The Labour Market Integration of Duldung Holders in Berlin

The Labour Market Integration of Duldung Holders in Berlin Authors: Lorena Unger & Lotte van Dijk A chapter from: Schmiz, A., & Lehmann, S. (Eds.) (2025). Geographies of the European Border Regime. How borders shape the everyday lives of refugees and asylum-seekers. Berlin Geographical Papers, 56. https://doi.org/10.17169/refubium-48773 Institute of Geographical Sciences Freie Universität Berlin 2025 Contact Freie Universität Berlin Department of Earth Sciences Working Group 'Society, Space and Gender' Malteserstr. 74-100 D-12249 Berlin https://www.geo.fu-berlin.de/geog/fachrichtungen/anthrogeog/index.html This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. DOI: hUps://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17466314 Citation suggestion: Unger, L., & van Dijk, L. (2025). The Labour Market Integration of Duldung Holders in Berlin. Berlin Geographical Papers, 56, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17466314 Published in: Schmiz, A., & Lehmann, S. (Eds.) (2025). Geographies of the European Border Regime. How borders shape the everyday lives of refugees and asylum-seekers. Berlin Geographical Papers, 56. https://doi.org/10.17169/refubium-48773 1 Lorena Unger & Lotte van Dijk The Labour Market Integration of Duldung Holders in Berlin Abstract: This study examines the labour market integration of individuals with a Duldung status in Berlin, Germany. The Duldung status places individuals in a legal limbo, temporarily suspending deportation while denying long-term security and full rights. This research focuses on two key objectives: (1) identifying structural obstacles, including political, bureaucratic and legal barriers, and (2) examining intersecting ways of marginalisation among women, individuals with disabilities and caregivers holding a Duldung. Simultaneously, we analysed the role of state-funded and independent organisations in providing support. Drawing on existing research and qualitative interviews, our findings highlight how the Duldung status perpetuates economic and social exclusion, making individuals vulnerable to labour exploitation. While initiatives to support workforce participation exist, their effectiveness is limited by bureaucratic and legal hurdles. This paper advocates for policy reforms, including simplified access to work permits, expanded vocational training programmes tailored to diverse needs and stronger labour protections. However, without systemic change, individuals with a Duldung will continue to face cycles of exclusion and exploitation. These findings contribute to discussions on migration, labour rights and social justice in Germany and the European context. 1 Introduction At the end of 2022, 248,145 individuals1 in Germany were registered under the category of a Duldung, also known as tolerated stay (Spindler et al. 2024). This is unlike other EU countries where this category does not exist and the number of individuals with similar legal statuses often remains in the three-digit scope. Since the early 2000s, several EU member states have introduced specific legal categories for non-deportable individuals. However, the German category of a Duldung is exceptional due to its extensive and complex policy (Schütze 2022; Schütze 2025). A Duldung is not a residence permit but a temporary suspension of deportation. It is issued if deportation is not feasible due to humanitarian reasons, legal obstacles or a lack of travel documents from their home country. Even though individuals are not forcibly deported from Germany, they lack a secure legal status. This creates a legal limbo that is highly precarious and exclusionary, also in terms of labour market integration. 1 Throughout this text, we primarily refer to individuals with a Duldung to reflect their specific legal status. When we refer to ‘individuals’, we are referring to Duldung holders. At @mes, we also use the term refugees when our discussion is not limited strictly to Duldung holders. In Germany, refugees are individuals who have undergone a successful asylum procedure and have been granted protec@on under the Geneva Conven@on. By contrast, Duldung holders have not been granted protec@on status; their deporta@on is only temporarily suspended. We understand these dis@nc@ons as being poli@cally constructed and instrumentalised to regulate access to rights. In using these terms, we aim to cri@cally engage with the structural inequali@es and power imbalances that shape labour market access and broader social par@cipa@on (Bundesministerium für wirtschaKliche Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung [BMZ] 2025). 2 This essay is guided by the following research question: How do individuals with Duldung status integrate into the labour market in Berlin? Specifically, we focus on two objectives: (1) identifying structural obstacles, including political, bureaucratic and legal barriers; and (2) examining the intersecting ways in which marginalisation in this context affects women, individuals with disabilities and their caregivers who hold a Duldung. Simultaneously, we analyse the role of state-funded and independent organisations in providing support. To address these research objectives, this paper is structured as follows: First, we provide contextual background information on the definition of Duldung and its policies and related labour market restrictions. This is followed by our theoretical background, drawing on critical migration studies. We then introduce our methodology, followed by the presentation of our findings based on interviews with organisations that support our target groups. In our discussion, we analyse these findings, highlighting both structural obstacles and intersecting aspects of marginalisation. Finally, we conclude with several key insights into the labour market integration for individuals with a Duldung. 