One-way or return? Explaining group-specific return intentions of recently arrived Polish and Turkish immigrants in Germany

One-way or return? Explaining group-specific return intentions of recently arrived Polish and... Abstract This article analyses return intentions of new migrants on both the individual and the group level. The aim is, firstly, to systemize factors commonly discussed in studies on (re)migration to explain newcomers’ return intentions on the individual level. Secondly, I ask whether these identified factors account for differences in return intentions between two ethnic groups. The hypotheses are tested with data from the SCIP-project (‘Socio-cultural integration processes among new immigrants in Europe’) collected from new Polish and Turkish arrivals in Germany. The findings reveal that initial motives for migration, as well as (economic, social, and cultural) ties to receiving and origin countries, contribute to explaining newcomers’ return plans, whereas perception of ethnic boundaries plays a minor role. Moreover, group-specific return intentions can be explained by the fact that Poles and Turks differ in their motives for migration and their endowment with ties. These findings reflect the impact of the immigration regulations that shape the composition of newcomers migrating to Germany, which, in turn, has an influence on their return intentions. In the conclusion, implications for migration theories are discussed. It is argued that future research should use migration theories in a complementary rather than a competitive way. 1. Introduction In recent years, several European countries have become more and more multi-ethnic due to rising numbers of immigrants (OECD 2014). The public and academic debates about the risks and benefits of increased immigration are rather controversial and primarily revolve around the impact of immigration on social cohesion. These debates generally focus on the question ‘Who enters the country?’ However, it is easily forgotten that this question alone is not enough, because research has shown that large numbers of immigrants do not stay but leave the host country after a relatively short period of time (Constant and Massey 2003: 643). This suggests that the question ‘Who stays in the country, and who leaves?’ is equally important. Research on return migration has been given more attention lately (e.g. Constant and Zimmermann 2012; de Vroome and van Tubergen 2014; Diehl and Liebau 2015). The vast majority of these studies have focused on the explanation of individual-level differences only, whereas explaining group-level differences has been widely neglected (for an exception, see Anniste and Tammaru 2014). This is remarkable because, in his seminal work, Bovenkerk (1974: 44) described ‘the study of return migration as a phenomenon of groups’, and official statistics show that leaving the receiving country is highly group-specific (OECD 2014). I study return migration exemplarily for Polish and Turkish immigrants who have recently arrived in Germany (2009–2011). The first purpose of the study is to describe early patterns of Polish and Turkish migrants’ future migration plans. Secondly, I focus on factors commonly discussed in studies on (re)migration, and I try to find out whether these factors are related to new migrants’ return intentions. Finally, I ask whether some of these identified factors might explain the differing patterns of Polish and Turkish immigrants’ return intentions. Germany is a natural choice for my study because the country has had a rather high inflow of immigrants compared with other European countries over the last few years (OECD 2014). Regarding current inflows, Poles make up the largest group of immigrants migrating to Germany, whereas Turks represent the largest group of immigrants in Germany concerning the stocks (BAMF 2016). Further, and most importantly, a comparison between Polish and Turkish immigrants is promising because the share of potential returnees between these two groups differs highly. This has enabled me to study differences in return migration, not only on the individual, but also on the group level. The presence of Turkish and Polish immigrants in Germany has distinct historical reasons. A bilateral agreement between Germany and Turkey enabled migration of so-called ‘guest workers’, starting in the 1960s, and subsequent family reunification and formation, which is still the main motive of migration among Turkish immigrants nowadays (Fassmann and İçduygu 2013). For Polish immigrants, Germany has always been an important receiving country. In the 1970s, primarily political refugees and ethnic Germans (Aussiedler) moved to Germany. Due to Poland’s EU accession in 2004, Polish migration to Germany has become more economically motivated (Halm et al. 2012). In either case, political change (guest worker programme and accession to the EU) was, among other things, dedicated to facilitate temporary migration between two countries. However, the political project was only successfully implemented in case of Polish–German migration, whereas migration from Turkey to Germany is often of permanent nature. An ideal research design in a study of remigration processes would compare returnees with those new arrivals who remain in the country of immigration for a longer period of time. As such data are not yet available I focus on return migration intentions, instead of return migration behaviour.1 There are some drawbacks to this approach. Some authors have argued that putting a return intention into practice might be influenced by several intervening factors; for example, social, political, or economic barriers. Thus, it remains unclear whether the potential returnees would actually remigrate (Constant and Massey 2002: 23; van den Berg and Weynandt 2013: 249). However, there