“Let the State Decide It All for Me”: The Role of Migration and Integration Policy in the Decision-Making of Ukrainian Refugee Women in Germany

Lazarenko, Valeria Article — Published Version “Let the State Decide It All for Me”: The Role of Migration and Integration Policy in the Decision-Making of Ukrainian Refugee Women in Germany Journal of International Migration and Integration Provided in Cooperation with: Springer Nature Suggested Citation: Lazarenko, Valeria (2024) : “Let the State Decide It All for Me”: The Role of Migration and Integration Policy in the Decision-Making of Ukrainian Refugee Women in Germany, Journal of International Migration and Integration, ISSN 1874-6365, Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, Vol. 25, Iss. 3, pp. 1571-1591, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12134-024-01138-9 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/315680 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Vol.:(0123456789) Journal of International Migration and Integration (2024) 25:1571–1591 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12134-024-01138-9 1 3 “Let theState Decide It All forMe”: The Role ofMigration andIntegration Policy intheDecision‑Making ofUkrainian Refugee Women inGermany ValeriaLazarenko1,2 Accepted: 24 February 2024 / Published online: 6 March 2024 © The Author(s) 2024 Abstract While German migration policies aim to provide temporary protection and integrate Ukrainian refugees into German society as early as possible, the procedures and ideas of integration might be perceived differently by the beneficiaries. The feeling of “permanent temporariness” has been persistent among Ukrainians since March 2022. In this situation, some of the refugees renounce their agency and put responsibility on decision-making onto the state, while others oppose the idea of “being integrated” since they see their time in Germany as temporary, and their future in Ukraine as soon as the security situation allows them to return. Drawing on the experiences of single Ukrainian women who received protection in Germany, the paper presents an anthropological perspective on person–state interactions in the context of refugees’ future-planning. How do German policies for supporting Ukrainian refugees impact their “stay or return” decision-making? Do the policies address their needs now and allow them to make investments for the future, or, on the contrary, contribute to their decision to return to Ukraine, which appears to be “simpler” and “more predictable”? How does the experience of going through bureaucratic procedures contribute to the sense of having agency and being capable of shaping their today and tomorrow? To answer these questions, I am going to present the reasonings and emotions concerning bureaucratic procedures that are closely intertwined with the planning of their future by Ukrainian refugees in Germany. Keywords Ukrainian refugees· Integration· Bureaucracy· Agency· Temporariness * Valeria Lazarenko valeria.lazarenk[email protected] 1 Georg-Simmel Center forUrban Studies, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany 2 Leibniz-Insititut forResearch On Society andSpace, Erkner, Germany 1572 V.Lazarenko 1 3 Introduction Arriving in Berlin from Ukraine in late March 2022, I, similarly to the majority of people fleeing my country, had to go through numerous bureaucratic procedures to obtain temporary protection status and settle down in Germany. However, my experience of this bureaucratic quest was quite reasonable as I was already enrolled within the academia. From my very first days in Germany, I had numerous encounters with other people fleeing Ukraine, ending up mostly in discussions about the bureaucratic complexities. After one such talk during a Ukrainian-themed book launch in July 2022, I came up with the idea that the reasoning the refugees use to justify their return or non-return to Ukraine, if conceptualized, could be an important addition to the existing scholarship on the experiences of forced migration. This is how I started my research project, aiming to broaden the understanding of agency and living in a state of “permanent temporariness” using the specific case of Ukrainian women receiving temporary protection in Germany. As Schewel points out, migration studies suffer from a mobility bias, meaning that research mostly focuses on the migration drivers and desires instead ofexploring what makes migrants “immobile” (Schewel, 2020). Following up Massey’s (1993) point on taking into consideration the structural forces that shape migration and staying on in the host country, I centered my research project around the idea that the bureaucratic system and German approach to “integration” of Ukrainian migrants might be a crucial factor that hinders (or, sometimes, facilitates) their aspirations to staying in the country or return to Ukraine. As argued by Carlbaum (2021), encounters with bureaucracy can be frustrating for migrants due to the bewildering regulations, the multiple actors involved, and long waits which are perceived as wasting their time. In this paper, I am going to look inside the reasonings and emotions concerning bureaucratic procedures that are closely intertwined with the planning of their futures by Ukrainian refugees in Germany. On 4 March 2022, the Council of the European Union enacted, by means of the Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/382, the Temporary Protection Directive (TPD),1 for those fleeing Ukraine and arriving in the EU from 24 February 2022 onwards. According to the document, the beneficiaries of temporary protection in EU member states have a wide list of rights: aresidence permitfor the entire duration of the protection, access toemployment, housing, education, social welfare and medical care, as well as the right to move freely in EU countries. Besides that, Ukrainians are able to return home for personal reasons, and, it is assumed, are able to evaluate the security situation in the country themselves in order to decide on their further plans. Such an idea was widely supported by the EU officials.2 1 Full text of the document available here: https:// eurlex. europa. eu/ legalconte nt/ EN/ TXT/ HTML/? uri= CELEX: 32022 H0554 2 See, for instance, the statement by EU Internal Affairs Commissionner Ylva Johansson: https:// eunei ghbou rseast. eu/ news/ latestnews/ eucommi ssion erylvajohan ssontempo raryprote ctiondirec tiveforukrai nianswillbeactiveuntilmarch2024/ 1573 1 3 “Let theState Decide It All forMe”: The Role ofMigration and… A couple of months after the temporary protection was implemented as a procedure, the