移民的二等公民?

Q4 Social Sciences Verwaltung Pub Date : 2019-07-01 DOI:10.3790/verw.52.3.407
Daniel Thym
{"title":"移民的二等公民?","authors":"Daniel Thym","doi":"10.3790/verw.52.3.407","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"While the technical details of immigration and asylum legislation remain the domain of a comparatively narrow field of experts, debates about nationality law often cause widespread attention within domestic academic circles. The latest reform was a case in point: in 2019, the government proposed depriving terrorist fighters of German nationality (provided that they have another passport) and suggested prohibiting the naturalisation of those with several spouses, thereby triggering a heated debate among experts. This contribution sets off to embed the legal-doctrinal analysis into a broader reflection on the role of nationality law as a forum for and vehicle of broader societal debates about the collective identity of Germans in the early 21st century. The article scrutinises this double function from an interdisciplinary perspective and shows that it is entrenched in the history of German nationality law with the extensive reform of 1999 as its climax. By contrast, the latest changes do not bring about a major conceptual or practical shift, since they continue earlier developments. Depriving terrorist fighters of the German passport adapts an established ground for the loss of nationality of those serving in foreign armies to the international context of asymmetric warfare; blocking the naturalisation of foreigners with several spouses reacts to a court judgment and complements several other small reform measures that have reinforced the integration paradigm within German nationality law over the past two decades. Against this background, the time may have come to disentangle nationality law from broader debates about collective identity at a time when many former immigrants have a German passport anyway. Such reconstruction of the national self-image beyond naturalisation may be addressed analytically from the standpoint of the citizenship paradigm, which remains normatively contested, but transcends technical focus of immigration, asylum and nationality legislation.","PeriodicalId":36848,"journal":{"name":"Verwaltung","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Bürger zweiter Klasse im Einwanderungsland?\",\"authors\":\"Daniel Thym\",\"doi\":\"10.3790/verw.52.3.407\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"While the technical details of immigration and asylum legislation remain the domain of a comparatively narrow field of experts, debates about nationality law often cause widespread attention within domestic academic circles. The latest reform was a case in point: in 2019, the government proposed depriving terrorist fighters of German nationality (provided that they have another passport) and suggested prohibiting the naturalisation of those with several spouses, thereby triggering a heated debate among experts. This contribution sets off to embed the legal-doctrinal analysis into a broader reflection on the role of nationality law as a forum for and vehicle of broader societal debates about the collective identity of Germans in the early 21st century. The article scrutinises this double function from an interdisciplinary perspective and shows that it is entrenched in the history of German nationality law with the extensive reform of 1999 as its climax. By contrast, the latest changes do not bring about a major conceptual or practical shift, since they continue earlier developments. Depriving terrorist fighters of the German passport adapts an established ground for the loss of nationality of those serving in foreign armies to the international context of asymmetric warfare; blocking the naturalisation of foreigners with several spouses reacts to a court judgment and complements several other small reform measures that have reinforced the integration paradigm within German nationality law over the past two decades. Against this background, the time may have come to disentangle nationality law from broader debates about collective identity at a time when many former immigrants have a German passport anyway. Such reconstruction of the national self-image beyond naturalisation may be addressed analytically from the standpoint of the citizenship paradigm, which remains normatively contested, but transcends technical focus of immigration, asylum and nationality legislation.\",\"PeriodicalId\":36848,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Verwaltung\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Verwaltung\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3790/verw.52.3.407\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Verwaltung","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3790/verw.52.3.407","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

虽然移民和庇护立法的技术细节仍然是相对狭窄的专家领域的领域,但关于国籍法的辩论往往引起国内学术界的广泛关注。最新的改革就是一个很好的例子:2019年,政府提议剥夺恐怖分子的德国国籍(前提是他们持有另一本护照),并建议禁止那些有多名配偶的人入籍,从而引发了专家们的激烈辩论。这一贡献开始将法律理论分析嵌入到更广泛的反思中,即国籍法作为21世纪初关于德国人集体身份的更广泛的社会辩论的论坛和载体的作用。本文从跨学科的角度审视了这一双重功能,并表明它以1999年的广泛改革为高潮,在德国国籍法的历史中根深蒂固。相比之下,最近的变化并没有带来重大的概念上或实际上的转变,因为它们延续了以前的发展。剥夺恐怖主义战斗人员的德国护照使在外国军队服役的人丧失国籍的既定理由适应了不对称战争的国际背景;阻止有几个配偶的外国人入籍是对法院判决的回应,也是对其他几项小型改革措施的补充,这些措施在过去20年里加强了德国国籍法中的融合范式。在这种背景下,在许多前移民都持有德国护照的情况下,是时候将国籍法与更广泛的关于集体身份的辩论分开了。这种超越入籍的国家自我形象的重建可以从公民身份范式的角度进行分析,这在规范上仍然存在争议,但超越了移民、庇护和国籍立法的技术焦点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Bürger zweiter Klasse im Einwanderungsland?
While the technical details of immigration and asylum legislation remain the domain of a comparatively narrow field of experts, debates about nationality law often cause widespread attention within domestic academic circles. The latest reform was a case in point: in 2019, the government proposed depriving terrorist fighters of German nationality (provided that they have another passport) and suggested prohibiting the naturalisation of those with several spouses, thereby triggering a heated debate among experts. This contribution sets off to embed the legal-doctrinal analysis into a broader reflection on the role of nationality law as a forum for and vehicle of broader societal debates about the collective identity of Germans in the early 21st century. The article scrutinises this double function from an interdisciplinary perspective and shows that it is entrenched in the history of German nationality law with the extensive reform of 1999 as its climax. By contrast, the latest changes do not bring about a major conceptual or practical shift, since they continue earlier developments. Depriving terrorist fighters of the German passport adapts an established ground for the loss of nationality of those serving in foreign armies to the international context of asymmetric warfare; blocking the naturalisation of foreigners with several spouses reacts to a court judgment and complements several other small reform measures that have reinforced the integration paradigm within German nationality law over the past two decades. Against this background, the time may have come to disentangle nationality law from broader debates about collective identity at a time when many former immigrants have a German passport anyway. Such reconstruction of the national self-image beyond naturalisation may be addressed analytically from the standpoint of the citizenship paradigm, which remains normatively contested, but transcends technical focus of immigration, asylum and nationality legislation.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Verwaltung
Verwaltung Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
7
期刊最新文献
Fluggastdatenspeicherung: Die Zukunft von Vorratsdatenspeicherung und automatisierter Verdachtsgenerierung Das Politische der Gemeinnützigkeit: Das Vereinsrecht zwischen Steuerrecht, Gefahrenabwehr und Antidiskriminierung Die Bedeutung von Handbüchern für die Entwicklung des Öffentlichen Rechts Augmented Reality im öffentlichen Raum Das Standardsetzungsmodell des IT-Sicherheitsrechts im Kontext kritischer Infrastrukturen
×
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