are convincing arguments for nevertheless focusing on return intentions: Firstly, even if intentions do not predict behaviour perfectly, recent research shows that return intentions are the best proxy for real behaviour (van Dalen and Henkens 2013: 233). Secondly, only the use of return intentions offers the opportunity to examine the interplay between integration, transnationalism, and an immigrant’s decision as to whether to stay or return (Alberts and Hazen 2005: 133). I begin by presenting the paper’s point of departure: empirical evidence concerning group-specific return intentions, based on unique data from the SCIP-project (‘Socio-cultural integration processes among new immigrants in Europe’). The next section presents hypotheses derived from common migration- and integration-related theories. However, the idea is not to conduct a theory test, because the theoretical approaches presented are not mutually exclusive. When studying return intentions in a thorough way all approaches have to be taken into account, as each approach highlights different influencing factors that contribute to the explanation. I systemize these factors along four dimensions (main motive for immigration, ties to the receiving country and the origin country and perception of ethnic boundaries) and additionally explicate theoretical considerations of why Poles and Turks differ in their numbers of potential returnees. Then, operationalization and methodology are described. After displaying descriptive evidence, multivariate analyses are conducted, and main findings are presented. The final section recapitulates the most important aspects of the paper and discusses implications for migration theories. 2. Return intentions of Polish and Turkish newcomers In recent years, increasing numbers of Poles, and still a smaller number of Turks, have migrated to Germany (OECD 2014). However, do these people also intend to stay? In order to obtain a more nuanced picture, I have used novel data from the SCIP-project, which were collected between 2010 and 2013 (Diehl et al. 2015). This survey is a two-wave panel study of approximately 7,000 immigrants between 18 and 60 years of age. It mainly aims at explaining group- and country-specific variation in socio-cultural and socio-structural integration processes. The target population of the project is comprised of recently arrived immigrants in four European countries (Germany, Great Britain, Ireland, and the Netherlands). For my study, I have used the German data from the first wave; a sample was randomly drawn from the population registers of five major cities (Berlin, Bremen, Cologne, Hamburg, and Munich).2 In total, 2,697 face-to-face interviews (CAPI) were conducted with Polish (1,516) and Turkish (1,181) respondents who had been living in the receiving country for up to 1.5 years. Immigrants were contacted and interviewed in their native languages. I excluded 241 (8.9%) respondents because no information on return intentions was available for them.3 Net of these observations with missing values 2,456 respondents remain in the analysis. The dependent variable represents immigrants’ future migration plans and is measured with a categorical variable that divides the respondents into four different groups. A person expects to stay in Germany, plans to return to their country of origin or to another country or wants to live transnationally and moves between Germany and their country of origin. For the purpose of the present study, I have distinguished between immigrants who intend to stay (0) and those in all other categories (1). Thus, if a person does not intend to live in Germany in the future, this is interpreted as an intention to leave the country. Although re-migrating to the country of origin, migrating to a third country, and moving back and forth are not equivalent categories, what these answers have in common is that they indicate a respondent’s intention to leave Germany (at least temporarily). The results reported in Figure 1 reveal clear group differences. When Polish and Turkish immigrants are asked fairly soon after migration to Germany about their future migration plans, the largest share of Turkish respondents plan to stay in Germany (42.1%), whereas only a minority of Polish immigrants want to do so (26.9%). Respondents’ intention to leave Germany is much stronger for Polish newcomers (73.1%) compared with Turkish immigrants (57.9%). Thus, the probability of Poles reporting return intentions is 15.2 percentage points higher than that of Turks. In the next section, theoretical arguments are presented to explain these differences. Figure 1. View largeDownload slide Future migration plans of Polish and Turkish new immigrants in Germany. Source: SCIP-project, own calculations. Figure 1. View largeDownload slide Future migration plans of Polish and Turkish new immigrants in Germany. Source: SCIP-project, own calculations. 3. Theoretical framework An immigrant’s decision to stay or return is a complex phenomenon. In the following section, major influencing factors on return migration (intentions) are introduced. However, it should be noted that no unidirectional relation between integration/transnationalism and migration plans can be assumed. I first present hypotheses concerning explanatory factors that account for individual-level differences. The main purpose here is to condense the numerous factors existent in the research literature and to present a comprehensive but parsimonious explanatory model. In a second step, I formulate theoretical expectations to explain group-level differences, that is, why Poles plan to leave Germany more often than Turks. 