Chapter 8 Precarious Inclusion Refugees in Higher Education in Germany

Coloniality of Migration, Asylum, and Access to HEIs

Research on access to post-secondary education for refugees conducted in the last few decades highlights the dynamics of exclusion and inclusion in universities (see Dryden-Peterson and Giles 2012). Khalid Arar, Yasar Kondakci, and Bernhard Streitwieser (2020) note that studies on displaced people, particularly refugees, have been neglected by research on international student migration. The inclusion of displaced people, undocumented migrants, and refugees in post-secondary education requires further research to provide a better understanding of the relationship between asylum and migration policies and inclusion in higher education institutions. Existing research draws attention to questions of social justice by emphasizing education as a human right (Smith 2004). However, Sarah Dryden-Peterson and Wenona Giles (2012, 3) observe that education “is not often included in humanitarian responses” to refugees’ needs. The 1951 Refugee Convention “recognizes the fundamental rights of refugees to access education, earn a livelihood, and seek justice when wronged” (ibid.). Free access to primary education is guaranteed to children, but access to post-secondary education is seldom mentioned in relation to the educational inclusion of refugees in Europe. Notably, the United Nations’ (1989) Convention on the Rights of the Child emphasizes that this right should also include access to post-secondary education. As Dryden-Peterson and Giles (2012) argue, post-secondary education for refugees is a sustainable resource for society as a whole and a stepping stone for the development of universal quality education. This claim is particularly important when we consider migration policies as framed within what I call the coloniality of migration (Gutiérrez Rodríguez 2018, 2023). Migration control and management policies, seen from the perspective of the coloniality of power (Quijano 2000), exert mechanisms of colonial differentiation inserted in classification systems that produce and mark social hierarchies. Embedded in a human/non-human dichotomy, migration policies lead to the creation of societal positionalities framed by processes of dehumanization. This is particularly true when it comes to the negation of basic human and citizenship rights such as access to secondary and post-secondary education. My discussion of the situation of refugees in German higher education institutions (HEIs) in this chapter addresses these inhumane conditions while also following local and timely attempts at minor destabilization or collective strategies that challenge this situation—namely, the pilot project Branch Out: Initial Support for Transcultural Learning in HEIs.

Research on access to post-secondary education for refugees in the EU has primarily been conducted in the United Kingdom (Stevenson and Willott 2007), followed by Germany (cf. Blumenthal et al. 2017; Lambert, Blumenthal, and Beigang 2018) and Austria (Atanasoska and Proyer 2018). Between 2015 and 2017, German society experienced “the long summer of migration” (Kasparek and Speer 2015). This term describes the developments following the September 2015 march of thousands of refugees from the Keleti railway station in Budapest toward Austria, Germany, and other parts of western Europe. During this time, diverse social actors reacted positively to this movement by supporting the arrival of refugees locally. There were numerous initiatives in neighbourhoods, villages, towns, and cities to welcome refugees and promote their inclusion. Promoted by the regional state of Hesse and JLU in Giessen, the project Branch Out: Initial Support for Transcultural Learning was founded at the university. Drawing upon this experience, this chapter reflects upon the potentiality and limitations of current programs on refugees’ access to post-secondary education.

From Exile to Refugees: The Asylum-Migration Nexus

After World War II, most countries in Europe committed to the individual right to asylum for those fleeing war, political persecution, and authoritarianism. Until 1993, this individual right to asylum was the legal basis for acquiring political refuge. After the unification of the German Democratic Republic (GDR) and the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) in 1989, German nationalism re-emerged, and racial myths about the so-called German Volk reappeared; both manifested on the street as racist attacks against refugees and migrants. Media and political debates played an important role in this political conjuncture: racist images of “overburdening refugee boats” heading toward Europe were disseminated by newspapers and television news. Refugees were constructed in the media not as needing shelter but as “invaders.” Those seeking asylum in Europe, particularly in Germany, were suspected of making bogus asylum claims. Thus, the human right to asylum was turned into a state regulatory device, subjected to political conjunctures, no longer based on individual entitlement to sanctuary or shelter for persons fleeing violence and persecution. Since the change of the asylum law in Germany in 1993, the individual right to asylum has been restricted. Asylum claims are decided on the basis that the countries are considered by the German state as “unsafe” or “safe” countries in regard to human rights infringements. Currently, persons fleeing war or political, religious, gendered, or sexual persecution are able to apply for asylum, with the outcome dependent on the specific facts of their case within their countries’ capacity of state protection. Asylum laws, however, are constantly modified and tightened, and the state’s goal is to process asylum applications as quickly as possible. The number of deportations of people whose petitions for asylum have been rejected is steadily increasing (Pro Asyl 2021).