2 The dehumanising nature of a Duldung This section outlines the contextual background of the Duldung policies and related labour market restrictions. Introduced in 1965 in West Germany, the Duldung status is known for its exclusionary and bureaucratic nature (Schütze 2025). Scholars, including Schütze (2022; 2025), Castañeda (2020), Spencer (2020), Triandafyllidou (2020), Bartolini (2020) and Spindler (2024) outline its discriminatory effects. Since its implementation in 1965, labour market access under a Duldung was highly restrictive, reflecting conservative migration policies. However, since the early 2000s, economic needs have prompted reforms that increasingly favour young Duldung holders. For instance, policies since 2008 have established shorter waiting periods for work permits and vocational training opportunities for some individuals, thus combining integrative approaches with a neoliberal market logic. While such reforms suggest a shift toward greater labour market integration, they also reinforce present structural inequalities by keeping Duldung holders in a highly regulated and vulnerable position (Schütze 2022). Systematic reform focused on regularisation and social inclusion is essential to mitigate the long-term negative implications of the Duldung status (Spindler et al. 2024; Schütze 2022; Schütze 2025; Triandafyllidou/Bartolini 2020). The Duldung functions both as a control mechanism and a tool for economic flexibility, creating systemic tensions. Scholars like Böcker and Vogel (1997) and De Genova (2002) argue that these policies institutionalise precarity and vulnerability, linking legal status to employment. This makes individuals highly dependent on (precarious) jobs to avoid deportation and thus creates a flexible workforce (Schütze 2022). Duldung holders’ precarious status sustains a pool of cheap labour forces, particularly in gendered and informal sectors such as construction, agriculture, care work and hospitality (Böcker/Vogel 1997; Triandafyllidou/Bartolini 2020)2. Individuals’ limited knowledge of their rights, language 2 While sectors like care work are heavily regulated in Germany, loopholes and grey areas persist, especially in private household arrangements (e.g., 24-hour care services). These arrangements are oKen informally or semi-legally nego@ated 3 barriers and financial instability further increase the risk of exploitation (Triandafyllidou/Bartolini 2020). There are four commonly referenced types of Duldung, each with different restrictions, adding to the complexity of the constantly changing migration policy: 1. ‘Duldung light’ (since 2019): targets people with unclear identities and imposes a work ban (Bundesministerium für Justiz 2024 § 60b AufenthG), 2. ‘Normale Duldung’ (Engl.: normal Duldung): offers no deportation protection but usually allows work upon application (Bundesministerium für Justiz 2024 § 60a AufenthG), 3. ‘Ermessensduldung’ (Engl.: discretionary Duldung): grants temporary protection, e.g., for school or vocational training; includes the Ausbildungsduldung (Duldung for vocational training) and the Beschäftigungsduldung (Employment Duldung) (Bundesministerium für Justiz 2024 § 60c, § 60d AufenthG), 4. ‘Anspruchsduldung’ (Engl.: entitlement Duldung): applies when a legal entitlement to stay exists but no residence permit can be granted, e.g., for parents of a child with legal residency (Bundesministerium für Justiz 2024 § 60a AufenthG). However, these four types do not cover all cases. For example, a Duldung can also be issued during follow-up or second asylum procedures (Folgeanträge or Zweitanträge) or due to temporary legal or factual obstacles to deportation (e.g., missing documents, health reasons). In practice, especially the first category can be further broken down based on the specific reasons preventing deportation (Bundesministerium für Justiz 2022; I#8). The Duldung creates a precarious ‘fiction of temporary stay’, often described as ‘limbo status’ or ‘non-status’ (Castañeda 2010; Schütze 2022). This ‘limitless temporariness’ (Schütze 2022, 417) restricts access to basic rights, economic and social participation. Normal Duldung and Duldung light holders are prohibited from working and are confined to living in specific regions under the residence obligation. Like asylum seekers, they receive reduced financial support, which is below a minimum subsistence level according to the Federal Constitutional Court (Castañeda 2010; Schütze 2025), during the first 36 months. Initially lowered to 18 months in 2008, this period was later extended back to 36 months due to political pressures (I#7). Exit pathways from a Duldung include the Opportunity Residence Act (ChancenAufenthaltsrecht) from 2022, which offers prospects for permanent residency (I#7). Furthermore, in 2022, residence permits were introduced under § 25a AufenthG (for individuals who arrived as minors and apply before turning 27) and § 25 AufenthG, both of which typically require successful integration into school, vocational training or work. Before the introduction of these permits, temporary ‘right to stay’ policies focused strongly on financial self-sufficiency (I#7). Other options include the Hardship Commission (§ 23a through placement agencies, crea@ng precarious working condi@ons despite regulatory frameworks (Lutz 2018). As Lutz (2018, 83) notes, ‘legal frameworks exist, but the enforcement in transna@onal care arrangements oKen lacks teeth, enabling the persistence of informal structures under the guise of legality’ (see also: Da Roit/Weicht 2013). 