by 1974 & of OF THE WEST MIGRANT WORKER SURVEY A OF THE LABOR 2

P r e p r i n t S e r i e s A r b e i t s g r u p p e

I n t e r n a t i o n a l e s I n s t i t u t f u r v e r g l e i c h e n d e G e s e l l s c h a f t s f o r s c h u n g I n t e r n a t i o n a l I n s t i t u t e f o r C o m p a r a t i v e S o c i a l S t u d i e s

o f t h e S c i e n c e C e n t e r B e r l i n , D-1000 B e r l i n 12, S t e i n p l a t z 2 P/74-lb

INTERNATIONAL LABOR MIGRATION:

A DESCRIPTION OF THE PRELIMINARY FINDINGS OF THE WEST BERLIN MIGRANT WORKER SURVEY

by

Ayse Kudat

w i t h t h e a s s i s t a n c e o f C z a r i n a W i l p e r t & F e r i d e 5 z a r

O c t o b e r , 1974

I n t e r n a t i o n a l Labor M i g r a t i o n P r o j e c t D i r e c t e d by

t h e A u t h o r

The f o r

p r e p r i n t s e r i e s i n c l u d e p a p e r s c i r c u l a t e d

p r e l i m i n a r y d i s c u s s i o n p u r p o s e s .

In the first section of this report I have describèd the survey instrument and detailed its implementation.

This second section will address itself to a description of the overall survey findings. It is hoped that this effort would serve two purposes: a) to release general information immediately before we go into the details of data analyses; b) to be able to give some priority in further analyses to areas which have ar-oua-rd readers I

interest.

I. ~omEo_s~tion of the Sam12le

As I have noted in the first· section of this report the sample is composed of two nationality groups;

Turks constitute 68.7% of the total sample and Yugoslavs are 31.2% - reflecting very closely the actual ratio of these two populations in the city (66.2-to 33.8 in

January 1973).1)

Of the total respondents 38% were women and the sex ration was similar for both nationality groups (Table 3), reflecting rather accurately the actual characteristics of the population for the Turkish group, though somewhat under-representing females in the Yugoslavian case.

1) Statistisches Landesamt, Berlin, Statistisches Jahrbuch, 1973, page 186.

2

Table 3

Sex Distribution of the Sample

(in %)

-

Nationality Male l¡'e

-- ^_.

--

Turkish 61.5 3

n ^:::: 1560

Yugoslav 62.5 3

n ^:::: 711

Total 61.8' 3

n ^{== 2271}

---~

---,

male ---j

8.5

7.4

8.3

The age distribution of the sample as a whole

reveals, expectedly, a young popula·tion, an over- _,

i

whelming majority of which is between the ages of

18

and 41 (Table 4) ; national comparisons yield ⁱ

II

i

I

rather similar distribu·tions (Graph 1) • In the Turkish case we observe a more normalized age distribution, 60% of the sample being concentrated between the ages of 27 and 38, whereas the Yugoslav distribution is more skewed with its mode in an

early age group: 24-26. The Turkish working population is also slightly older, on the average, than the

Yugoslavian; the mean age is 31.7 for the former group and 30.1 for the ~atter.

II. Family B.9.ckgro~

Almost three-fourths of the foreign workers intßrviewed were married and a striking difference was observed in this regard between the two nationality groups. For reasons which can be accounted for only after further analyses of the data, only one half of the Yugoslav workers compared to 82.5% of the Turks were married.

Again, while 40.8% of the former were single, among Turks this percentage was only 11.7. When the category

"separated wit.h the intention of çetting a di vorce"

is grouped with the "divorced" category (Table 5) we find

I

4

Table 4

Age Distribution of the Sample

(in %)

. n

^of

Age Turks

¡

Yugoslavs Total

t

^Tota

- ^-

^'--

t

I ¡

n % n ^%

I

n

I

^%

1--. --i---

15-17 11 0.7 2 0.3 13

o.

18-20 98 6.3 24 3.3 122 5.

21-23 80 . 5.1 88 12.4 168 7.

24-26 164 10.5 179 25.2 343 15.

27-29 214 13.7 94 13.3 308

I

^13.

30-32 254 16.3 100 14.1 354 15.

33-35 278 17.9 53 7.5 331 14.

36-38 200 12.8 62 8.7 262 11.

39-41 137 8.8 37 5.2 174 7.

42-44 69 4.4 42 5.9 111 4 .

45-47 26 1.6 13 1.8 39 l.

48+ 22 1.4 11 1.6 33 l.

r ^-

n

=

^{1553 100% 705 100% 2258 10}

---

1

5 4 4 2

6

6 7

6 7 9

7 4

0%

Graph 1

Age Distribution of the Sample

Turks

Age 48+

45-47 42-44 39 ·41 36-38 33-3'5 30-32

..

27-29 24-26 21,-23 18-20 15-17

--_

^.._,

35

.'

lO

... 'r-

~""'.

,-+-

-I-- -"L-+-1.-,

Yugoslavs

-_. -

'_"E ₌ ^--

1.-.,.- -+_. _

~,---~~---~

-~-_,I¡__-I-I --r--T-'--t---t--^ru-

t~ ---t--·---.··----+-t ^---+---

30 35 %

30 25 20 15

--r---""_'3 .r----+--:=f

5 O 5 10

15

20 25

---._---~----~---- Table5 MaritalStatusofForeignWorkers (in%)

I

NatiOnalit~.Married

I

Single

I

Divorced

I.

Separated

I

Widowed

I ! .' , , I .

I,li',

i ! I I ¡ ¡ , -

I ¡I¡! ,I;!

i

ï ¡-¡,I! íTurkish

! ! I

il1 ¡!I

¡ I ¡ -' ! I

ⁿ

-1560

I

82.0¡11.7

¡

3.8

I

1.21.3-

, I I

! I!

I

¡i

I I I

Yugoslav

¡ I I i . I I In =

709

I

52.3

i

40.8

¡

5.9

I

0.6

I

0.3

I ' " I

!¡I

I

¡!.¡I~-- ~•ft

I j ¡ !

!

! i I

ⁱTotal!

! I I l I - I

I,

I

1¡

I'

n

=

2269j'72.7

I

20.8

I

4.4I1.0~0.9

I I I

I~:.i¡

¡

I i

¡ I

I!!'m

roughly equal (5%) distribution of both groups in this' situation.

Of the married workers, only a very small portion were able to immigrate with their families; many

arrived either before or after their spouses and some were married abroad (Table 6). More exactly, of the total sample 6.6% were able to iromigrate joint.1y with their spouses, while a total of 83% were effectively separated from their spouses in the process of

migration; 46.7% migrated and their spouses joined them later, 19.2 % came alone and are sti Il sepa r at.ed from their families, and 17.1% were left behind in .their home countries until the difficulties of reunion with

their working spouses abroad were overcome. One-tenth of the responden"ts, on the other hand, have met and married their spouses abroad. The two nationality

groups differ rather dramatically in this respect.