discussion refocused on transitioning from crisis response to sustainable longer-term solutions. In Germany, one of the mechanisms3 discussed was a switch to the concept of (re)integration of people receiving temporary protection. However, as my research has shown, such a change in approach might cause ambiguous reactions from the refugees themselves. Overall, as at April 2023, at least 1,064,000 refugees from Ukraine have arrived in Germany, according to the German Central Service Agency, with the majority arriving in March and April 2022. Out of that number, 831,521 have already been granted a residency permit. This number, however, does not indicate the exact number of Ukrainian refugees in Germany: some might have already returned to Ukraine or moved to third countries, and some might not have received temporary protection status yet. This case is unique within the established scholarship on migration and refugee studies. For decades, anthropological explorations of living through space and time while being a refugee focused on: experiences of awaiting the decision (Andersson, 2014; Hainmueller etal., 2016; Hyndman & Giles, 2011; Schouw Iversen, 2022), immigrant detention and encampment (Fiddian-Qasmiyeh, 2020; Hayes, 2018; Mezzadra & Neilson, 2012; Mountz, 2011; Turnbull, 2016), and temporality as opposed to stability (El-Shaarawi, 2015; El-Shaarawi, 2021; Griffiths, 2013; Jacobsen, 2022), as well as on “temporal governance” of decision-making (Griffiths, 2017; Reneman & Stronks, 2021). As El-Shaarawi points out, “…[r]efugees are often understood as people in between, both in terms of their legal status and in terms of what they denote as a category” (El-Shaarawi, 2015). Thus, their experiences may be characterized by limbo, where people are caught between places and times, and experience long-term uncertainty. However, the situation when refugees from Ukraine are granted a residence permit and basic services immediately adds another dimension to the concept of temporality and agency, highlighting the precarity of being “temporarily” protected, the uncertainty about the duration of this temporality, and their enforced integration into the communities in the hosting countries. Such a situation can be defined as a new “migration regime” (according to Schapendonk etal. (2020)), since the state sees migrants from Ukraine rather as highly skilled workers with good prospects of remaining and being integrated. Drawing on the experiences of single Ukrainian women who received protection in Germany, I am going to explore research question with manifold aspects: How do German policies for supporting Ukrainian refugees impact their stay or return decision-making? Do the policies address their needs now, and allow them to make investments for the future, or, on the contrary, contribute to their decision to return to Ukraine, which appears to them to be “simpler” and “more predictable”? How does the experience of going through bureaucratic procedures contribute to their sense of having agency and of being capable of shaping their own today and tomorrow? To answer these questions, I am going to present an anthropological perspective on 3 Source: https:// www. kas. de/ en/ monit or/ detai l/-/ conte nt/ nureinvorue berge henderschutzfuervertr iebene 1574 V.Lazarenko 1 3 person–state interactions and highlight the subjective experiences of interacting with the system. Ukrainian Refugees: The Specific Case forGerman Migration Policies Unlike the approach of granting residence based on the assessment of individual cases and taking into account the “safety” status of a particular region, refugees from Ukraine were granted protection regardless of the intersection of the geography of their residency in their home country and the time when they left. However, although this was valid for refugees arriving in 2022 and early 2023, further developments in procedures and status remain unclear for now. According to the research4 presented by the Federal Ministry of the Interior and Homeland, Ukrainian refugees were choosing Germany as a destination because of existing family, social or working connections, as well as because of knowing about the social support and working opportunities in the country. Upon arrival, people fleeing Ukraine were able to stay without a visa for up to 90days and, if intending to remain longer, had to apply for residence status (Aufenthaltstitel) and go through several stages of bureaucracy. Initially, Ukrainian citizens receiving immediate protection in Germany were eligible to receive benefits under the Asylum Seekers’ Benefits Act (AsylbLG) and could apply to receive a monthly allowance and coverage of basic needs (accommodation, furniture, clothing). However, from June 1st 2022, refugees from Ukraine started receiving their assistance and social benefits under the Social Code (SGB II)—the tax-financed unemployment benefit system for jobseekers. Thus, the adult Ukrainians who are able to work and possess residence status in Germany received the same rights and access to the job market as other residents of the country. Those whose ability to work is limited, or receiving an old-age pension, remained on the welfare office support. This decision challenged the overall social benefits system in Germany. As Ratzmann has shown in detail in her work, the German system of distributing social benefits was widely based on the idea of “deservedness” and thus could potentially be subject to discriminatory practices (Ratzmann, 2021; Ratzmann & Sahraoui, 2021). This was not the case for Ukrainian refugees: The fact of leaving their country and gaining temporary protection in Germany was already a sufficient criterion to receive the benefits. Ukrainians, however, had a limited time—until 31st of August 2022—in which to apply for the benefits. Job centers were supposed to be the single coordination point for refugees receiving social benefits, coordinating their social, health, educational, and other needs, including housing reimbursement for those accommodated in private or social 4 Intermediate results presented here: http:// www. bmi. bund. de/ Share dDocs/ downl oads/ DE/ veroe ffent lichu ngen/ nachr ichten/ 2022/ umfra geukrai nefluec htlin ge. pdf?