In 2020, the EU enforced migration containment through the implementation of the New Pact of Asylum and Migration (NPAM).3 This pact’s neoliberal rhetoric introduces terms such as responsibility, solidarity, talent, and resilience, appealing to a discourse of protection of refugees and balanced, fair decision-making. According to the European Commission (2020),

Migration is a complex issue, with many facets that need to be weighed together. The safety of people who seek international protection or a better life, the concerns of countries at the EU’s external borders, which worry that migratory pressures will exceed their capacities and which need solidarity from others. Or the concerns of other EU Member States, which are concerned that, if procedures are not respected at the external borders, their own national systems for asylum, integration or return will not be able to cope in the event of large flows. Based on a holistic assessment, the Commission is proposing a fresh start on migration: building confidence through more effective procedures and striking a new balance between responsibility and solidarity.

While this rhetoric seems to guarantee the well-being of refugees, we would be mistaken in this assumption. The “new balance between responsibility and solidarity” addresses the need for cooperation among EU member states for implementing measures and policies on the national level to foster the control of the union’s external borders, coordinating asylum application proceedings, and fostering effective policies of deportation throughout the EU. The use of the term solidarity is contemptuous and self-serving—its goal is to monitor the entry of refugees to EU territory based on national labour market demands and economic interests. In other words, what is meant here is solidarity among EU countries rather than global solidarity and responsibility. The costs should be evenly shared across EU member states. Words like flexibility and resilience allude to the implementation of measures to monitor and regulate migration into the EU in times of so-called crisis. The respective measures are subsumed under the labels of “preparedness and crisis blueprint” and “effective crisis response”—in the latter, “solidarity mechanisms” outline “relocation and return sponsorships.” EU member states are asked to equitably participate in the “relocation” or distribution of refugees among individual countries or to help with what is euphemistically called the “responsibility of returning”—that is, the deportation of those with no legal residence in any member state. For countries opposed to hosting refugees, like Hungary or Poland, this “fair share of responsibilities” would mean “sponsoring” the deportation of refugees in Greece or Italy. Creating an effective and speedy decision-making process as well as an acceleration of deportation measures, the cooperation among the EU member states contributes to fostering the control of Schengen and the EU’s external borders. After several political debates and submission to extreme right-wing and conservative forces within the EU, the New Pact on Migration and Asylum was agreed upon by the European Parliament and the Council in December 2023. The agreement addresses five main areas of regulation within the EU:

• • Screening Regulation: Creating uniform rules concerning the identification of non-EU nationals upon their arrival, thus increasing the security within the Schengen area.
• • Eurodac Regulation: Developing a common database gathering more accurate and complete data to detect unauthorised movements.
• • Asylum Procedures Regulation: Making asylum, return and border procedures quicker and more effective.
• • Asylum Migration Management Regulation: Establishing a new solidarity mechanism amongst Member States to balance the current system, where a few countries are responsible for the vast majority of asylum applications, and clear rules on responsibility for asylum applications.
• • Crisis and Force majeure Regulation: Ensuring that the EU is prepared in the future to face situations of crisis, including instrumentalisation of migrants. (European Commission 20234)

Since 2020, the New Pact has delivered various outcomes regarding the control of EU borders and the deportation of refugees. It established “warning and forecasting systems allowing prompt identification of migration situations” (ibid.) and a common European deportation system through the EU Return Coordination, established on March 2, 2022. Besides the control of borders and the reduction of asylum claims, the NPAM outlines the need to reform and revise migrant labour recruitment policies within the EU under the point “skills and talents.” The NPAM has defined four tasks:

• • reform of the EU Blue Card for highly skilled workers;
• • revision of the Single Permit Directives enabling low and medium-skilled workers to regularize their employment on an individual basis;
• • revision of the Long-Term-Residence Directives addressing the mobility of EU citizens within the EU; and
• • the creation of a talent pool for the recruitment of international specialized workers based on national employment demands. European Commission (20205)

Considering this new EU development, the post-secondary educational inclusion of refugees seems to be a remote endeavour. The NPAM rhetoric of integration—prominently established in EU pacts on migration and asylum in the late 1990s and the beginning of the millennium—is rather silent when it comes to HEI access for persons seeking asylum. Equally absent is the human right of asylum: the offer of shelter for people suffering displacement or persecution or escaping from war and conflict zones. What is never mentioned is Europe’s own participation in and responsibility for the creation of global inequalities.

The analysis of global migratory movements from former European-colonized territories as well as territories at the center of international political conflicts where the EU plays a significant role calls to mind Anibal Quijano’s (2000, 2008) framework of the coloniality of power, which has informed my own work on the coloniality of migration (Gutiérrez Rodríguez 2016, 2018, 2023). We cannot discuss contemporary asylum and migration control rhetoric and policies without acknowledging the modern colonial entanglement from which they surface. Drawing upon Quijano’s analysis of the coloniality of power, the coloniality of migration refers to new forms of racism, producing a nomenclature of racial differentiation, categorization, and classification developed through migration and asylum policies. These policies degrade and dehumanize persons with regulations that attempt to govern their lives and attack their subjectivity. Encompassing different social sites, asylum and migration policies aim to hinder movement and impose restrictions on individual autonomy and agency. Among those sites regulated by asylum and migration policies is post-secondary education.