At the outset it appears that a smaller percentage of Yugoslavs have been separated from their spouses in the process of migration. However, this first

impression must be modified by two further observations with respect to those workers who were married prior to

their emigration (i.e. excluding the category

"married abroad") .

Table6 MarriedWorkers-ModeofMigration INatiOnalit Y

1---

-;~d-eofl;igrati::---(in%)1

I

Together

I

AloneIAloneAlone

I

Alone Spousecarne

I

SpousestillMarriedPartnerwas

I

Otheri later¡inhomecountryhereAlreadyini i¡IGermany

I . I ¡ I 'I. I

5.9

I

52.2

I

15.6

I

6.4

I

19.9O

i

Turkish

I I

0.6

I

n

=

1227 17.1

. !

.i.

I

Yugoslav31.522.18.18.928.8 I !n

=

~-

I

371

I ¡

0.1

¡

I

I

Total

I

n

=

1598

19.3

I

10.06.646.7 co

First, for both ethnic groups the disintegrative pressures of international migration seem to have been equally strong for as little as 6.3% of Turkish and 11.4% Yugoslav families were able to migrate jointly.

Yet, the disintegrative pressures on the Yugoslav families appear to continue to a much higher degree:

focusing on the stock of these married workers resident in West Berlin during the time of the interview we observe that 40.4% were still separated from their spouses, while 47.9% managed to reunite after some period of separation. These percentages were 16.6 and 76.9 for the Turks, indicatins in the case of the latter a greater tendency to re-unite in

comparison with the former.

Secondly, the participation of families, as opposed to unmarried individuals in the emigration process

is much more predominant in the Turkish case than in the Yugoslavlan: 73% of the former but only 40% of the latter were already married at the time of their departure from their home countries. Thus, although Yugoslav families particlpate in the international

labor migration process to a lesser extent than Turks, those who participate have a greater tendency of

10

remaining disintegrated throughout the workers' stay abroad. This observation is also reflected in Table 7.

Inquiries concerning the work experience of workers' spouses reveal that 69% of the spouses were also

employed. The breakdown of the data into sub-samples reveals a slightly higher tendency for the Yugoslav couples to be jointly employed than Turks (Table 8).

Further examination of the location of spouses' work yielas, pal?alle1 to the tendencies outlined above,

a greater inclination of Yugoslav spouses to take employment at home; although a majority (88%) in both cases, are located in West Berlin (Table 9).

Children

In addition to the survey's concentration on familial background and degree of family integration information was also sought about the children of migrants. Regardless of their marital status the

respondents were first asked the number of their children. On the average, including the respondents without any children, the typical foreign worker

interviewed had 1.67 children. However, th~re were dramatic differences between the two national groups:

while Yugoslavs had only 0.75 children, this number was 2.1 for the Turks. Limiting the analysis to those

respondents who were married, the mean. number of children

Table 7 Location of Spouse

Nationality

-LõëãtIõnOf"Spouse--(

ⁱⁿ %)

._--- ---_. ---

West Horne West Berlin Germany Country

t---1---~---+.----

Turkish 81.9 0.7 17.4

n

-

¹²²⁷

,

- -

Yugoslav 65.1 1.09 33.8

n ^:::: 364

f--.

- --

Total 78.01 .8 21.5

n -- 1591

... .. _:..-..._ .. .. v<UC'oo ... "' •• _ ..

12

Table 8

Employment of Spouse

---_.-_.

Nationality Employment Situation

___ji~

^%)

Employed Unemployed

Turkish 67.2 32.4

n

=

¹²³⁷

--

Yugoslav 75.2 24.5

n

=

³⁶⁶

- ^-

Total 69.2 30.8

-n

=

¹⁶⁴⁹

~

-

Table 9

Location of Spouses' Employment

--- --

Nationality Location of Spouses' Employment (in %)

Be~ West Home

Germany Country

--

rrurkish 95.9 0.3 3.7

n ^::::: 868

¡--. ¡-.

--

Yugoslav 80.1

0.7

19.1

n ^::::: 277

!

Total 88.0 I

0.4 7.4

I

n ^::::: 1145

!

____j

-

14

increased to 2.53 for the Turks and 1.46 for

the Yugoslavs. Furthermore, if only those respondents with children were taken into consideration these means increased to 2.7 and 1.7, r-espe ct.Lvely, for the two groups (Table 10). Thus, the Yugoslav migrant workers not only manifested a lower inclination to

establish family unions but those with families, despite the similarities in the age distribution of the sub- sample, seemed to have kept their family sizes

relatively small. Again, a smaller portion of their families, compared to those of the Turks, took part in the emigration process.

Various types of further information has been sought for each child of a migrant worker, (up to his seventh child). On the basis of the data obtained individually for each child a general conclusion can be made that workers, as a whole, had a rather low inclination, though not necessarily voluntary, to bring their children to West Berlin. Although further analysis is required concerning the limitations and

involved (55.7%) remained in the home countries of motivations involved, more than half of the children

workers. This tendency was particularly evident among Yugoslav workers who, on the average, brought only one-fourth of their children with them (Table 11) .

---_.--------_._~~~

Table 10 Children of Foreign Workers I Nationality ¡ Nw~~er of Children* (in

%)

I

II,

I I I

I I 1

I ² I ³

4 5

6

I I i I 7 8 8+

,

Mean

I!.

I

I

I I I

¡i I! I

I

¡!

23.21 1403 I

I

I

I

I 7~11 3.1 2.5 I 0.7 I 0.5

I

2.8 ,

I¡I

I ¡ In 1157 I

I

I .I .

n

= 318

! !

I

I .

52.5I33.0110•

41 2.2 I

0.610.6

I ¡ I

I

¡I

I I I

¡

•

•

I

I I· I 0.3 I I

1 0.3 I 1.7 Yugoslav ~ These numbers are shown only ror those respondents with children.

Table Il

16

Location of Children

o.

Child* Nation-

aLlt.y

(in _%)

Germany Other

Location of Children

'J.' • 50.1

TOTAL

42

.> Home

Country

I---¡---I---I--- ---~--- -

49.7 0.1 1152

i . y. 29,0 71.0

2.

T, 45.6 54.3 0,1

310 916 139

~----_+---_r---4---4---1

45.3 3 •

y, 21.6 78.4

0.2 580

_____ -+- -t- +-__ o I--__o_o + _

55.5 4.