__ blob= publi catio nFile &v=2 1575 1 3 “Let theState Decide It All forMe”: The Role ofMigration and… housing. Since the language barrier prevented many Ukrainians from entering the job market (90% of refugees did not know German or only knew the basics5), job centers were also supposed to assist Ukrainian refugees with state-subsidized language integration courses with a mandatory integration module. Overall, one cannot deny that the immediate need to provide social benefits for thousands of Ukrainian refugees was a tangible challenge for the social security system and the pre-existing bureaucratic procedures. Since Weber defined bureaucracy as a mechanism of state functioning and described it as a highly structured, formalized, and also an impersonal organization, the stability and rigidness of this system were perceived as a feature (Weber, 2009). The German bureaucracy itself, as Wegrich (2021) notes, can be characterized as a “slow moving turtle” that avoids big mistakes in the implementation of public sector reforms, relying instead on incremental steps within a broadly stable system. In the multi-level governance approach, however, reforms may proceed at different paces at different levels, with adjustments at the federal level being the most rigid, with little motivation to change the adverse system. As Ratzmann pointed out, German job centers, despite being the key institution to support one of the neediest population groups, are also a good example of “faceless” bureaucracy (Ratzmann, 2021). As numerous research have shown, beneficiaries often reported feeling misunderstood or even experiencing discrimination (Brussig etal., 2017; Holzinger, 2020; Ratzmann, 2022). However, such experiences are perhaps the result street level bureaucrats being constrained by the routinised workflow and institutional setting itself (Brodkin & Marston, 2013; Lipsky, 1980). This is why, as Leutloff-Grandits (2019) points out, a huge number of refugees experience the administrative procedures as threatening and react with feelings of fear, withdrawal, and depression. However, the recent challenges, especially the 2015 refugee crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic, have already impacted the system by changing patterns of policy-making and multi-level governance (Kuhlmann & Franzke, 2022), and significantly challenging the workflow of the public sector employees (Seinsche etal., 2023). Moreover, the tangible increase in jobseekers was predicted in the aftermath of the pandemic (Bauer etal., 2023). On this occasion, the mass influx of Ukrainian refugees (according to the job center data, there are currently 498,000 Ukrainians jobseekers registered in Germany) and the need to address their needs immediately overlapped with an already existing crisis in the overloaded system that has shown the importance of flexibility and the need for manifold adjustments to the workflow. The situation, however, may vary in different regions and cities, depending on the availability of resources provided by state agencies and municipal governments, and on non-governmental organizations who might have made the process of going through the bureaucratic process smoother. Thus, this paper will focus specifically on the human-system relations in the specific case of Ukrainian female refugees in Berlin. 5 Source: the research presented by the Federal Ministry of the Interior and Homeland, http:// www. bmi. bund. de/ Share dDocs/ downl oads/ DE/ veroe ffent lichu ngen/ nachr ichten/ 2022/ umfra geukrai nefluec htlin ge. pdf?__ blob= publi catio nFile &v=2 1576 V.Lazarenko 1 3 Key Concept: Temporality During recent decades, the temporary dimension of migration became a wide focus in refugee studies, since time can be also seen as a way power operates (Cwerner, 2001; Edelstein et al., 2020; Jacobsen et al., 2021; Reneman & Stronks, 2021). Anthropologist Melanie Griffiths (2013, 2017) has introduced the concept of “temporal governance,” describing it as a governmental strategy to discipline and control migrants by means of time, put into action through processes such as the asylum procedure. The means of control thus vary from qualification periods and limits to the length of detention to terms for long-term and permanent residence. Andersson (2014), drawing on the ideas of Bourdieu (2000), also highlights waiting as not a byproduct but a tactic to control refugees’ time and shaping their futures. However, as Griffiths points out, time is a rather relative category in migration governance, and multiple “times” (lawful time, interrupted time, temporal restriction) can have different implications for migrants (Griffiths, 2017). Spada expands on this idea, arguing that time, used as a tool to manage contemporary migratory flows, can work differently in terms of time spent, time allowed, and time available, given the different actors involved in determining its rhythm (Spada, 2023). Policy-related temporalities affect the life experiences of the persons by hindering their ability to structure their time and plan the future for the individuals and their families. The decisions relating to the application status are frequently the turning point for the individual timescapes, as stated by Leutloff-Grandits (2019). On this occasion, time might be perceived by the one awaiting a decision as either linear or circular (as, for instance, in the case of repeated applications for a residence permit), having ruptures and return points, running fast or slow, or even put on hold (Reneman & Stronks, 2021). Such a disturbed sense of time, as Ramsey points out, can accompany refugees and displaced people long after they have obtained legal protection status, since they have experienced the feeling of being removed from the temporal rhythms of ordinary life (Ramsay, 2017). The arrival situation of Ukrainian migrants broadens the concept of temporal governance with a need to re-conceptualize the idea of “temporality.” Since the TPD was activated for the first time for the duration of two years, and thenextended till March 2025, temporally protected Ukrainians appear in a liminal position with no clear vision of their future. However, unlike the cases of other refugees, Ukrainian refugees entered this state without the experience of encampment, which has been a key point of exploring temporal governance in refugee studies. Most of the recent research on German context, focusing primarily on the experiences of Syrian refugees who were granted asylum and who have experienced the comparable bureaucratic difficulties to that Ukrainians did and are experiencing, has debated on the specifics of toleration status and the suspension of deportation, as well as the emotional dimensions of living through such disrupted temporalities, oscillating between hope, fear, and disillusionment (Drangsland, 2020; Hartonen etal., 2022; Nagel & Reeger, 2021; Schütze, 2022; Schwarz, 2016; Tize, 2021). The idea of normalization of uncertainty (Griffiths, 2013) can be extrapolated to the broader population of migrants who