are largely ineffective. However, the supply of languagelearning and information services is an advantage for spouses willing to mi-grate to Germany subsequently. Access to courses and use of the coursesshould be facilitated and made more attractive. The test can perform thisfunction only to a limited extent.On the other hand, the simplification of language requirements withinGermany is not as necessary. However, the binding tests in the Federal terri-tory should not be assessed on the premise of integration; they will insteadbe used more as an instrument for reviewing what has been learned. Theyare also suitable for this purpose from both a pedagogical and a linguisticpoint of view. In this sense, tests can serve as an incentive for advancedlearners. For example, if course graduates achieve CEFR level B1 after 600UE, they should not only be able to repeat the course, but also to move to thenext level by taking an additional 300 UE.Language is an important instrument for social progress and for becom-ing a member of society. It is not only societal knowledge that makes thispossible, but also the social importance of courses that should be improveddidactically in this respect.It has been shown in the naturalisation procedure that the acquisition ofGerman language skills and finding employment are not enough to developan understanding of life in old age. Topics such as health and old-age provi-sion should be included in the orientation courses and should be regarded asadditional integration measures.An improvement in societal knowledge would be an advantage. A revi-sion of orientation courses is needed with regard to the adequacy of the levelof language proficiency and the adult learning and teaching methods, as wellas enhanced cooperation with the Federal Agency for Civic Education, in or-der to make civic education a more attractive component of teaching. Thismight also have a positive effect on naturalisation behaviour. Furthermore,this is also important because, in a few years, the naturalisation test will bediscontinued, once most immigrants have completed the orientation coursewithin the integration courses.A more respectful attitude toward language skills will create more incen-tives than binding measures. If the migrant’s qualification is not recognisedin Germany, his chances on the labour market will be similar to those of theGerman ‘lower social classes’. Language proficiency is no guarantee of a job.Access to the job market is a more complex issue. However, since near-nativecommand of the German language does not guarantee better career pros-pects on the labour market, targeted integration measures are needed. These

Bielefeldt, H. (2005),Zwangsheirat und multikulturelle Gesellschaft Anmerkungenzur aktuellen Debatte,DIMR, Essay no. 2, Berlin.Fischer-Lescano, A. (2006), Verschärfung des Ausländerrechts unter demDeckmantel der Umsetzung von EU-Richtlinien,Kritische Justiz39: 236-246.Funke-Kaiser, M. (2010): Das Erfordernis deutscher Sprachkenntnisse desnachziehenden Ehegatten,Informationsbrief für Ausländerrecht1: 9-14.Gutmann, R. (2005), Integration durch Kurse,Informationsbrief für Ausländer-recht1, 45-48.Gutmann, R. (2010), Familiennachzug und Sprachkenntnisse,Zeitschrift fürAusländerrecht und Ausländerpolitik3: 90-96.Hentges, G. (2010), Integrations- und Orientierungskurse. Konzepte – Kont-roversen – Erfahrungen, in G. Hentges, V. Hinnenkamp & A. Zwengel(Eds.),Migrations- und Integrationsforschung in der Diskussion, Biografie,Sprache und Bildung als zentrale Bezugspunkte:23-77, 2., aktualisierte Auf-lage, VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden.Hillgruber, C. (2006), Mindestalter und sprachliche Integrationsvorleistung –verfassungsgemäße Voraussetzungen des Ehegattennachzugs?,Zeit-schrift für Ausländerrecht und Ausländerpolitik9: 304-317.Huber, B. (2004), Die geplante ausländerrechtliche Pflicht zur Teilnahme anIntegrationskursen, in K. Barwig & U. Davy (eds.),Auf dem Weg zurRechtsgleichheit? Konzepte und Grenzen einer Politik der Integration von Ein-wanderern,250-262, Nomos Verlag, Baden-Baden.Kingreen, Th. (2007), Verfassungsfragen des Ehegatten- und Familien-nachzugs,Zeitschrift für Ausländerrecht und Ausländerpolitik1, 13-20.Kreienbrink, A. & Rühl S. (2007),Familiennachzug in Deutschland, KleinstudieIV im Rahmen des Europäischen Migrationsnetzwerkes,Working paper10/2007 der Forschungsgruppe des Bundesamtes.Markard, N. & Truchseß, N. (2007), Neuregelung des Ehegattennachzugs imAufenthaltsgesetz,Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht9: 1025-1028.Michalowski, I. (2007),Integration als Staatsprogramm: Deutschland, Frankreichund die Niederlande im Vergleich,LIT Verlag Münster (Westf.).Ratia, E. & Walter, A. (2009),International Exploration on Forced Marriages.A study on legal initiatives, policies and public discussions in Belgium, France,Germany, the United Kingdom and Switzerland,Wolf Legal Publishers, Nij-megen.