T. 54,5

319

t---t---+--o---f--- .._ __.~ --lo o__

10

_____ -I- ~--_-_--- __---~-- __-

--o-_--.--

47.9 5.

6 . ^{_J ' __ ,_ ,.,_" "•••" '"'• ...,. ,},,_."""~ ~,.. ,,~ _ • ,,,. ~_~_"'~,."~""~r ~"".._._.._. ".', ".~ ,._....-~""., _'''',__'''"_"'_.-¥ ~n._ ••.,_~.,.'''...,~_, ••h~._..~ '~~..,""_ ~,~._.~ ..

73

y. 16,7 83.3

155 4

r---+---I---~---~--.--- ----

7 • .".~..- ..~.,~,.-...,-.,"'.-_.--~...-..."...-~,~~..."'I.~~.,,,.,_..-..,...-~.'.... , .- -"-""'~'·9...."'_-~.' ~,.., " ...'~-, •..,-...."- ......,..,. ....".~"",,~ ... ,.~....~-.-'''' ....,-....~,-,, ... '."... -... ~ .."- ...--, ... -..

Total

y,

- ^{- -}

- _---

^1--

1528 ^I 1701

rr.

^,

-

47.0 53.0

T. 44.5

34

---+--_.----~

---r--_."" _~_ ----~~,-.~.~~.--~- ~.""_.>~ .__~.~_~."~__~ _~~~ . ~.u_"_~__..~.~.__ ••~

_N_~.~._~~ .__ ,_

y.

T. 51.6 48.4

3229 505

3743

!

__¡_ __¡ ^~o_ __!..

• Each row indicates the information for the nth child of the sub-samples,

y,

T.

52,1

y.

44.1 55.9

T,

127 378

y. 25.0 75.0

r---

Together 1655

44.3 55.7

-

-

Dividing the range between the two extremes - of

i·

those respondents leaving all of their children

several degrees of integration (i.e., those bringing behind and those bringing all of them along - into

none, one-third, two-thirds, all of their childree along), we hope to be able to say much more about the correlation of family disintegration among the guest workers in our forthcoming studies.

Of the children who stayed with the workers abroad 40%, on the whole, were in schools or kindergartens,

while 35% were being cared for at home. Yugoslav workers seemed to have a clear preference to have their children in their home countries unless they were sent to a

school or kindergarten in West Berlin - a preference /' relati vel weaker among the Turks (Table 12). Turkish

workers also exhibited a greater inclination to allow their children to work¡ 10.3% of the total Turkish children abroad, as opposed to 6% of the Yugoslav

children were said to be employed. Further examination of the schooling of the children abroad revealed, as

in Table 13), that about two-thirds of them were in expected considering their age distribution (as shown

the elementary school, while the remaining attended primarily, either a secondary or an occupational school (Table 14).

Table 12 Children's Activities in West Berlin I I I Activity (in

%)----

I Child I Nation-

II.....I

¡ ality ¡Attending I!At::--endln g I Works

I

Stays at! Other

¡

School Klnder- I home I

!

qarden

TOTF.L 19.1

n

I

_I

I T.

¡

28.5 I 14.3 I 4.1 --Ii 'st I

I ..L

I Y. 22.3 51.1 I 5.3

!

! . I

51.5 1.6 579 I

94

I 2.1 I --- -

I---.-,---~---fj-

_ T.

II

50.8 6.7

I

6.7 I 34.7 I

!

2nd

iI

i I

Y· 1

40.°1

33 •3 _

i~_ ~_~_I_- _ 20.0 I

1.2 3.3 I I

I

.121 -

~I

30 I

I ¡i 1

I I

I

I i I

rrr

55.7 3.0 14.0 26.5 I 0.8 264

1

3rd

.L•

I

I

¡

l· Y. 57.1

,

28.6 , I 14.3 I 7 I

I.II.

I

I

.1 ~ 8

!¡iI

I T. I 1.4 I

22.2 28.5 , 2.1 144

_J•I

I

Llf-h

I I- --- Y.

!

I

1

I

t

. I I I ¡ I

I

I i

T. 44.4 29.6 22.2 1.2 1.2 81 .

I

¡ 5th

¡

Y. ! I

1 I ! I I

II

I i T.

¡

28.6 5.7 I 40.0 I

25.7 I

I

35

i

I

-I

1 6th I Y.

lI

I I I

I I iI, I

I Total I T. 641 147 160 570 20 1539 42.0 9.5 10.3 37.0 1.2 I _.

.._.___-..-~,,;-~...-"--_..

_~

,~_._...,~'-~"-"""..----~---....----'---'~---'--'''-'~_._-..-_.__.,~_·..._.,___~_.w_._____..__--...-

._

...-

37 60 8 25 3

I v

133

I

... 27.8 45.0 , 6.0 18.8 2.3

I I

I !

I

I ¡Toaether 678 207 1168 I 595 23

I

I I -' . 40.5 I 12.3 I 10.0

.!

35 .. 5 1.3 J 1672

J------------._--_-_._..

~ co

_-------.._----_._---_.._-_.~---...------~--~--- Table13 AgeofWorkers'Children (in%) 4thChild.15thChild16thC_hild T.

I

Y.

r--

AGE--¡1stChild¡2ndChildI3rdChild

I

!T.

I

Y.T.

I

Y.

I

T.

I

Y.

I

T.

I

Y.

¡

T.

I

Y.

,-- 1~.----1 - I - - .- I r-- Î r- - I 11.:-.3\._40,0 127,6113,4

17,0

I

6,2

11:,215,4 ¡.... 6,3/.1 9,1 /_:~ ~._1_.22~4_1 ~8,612!,2_8, 2

17,610,111,6

I__~ ,0.1---

1,3. !I9

I

16,515,42/,3119,025,513,021,0I11,5

I

39r41 ,.---!--

---"--1 '.'--'- .... .----. ¡- ... ----' --- --- ----I' . 1- --- -- .

-I".---,I---.. ¡IO-l~_\__1~~

~~.~-:~--1.~2~~1~~-~-~-1 --~

0.'._3_.

t-

2 6~-~-~,~,~-

I --- ~

~!~

"'1' __ . : .

9,.~,I-_--.

1 13 _=-1~ 1.5,71~!6 !,.~_lll!~_/._.1_~_'O_1-1~,6_ _l-6_'~t---I-

-,-9,~,__.--.

2~'!.?-!---1

¡16+

I

5,3119,59,1'28,2¡16,8,13,026,3¡37,4I49,9 1---;Ii. I¡l-58'811II.

!