also live in the liminal state of “permanent temporariness” 1577 1 3 “Let theState Decide It All forMe”: The Role ofMigration and… not knowing when and how their precarious status will change. However, in the situation of Ukrainians, there is a certain shift in the level of power governing their precarity: Instead of migration services assessing cases and making decisions according to established procedures, the situation for Ukrainians depends on the EU-level decision of potential prolongation of TPD and the outcome of the ongoing war. Herein, the category of waiting remains a crucial one for structuring individual timescapes (Pitzalis, 2023), but, instead of being applied to the procedures, it applies to ontological waiting for the war to end, or acceptance that return is not possible in a midor long-time perspective. Waiting, however, should not be seen as a passive state when one exercises power over another (Turnbull, 2016), but rather as an active practice that involves reflection and resilience (Conlon, 2011), or even a form of resistance (Scott, 1990). Research on temporariness in refugee studies traditionally looks into the modalities of humanitarian reception, and juxtapose integration prospective to uncertainty of being on hold or having a temporal status (Carlbaum, 2021; Leutloff-Grandits, 2019; Mezzadra, 2022; Turnbull, 2016). But, in the case of those fleeing Ukraine, the idea of integration does not seem to be the most desired outcome of their stay. According to a nationwide survey in November 2022, the wish to stay in Germany permanently was expressed by only 26% of Ukrainian refugees, while others remain uncertain about their plans or desire to return to Ukraine as soon as the security situation allows (Brücker etal., 2022). Speaking about different speeds of procedures and assessment of claims, LeutloffGrandits (2019) pointed out that refugees might move towards “integration” at a different speed, and thus live in different time-spaces. The same interpretation might be applied to the case of Ukrainian refugees: While some are stuck in a limbo of “temporariness” of being protected and await their return, others might move towards integration, stepping on a bureaucracy-implied track. The next part of the paper will highlight the multiplicity of such experiences that I gathered through my fieldwork in Berlin, presented through three distinctive personal stories of Ukrainian refugee women. Research Methodology To answer the research questions and unveil the multiplicity of experiences of the interactions between Ukrainian refugees and the state system aimed to support them, I used a qualitative approach. Besides policy analysis of the national-level, regionallevel, and municipal-level decisions of German authorities towards supporting displaced people from Ukraine, I opted for two main research methods: participatory observation and in-depths interviews with Ukrainian refugees. Coming from a position of an “insider” in the field, and being a refugee myself, I had numerous and frequent encounters with other Ukrainian refugees in the early stages of our arrival. These happened mostly on public transport, and during specific Ukrainian-themed events. The insights from such encounters were put into ethnographic fieldnotes, in the form of both direct quotes and generalized notes of the stories shared by accidental informants. My reflections on the emotions the informants 1578 V.Lazarenko 1 3 put into the stories were used as a tool to point out those details of interacting with the system that acquired for them the most substantial subjective meaning. The research was conducted from the perspective of a positioned researcher. On the one hand, this facilitated access to the field and the establishment of rapport with informants on the basis of shared experience. On the other hand, such positionality may also have affected the researcher’s sense of empathy and led to blind spots in the research, which can be a limitation of current research. The need to separate personal and professional lives while conducting fieldwork, as Howlett and Lazarenko acknowledged, made the research described participatory in nature (Howlett & Lazarenko, 2023). The main research method was in-depth interviews with Ukrainian single women who came from Ukraine to Berlin and got their registration within Berlin federal land. By women, I understand those persons who identify as so and have female sex stated in their passports. By single, those who arrived in Germany without kids and/ or dependent persons, and have not been in a state of marriage or long-term partnership in Ukraine. Limiting the sample like this, I attempt to focus on different aspects of individual decision-making without being attached to the educational/social security system, and free from emotions associated with being in charge of others. I also mitigate the factor of transnational ties and perspectives of family reunions which might impact significantly on return aspirations. This population seems overlooked in refugee studies since, traditionally, men are the “pathfinders” for their families, while female refugees are either viewed in the context of family relations, or within the studies of exploitation, human trafficking and gender-based violence—subjects rather than active decision-makers. While this trend is changing as more research on the issue emerges (Dlaske & Schilling, 2023; Hartmann & Steinmann, 2021; Jünemann etal., 2021; Seethaler, 2019; Tuzi, 2020), the demography of the Ukrainian refugee population opens a new gate to delve deeper into the topic. From the Ministry of Interior report of in April 20226 84% of those arriving in Germany from Ukraine identified as women, since men were prohibited from leaving Ukraine according to the martial law. Seventeen percent of them have arrived on their own, and 8% arrived with friends or acquaintances (but not with family members). Those arriving as single mostly fall into the age category of 18–29 and 50 + (probably those who came to Germany to stay with grown-up children). However, this data is not segregated by gender, so the population fitting the selected criteria remains unclear. I decided to focus on this particular category of refugees drawing upon the idea that they might be those who question their return aspirations the most, and whose cases can highlight how the intersections between bureaucracy and emotional state may impact their long-term decisions about the future. I also focus my research on Berlin, since the provision of services for Ukrainian refugees may vary from federal state to federal state, and thus complicate the findings by adding another comparative dimension. 