4 AufenthG) and the residence permit under § 25 AufenthG (in cases where departure is permanently impossible). While the former emphasises labour market participation, the latter focuses on the impossibility of departure (I#7). However, implementation varies greatly, leaving many individuals in states of prolonged uncertainty, sometimes for decades (Schütze 2022). Limited prospects heighten exclusion and mental distress (Aslund et al. 2024; Jensen 2023; Schütze 2025; Stache 2024). A Duldung restricts access to healthcare, education, social life and family reunification, and exceptions are often based on subjective assessments of deservingness (ProAsyl 2024). Limited resources and restrictive eligibility reduce social counselling to the most promising cases, leaving the most vulnerable individuals or groups with little to no structural support. Social workers thus face ethical dilemmas between advocacy and bureaucratic compliance (Spindler et al. 2024). Furthermore, Duldung holders express that their regular visits to the immigration offices for status reassessments were dehumanising (Castañeda 2010). Such experiences contribute to the sense of civil death, where individuals are excluded from full social participation (Gibney 2000). This is rooted in long-standing postcolonial migration policies, in which individuals are systematically marginalised and denied a civil identity (Arendt 1968; Mbembe 2019). Despite labour market demands, the inclusion of Duldung holders remains complex and challenging. In particular, youth and young adults face significant barriers to accessing education and vocational training (Spindler et al. 2024). Social work is vital in supporting these individuals, yet this work is highly restricted by migration policy. The Ausbildungsduldung protects individuals from deportation during their vocational training but ties legal security to career paths (Spindler et al. 2024). Furthermore, delays in obtaining work permits and the non-recognition of foreign qualifications limit access to and prevent timely enrolment in vocational programmes (Spindler et al. 2024). Despite efforts by social workers, many individuals remain excluded from integration courses and further education opportunities (Spindler et al. 2024). Systematic reform focused on regularisation and social inclusion is essential to mitigate the long-term implications of the Duldung status (Triandafyllidou/Bartolini 2020; Schütze 2022, 2025; Spindler et al. 2024). This paper expands on existing research by analysing the complex obstacles faced by (multiply marginalised) Duldung holders into the labour market integration in Berlin. Using an intersectional and critical approach, we examine how structural inequalities shape the labour market access of Duldung holders. Drawing on interview-based policy suggestions, we propose targeted recommendations aimed at developing more inclusive labour market policies. 3 Methods This study examines the complex challenges regarding the integration of individuals with a Duldung into the Berlin labour market. We employ a qualitative research design, combining empirical data from expert interviews with an analysis of relevant academic literature and 5 policy documents. The integration of primary and secondary sources allows for a more comprehensive understanding of the structural and legal barriers affecting labour market integration. Data collection was conducted during the summer of 2024 in Berlin. Semistructured interviews allow for an in-depth exploration of the research question while maintaining flexibility in the interview process. Ten guiding questions structured the interviews, covering key themes such as bureaucratic hurdles, gender-specific obstacles and policy recommendations. Follow-up questions were adapted to each interviewee’s expertise to ensure a nuanced understanding of the complex process. We interviewed six participants based on their expertise in employment-related support and legal advocacy for refugees and individuals with a Duldung. Their insights provided our research with key perspectives, particularly on the challenges faced by individuals with a Duldung and employers in negotiating access to the labour market, legal restrictions and institutional support mechanisms. While the individuals we interviewed spoke in a personal capacity, their perspectives are shaped by their roles within organisations actively engaged in the field. The following individuals participated in the study: - Johanna Boettcher works at bridge – Berliner Netzwerke für Bleiberecht: Supports refugees in accessing the labour market (I#1, I#7) - Nicolas Chevreux works at AWO Kreisverband Berlin-Mitte e.V.: Provides legal counselling to refugees from Afghanistan (I#2, I#8) - Nadja Türke works for an institution that supports employers in employing refugees (I#3) - Mohammad Ismael works for an institution that offers labour rights counselling for all non-European migrants (I#4) - Benedikt Nicolsky works for an institution that supports employers in employing refugees (I#5) - Ceren Sengölge works for an institution that supports refugees with disabilities and their caretakers (I#6) We are two white female students from Germany and the Netherlands living in Berlin. Our position as external observers influenced our research design. While we recognise the importance of centring and amplifying the voices of affected individuals, our research question, limited research timeframe and ethical concerns led us to focus on interviews with institutional representatives rather than directly engaging with individuals with a Duldung. This decision aimed to prevent potential retraumatisation while still capturing insights into the structural challenges and support mechanisms available. However, we acknowledge the limitations of this approach which excludes the first-hand experiences and perspectives from those directly affected. 