¡n=_~In=31.n=915n=147¡n=585n=46n=320In=13ln=157n=6I

I I I I

I

I I I ¡

J

I

ⁿ⁼⁷⁶

i

n=4

I

HeanageofTurkishchildren

=

8.58 MeanageofYugoslavchildren=9.2

Table

14

SchoolingofChildreninWestBerlin

I

t

I I

2.4

¡

I ¡

! I I

I

I I 170 I I

I I l.

I

T.

77.1 ¡ 12.9 I

1.2 I 2.9 I

2.9 0.6 I 28

1

I 67.9 7.1 10.7 3.6 3.6 I

Y.

,

I

7.1

I ¡,I¡i

I

I

I I I 6. O -,

I

I 217 I

.'

T. 75.1 14.3 2.3 1.4 0.5 I

0.5 I 2. Ill.S I

I

I

1

Y. 76.5 5.9 I 5.9 ·1· . ·1

17 I

I

I

·1 I,,

i I

T.I

68.2 ]-16.2-1 4.5 I - '9.7 I 1.3 I - I 154,' I

3.

¡

Y•

I I II

¡5I i.IIIII!I

I

I'

I

I¡I

I I

'!

I

T.

I 68.6 I 15.7 ! 1.4 I - 12.9 ¡ 1.4 - 70 I

I4.¡Y.

I I I I I!

2

I

¡!

I I _ I

I

¡Child

I

I

I

SchoolingofChildren(i~%)

¡-

Natio

!'"

I .alitYlEle-'second-IHighPrepar-

!.

Occupa-

I

Technical

I

Other

I I I

mentaryary

i

School

I

ation

!

tional

¡

SChOOl)'I' SchoolISchool

I

School

I

SchoolI

TOTAL

I

n

I I T. 18.4 38

15.

I 5.3 I -2.6 /.

I

I ¡

23.7 I

¡

I ¡

50.0I 2

Y.

-

I ^6. I I 53.8 T.

¡

¡

Y.-I !L-

J

I

¡tv

- I - 13

Io

I , I

-'-

__ I

; i -----~-------------"--._"---"__---------_----_----

I

I

23.1

I

7.7

I - I

15.4

I

I

¡ I I I ---'----

Another interesting observation can be made about

, , the care of children abroad. On the whole, only half of these children were cared for mainly by their

parents -fathers assuming, in this regard, very little responsiblity. National comparisons revealed visible differences; the Yugoslav workers brought along their children only if they were going to be cared for by their mothers, and to a much lesser degree, fathers and/or grandparents; Yugoslav children were only entrusted to these three caretakers. In the Turkish case, on the other hand, not only as little as 46% of all children were raised primarily by their parents

(and 43% by mothers alone), but also one-third 'of the workers acknowledged that the children were left alone without care. Among the Turks there were also numerous

cases where children were guarded by older siblings, neighbors, other relatives and boarding schools. This was not at all the case among the Yugoslavs ('rabIe 15).

As for the children left'in the home countries, 53% of the total were said to be in school,while the remainder, looked after at home, were probably under school age (Table 16). Again Yugoslav children left behind tended, to a greater extent, to be in school - a fact which might helf explain why these workers had a stronger preference for leaving their children behind.

Table15 CareofChildreninWestBerlin

I

¡ Child

I

Nation-

I

ITOTAL

¡

alityMother

I

Father

¡

Older

I

No-oneGrandOther')Neighbor!OtherBoardingII'n

I I I; !

parentsPersons

I

Relatives

I

School I,II¡I

CaringAgents(in%)

I T·I

50.

7

1

I

3.4

I

5.325.63.

7

1.6

-G6 --- -,

0.2

I

i.

I

Y.

I

91.7.3.7_I3.7¡0.9

I

Il

I

I."¡

1.9566

I

¹⁰⁹ 412

I

35 !;56 í

I

12

I

140!

I

!m!43'4I22!51

I

3a1¡-2-4-i I..L·I_._.•Î'-'oI• 2.IY.

I

82.9111.4112.912.9

0.5

I ¡

,

,

1.54.41.5 ,l

-i - - - , - '

•••I. - 1.2 8.3

I

-¡ 0.7

6.6:

47.71

3.90.4-1.6

I

35.2

I

83.3 0.43.1

T.

0.7

3.

Y.

II ¡47.9

I

4.32.15.0T.39.3 !

I I

I

I I

4.

Y. I

¡

I I

I JI

I

Ii!

I !

I1 iI

I ' I I '

i!

I I

33.3

I 1.3!I78

I

T.I

I

2.62.6 1

60.3

I - - I -

I

-

1

, I

5.I

! ¡ Y. I I I ' I

1¡ II-i

I I

1I

I I I

T.

I

47.25.6

I

44.4

I T

2.8

I I I

¡

36! -

- - I - - I I

6.

I I I I

I

I Y. _I ____ J _ - I

I

I

I!

I

!I r0 N

--_._---

Schooling at· home

, . Child Nation-_ality

--

(in %)

^---

TOTAL

Yes No n

---

^-

T. 36.3 63.1 572

l. Y. 61.2 38.8 224

'---~-

_._-_,-- _{_} ._---~---- ^- _

T. 55.5 44.1 495

2 .

Y.

75.7 23.4 110

i -

._--

r.J.1 • 64.4 34.7 317

,

3.

:

Y.

72.2 27.8 36

-- - ^---

T. 60.2 39.8 176

4.

Y.

10

- - -

^I

T. 59.7 37.7 75

5 . Y. \ 3

_o

--

^r-"

T. 44.7 55.3 38

6.

Y.

2 ⁱ

-

T. 55.0 45.0 20 ,

7.

Y.

__ o

Table 16

Education of Children in their Home Countries

Total T. 1693

n=2078 51.0 49.0

---

---,_

--,---.----

---_._---.-

Y. 385

63.0 37.0

- , _, - __ 0_--_1--._---1--- . . _

24

In examining the way these children were cared for, we observe that the task is carried out primarily by

parents or grandparents, the former assuming much greater responsiblity in the Yugoslavian than in the Turkish case. Among the 'I'urk s , grandparents and other relatives carried much of the responsibility for the upbringing of the children left behind (Table 17), a development which must have rather .í.mpo.rt.arrcimplications for their socialization and for the role of the family.

III. Place of OrigJ-n

Each respondent was asked the specifications of his place of birth and of last stay prior to his departure

for employment abroad. A part of this detailed.

information is presented here to give some idea of the regional background of the workers. In the Turkish case the place of origin was specified with respect to the village, prefect, county and province center. In other words, parallel to the administrative division of the

country, hierarchical data were obtained for the place of birth and last residence; if a respondent was born in a village he was asked the name of the village as well as the name of the prefect, county and province to which the particular village was adminLstratively connected,

Table17- CareoftheChildrenintheirHomeCountries .II

I

MotherFather

¡

Grand- Iparents

I I-

I'

Other

I

Boarding1,1 Relatives

I

School

i

Other..inIHe/sheis]TOTAL

I

MilitaryIMarried

I

n

I

Service

I

or. ¡Livina

I

,--I_-_

¡

I

!-

I I-

I

¡--- i

t¡ Child

I

Nation-

I

ality

, I I I

CareatHome(in%)

I I

¡III¡ I

,

,----,

I i I I I ¡

!