6 Source: https:// www. bmi. bund. de/ Share dDocs/ downl oads/ DE/ veroe ffent lichu ngen/ nachr ichten/ 2022/ umfra geukrai nefluec htlin ge. pdf?__ blob= publi catio nFile &v=2 1585 1 3 “Let theState Decide It All forMe”: The Role ofMigration and… work in the sphere, this was the reason I dropped from the school. But they did not want to listen I worked as a digital specialist for two years. All they wanted to offer me were jobs in massage salons and nursing homes… Similar thoughts were also expressed by other informants, who reported their feeling of despair about losing professional qualifications and being unable to find a proper job. Bygnes (2021) calls such a condition a “mobility dissonance” and defines it as a form of postmigration stress that leads to feelings of stagnation and failure to progress in life, profession, and status. However, the mobility dissonance of Ukrainian refugees has another dimension: the temporal one. Some of the informants were not only stressed about losing their skills, but also unsure about the need to invest financial and personal resources into validation of their certificates and gaining German skills, seeing their stay in Germany as something short-term and aiming to return to Ukraine as soon as possible: To get certified and start working, I need to pay €800. But this is such an amount of money! What if I pay, and the war ends in a month and I go back home? I will rather spend this money in Ukraine restoring my city... N., 50. Fieldnote, June 2022 However, for some of the informants, the main threshold was neither the language barrier nor entering the job market, but the idea of integration per se. Having their personal timelines and life plans tied to Ukraine, some of the refugees literally refused to participate in integration activities, planning to return home as soon as possible. When we recorded our interview with Margaryta in November 2022, she told me that she tried to postpone the start of her integration courses as long as she could, since the pressure from the job center made her think that she did not actually want to remain Germany: I don’t want to ‘be integrated’. I ended up here not because of my free will. I came to ‘sit over’ and will go home as soon as it becomes possible. So I postpone this course as long as I can! Maybe things get better soon enough and I will go home before my course starts in mid-December... The feeling of being forcibly “integrated” resonated with refugees’ acknowledgement of the temporariness of their stay in Germany and made them regain their sense of agency in an active form. And, for some of the informants, realizing the pressure to join the “integration track” in Germany became a decisive moment to leave the country –as Margaryta did shortly before Christmas 2022, returning to her home in Odesa. Concluding Discussion: Shaping theFuture ofForced Migrants The personal experiences of Ukrainian refugee women who came to Germany alone, and whose future aspirations are not bound to the educational system and transnational family relations, offer a new angle to assess the role of migration and integration policies in their decision-making and sense of agency. De facto, this case 1586 V.Lazarenko 1 3 shows an upside-down perspective on refugees’ future-making. The whole scope of refugee studies presents the state as the main power agent capable of deciding the future and individual temporalities of migrants by means of “temporal governance” and usage of waiting time. Bureaucracy, thus, appears as a mechanism of governing through routine practices. The feeling of “permanent temporariness,” as research into refugee experiences in Germany (Steigemann & Misselwitz, 2020; Tize, 2021) and other countries (Bekkering etal., 2017; Oesch, 2019; Olwig, 2023) has demonstrated, is the precise outcome in every individual of a protracted state of awaiting decisions about the future. In this case, waiting becomes an emotionally tangible manifestation of uncertainty and, as Conlon (2011) points out, a dynamic effect of international geopolitics and a lived facet of social structures. Waiting, however, is not only a passive state, but also a form of agency for those living in a specific regime of “temporal governance”—where the temporariness is determined not by the state assessing individual cases, but by the geopolitical situation around Russia’s full-scale war in Ukraine, and the collective response of EU member states manifested through national-level and state-level policies in Germany. Herein, the whole concept of “temporariness” of protection becomes challenged—and thus requires additional exploration by academic scholars. However, even in this case, the clashes between the lived temporalities of refugees and the institutional mechanisms that characterize the time-politics of reception remain inevitable. Some decisions of local government, like transferring the distribution of social benefits from the social service system to unemployment benefits operated by job centers, determined refugees’ individual decisions on whether or not to remain in Germany. (This meant accepting—or not accepting—that the temporariness of their stay will extend for at least a couple of months longer.) For some of the refugees, the pressurized need to make a decision in a time-limited perspective was a decisive factor in their decision to return to Ukraine and renounce temporary protection in Germany. The question on how German policies for supporting Ukrainian refugees impact their decision to stay or return remains, however, open to discussion and is dependent on the individual’s interpretations of the demands and solutions. For some of the participants in my research, the emotionally intense situation of “permanent temporariness” can be resolved by the option of embarking on the “bureaucratic pathway” offering certain steps on the way to integration. In this case, some of the refugees put part of the responsibility for their decision-making onto the state, renouncing their own agency. However, such a position leaves the refugees potentially vulnerable and too dependent on the state support. On this occasion, the newly adopted strategy for supporting the unemployed in Germany, which is focused on long-term solutions for labor market integration, might play an important role for the refugees who opt for passive resistance and let the state make decisions for them while they are processing their trauma of displacement. The individual experiences of going through bureaucratic procedures thus significantly contributed to the refugees’ sense of having agency and