During the application process, asylum seekers have a limited right to work and no rights when it comes to their educational goals, besides being obliged to participate in German courses and so-called integration classes. If not granted asylum, they will be given permission to remain in the country for a specific period of time. In general, the right of asylum has become a device in migration control policies. As I argued in my article on the coloniality of migration (Gutiérrez Rodríguez 2018) following Stephen Castles’s (2006) paradigm of the migration-asylum nexus, the humanitarian goal of asylum policies has become connected to the labour market demands of nation-states. In the twenty-first century, asylum in the Global North has become a field of governance shaped by utilitarian nation-state approaches mediated by global economic and political conjunctural governance strategies and interests. It is necessary, then, to acknowledge the field of asylum as an entry point for the control and management of migration and to focus on the link between national asylum policies and migrant labour recruitment strategies.

The asylum-migration nexus draws attention to the global historical and contemporary economic and political entanglement (Gutiérrez Rodríguez 2021) in which humanitarian migratory movements are nationally administered through devices attached to the political governance of asylum. Focusing on the governance of asylum makes us aware of its political implications: asylum is related to other fields of global governance linked to development policies, integration, and public security practices. The field of public security has especially been the subject of political attention since the turn of the century, with 9/11 inaugurating a new period in the governance of asylum and migration, shaped by the introduction of increasing control and surveillance measures linked to political threat and terrorism addressed by nation-states and regional international organizations.

The asylum-migration nexus is mediated through the political conjuncture of security practices on three levels. First, it is managed in connection to the “collateral damage” caused by global wars and political conflicts. Second, it is related to the surveillance and control of national and regional borders and the production of bordering and border control devices and rhetoric. This positioning reproduces the refugee and migrant as the racialized other of Europe, constructed in popular media and political debates as a potential threat to the nation’s social cohesion. Third, asylum and migration configure institutional semantic fields, producing a nomenclature of hierarchical differentiation and categorical classification of causes, patterns, and trajectories that serve as rationales for the refusal of asylum. These circumstances undermine the ethical obligation of states to offer asylum as a universal human right.

Asylum policies are also governed by the integration aims of nation-states. Refugee access to the labour market has been at the forefront of nation-state integration agendas. As the Socio-Economic Panel at the German Institute for Economic Research (DIW Berlin) demonstrated in its 2019 study IAB-BAMF-SOEP Survey of Refugees in Germany, 43 percent of male refugees who arrived in Germany in 2015 found employment (DIW Berlin 2022). Regarding those from Syria, although two-thirds were highly educated, they were unable to find employment commensurate with their educational qualifications. The study notes that refugee women have not experienced the same degree of inclusion into the labour market as men. Furthermore, refugees were generally paid less than their German counterparts for similar jobs. While the integration of refugees into Germany’s labour market has received attention, their inclusion within post-secondary education has been scarcely studied.

Access to Post-secondary Education for Students Seeking Asylum

In 2018, the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees estimated that there were 1.5 million refugees in Germany, with more than two-thirds of them arriving in 2015. In 2019, 71,000 adults applied for asylum in Germany—12,000 of them Syrian, 7,500 Turkish, and 6,000 from Iran (Brücker et al. 2019). Half of all applicants were younger than thirty years old, 47 percent were married, and 60 percent self-defined as men. Most of the women—56 percent—came from Syria. Twenty-four percent of all applicants had obtained a university degree, 19.9 percent had secondary education, 29.8 percent had attended a middle school, and 17 percent had received primary education. The applicants with the highest educational level came from Iran, followed by Turkey (Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge 2020). These figures demonstrate that a large percentage of persons in the asylum application process could be enrolled in post-secondary institutions, but how are these institutions responding to this reality?

There are at least three entry points to post-secondary educational institutions for refugees in Germany. First, on arrival, school-age refugee children are integrated into the German primary and secondary school system. Research in this area demonstrates that more than 90 percent of children who arrived since 2015 have completed a German-language proficiency course. These children accessed regular German schools, continuing to post-secondary education after receiving their Abitur. Yet, as recent research (de Paiva Lareiro 2019) on refugees in secondary education demonstrates, a large percentage of school students who entered the country as refugees attend the vocational secondary school (Hauptschule), with only a small percentage attending the intermediate secondary school (Realschule) or the college preparatory school (Gymnasium). The German education system streams students, based on their grades, to either an academically oriented education (Gymnasium), where students enroll in an Abitur program,6 or a vocational route with a shorter educational period (Hauptschule), or a mix of both (Realschule) that lasts one year longer than the Hauptschule but does not offer an Abitur. This three-tier system reflects deep social inequalities based on class and migration background. The Hauptschule has a high percentage of working-class children, largely from migrant and refugee families, while the Gymnasium remains the stronghold of the white German middle classes. Students in the Hauptschule and Realschule need to obtain qualifications equivalent to the Abitur to access post-secondary education.