I

571!

I ITo23.5I2.359.4i12.61.80.2I0.4

I

I

I

I¡

.I l. I j I Y.

36.8¡15.739.9, 1.82.73.1

I

223

I I I ! I

I !\II

I

I¡III

I

I T.24.5I2.0I 59.110.31.40.80.81.0I 494

I I I !

2.

Y.

43.515.729.62.83.74.6II108I

I

I

I

, !

I

I

I I

,I¡

i I

í 28.7

I I

I I

I 1.9

I

I

I

T.1.353.910.70.90.6I1.9 1317

I

¡ 3.I,

¡ I I Y.

50.0

I

^20.6

17.6

I 2.98.8I

¡

34

I I I i

I....'!'.

I

II

I

!

I

Ii

¡

, 35.01.7

I

44.67.9

I

0.6

I

5.1

I

4.01.1I I

I I

4.

I

v

Q

I

ii¡¡.f{t(iii

I I

T.

I

41.3II

-!

38.7

I

12.0

I

1.3

I

2.71.3

I

2.775

I '

5,I.I

I I I

I

I

Y.

t i I I I I I

3 i

I ,

!II¡I'., I

I

38

I

45.010.0

I I

5.0

I _. - I

I2

¡

6.

I I

Y. T.

Y.

20.020.0

1- - I - I

·20 I

I I

^'! I

!

¡--1

,I

I

7.

I

1

-_._~--_._~-~~-~~-------_------~---".---..._--_

26

and if he was born in a. city, which as a rule is at the same time a province center, only the province specification was made.

A similar procedure was applied in the

Yugoslavian case were the highest administrative unit was taken as the Republic.

Of all the Turks included in the sample 31.6%

were of rural origin and another 4% were born in

prefect centers (~?-~iye) which might also be considered as rural; the rest of these workers were born in small towns (10-50,000 inhabitants) or in cities (50,000 and over). Similarly, 33% of the Yugoslav workers were of rural origin. Even at this very primitive ~tage of data analyses elements of mobility could be detected among bo·th ethnic groups. Although one third of the sample were born in rural areas, a smaller percentage were to be found in villages before depature¡ only

20% of Turks and 22% of Yugoslavs were resident in such areas before they migrated to the FRG. Our data allows us a,detailed analyses of rural-urban, inter- and intra-regional geographical mobility of the·

respondents in their home countries as well as following their migration to Europe. We hope to start such an analyses along with mobility analyses in other spheres of interest: occupational and housing mobility.

When their origins were sought in regions or republics, we observe, for both sub-samples, that some regions are over represent.ed wit.h respect to participation in the int.ernational migration process.

In other words, as has been observed in the case of the ot.her socia-economic background variables, t.his t.ype of labor migration seems to be selective with respect to regional origin: workers coming from more developed regions predominate and, t.hus, groups who were deprived of a number of privileges and social

services in their own countries got less of a chance to "better" their life standards through migration to Europe. Moreover, from a given pool of labor, those bett.er equipped .-younger, dynamic, healthy, better trained and educated - are being selected for jobs in Europe, leaving behind t.hose who have already been discriminated against, among other things, by also being born in poor regions. In the Turkish case, for example, the share of the most underdeveloped

Southeastern, Northeastern, East Central and South Cent.ral regions is smaller than the rest, whether we focus on the place of birth or on departure (Table 18) . Similarly, in the Yugoslavian case, the most developed developed regions, Kroatia, Bosna and Szbija contribute overwhelmingly more workers t.o the European labor

market t.han others (Table 19).

---_.~_..."-----"--- Table18 TurkishSample:RegionsofBirthandDeparture (in%)

¡

Region¡165

r

I

28

I

I

Black ISea ! 1 Î ! 236¡

I

East

I

.C.1I

I

en-cra...

I

South Central

I I 'I

¡

I

6.8

I

13.4

¡

10.8

I

6.81.8

¡

15.4

¡

6.59.7

I

30

I !

¡.¡

j

I

I

Reg~on,

I

260I,256

I

421j165

I

8219123

I

or:

I

!

I '

¡

I

¡DeDarture16.7

i

16.427.0

I

10.6

I

5.21.2I7.9

205

rMediter-1Northil'South ranean¡WesternEastern !'

¡

¡ I

North

I

Central I Aegean

I

Marmaran

I

258

¡

2571104 1-

TÎ ,I 1100

I

148

in:

1551

I I I I I I I I I I

tv "co

Table19 YugoslavSru~ple:RegionsofBirthandDeparture (in%) 24.31.7

I

IMacedonia

I

Slovenia

.I

SerbiaVoivodina

I

KosovoBosnia! Herzegovina; I

CrnaGora

I

Croatia Hontenegro.,. 155 27.5

I

9.0

I

3.9

I

138

I

7918IR.

¡

eqaons

I

of ,Birth

l

n

=

699

17012192!63í ¡27 1.3 193

I

61 27.6

I

I

19.711.3

I 1

Regions"

I

of Dep~rture

J!

I-

L

n_=699~_

93113210216 22.2

I

8.7

¡

I 4.418.914.6

I I

30

IV. Con~ions ofM~9:ration

The majority of the respondents left their countries through the intermediary of the state employment agencies - respective work and employment agencies of the home and host countries. This usually takes place at the end of a more or less lengthy

waiting period. A little over three-fourths of the total respondents emigrated through such an

intermediary; 74.2% of the Turks and 86.6% of the Yugoslavs. One-third of the former workers and some 13% of the latter emigrated to West Germany or to West Berlin as visitors, tourists or to join their

families and subsequently arranged for employment (Table 20). The time lapse between the date of application for emigration and the time of departure was slightly over a year (12.9 months) for the average

respondent; national breakdowns of the data revealed significant: dif ferences in this regard . Although, a typical Turk waited one and a half years (17.6 months) in order to be sent abroad after he had made a

decision to seek employment in Europe and completed the initial application requirements, the waiting period was only 2.68 months for a typical Yugoslav.