Rühl, S. (2009),Grunddaten der Zuwandererbevölkerung in Deutschland,Work-ing Paper 27 der Forschungsgruppe des Bundesamtes für Migration undFlüchtlinge, Integrationsreport, Teil 6, Nürnberg.Seveker, M. (2008),Sprachkurse im Kontext von Integration und Aussiedlung. AmBeispiel der Altairegion/Westsibirien,VDM Verlag Dr. Müller, Saarbrücken.Thränhardt, D. (2008),Einbürgerung, Rahmenbedingungen, Motive und Perspek-tiven des Erwerbs der deutschen Staatsangehörigkeit,Gesprächskreis Migra-tion und Integration, Gutachten für die Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, Bonn.Walter, A. (2008),Reverse Discrimination and Family Reunification,Wolf LegalPublishers, Nijmegen.Walter, A. (2009),Familienzusammenführung in Europa: Völkerrecht, Gemein-schaftsrecht, Nationales Recht,Nomos Verlag, Baden-Baden.Worbs, S. (2008),Die Einbürgerung von Ausländern in Deutschland,WorkingPaper 17 der Forschungsgruppe des Bundesamtes für Migration undFlüchtlinge, Integrationsreport, Teil 3, Nürnberg.

7. Lagebericht (2007),7. Bericht der Beauftragten der Bundesregierung für Migra-tion, Flüchtlinge und Integration über die Lage der Ausländerinnen und Aus-länder in Deutschland,Berlin.www.bundesregierung.de/Content/DE/Publikation/IB/Anlagen/auslaenderbericht-7-barrierefrei,property=publicationFile.pdf8. Lagebericht (2010),8. Bericht der Beauftragten der Bundesregierung für Migra-tion, Flüchtlinge und Integration über die Lage der Ausländerinnen und Aus-länder in Deutschland,Berlin.www.bundesregierung.de/nn_56546/Content/DE/Artikel/IB/Artikel/Themen/Gesellschaft/2010-07-07-integrationsbericht.htmlAgisra e.V. (2008),Tätigkeitsbericht 2008,Berlin.BAMF (2005),Integration. Voneinander lernen – Gemeinsam leben. Integrations-kurse – Jahresbilanz,Berlin.BAMF (2008),Integrationskurse, Eine Erfolgsgeschichte und ein Modell für Eu-ropa, Bilanz 2008,Nürnberg. www.integration-in-deutschland.de.BAMF (2008a),Konzept für einen bundesweiten Integrationskurs,Nürnberg.www.integration-in-deutschland.de.Bericht der Unabhängigen Kommission ‘Zuwanderung’ (2001).Zuwanderunggestalten, Integration fördern,Berlin. www.bmi.bund.de.BMI (2006), Abschlussbericht zur Evaluation der Integrationskurse nach demZuwanderungsgesetz,Abschlussbericht und Gutachten über Verbesserungs-potenziale bei der Umsetzung der Integrationskurse,Berlin.

BMI (2006),Bericht zur Evaluierung des Gesetzes zur Steuerung und Begrenzungder Zuwanderung und Regelung des Aufenthalts und der Integration von Un-ionsbürgern und Ausländern (Zuwanderungsgesetz),Berlin.www.bmi.bund.de.Bundesregierung (2010),Bericht über die Evaluierung des Nachweises einfacherDeutschkenntnisse beim Ehegattennachzug nach dem Aufenthaltsgesetz – Spra-chlern- und Sprachtestangebote, Visumverfahren, erstellt vom AuswärtigenAmt, dem Bundesinnenministerium und der Beauftragten der Bundesregierungfür Integration, Migration und Flüchtlinge,Berlin, BTag-Drs. 17/3019.DIMR (2006),Stellungnahme des Deutschen Instituts für Menschenrechte zumEntwurf eines Gesetzes zur Umsetzung aufenthalts- und aylrechtlicher Richtli-nien der Europäischen Union,www.institut-fuer-menschenrechte.de/de/presse/stellungnahmen/stel-lungnahmen-2006.htmlEuropean Migration Network (2008),Small Scale Study IV ‘Familiy Reunifica-tion’, Synthesis Report,www.bamf.de/SharedDocs/Anlagen/DE/Migration/Downloads/EMN/EMNandere/emn__familiy__reunification__2007,templateId=raw,property=publicationFile.pdf/emn_familiy_reunification_2007.pdfKoalitionsvertrag 2002 von SPD und Bündnis90/DIE GRÜNEN,Erneuerung –Gerechtigkeit – Nachhaltigkeit. Für ein wirtschaftlich starkes, soziales und öko-logisches Deutschland.Koalitionsvertrag 2009 von CDU, CSU und FDP,Wachstum. Bildung. Zusam-menhalt.Migration und Bevölkerung (MuB) (2010),Deutschland: Diskussion um Staat-sangehörig-keitsrecht.March 2010, p. 2 f.Sachverständigenrat deutscher Stiftungen für Integration und Migration(2010),Einwanderungsgesellschaft 2010, Jahresgutachten 2010 mit Integra-tionsbarometer,Berlin.www.svr-migration.de/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/einwanderungsge-sellschaft_2010.pdf.Statistisches Bundesamt (2010),Bevölkerung und Erwerbstätigkeit, Einbürgerun-gen,Wiesbaden, 29 June 2010.