The integration of students from refugee families into post-secondary educational institutions, such as research-intensive universities or more vocationally oriented schools, has been channelled through their integration into the primary and secondary education system and through the efforts of several civil institutions and actors since the summer of migration. Alarmist political debates and media reports about the influx of migrants in 2015 marked the summer of migration with the trope “refugee crisis.” Part of German civil society reacted to the new arrivals with hospitality, or what the Merkel government termed at that time Willkommenskultur (welcome culture). Local initiatives emerged, such as Teachers on the Road, an association of teachers and educators offering free German courses to refugees in refugee camps and elsewhere. Civic institutions such as trade unions, workers’ associations, and churches also organized social assistance and support for refugees, providing a broad range of additional services, including accompanying refugees to doctors or bureaucratic meetings (Karakayali 2016). This volunteerism (Yurdakul et al. 2018) was not new, however. It resulted from the anti-racist refugee social movements and their advocacy groups beginning in 2013 (see also Doppler 2021), which drew attention to their situation in Germany but also other parts of Europe, such as Austria, Belgium, and France. As Bernhard Streitwieser and Lukas Brück (2018, 43) note, this “level of civil society engagement became a critical bridge” in organizing the arrival of refugees. Some critics (Schmitz 2016) have pointed out that while motivated by political conviction and compassion, this work risked being patronizing and racist by infantilizing or exoticizing refugees as revolutionaries or treating them as inferior to the presupposed “modern European subject.” Nevertheless, between 2015 and 2017, this culture of “hospitality” opened new possibilities for the creation of support networks, providing local access to medical, health, education, work, and housing facilities.

Some of these refugee advocacy groups became active in universities, creating pathways to post-secondary education (Steinhardt and Eckhardt 2017; Streitwieser et al. 2017). At this time, most refugees had just arrived and were still in the process of applying for asylum—a status that does not confer the right to post-secondary education. The requirements for entry to post-secondary education can be summarized in three routes: (1) higher secondary education qualification, (2) German-language proficiency, and (3) proof of sufficient financial means for the course of study, including health insurance. Following university registration, international students need to apply for an international student visa in order to obtain fixed-term study residency status in Germany. The third route (point 3) to post-secondary education applies to recently arrived refugees with secondary school education qualifications equivalent to the German Abitur or who have attended university in their countries of origin.7 This last route drew the attention of the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMWF) between 2015 and 2018.

Refugees could not officially apply for regular admission to university. However, most post-secondary educational institutions offered a guest-student status for refugees, allowing them to audit courses while applying for asylum. Many of the refugees who took advantage of this offer held high school diplomas and had begun university or already earned a degree in their countries of origin (Brücker, Rother, and Schupp 2016). The German federal government, in turn, implemented a funding program for prospective students seeking asylum. Funded by the BMWF, this program provided universities and preparatory colleges (Studienkollegs) with administrative support in creating additional preparatory courses (Grüttner et al. 2018). By 2016, a large number of German post-secondary institutions had partially introduced German-language preparatory courses, audit study programs, and German courses for refugees (see Streitwieser and Brück 2018). In total, eleven of the sixteen German Länder (states) launched BMWF-funded programs to promote refugees’ access to post-secondary education between 2016 and 2017. These initiatives addressed (a) the establishment of personal support through buddy or tandem programs, (b) additional German courses, (c) social interaction activities between local and international students, and (d) the creation of access routes for refugees to guest-student programs, bridging courses, or other measures aimed at preparing refugees for regular study programs (Schammann and Younso 2017; Steinhardt and Eckhardt 2017).

The BMWF worked closely with the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) and other research-funding bodies, such as the Humboldt Foundation and the Volkswagen Foundation, and the funding institutions affiliated with political parties, such as the Hans Böckler,8 Rosa Luxemburg,9 and Heinrich Böll10 Foundations. All of them established scholarships for at-risk students and academics fleeing war zones, authoritarian regimes, and political persecution. Furthermore, the DAAD assisted university international offices in providing audit study programs and offering German-language courses (Fourier et al. 2017). Between 2015 and 2019, the DAAD made €100 million available to implement the Integra program. As the DAAD notes, the Integra program financially supports DAAD measures “to help academically qualified refugees” access German universities “by offering language instruction and subject-specific preparatory courses” (DAAD, n.d.).

All these programs offered some access to education by enabling students with refugee status to audit courses and enroll in German courses, with the possibility of attending regular information events on campus. However, not all programs led to full access to post-secondary education. Some universities—such as the University of Applied Sciences in Magdeburg, the University of Saarbrücken, the University of Osnabrück, and the University of Göttingen—developed programs enabling students with refugee status to enroll as first-time university students or continue the studies they had initiated in their home countries. These programs provided access to specific areas of study, particularly mathematics, informatics, hard science, and technology. Other universities did not develop this access route to post-secondary education for students in the process of seeking asylum; instead, they provided an advocacy and volunteering structure that supported students seeking asylum with German classes and audit programs. Among these universities was JLU. In response to the BMWF call, and mediated through the Hessian Ministry of Higher Education and the Arts (HMWK), several projects received funding between 2016 and 2017 for initiatives that supported access for students seeking asylum. Among them was Branch Out.