These averages were calculated by including those respondents who were not on the waiting list (since they did not come through the intermediary of the work

Table20 MannèrofRecruitment 1--,

I

Nationality

I

Mannerof'Recruitment(in%)

I ^I I

Workervia

I

Visitor

I

ToMoveTourist

I

Other

i

anAgencyI'

!

toFam.ilyIPossibility

I I ¡ I

..._~

1---- -~--- I --_ - 1---- - I I I I I

Turklsh

I

74.2

I

12.2

I

10.1

I

2.3

I

1.2

I

!n

=

1552

II ¡ I I I I· . .

f....I·1..-.

I ¡ I I I I ¡ I· I

I

I

Yugoslav

I

86.6

I

2.3

i

4.9

I

1.7"4.4

I

n=698¡

i I I

!.

I

I

¡ I

¡;

·1- . . .... - '1' . . . . . . . ... ¡. ... ! .. ..'

Î

I

_____________--_o••_

32

and employment agencies but directly as dependents or as tourists). However, if we were to estimate the average waiting time for those workers who have completed all the formalities for European employment prior to their departure we obtain 18.39 months

for Turks and 3.38 for Yugoslavs (Table 21).

If we focus, on the other hand, on those respondents who have migrated on their own, we observe that they have waited, on the average; seven months before they were able to arrange some form of employment; this figure was higher for the Turks than for the Yugoslavs - 8.5 and 4.6 months, respectively

(Table 22) .

The workers were also asked what they knew about West Germany, what difficulties they forsaw and how

long they intended to stay abroad prior to their

departure. Of the things they had known about Germany the first three items mentioned were recorded and coded.

This information, in a detailed form, is given in Table 23 for those respondents who have mentioned at least one item; 33% of Turks and 37% of Yugoslavs

claimed they had no knowledge of Germany before departure, ! while the remaining' respondents offered one or more areas

of prior knowledge. For both groups West Germany's high

-~ --_----_._---_.. Table21 MonthsofWaitingforWork BeforeDeparture N

.!-.~••

I.

MonthsofWaitinqforWorkBeforeDeparture(in%)¡ .at.aonaLat.yI~I

I

11-314-6

I

7_91'10-12)13-15

!

16-18119-21I22-24

¡

25-27128-30I31-33134-36136+

i

i

!! I

Ii

I

!

I I

¡

I I I I ' -1-1- 1-- I .

r-----I

I 1 I -, I I

Turkish145.S/9.S1 3.47.90.6

I

3.0.0.4I4.40.1

I

0.7

I

0.05.0i19.21

I

ⁱⁿ

=1108

I

i

I I I

¡

I I I ¡

I

I I I ! I I I -¡-'-l-··-¡-·_¡ - I I I~~ !-~-! l- 'I I

Yugoslav166'SI23.116.43.0

I

0.2,0.0

I

0.0

I

0.2.10.0

I

0.0

I

0.00.20.0

I

n=563

¡ I I I I I'

I

I I .

I

I I

III

,I ,

w w ^---

Table

22

Months of Waiting for Work After Arrival I Nationality I

I

I ¡

Months of Waiting for Work After Arrival (in %)

,II-I--

---I

I

-~I ~._, ---~-l --- I

I---I!

I !

1-3II4-61¹ 7-9110-12113-151116-1819-21122-24

I

25-2728-30Il31-33134-36

¡

36+ I.III!I

I

,!

I r - I I I I I I I I I

I

I I I

Turkish142 .4 24.716.01 111.3'0.0

I

2.5

!

1.4

I

3.90.4

I

1.4.0.0

I

2.51.8II n=283

I

i

I I II '!

I!

I I

I

I

IlI¡

I

i I

I!. ¡ ¡ I - I I I! I

',-iI!tI

I I

! ,i¡I

I

i

I

II ¡:II¡!I.i!iiIiI w .¡::,.

Table 23

Knowledge About Germany prior to Departure

_,_--,

1st. Answer 2n~swer

-T:---y:--

_{T. Y.}

---- -_ ---

26.7 7.9 5.5

-

zed 22.9 46.7 11.8 6.

s 3.5 9.7 9.3 30.

ns 13.5 12.4 24.8 54.

11.8 1.4 18.3 2.

,

3.3

-

^{8.7 3.}

ountry 1.3

-

^1..2

-

ce 6.6

-

^6.5

-

1.3 0.2 1.0 O.

ns 0.9 0.2 1.8

-

itions

ems 0.9

-

^1.6

-

1.5

-

^0.2

^-

aphy 2.1 20.8 1.4 O.

3.6 0.7 8.1 1.

-:¡: --

1 == 1043 443 508 21

__ •__ " _____ ....__ ..."._4_...- ..__ ....__ _ ...___._..._.._w._.~__~

+

n excludes those who had no previous knowledge Knowledge

---

the country has good aspects

developed industriall land

good living condition good working conditio easy to earn money balanced social life law and order

better than my home c people are honest, nl and diligent

people are bad

hard working conditio dtfficult living cond and nourishment probl bad moral

knowledge about geogr and history

other

1---"---,._--

9

O

8 8 7

5

5

O

7

4.0

-

,

12.0

_.

8.8 4.3

12.0 31.3 _,

24.0 9.6 ^I

8.0 54.8 0.8

.-

9.6

-

1.6

-

- ^-

4.0

-

-- ^-

4.0

-

,

11. 2

-

.-~---~

_ _j....L.:=!3.I:.Q.AnS.1'l.eX __

T. Y.

125 115

36

level of industrialization, better conditions of work and ease of earning satisfactory wages were among the more salient aspects of concern; Yugoslav workers

seemed much less interested in the last aspect mentioned but put greater emphasis on their knowledge of the

history and geography of the receiving country. Just as over one-third of the whole sample claimed that they had no concrete knowledge about the receiving country, an equally large portion had either not expected to have any difficulties or had not thought abou·t such an issue at all; this tendency was

significantly greater among Turks than among Yugoslavs.

However, over three-fourths of the remaining workers mentioned language as the major difficulty they had

forseen. Problems concerning adjustment to a new way of life, finding accommodations, conditions of work and home sickness were also among their salient worries (Table 24).

As to the benefits expected from emigration, however, there were only few respondents within the total sample who had not mentioned at least one benefit that they expected from emigration; an overwhelming majority expressed orle or another form of financial benefit as positive outcomes to be expected from working abroad (Table 25). Ability to save, better

, .

Table 24

Difficulties about Germany Forseen prior to Departure

(Ln %)

r---.~---T_---

+

+ ----

Turks Yugoslavs Total Sample+

Difficulties Forseen

I---l-~---_f-.~--.~-'- -.

no difficulties forseen .not thought about it

(do not know) language barrier finding employment finding accommodation legal question -

injustice

problems in work .training

adjustment

everything possible to bring my family

to Germany

education and brining up of children

nourishment problem loneliness & home

sickness other

3.4

23.2 39.7

2.7

3.5

1.0

6.2 8.5 0.5

1.9 0.4

2.J.

