MIGRATION MANAGEMENT WITHIN FAMILY REUNIFICATION

Sina Fontana
{"title":"MIGRATION MANAGEMENT WITHIN FAMILY REUNIFICATION","authors":"Sina Fontana","doi":"10.17721/2227-796x.2019.4.05","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Family reunification is one of the purposes of stay within the Residence Act. The granting of the residence permit is fundamentally designed as a claim and must be granted if the requirements are met. In the course of ongoing forced migration, family reunification has become the focus of debates for ways to limit refugee migration. Since Article 6, Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the German Basic Law on the protection of marriage and family do not give rise to a right to entry, although its scope of protection must be taken into account when designing regulations on family reunification, the legislative scope for action is limited. The German legislature has decided that family reunification should be limited for persons with subsidiary protection status. Subsidiary protection is an element of protection that is shaped by EU law, which occurs alongside national asylum law and refugee protection, which is also shaped by EU law. Different requirements apply to these protective elements. Upon recognition, a humanitarian residence permit is issued, which differs in length depending on the protection status. While in the case of recognition as a person entitled to asylum or refugee status, the residence permit is initially issued for a period of one year, the duration in the case of subsidiary protection is only one year. In all cases there is the possibility of an extension. This different length of stay and the lower prospect of staying are the starting point for the restriction of family reunification for persons entitled to subsidiary protection in Section 36a of the Residence Act. As specified in the regulation as an example, family members of a person with subsidiary protection status can be granted a residence permit for the humanitarian reasons. The family reunification is now made dependent on the existence of further prerequisites in addition to family ties and is also designed not as a right but as a discretionary clause. In addition, the number of visas is limited to 1000 per month. Concerns about this restriction of family reunification were raised, in terms of possible violation of Article 6 Paragraphs 1 and 2 and Article 3 Paragraph 1 (Equality before the law) of the German Basic Law. Based on this, the following article carries out a constitutional analysis.","PeriodicalId":7222,"journal":{"name":"Administrative law and process","volume":"8 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Administrative law and process","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17721/2227-796x.2019.4.05","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Family reunification is one of the purposes of stay within the Residence Act. The granting of the residence permit is fundamentally designed as a claim and must be granted if the requirements are met. In the course of ongoing forced migration, family reunification has become the focus of debates for ways to limit refugee migration. Since Article 6, Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the German Basic Law on the protection of marriage and family do not give rise to a right to entry, although its scope of protection must be taken into account when designing regulations on family reunification, the legislative scope for action is limited. The German legislature has decided that family reunification should be limited for persons with subsidiary protection status. Subsidiary protection is an element of protection that is shaped by EU law, which occurs alongside national asylum law and refugee protection, which is also shaped by EU law. Different requirements apply to these protective elements. Upon recognition, a humanitarian residence permit is issued, which differs in length depending on the protection status. While in the case of recognition as a person entitled to asylum or refugee status, the residence permit is initially issued for a period of one year, the duration in the case of subsidiary protection is only one year. In all cases there is the possibility of an extension. This different length of stay and the lower prospect of staying are the starting point for the restriction of family reunification for persons entitled to subsidiary protection in Section 36a of the Residence Act. As specified in the regulation as an example, family members of a person with subsidiary protection status can be granted a residence permit for the humanitarian reasons. The family reunification is now made dependent on the existence of further prerequisites in addition to family ties and is also designed not as a right but as a discretionary clause. In addition, the number of visas is limited to 1000 per month. Concerns about this restriction of family reunification were raised, in terms of possible violation of Article 6 Paragraphs 1 and 2 and Article 3 Paragraph 1 (Equality before the law) of the German Basic Law. Based on this, the following article carries out a constitutional analysis.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
家庭团聚中的移民管理
家庭团聚是居留法规定的居留目的之一。居留许可的授予基本上是一种申请,如果满足要求,就必须授予。在持续不断的被迫移徙过程中,家庭团聚已成为限制难民移徙方式辩论的焦点。由于《德国基本法》关于保护婚姻和家庭的第6条第1款和第2款没有规定入境权,尽管在制定关于家庭团聚的条例时必须考虑到其保护范围,因此采取行动的立法范围是有限的。德国立法机关已决定,家庭团聚应限于具有附属保护地位的人。辅助保护是由欧盟法律形成的保护要素,它与国家庇护法和难民保护一起发生,后者也由欧盟法律形成。不同的要求适用于这些保护元件。一经确认,将颁发人道主义居留许可,其长短视保护状况而定。在被承认为有权获得庇护或难民地位的人的情况下,最初颁发的居留证期限为一年,而在获得辅助保护的情况下,期限仅为一年。在任何情况下都有延期的可能。这种不同的停留时间和较低的停留前景是限制《居住法》第36a条中有权获得辅助保护的人的家庭团聚的起点。如条例所规定的例子,具有附属保护地位的人的家庭成员可因人道主义原因获得居留证。家庭团聚现在取决于除家庭关系之外是否存在进一步的先决条件,而且也不是作为一项权利而是作为一项酌情条款设计的。此外,每个月的签证数量限制为1000个。有人对这种对家庭团聚的限制表示关切,认为这可能违反《德国基本法》第6条第1款和第2款以及第3条第1款(法律面前人人平等)。在此基础上,本文进行了宪政分析。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
SOME ISSUES OF INSTANCE JURISDICTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE COURTS REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR THE FUNCTIONING OF ADMINISTRATIVE COURTS UNDER MARITAL LAW THE LEGAL ESSENCE OF THE ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE: A BRIEF COMPARATIVE HISTORICAL AND LEGAL ANALYSIS PECULIARITIES OF DETERMINING THE LEGAL STATUS OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY AND DEFENSE COUNCIL OF UKRAINE AS A SUBJECT OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION THE LAW ON FOOD SECURITY OF UKRAINE AS A LEGAL BASIS OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION IN THE FIELD OF ENSURING FOOD SECURITY
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1