Conclusion: Building the Anti-racist University—an Ongoing Project

In this chapter, I have discussed the relationship between refugees and post-secondary education in Germany using the case of the pilot project Branch Out. Focusing on the broader engagement of German universities in providing access to post-secondary education between 2015 and 2018, I have discussed the specific characteristics of Branch Out and its potential to delineate a new learning horizon by creating a multilingual transcultural classroom. I have also critiqued the lack of institutionalization of inclusive intersectional transcultural learning projects in German post-secondary education. Following other researchers in the field, I assert that this recent development of access to post-secondary education for refugees in Germany has been unique and needs to be further developed. To enable this development, as other researchers (Jungblut, Vukasovic, and Steinhardt 2020) argue, several criteria for controlling access to post-secondary education in Germany need to be reformed.

First, the requirement for German-language proficiency needs to be adjusted. Due to the demand for German-language proficiency, refugee students who participated in pathway programs to gain access to the university were not able to complete this program because they could not meet the language requirements (Aver 2018; Fourier et al. 2018; Schiffauer, Eilert, and Rudloff 2017; Trautwein 2015). The German-language proficiency requirement, currently C1, should be lowered or replaced by a subject-specific language proficiency (Unangst 2019). Second, potential health problems related to depression and trauma should be taken into account. Third, financial hurdles to university study need to be considered (Stifterverband 2017). If these barriers are addressed, as some researchers note, the German experience can represent “a chance for universities to scale up services for all students” and enable refugee students’ access to higher education (Streitwieser and Unangst 2018, 16). As the DAAD’s programs Integra and Welcome have shown, providing refugees with German-language and preparatory university courses, along with offering alternative routes to higher education via credential assessment and subject matter competency testing, might represent some valid options (ibid.). Furthermore, as Bernhard Streitwieser and Lisa Unangst (2018, 16) note, universities need to address equality-sensitive aspects because “refugees have to work through socioemotional trauma, asylum uncertainty, and a societal backlash.”

If the anti-racist, intersectional, and inclusive work conducted in universities does not translate into institutional changes, then well-intentioned inclusion offers no more than empty promises. As Bernhard Streitwieser and Lukas Brück (2018, 44) note, these inclusion measures can “set up unrealistic expectations for some refugee students” by creating the impression that they have been enrolled or accepted as students; however, auditing courses offers them only temporary and limited access to the university. On another level, researchers have proposed that a change be made to the admission criteria level access mark (Numerus Clausus) for refugee students, and all students in general, and have called for emergency funds for housing, transportation, food, and books as well as fellowships for refugees. In the case of Branch Out, the university’s general audit study program focused only on refugees with a fixed status, while those in the process of seeking asylum were not included. However, Branch Out worked with persons seeking asylum and communicated this to the international office, creating an exception to the audit program for Branch Out participants. A long-term engagement with a transcultural model of education enabling access for persons wishing to complete their studies in Germany while seeking asylum requires further institutionalization. Programs addressing the needs of women seeking asylum need to be considered within established gender equity and promotion policies and processes in universities. Branch Out argued for the need to develop inclusion strategies in the university for all refugees irrespective of gender identity and those seeking asylum by supporting their access to post-secondary education. As Dryden-Peterson and Giles (2012) argue, access to post-secondary education for refugees is a tool to achieve autonomy and agency. Furthermore, the Branch Out experience argues for the incorporation of anti-discrimination awareness and transcultural learning/teaching methods as pillars of the curriculum and classroom levels in universities.

On a more general level, inclusion in post-secondary education provides all citizens with the potential for social transformation and is a vital tool in decolonizing the university. This means that, first and foremost, migration and border control policies that subject human beings to administrative devices, preventing them from accessing basic human rights such as the right to education, need to be abolished. Everyone, despite their legal residency status, should have access to education, including post-secondary education. Refugees having started their studies in their countries of origin previous to their leaving should have immediate access to their careers. It is incomprehensible, for example, to publicly state that there is a shortage of doctors in Germany, while medical school students from Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, and Egypt are not allowed to study while they are in the process of applying for asylum.

Considering the abolition of migration and asylum control policies as instruments of dehumanization, deployed against persons seeking refuge and a better life, represents the first step in the project of decolonizing the university. Decolonizing the university means here striving for racial, gender, economic, and social justice. This is an urgent task in order to work through Europe’s complicity in the creation of global inequalities that are rooted in its colonial, settler-colonial, and imperial activities and contemporary political and economic interests. The conversation on reparations for European atrocities committed during colonialism in Africa, for example, remains an open question in Germany. Why do we not think about these reparations from the angle of the asylum-migration nexus and what it would mean in regard to the provision of post-secondary education access for refugees?