4.8

1.3 r---.---,.--f--.-.---I--

n =

2070

11.2

0.1

62.7

1.4

2.8 0.3 0.4 15.1

0.6 0.3

0.1

4.5

887

+ Percent of all thre~ factors mentioned, added

Table 25

Benefits Expected from stay prior to Departure

I

(in %) ^~

,

-

Benefits Expected Turks+

Yugoslavs + Total+

Sample

-

,--

savings 32.8 7.3 26.4

better earnings

-

^{50.0 12.4}

purchase of house 14.5 2.9 11.6 ⁱ_~

purchase of land 1.4

-

^{1.0 I}

purchase of car 1.1 0.1 0.8

purchase of technical

equipment 0.5 0.1 0.4

speculative investments 6.2

-

^4.7

future security 12.0 3.3 9.8

acquisition of

professional skills 3.7 1.4 3.1

education 3.3

-

^2.5

language 2.2 0.8 2.3

future of the children 9.1 0.1 6.8

to see Europe 2.9 0.7 2.3

to be with my family 1.2 0.7 1.1

to be with relatives 0.1 0.1 0.0

to get married 0.5

-

^0.4

do not know 0.1 0.6 0.2

to acquire new general

cultural ways 2.4 0.1 18.5 ^I,

adventure 0.1 1.1 0.3

work 2.0 6.5 3.1

to help my country 2.4 1.3 2.1

other

1.7

13.0

4.5

-- --

^t---

I

..

_

^..-- n

=

^{2422 804}

.- - --

³²²⁶

+ Percent of all three factors mentioned, added together.

38

earnings, desire to purchase a house, land, a car or technical equipment and to have future security were among the more salient expectations. The two

sub-samples emphasized somewhat different point.s:

while for Turks savings, purchase of a house, future security and future of children were the most frequently mentioned benefits, in that order presented, Yugoslavs emphasized primarily better earnings. Exactly half of all the benefits mentioned by Yugoslavs had to do with better earnings. Of the other benefits savings, having a job, future security and purchase of a house received greater attention (7.3%, 6.5%, 3.3% and 2.9% of the total responses, respectively). Although, it is clear that the two groups had different motivations under- lying their emigration, none seemed to have expected anything oth~r than financial benefits from coming to the FRG.

Lastly, when the workers were asked how long they intended to stay abroad when they were still in their home countries only slightly over half of them claimed h~ving devoted concrete thoughts to the matter; 64% of Turks opposed to 46% of Yugoslavs mentioned a certain number of years that they had planned to stay abroad while the rest did not know or had not thought about it (Table 26). 'l'hemean intended number of years of

Table26 IntentiontoStayAbroad priortoDeparture Always'

I

Donotknow

I

¡ in% !

I

Nationality ¡

I Numberof

I

years

I

iai,T~T"I.

Never thought aboutit

Other

¡ I

Turkish

I

n~1532

63.71.8

I

9.52.4 -,~I

I ! - I .

¡Yugoslav

!

46.147.50.3

I

5.6

!

0.6

I

;I

I I ¡

I

I

n~710

I I I

I

I I

22.7

I

,¡::,. o

stay abroad was four and a half for bot.h nationality groups (Table 27). Workers seemed to have changed their opinion concerning stay after having spent some time here. Again, less than half of th~ total sample and a considerably smaller portion of Yugoslavs than Turks were able to give a concrete answer when asked

"now that you have spent some time working abroad, how long are you planning to·stay?" (Table 28).

The mean number of intended years of stay was 4.6 for the Turks and 3.4 for the Yugoslavs (Table 29).

Considering that the typical workers interviewed have already stayed in the Federal Rep ub Ld c a number of years, both groups appear to have developed preferences for lon~er stay abroad. Since this inference can only be made

provided that the groups responding concretely to both questions overlap, we should delay further discussions on the subject until after detailed analyses are

undertaken.

Upon departure from their homeland, two-thirds of the workers arrived first in West Berlin while one-third spent some period of time in West Germany before they moved to Berlin (Table 30). In national comparisons Yugoslavs manifest a more direct route to Berlin than Turks; while 32.6% of Turkish workers had their first experience outside Berlin, this percentage was only

_-..----_-_-------_-------~--- Table27 IntentiontostayAbroad priortoDeparture -NumberofYears-

I

Nt'Lí.t;IINumberofYears(in%)---

---I i

alona1yI

I

!1-3

I

4-6

I

7-9

¡

10-12¡13-1516-18

I

19-21

I

21-24

I

Mean --I¡I

I

I¡1

- l I I I I

i

I I I I

Turkish135.7151.714.4,6.411.0

I

0.0

j

0.7

I

n==974

I I II!

I.

I I I

I

I

I¡!!

I I!

¡!II

0.14.6 ~-¡---.----.-----Ii-

I I I I I I I I

'¡

I I

I

I I

I

I - _

¡Yugoslav134.0155.72.1.5.8I1.8

I

0.0

I

0.6

¡

0.0¡

In

==330.I'

ill- '. I i I i I . I ¡! ¡

!I

I I

iII!

! .

!

4.5 ~ tv -------------------------_

---------~~. Table28. CurrentIntentiontoStayAbroad (in%)

.

.~

, I

Iwmediate

I

Certain

¡

'I

I I

Nationality!d.

I

umb--',AlWaySDonotknowOther'I

I

epar-c.urener,!

I I

¡ofyears

I i I·· I

¡

I . I ' ,

I. i~I!i I¡I

I . I' , I

Turkish

I

4.6

¡

51.85.334.5

I

3.8

1 I

n=1520,I

¡ I I I

.!II I,

I I .

!i íI

I'

I,

I I I' I

I

I

Yugoslav2.633.3I2.160.6

I

1.4

I

I

I I

In=705.:

I I! I I I I I ¡ I I

Total

I

4•O

I

46•O

I

4.342.7.3.O

I I

n~2225

I ¡ I I I . " I

Table29 CurrentIntentiontoStayAbroad

I

I NUTI'berofYears(in%).

I

INationality

! I

4-6

I

! 10-12

I

¡

!

1-37-9

I

13-1516-1819-21

I

Mean

I

I

I ¡

! !

I I I

Turkish45.335.95.310.5

I

2.10.20.64.6.

,

i n

=

791

I ! I

,

I I

!

i ¡ ·1 ¡

... ¡,!

I I I I I I

,

I I

69.9

I

Yugoslav n

=

230

I

I 19.6

I

2.7

I

6.5 ---~---------"__.-

~ ~

-----._-~---

'l'able30 Place of Arrival

Nationality Place of Arrival

--

West West.