being capable of shaping their today and tomorrow. While some of them perceived bureaucracy as a quest, with the feeling of “acceptance” and successful submission of all the papers seen as a prize, others perceived bureaucracy as a constant obstacle. The latter group 1587 1 3 “Let theState Decide It All forMe”: The Role ofMigration and… also pointed out that some of the procedures hinder their integration and thus contribute to their decision to return to Ukraine, which appears to be “simpler” and “more predictable.” The uncertain temporariness of being a migrant, or, in other words, the question of how long the migrant remains an object of difference and hence a target of integration, remains crucial for migrants—even more than it is for the state (Mezzadra & Neilson, 2012). Unlike those remaining in Ukraine under permanent stress and danger and claiming “the time has stopped on February 24th” (Lazarenko etal., 2022), the informants of the current research claimed that going through bureaucratic steps, and having routinized practices like receiving the monthly allowance, helped them to keep track of time. Even though the symbolic milestones of 3 and 6 months of living abroad were hard to cope with for some of them, the very fact of a personal timeline structured around state-endorsed practices had a reportedly positive effect on their well-being. On the other hand, the integration-oriented bureaucratic pathway may become a challenge for some of the refugees. Since none of my informants intended to emigrate before the outbreak of the full-scale war, the very concept of being “integrated” and “included” into German society feels for most of them more a bizarre demand than a desired outcome. The fear of being detached from the Ukrainian community in the homeland was among the reasons for opposing integration. Moreover, for some of them, forced integration was seen as a threat to their Ukrainian identity. The general intensification of the sense of Ukrainian identity and belonging to the country of origin, in parallel with the need to build a life in a host country, is a remarkable phenomenon with regard to emigration from Ukraine in 2022 (Boman, 2023; Lazarenko etal., 2022), deeply rooted in the experience of guilt for leaving home at a crucial moment, and in the disruption of relationships with those who stayed (Andrews etal., 2023; Shyroka etal., 2023). Such identity is deeply rooted in the national idea—which unfolds, as Anderson (2006) points out, in the linear temporality (which, in case of Ukraine, is measured “until the victory in the war”). The bureaucratic system, in contrast, is an example of reality with cyclic time, determined by the prolongation of residence permits and other repeated actions (LeutloffGrandits, 2019). The discrepancies between the linear national time, associated with Ukraine, and cyclic bureaucracy-endorsed time in Germany, might thus be a reason for some Ukrainian refugees in Germany finding it hard to imagine their individual futures in either of the two temporal realities. Taking into account the specifics of the methodology, the research findings reveal the subjective experiences of Ukrainian refugee women dealing with arrivalrelated bureaucracy in Berlin, which should not be extrapolated to the population as a whole, but rather used to illustrate the interplay between migration policies, bureaucratic processes, and refugees’ sense of agency. Although the responses at the federal, state, and especially local levels to the arrival of thousands of Ukrainian refugees in Germany have demonstrated the state’s potential to deal with such disruptions, the process has not been smooth at all stages. For this reason, the findings of the research can form a basis for future research into the improvement of certain refugee reception policies in Germany. 1588 V.Lazarenko 1 3 Acknowledgements The work on this article was commenced during the research stay at Leibniz Institute for Research on Society and Space supported by the Philipp Schwartz Initiative for scholars at risk of the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation and continued at Georg-Simmel Center for Urban Studies at Humbold-Universität zu Berlin, with the support of Einstein Foundation. Special thanks go to Prof. Dr. Matthias Bernt, Dr. Madlen Pilz, and Prof. Dr. Talja Blokland for their comments and guidance in earlier versions of this paper. Funding Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. Data Availability The anonymized data supporting the findings of this study are available on request from the author. Declarations Conflict of Interest The authors declare no competing interests. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by/4.0/. References Ahmed, S. (2014). Not in the Mood. New Formations: a Journal of Culture/Theory/Politics, 82, 13–28. Anderson, B. (2006). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. Verso books. Andersson, R. (2014). Time and the migrant other: European border controls and the temporal economics of illegality. American Anthropologist, 116(4), 795–809. http:// www. jstor. org/ stable/ 24476 056 Andrews, J., Isański, J., Nowak, M., Sereda, V., Vacroux, A., & Vakhitova, H. (2023). Feminized forced migration: Ukrainian war refugees. Women’s Studies International Forum, 99, 102756. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. wsif. 2023. 102756 Bauer, A. H., Tobias; Hutter, Christian; Weber, Enzo (2023). Search processes on the labor market during the COVID-19 pandemic. i. I.-L.-I. f. W. a. d. U. München. https:// www. econs tor. eu/ bitst ream/ 10419/ 250927/ 1/ CESifoForum202104p1519. pdf Bekkering, J., van Hoof, S., Dimitrova, K., Hendriks, E., Riedijk, M., Krosenbrink, R., & van Sorgen, P. (2017). Public space for refugees: Community facilities in the context of permanent temporariness. SPOOL, 4(2), 33–37. Boman, B. (2023). The coexistence of nationalism, Westernization, Russification, and Russophobia: Facets of parallelization in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. International Politics, 60(6), 1315–1331. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1057/ s4131102300495-z Bourdieu, P. (2000). Pascalian meditations. Stanford University Press. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1191/ 14780 88706 qp063 oa Brodkin, E. Z., & Marston, G. (2013). Work and the welfare state: Street-level organizations and workfare politics. Georgetown University Press. Brücker, H., Ette, A., Grabka, M. M., Kosyakova, Y., Niehues, W., Rother, N., Spieß, C. K., Zinn, S., Bujard, M., Cardozo, A., Décieux, J. P., Maddox, A., Milewski, N., Naderi, R., Sauer, L., Schmitz, S., Schwanhäuser, S., Siegert, M., & Tanis, K. (2022). Ukrainian refugees in Germany. Escape, 1589 1 3 “Let theState Decide It All forMe”: The Role ofMigration and… arrival and everyday life. https:// www. bib. bund. de/ Publi kation/ 2022/ pdf/ Ukrai nianrefug eesinGerma nyEscapearriv alandevery daylife. pdf?