Acknowledgement

I would like to thank Anna Kirova for her insightful comments and Michele Faguet for her thorough reading of this chapter.

References

1. Arar, Khalid, Yasar Kondakci, and Bernhard Streitwieser. 2020. “Higher Education for Forcibly Displaced Migrants, Refugees and Asylum Seekers.” Higher Education Policy 33:195–202.
2. Atanasoska, Tatjana, and Michelle Proyer. 2018. “On the Brink of Education: Experiences of Refugees Beyond the Age of Compulsory Education in Austria.” European Educational Research Journal 17 (2): 271–89. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1474904118760922.
3. Aver, Caner. 2018. “Beteiligung von Bildungsinländer*innen mit Migrationshintergrund an der Hochschulbildung in Nordrhein-Westfalen Zusammenfassung.” ResearchGate, December 2018. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337244613_Beteiligung_von_Bildungsinlanderinnen_mit_Migrationshintergrund_an_der_Hochschulbildung_in_Nordrhein-Westfalen_Zusammenfassung.
4. Blumenthal von, Julia, Steffen Beigang, Katja Wegmann, and Valentin Feneberg. 2017. Forschungsbericht. Institutionelle Anpassungsfähigkeit von Hochschulen. Berlin: Berliner Institut für empirische Integrations und Migrationsforschung.
5. Brücker, Herbert, Johannes Croisier, Yuliva Kosyakova, Hannes Kröger, Giuseppe Pietrantuono, Nina Rother, and Jürgen Schupp. 2019. “Zweite Welle der IAB-BAMF-SOEP-Befragung. Geflüchtete machen Fortschritte bei Sprache und Beschäftigung.” Bundesamtes für Migration und Flüchtlinge, 2019. https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-67577-1.
6. Brücker, Herbert, Nina Rother, and Jürgen Schupp, eds. 2016. IAB-BAMF-SOEP-Befragung von Geflüchteten. Überblick und erste Ergebnisse. Berlin: Berliner Institut für empirische Integrations und Migrationsforschung.
7. Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge (National Ministry for Migration and Refugees). 2020. Migration Report 2018. Berlin: Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge. https://www.bamf.de/SharedDocs/Anlagen/EN/Forschung/Migrationsberichte/migrationsbericht-2018.html?nn=1018856.
8. Carastathis, Anna, Natalie Kouri-Towe, Gada Mahrouse, and Leila Whitley. 2018. “Introduction: Intersectional Feminist Interventions in the ‘Refugee Crisis.’” Refuge: Canada’s Journal on Refugees 34 (1): 3–15.
9. Castles, Stephen. 2006. “Global Perspectives on Forced Migration.” Asian and Pacific Migration Journal 15:17–28.
10. DAAD (German Academic Exchange Service). n.d. “Integrating Refugees in Higher Education—the ‘Integra’ Funding Programme.” Accessed November 1, 2023. https://www.daad.de/en/information-services-for-higher-education-institutions/further-information-on-daad-programmes/integra/.
11. de Paiva Lareiro, Cristina. 2019. Ankommen im deutschen Bildungssystem. Bildungsbeteiligung von geflüchteten Kindern und Jugendlichen. Ausgabe 02/2019 der Kurzanalyse des Forschungszentrums Migration, Integration und Asyl des Bundesamtes für Migration und Flüchtlinge. Nürnberg: Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge.
12. Deutscher Bundestag. 2020. “Konsequenzen aus dem Brand im Flüchtlingslager Moria auf Lesbos verlangt.” 2020. https://www.bundestag.de/dokumente/textarchiv/2020/kw37-de-moria-791342.
13. DIW Berlin (German Institute for Economic Research). 2022. “IAB-BAMF-SOEP Survey of Refugees in Germany.” November 29, 2022. https://www.diw.de/en/diw_01.c.538695.en/projects/iab-bamf-soep_survey_of_refugees_in_germany.html.
14. Doppler, Lisa. 2021. Widerständiges Wissen. Herbert Marcuses Protesttheorie in Diskussion mit Intellektuellen der Refugee-Bewegung der 2010er Jahre. Bielefeld, Germany: Transcript.
15. Dryden-Peterson, Sarah, and Wenona Giles. 2012. “Higher Education for Refugees.” Refuge 27 (2): 3–9.
16. European Commission. 2020. “Pact on Migration and Asylum.” September 2020. https://commission.europa.eu/system/files/2020-09/new-pact-on-migration-and-asylum-package_1.pdf.
17. European Commission. 2023. “What Is the New Pact on Migration and Asylum of the EU.” https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/policies/migration-and-asylum/new-pact-migration-and-asylum_en.
18. Fourier, Katharina, Linn Hildebrandt, Julia Kracht, and Katharina Latsch. 2018. Zukunftswege: Erfolge und Herausforderungen bei der Integration von Geflüchteten ins Studium. Bonn: Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst / German Academic Exchange Service. https://www2.daad.de/medien/der-daad/zukunftswege_barrierefreie_version.pdf.