6 4 Barriers to labour market integration for Duldung holders 4.1 Bureaucratic hurdles This section presents the findings and explains the diverse structural obstacles that individuals face. One major obstacle repeatedly mentioned is the bureaucratic process for securing work permits, which is lengthy and complex. Individuals with a Duldung must navigate a system with numerous forms that are often only available in German or English (I#2). Part of this processing time is spent waiting for the approval of the contract by the Immigration Office and Federal Employment Agency, which was introduced to prevent individuals from working in places where they do not receive the customary local wage and/or work in a position that is below their qualifications. This review intends to serve occupational safety and health, as it is known how vulnerable this group is (I#7). However, delays at the Immigration Office and Federal Employment Agency can take up to six months or longer, causing job seekers to lose opportunities to candidates who can start immediately (I#1; I#3; I#6). These long processing times also discourage employers from hiring individuals with a Duldung, despite them receiving work approval, further limiting job prospects (I#6). In addition, the protection of the individuals through this process is only on paper; interviewees stated that it would make more sense if the respective company faced investigations that check whether migrants and individuals with a Duldung are being exploited (I#7). Effective collaboration between the Federal Employment Agency and other migration and work-related institutions is mentioned in addressing these challenges. Such cooperation can create opportunities for individuals hindered by bureaucratic barriers (I#1). Current policies impose significant restrictions on those seeking to integrate into the labour market, failing to integrate people and include their talents efficiently while disregarding Germany’s growing labour demand (I#2). The public debate in Germany often frames refugees negatively, portraying them as a problem. This fosters stricter policies, tighter asylum rules and additional political hurdles for incoming individuals (I#5). Potential solutions include policy reforms, such as requiring immigration offices to respond to work permit requests within a set timeframe, with a system of automatic approval if the deadline passes (I#6). Additionally, allowing individuals to work without special permissions is suggested as a simple solution (I#2). 4.2 Employers’ perspectives Another key factor is the employer’s familiarity with the process, as those with positive past experiences are more inclined to go through the process again (I#1). Employers may also be more inclined to hire someone they know, such as an intern, as familiarity increases confidence in the candidate’s suitability (I#1). Internships help individuals with a Duldung to secure permanent employment as employers get to know them and are more willing to navigate the work permit process. Interviewees recommend increasing such opportunities (I#1). Further, employers’ understanding of the challenges faced by individuals with a Duldung is crucial. Cultural differences can lead to misunderstandings in communication and work ethics (I#6). Counsellors play a key role in educating both parties, fostering mutual 13 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/feac056 Schütze, T. (2025). Duldung. In I. Bartels, I. Löhr, C. Reinecke, P. Schäfer, L. Stielike & M. Stierl (Eds.) Inventar der Migrationsbegriffe. https://doi.org/10.48693/625 Spencer, S., & Triandafyllidou, A. (2020). Evolving Conceptual and Policy Challenges. In S. Spencer & A. Triandafyllidou (Eds.), Migrants with Irregular Status in Europe (pp. 207–217). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-03034324-8_11 Spindler, S., Langhoop, G., Madjlessi-Roudi, S., Mayer, M., Ataç, I., & Scherschel, K. (2024). „Leider ist es sinnvoll, das Mädel macht jetzt eine Ausbildung“ – Soziale Arbeit mit jungen Menschen in Duldung unter Zugzwängen des Migrationsregimes. In T. Middendorf & A. Parchow (Eds.), Junge Menschen in prekären Lebenslagen: Theorien und Praxisfelder der Sozialen Arbeit (pp. 319–401). Beltz Juventa. Stache, R. (2024). Auswirkungen einer Duldung auf Lebenssituation und Lebenszufriedenheit. Kurzanalyse des BAMF-Forschungszentrums / BAMF-Kurzanalyse, 22. https://doi.org/10.48570/BAMF.FZ.KA.03/2024.D.2024.DULDUNG.1.0 Symington, A. (2004). Intersectionality: A tool for gender and economic justice. The Association for Women’s Rights in Development (AWID). Triandafyllidou, A., & Bartolini, L. (2020). Understanding Irregularity. In S. Spencer & A. Triandafyllidou (Eds.), Migrants with Irregular Status in Europe (pp. 11–31). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34324-8_2