Germany Berlin

--

Turkish 32.6 66.7

n

=

¹⁵⁴⁵

-

Yugoslav 9.2 90.5

n

--

⁶⁹³

--

Total 25.0 75.0

n

=

²²³⁸

---- ---

46

9.2 for the former group. This greater regional mobility manifest among Turkish workers abroad may have important implication - and deserves further study.

In order to establish the exact length of stay, the workers were asked the date of their arrival at their first point of destination. Disregarding the calculation of months and days, for the time being we obtain the distribution shown in Table 31.

Accordingly, whether the workers came first to West Berlin or to West Germany, the average length of

stay is 4.48 years for the total sample; 5.1 years for Turks and 3.5 for Yugoslavs, or, in other words, an average Turkish worker interviewed has emigrated in 1968-1969 while these dates are 1970-1971 for the Yugoslavian case. The table also increases our confidence in the data in that the number of workers who have arrived after Germany had halted the entry of foreign labor (November 1973) is, indeed,

negligibly small. Time spent in West Berlin was harder to calculate on the basis of raw frequencies

alone; as pointed out, a tenth of the Yugoslavs and a third of the Turks migrated to West Berlin after having

worked elsewhere for a period of time. The arrival dates I

of these groups are shown in Table 32, revealing for this

,

Table 31

i

Year of Arrival in West Germany/

West Berlin ^,

I

(in %)

___ o

-

Year Turks Yugoslavs 'I'o t a L

Sample

'_-

1962-64 5.7 .0.8 4.2 ^,,

1965-67 19.0 2.4 10.1 ^,

1968 11.4 6.5 9.9

1969 17.5 15.3 16.9

1970 19.7 22.9 20.8

1971 12.3 20.0 14.8

1972 10.0 22.9 16.

o

1973 8.4 8.8 8.5

1974 0.1 0.1 0.1

~-

^1--'_-

Total n 1547 702 2249

I

.. I

!

\

Table32 YearofArrivalinWestBerlin YearofArrival

---~---

(Ln%)---~

I

Nationality 11961j196211963196419651966

¡

1967119681969

¡

197011971¡1972119731974

I i i ¡

Turkish 10 •2

I

I I ! I ¡ , I

! 2.3

I

I 2.3

I

3o2

I

6071110923.4

I

!

I

Oo~

I

0.20.9

I

19.11.8

I I

I í

! ~~~!!IIIi

¡ I I l

I

I I I I I I I I I I I I

¡Il'

¡I!

¡

¡ I ! I

I

I I I I

1

I', I I

!

I

Yugoslav,0.0

I

0.00.00.0

I

1.0

I

1.03.07.110.123~220.2.18.2113.12.0

I

\In

=

98'¡

I I I I! I I ¡ I

I

I

!

I I i

I

I I·

¡1

I , I .

I ,.¡:,. co ----------- --------_---_

latter group an average stay of 3.4 years, 3.42 for Turks and 3.34 for Yugoslavs. Since these figures

are indicative of shorter periods of stays than those given above for the total sample, it is reasonable to assume an average length of sta.y of almost four years in West Berlin; 4.3 for Turks and 3.4 for Yugoslavs. The next ~tage of our data

analysis will shed more light on this issue.

Another crucial factor with respect to the length of stay of foreign workers in the Federal Republic is the regulation of the residence permit. The Alien Act requires that foreigners obtain a residence permit in addition to ,their work permit, neither of which is automatically granted. Although both of these permits are renewable, a positive decision is not guaranteed even if the worker is usefully employed. Thus, the length of the workers residence is both a cognitive and a legal index of his ability to stay in the Federal Republic. 'I'heFederal Alien Act makes the

distinction between the Aufenthaltserlaubnis (a temporary I

residence permit) which is normally granted for one ye~r, and the Aufenthaltsberechtigung (unlimited residence permit) .

50

All foreigners who enter the Federal Republic to reside any length of time are required to have a residence permit.1) In some cases instead of being stamped in the passport a Legitimation card is issued at the office of the German Labor Bureau in the applicant's native country. This then

serves the dual purpose of both work and residence permit. Frequently, the temporary residence permit is so formulated that it automatically expires with the termination of employment. 'I'he local authori ties hève a great deal of freedom in the interpretation and application of this law.2) This refers broadly to cases where the basic interests of the Federal

Republic may be transgressed; for example, in the case of a serious economic regression or social crisis.

Furthermore, according to the Federal Alien Act those foreigners who have resided over 5 years in the Federal Republic may apply for an unlimited

residence penni t (Aufenthaltsberechtigung). However, as a rule this will not be granted until the end of an 8 year period and even then the foreigner has no guarantee

-_._---

1) An exception is made for members of common market countries who are only required to obtain a residence permit at the end of a three ~onth period.

2) Paragraph 1 and 2, of Section la and Section Il of the Alien Act.

or basic right to this unlimited residence permit although the security of his stay is greater with this permit.

St.ill, t.he unlimited residence permit does not imply naturalization, and it is granted only under special circumstances. 'l'hefirst requirement is that the workers are knowledgeable of the details necessary to go about making an application. Our data reveal, as expected, that not only an extremely small percentage of workers were able to acquire an unlimited residence permit - 1.2% of the Turks and 2.7% of the Yugoslavs - but also the knowledge of such a permit was not widespread (Tables 33 and 34).

Since this unlimited residence permit is not granted except upon initiative of the person in question, the knowledge of it is of particular

importance. In other words, the foreign worker who has fulfilled all the prerequisites for this type of permit may still be required to renew his regular residence permit until he learns of his el~gibility for an unlimited one. In addition to his knowledge of the possibility, the applicant's command of

sufficient German facility is another pre-requisite.

'I'hLs situation may be further complicated by discouraging' formali·ties which may' be unfamiliar to the foreign worker.

Table 33

Unlimited Residence Permit

52

r---,---~--.---~

Whether possessed (in

%)

Nationali ty __o ... __ • -

Yes No

1---.----.---.---1

Turkish

n =

¹⁵⁵⁷

1.2 98.8

---1---._-_.--1----_ .. _---1

Yugoslav

n

=

⁷⁰⁵

2.7 97.2

---- ~._-¡..----_._._-'---

Table 34

! .

Knowledge of Unlimited Residence Permit

Nationality

---_._---

Knowledge of Unlimited

Residence Permit (in %)

--- .. -.---.----1

YES NO

1---1---_.- ---_._---j

Turkish 10.0 90.0

,

n == 1558

-- -

^-

^-

Yugoslav 72.3 27.7

n ^::::: 708

--_._-- --- ----_._---_._--~

Total n :::::2264

29.3 7J..7

._- ---_._,_._._---_.-