19. Fourier, Katharina, Julia Kracht, Katharina Latsch, Ulrich Heublein, and Carolin Schneider. 2017. Integration von Flüchtlingen an Deutschen Hochschulen: Erkenntnisse aus den Hochschulprogrammen für Flüchtlinge. Bonn: Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst / German Academic Exchange Service. https://www.daad.de/medien/der-daad/studie_hochschulzugang_fluechtlinge.pdf.
20. Garbe, Sebastian. 2021. Weaving Solidarity. Decolonial Perspectives on Transnational Advocacy of and with the Mapuche. Bielefeld, Germany: Transcript.
21. Grüttner, Michael, Jana Berg, Stefanie Schröder, and Carolin Otto Stefanie. 2018. “Refugees on Their Way to German Higher Education: A Capabilities and Engagements Perspective on Aspirations, Challenges, and Support.” Global Education Review 5 (4): 115–35.
22. Gutiérrez Rodríguez, Encarnación. 2016. “‘Flüchtlingskrise,’ Kolonialität und Rassismus—eine andere Grammatik der Krise des Kapitalismus denken.” Das Argument 319 (58): 1–18.
23. Gutiérrez Rodríguez, Encarnación. 2018. “The Coloniality of Migration and the ‘Refugee Crisis’: On the Asylum-Migration Nexus, the Transatlantic White European Settler Colonialism-Migration, and Racial Capitalism.” Refuge 34 (1): 16–28. https://doi.org/10.7202/1050851ar.
24. Gutiérrez Rodríguez, Encarnación. 2021. “Temporal-Spatial Entanglements of Global Inequalities: On Care and Domestic Work in Western Europe.” In Decolonial Perspectives on Entangled Inequalities: Europe and the Caribbean, edited by Encarnación Gutiérrez Rodríguez and Rhoda Reddock, 77–96. New York: Anthem.
25. Gutiérrez Rodríguez, Encarnación. 2023. Decolonial Mourning and the Caring Commons: Migration-Coloniality Necropolitics and Conviviality Infrastructure. Anthem Studies in Decoloniality and Migration. New York: Anthem.
26. Gutiérrez Rodríguez, Encarnación, and Rhoda Reddock, eds. 2021. Decolonial Perspectives on Entangled Inequalities: Europe and the Caribbean. Anthem Studies in Decoloniality and Migration. New York: Anthem.
27. Hess, Sabine, and Vasileios Petrogiannis. 2020. Border Experiences and Practices of Refugees: Comparative Report. Working Papers on Global Migration: Consequences and Responses, 2020/62. Göttingen University and Uppsala University: RESPOND: Multilevel Governance of Migration in Europe and Beyond.
28. International Movement for the Evacuation of Moria. 2020. “Moria: Immediate Evacuation | Evacuation Immediate | Sofortige Evakuierung.” Change.org, September 12, 2020. https://www.change.org/p/moria-immediate-evacuation-evacuation-immediate-άμεση-εκκένωση-sofortige-evakuierung-evacuación-inmediata?recruiter=1148573462&recruited_by_id=7df6a760-f510-11ea-a496-cb041e322c32&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink&utm_campaign=petition_dashboard.
29. Jungblut, Jens, Martina Vukasovic, and Isabel Steinhardt. 2020. “Higher Education Policy Dynamics in Turbulent Times—Access to Higher Education for Refugees in Europe.” Studies in Higher Education 45 (2): 327–38.
30. Karakayali, Serhat. 2016. “Practicing Willkommenskultur: Migration and Solidarity in Germany Intersections.” East European Journal of Society and Politics 2 (4): 69–86.
31. Kasparek, Bernd, and Marc Speer. 2015. “Of Hope. Hungary and the Long Summer of Migration.” Translated by Elena Buck. bordermonitoring.eu, September 9, 2015. https://bordermonitoring.eu/ungarn/2015/09/of-hope-en/.
32. Lambert, Laura, Julia von Blumenthal, and Steffen Beigang. 2018. Flucht und Bildung: Hochschulen. State-of-Research Paper 8b, Verbundprojekt, Flucht: Forschung und Transfer. Osnabrück: Institut für Migrationsforschung und Interkulturelle Studien der Universität Osnabrück; Bonn: Internationales Konversionszentrum Bonn.
33. Negin, Dahya, and Sara Dryden-Peterson. 2017. “Tracing Pathways to Higher Education for Refugees: The Role of Virtual Support Networks and Mobile Phones for Women in Refugee Camps.” Comparative Education 53 (2): 284–301.
34. Ortiz, Fernando. 1995. Cuban Counterpoint: Tobacco and Sugar. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
35. Pratt, Mary Louise. 1991. “Arts of the Contact Zone.” Profession, 1991, 33–40.
36. Pro Asyl. 2021. “Thema, Fakten, Zahlen.” https://www.proasyl.de/thema/fakten-zahlen-argumente/statistiken/.