__ blob= publi catio nFile &v=3 Brussig, M., Frings, D., & Kirsch, J. (2017). Diskriminierungsrisiken und Diversity-Management in der öffentlichen Arbeitsvermittlung. In: Baden-Baden: Nomos. http:// www. antid iskri minie rungs stelle. de/SharedDocs Bygnes, S. (2021). Not all Syrian doctors become taxi drivers: Stagnation and continuity among highly educated Syrians in Norway. Journal of International Migration and Integration, 22(1), 33–46. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1213401900717-5 Carlbaum, S. (2021). Temporality and space in highly skilled migrants’ experiences of education and work in the rural north of Sweden. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 40(5–6), 485–498. Carling, J., & Collins, F. (2018). Aspiration, desire and drivers of migration. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 44(6), 909–926. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 13691 83X. 2017. 13841 34 Coddington, K., Catania, R. T., Loyd, J., Mitchell-Eaton, E., & Mountz, A. (2012). Embodied possibilities, sovereign geographies, and island detention: Negotiating the ‘right to have rights’ on Guam, Lampedusa, and Christmas Island. Shima: the International Journal of Research into Island Cultures, 6(2), 27–48. Collins, F. L. (2021). ‘Give me my pathway!‘: Multinational migration, transnational skills regimes and migrant subjectification. Global Networks, 21(1), 18–39. Collins, F. L., & Shubin, S. (2015). Migrant times beyond the life course: The temporalities of foreign English teachers in South Korea. Geoforum, 62, 96–104. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. geofo rum. 2015. 04. 002 Conlon, D. (2011). Waiting: Feminist perspectives on the spacings/timings of migrant (im)mobility. Gender, Place & Culture, 18(3), 353–360. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 09663 69X. 2011. 566320 Cwerner, S. B. (2001). The times of migration. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 27(1), 7–36. Dlaske, K., & Schilling, K. (2023). Enterprising refugee women: Analyzing postfeminist governmentality in an organizational context. Gender, Work & Organization, 30(5), 1513–1532. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ gwao. 12979 Drangsland, A. K. (2020). Bordering through recalibration: Exploring the temporality of the German “Ausbildungsduldung.” Environment and Planning c: Politics and Space, 38(6), 1128–1145. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 23996 54420 915611 Edelstein, D., Geroulanos, S., & Wheatley, N. (Eds.). (2020). Power and Time: Temporalities in Conflict and the Making of History. University of Chicago Press. https:// doi. org/ 10. 7208/ 97802 26706 016 El-Shaarawi, N. (2015). Living an uncertain future: Temporality, uncertainty, and well-being among Iraqi refugees in Egypt. Social Analysis, 59(1), 38–56. El-Shaarawi, N. (2021). A transit state: The ambivalences of the refugee resettlement process for Iraqis in Cairo. American Ethnologist, 48(4), 404–417. Fiddian-Qasmiyeh, E. (2020). Shifting the gaze: Palestinian and Syrian refugees sharing and contesting space in Lebanon. In Refuge in a moving world: Tracing refugee and migrant journeys across disciplines (pp. 402–414). UCL Press. Foucault, M. (1991). The Foucault effect: Studies in governmentality. University of Chicago Press. Griffiths, M. (2013). Living with uncertainty: Indefinite immigration detention. Journal of Legal Anthropology, 1(3), 263–286. Griffiths, M. (2017). The changing politics of time in the UK’s immigration system. In Timespace and International Migration (pp. 48–60). Edward Elgar Publishing. Hainmueller, J., Hangartner, D., & Lawrence, D. (2016). When lives are put on hold: Lengthy asylum processes decrease employment among refugees. Science Advances, 2(8), e1600432. Hartmann, J., & Steinmann, J.-P. (2021). Do gender-role values matter? Explaining new refugee women’s social contact in Germany. International Migration Review, 55(3), 688–717. Hartonen, V. R., Väisänen, P., Karlsson, L., & Pöllänen, S. (2022). A stage of limbo: A meta-synthesis of refugees’ liminality. Applied Psychology, 71(3), 1132–1167. Hayes, J. C. (2018). Upon the Walls of the UN camp: Situated intersectionality, trajectories of belonging, and built environment among Syrian refugees in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq. Journal of Intersectionality, 2(2), 59-102. https:// doi. org/ 10. 13169/ jinte.2. issue-2 Holzinger, C. (2020). ‘We don’t worry that much about language’: Street-level bureaucracy in the context of linguistic diversity. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 46(9), 1792–1808. Howlett, M., & Lazarenko, V. (2023). How and when should we (not) speak?: Ethical knowledge production about the Russia-Ukraine war. Journal of International Relations and Development, 26(4), 722–732. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1057/ s4126802300305-2 1590 V.Lazarenko 1 3 Hyndman, J., & Giles, W. (2011). Waiting for what? The feminization of asylum in protracted situations. Gender, Place & Culture, 18, 361–379. Jacobsen, M. H. (2022). Precarious (Dis) Placement: Temporality and the legal rewriting of refugee protection in Denmark. Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 112(3), 819–827. Jacobsen, C. M., Karlsen, M.-A., & Khosravi, S. (2021). Waiting and the temporalities of irregular migration. Taylor & Francis. Jünemann, A., Göttsche, S., & Rojas-Matas, Y. (2021). Vulnerability and agency in the asymmetric relationship between refugees and their volunteer supporters: A critical assessment of Germany’s ‘welcome culture’. In Power in Vulnerability: A Multi-Dimensional Review of Migrants’ Vulnerabilities (pp. 229–248). Springer. Kuhlmann, S., & Franzke, J. (2022). Multi-level responses to COVID-19: Crisis coordination in Germany from an intergovernmental perspective. Local Government Studies, 48(2), 312–334. Lazarenko, V. (2020). Mapping identities: Narratives of displacement in Ukraine. Emotion, Space and Society, 35, 100674. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. emospa. 2020. 