37. Quijano, Anibal. 2000. “Coloniality of Power, Eurocentrism, and Latin America.” Nepantla: Views from South 1 (3): 533–80.
38. Quijano, Anibal. 2008. “Coloniality of Power, Eurocentrism, and Social Classification.” In Coloniality at Large: Latin America and the Postcolonial Debate, edited by Mabel Moraña, Enrique D. Dussel, and Carlos A. Jáuregui, 181–224. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
39. Racleş, Andreea. 2021. Textures of Belonging. Senses, Objects and Spaces of Romanian Roma. New York and Oxford: Berghahn.
40. Schammann, Hannes, and Christin Younso. 2017. “Endlich Licht in einer dunklen Ecke? Hürden und Angebote für Geflüchtete im tertiären Bildungsbereich.” Zeitschrift für internationale Bildungsforschung und Entwicklungspädagogik 40 (1): 10–15.
41. Schiffauer, Werner, Anne Eilert, and Marlene Rudloff, eds. 2017. So Schaffen Wir Das: Eine Zivilgesellschaft im Aufbruch. 90 wegweisende Projekte mit Geflüchteten. Bielefeld, Germany: Transcript.
42. Schmitz, Markus. 2016. “Das Begehren der >Flüchtlinge<. Überlegungen zur Psyho(patho)logie der deutschen Flüchtlingsdebatte nach dem Märchen grenzenloser Hilfsbereitschaft.” Das Argument 319, 58 (5): 694–706.
43. Sempértegui, Andrea. 2019. “Indigenous Women’s Activism, Ecofeminism, and Extractivism: Partial Connections in the Ecuadorian Amazon.” Politics & Gender 17 (1): 1–28.
44. Smith, Merrill. 2004. “Development Without Refugee Rights? A Civil Society Response.” Fordham International Law Journal 28 (5): 1479–1503. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/144225862.pdf.
45. Steinhardt, Isabel, and Lukas Eckhardt. 2017. “‘We Can Do It’: Refugees and the German Higher Education System.” In Refugees Welcome? Recognition of Qualifications Held by Refugees and Their Access to Higher Education in Europe: Country Analyses, edited by Jens Jungblut and Karolina Pietkiewicz, 25–42. Brussels: European Students’ Union.
46. Stevenson, Jacqueline, and John Willott. 2007. “The Aspiration and Access to Higher Education of Teenage Refugees in the UK.” Compare 37 (5): 671–87.
47. Stifterverband. 2017. Hochschulbildungsreport 2017. Essen: Edition Stifterverband.
48. Streitwieser, Bernhard, and Lukas Brück. 2018. “Competing Motivations in Germany’s Higher Education Response to the ‘Refugee Crisis.’” Refuge 34 (2): 38–51.
49. Streitwieser, Bernhard, Lukas Brueck, Rachel Moody, and Margaret Taylor. 2017. “The Potential and Reality of New Refugees Entering German Higher Education: The Case of Berlin Institutions.” European Education 49 (4): 231–52.
50. Streitwieser, Bernhard, and Lisa Unangst. 2018. “Access for Refugees into Higher Education: Paving Pathways to Integration.” International Higher Education 95 (Fall): 16–18.
51. Theuerl, Marah. 2021. “Transforming Education: Reflections on the Potential and Future of Transcultural Spaces and Learning in Higher Education.” In Decolonial Perspectives on Entangled Inequalities: Europe and the Caribbean, edited by Encarnación Gutiérrez Rodríguez and Rhoda Reddock, 219–36. New York: Anthem.
52. Trautwein, Peggy. 2015. Heterogenität als Qualitätsherausforderung für Studium und Lehre: Ergebnisse der Studierendenbefragung 2013 an den Hochschulen Sachsen-Anhalts (HoF-Arbeitsbericht 1’2015). Halle-Wittenberg: Institut für Hochschulforschung (HoF) an der Martin-Luther-Universität.
53. Unangst, Lisa. 2019. “Refugees in the German Higher Education System: Implications and Recommendations for Policy Change.” Policy Reviews in Higher Education 3 (2): 144–66.
54. United Nations. 1989. Convention on the Rights of the Child. New York: United Nations. https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx.
55. van Laack, Jeannette. 2017. Einrichten im Übergang: Das Aufnahmelager Gießen (1946–1990). Frankfurt am Main: Campus.
56. Weiser, Barbara. 2016. Recht auf Bildung für Flüchtlinge. Berlin: Informationsverbund Asyl und Migration. https://www.nds-fluerat.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Recht-auf-Bildung-für-Flüchtlinge.pdf.
57. Yurdakul, Gökce, Regina Römhild, Anja Schwanhäußer, Birgit zur Nieden, Aleksandra Lakic, and Serhat Karakayali, eds. 2018. Witnessing the Transition: Moments in the Long Summer of Migration. E-book project of Humboldt University students. Berlin: Berliner Institut für empirische Integrations und Migrationsforschung.