100674 Lazarenko, V., Bobrova, A., Khassai, Y., Filipchuk, L., Syrbu, O., Lomonosova, N., & Nazarenko, Y. (2022). Three months of full-scale war in Ukraine: Thoughts, feelings, actions. https:// cedos. org. ua/ en/ resea rches/ threemonthsoffullscalewarinukrai nethoug htsfeeli ngsactio ns/ Leutloff-Grandits, C. (2019). Temporalities of refugee experience in Germany. Diversification of Asylum Rights and Proliferation of Internal Boundaries. Archivio Antropologico Mediterraneo, 21, 2. Lipsky, M. (1980). Dilemmas of the individual in public services (p. 71). Russell Sage Foundation. Massey, D. (1993). Politics and space/time. Urban Culture: Critical Concepts in Literary and Cultural Studies, 1, 66–68. Mezzadra, S. (2022). Movements of migration within and beyond citizenship. Citizenship Studies, 26(4– 5), 577–583. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 13621 025. 2022. 20912 41 Mezzadra, S., & Neilson, B. (2012). Between inclusion and exclusion: On the topology of global space and borders. Theory, Culture & Society, 29(4–5), 58–75. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 02632 76412 443569 Mountz, A. (2011). Where asylum-seekers wait: Feminist counter-topographies of sites between states. Gender, Place & Culture, 18(3), 381–399. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 09663 69X. 2011. 566370 Nagel, A.-K., & Reeger, U. (2021). Stuck in reception: How refugees in Austria and Germany experience long-term reception constellations. Journal of Immigrant & Refugee Studies, 19(3), 245–257. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 15562 948. 2021. 19320 07 Oesch, L. (2019). The politics of temporariness and the materiality of refugee camps. In Arrival Infrastructures (pp. 229–248). Springer. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ 978-331991167-0_ 10 Olwig, K. F. (2023). The end and ends of flight. Temporariness, uncertainty and meaning in refugee life. Ethnos, 88(1), 52–68. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 00141 844. 2020. 18676 06 Pitzalis, S. (2023) Plenty of Time, Out of Time. Plurality of timing in the Italian asylum reception system. Outcomes from the field. Journal of Internationa Migration & Integration. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1213402301109-6 Ramsay, G. (2017). Impossible refuge: The control and constraint of refugee futures. Routledge. Ratzmann, N. (2021). Deserving of social support? Street-level bureaucrats’ decisions on EU migrants’ benefit claims in Germany. Social Policy and Society, 20(3), 509–520. Ratzmann, N. (2022). “ No German, no service”: EU migrants’ unequal access to welfare entitlements in Germany. Social Inclusion, 10(1), 227–238. Ratzmann, N., & Sahraoui, N. (2021). Conceptualising the role of deservingness in migrants’ access to social services. Social Policy and Society, 20(3), 440–451. Reneman, M., & Stronks, M. (2021). What are they waiting for? The use of acceleration and deceleration in asylum procedures by the Dutch Government. Time & Society, 30(3), 302–331. Schapendonk, J., van Liempt, I., Schwarz, I., & Steel, G. (2020). Re-routing migration geographies: Migrants, trajectories and mobility regimes. Geoforum, 116, 211–216. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. geofo rum. 2018. 06. 007 Scheibelhofer, E., & Holzinger, C. (2018). “Damn it, I am a miserable eastern European in the eyes of the administrator”: EU migrants’ experiences with (transnational) social security. Social Inclusion, 6(3), 201–209. Schewel, K. (2020). Understanding immobility: Moving beyond the mobility bias in migration studies. International Migration Review, 54(2), 328–355. Schouw Iversen, K. (2022). Displacement, time and resistance: The role of waiting in facilitating occupations led by internally displaced persons in Colombia. Time & Society, 31(2), 226–246. 1591 1 3 “Let theState Decide It All forMe”: The Role ofMigration and… Schütze, T. (2022). The (non-)status of ‘Duldung’: Non-deportability in Germany and the politics of limitless temporariness. Journal of Refugee Studies, 36(3), 409–429. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1093/ jrs/ feac0 56 Schwarz, C. H. (2016). Refugees from Syria as ‘guests’ in Germany: The moral economy of German refugee policy in 2014. In Migration, mobilities and the arab spring (pp. 105–124). Edward Elgar Publishing. Scott, J. C. (1990). Domination and the arts of resistance: Hidden transcripts. Yale university press. Seethaler, I. C. (2019). Female refugees in Rural Germany: A local aid agency’s efforts to build on women’s experiences and needs. Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies, 40(2), 167–192. Seinsche, L., Schubin, K., Neumann, J., & Pfaff, H. (2023). Employees’ resources, demands and health while working from home during COVID-19 pandemic: A qualitative study in the public sector. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(1), 411. https:// www. mdpi. com/ 16604601/ 20/1/ 411 Shyroka, A., Senyk, O. M., Zavada, T., Vons, O., & Kornadt, A. (2003). "Should I Stay or Should I Go?" Relationships between emotion regulation and basic needs satisfaction of parents displaced in Ukraine and Abroad (During the First 6 Months of The Russian Invasion of Ukraine). Studies in Violence and Power, Family and Social Welfare, Migration Studies, Peace and Conflict Studies, Russian Aggression against Ukraine. Fundacja Pro Scientia Publica. Spada, S. (2023). “How much more time do you need?”: Anthropological-legal reflections on the impact of chronopolitics for asylum seekers in Italy: Alasan’s story. Journal of International Migration and Integration. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1213402301108-7 Steigemann, A. M., & Misselwitz, P. (2020). Architectures of asylum: Making home in a state of permanent temporariness. Current Sociology, 68(5), 628–650. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00113 92120 927755 Thompson, M. (2017). Migration decision-making: A geographical imaginations approach. Area, 49(1), 77–84. Tize, C. (2021). Living in permanent temporariness: The multigenerational ordeal of living under Germany’s toleration status. Journal of Refugee Studies, 34(3), 3024–3043. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1093/ jrs/ fez119 Turnbull, S. (2016). ‘Stuck in the middle’: Waiting and uncertainty in immigration detention. Time & Society, 25(1), 61–79. Tuzi, I. (2020). Agency, structure, and reflexivity in displacement: The experience of Syrian refugees in Lebanon and Germany. The Migration Conference 2020 Proceedings: Migration and Integration, Weber, M. (2009). From Max Weber: Essays in sociology. Routledge. Wegrich, K. (2021). Is the turtle still plodding along? Public management reform in Germany. Public Management Review, 23(8), 1107–1116. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 14719 037. 2020. 17710 11 Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.