3.1 Individual-level differences Whether an immigrant wants to stay permanently in a receiving society depends on a variety of influencing factors, which can be grouped into four categories (for a similar approach, see de Haas, Fokkema, and Fihri 2015): (1) The main motive for initial immigration, (2) the immigrant’s ties to their receiving country, (3) the immigrant’s ties to their sending country, and (4) the immigrant’s perception of ethnic boundaries. 3.1.1 Main motive for immigration Motivations behind initial migration have an important influence on an immigrant’s decision to return or to remain abroad, because these motivations are often associated with a person’s goals and perceptions about medium- and long-term life-planning. However, considering motives for immigration in the theoretical framework is also worthwhile, because even though they are understood as individual characteristics, varying structural conditions are reflected in these motives. Whether migrants develop a certain migration motive highly depends on legal agreements, economic disparities and historical connections between two or more countries, as I will show below. The reasons for migration are diverse and multidimensional. However, three types of migration with different motives can typically be distinguished: education, family, and economic migration4 (Diehl and Preisendörfer 2007: 8). The group of educational migrants mainly includes students who study at German universities associated with the goal to accumulate (transnational) human capital and gain international experience.5 At present, Germany is among the most popular destination countries for international students. This can be attributed to the fact that tuition fees at German state universities are low compared to international practice (Bessey 2012: 346). It can be expected that only a small proportion of foreign students settle in Germany permanently. This mainly results from two issues: According to human capital theory, re-migration may be triggered because human capital acquired during a stay abroad is rewarded more highly in the country of origin than in the host country (Dustmann and Weiss 2007: 246). Further, in Germany, credit mobility (such as a temporary stay with the ERASMUS programme) is much more common than degree mobility (i.e. a longer stay abroad for an entire academic programme) (Alberts and Hazen 2005: 148). Therefore, foreign students entering German universities often take into account returning to their origin country because their stay abroad has presumably been planned for a limited period of time only. The second category, family-related migration, is a heterogeneous one that is comprised of different types of migrants. Family reunification indicates that immediate family members (e.g. spouses, children, and parents) join another primary migrant. Family formation (or marriage migration) exists if citizens or permanent residents bring along a partner from a foreign country and if a (future) spouse follows a descendant of immigrants. Further, the extremely rare case (at least in Western societies nowadays) exists where the whole family migrates at once (Kofman 2004: 246f). Family migrants are usually very likely to express settlement intentions (at least if family members have no plans to return themselves). This can be explained by two basic mechanisms: Firstly, migrants who leave their home country because of family reunification or formation are emotionally bound to the host country because they benefit from living close to their family members (de Jong and Fawcett 1981: 51). Secondly, for family migrants, returning home is usually not an option, because they often rely on other people living in the receiving country who assure their livelihood. Therefore, if the core of a family migrant’s life is not already rooted in the receiving country before migrating, it probably shifts there as a result of migration. This shift implies that newcomers with family motives probably plan to settle permanently in the host country (Diehl and Preisendörfer 2007: 9). Economic migrants who come for work and better income may be distinguished according to their applied strategy in the new country: income-maximizing and target-earning. Considering economically-motivated migrants against the backdrop of neoclassical economics, they are perceived as ‘true economic men’,6 who rationally balance their costs and benefits in order to decide if an act of migration will lead to a greater (financial) net return (Piore 1979: 54). Return migration is the result of miscalculations or the reassessment of (changing) economic conditions. Conditions may change in host and/or origin country. Depending on these developments migrants move to where the return to their human capital is highest. Thus, the decision to migrate is revised because human capital is not rewarded as initially anticipated in the host country or the rewards have increased in the origin country. Whereas, in line with neoclassical economics, remigration is a sign of failed experience abroad, in the logic of the new economics of labour migration, it is the successful end of a calculated plan (Borjas and Bratsberg 1996: 165; Cassarino 2004: 255). In this approach, migration is regarded as a strategy applied by households (not by single individuals) to diversify income risks in order to compensate for market risks (e.g. constraints on insurance and credit markets). ‘Target earners’ are sent abroad coupled with the goal of supporting the family back home by regularly delivering remittances (Taylor 1999: 74f). Consequently, economically-motivated migrants should have an average probability of returning because the category of economic migrants contains two subgroups with different strategies; financially successful (unsuccessful) ‘true economic men’ probably stay (return), whereas ‘target earners’ who succeed (fail) in the labour market are very likely to return (stay). To conclude, whether immigrants stay permanently in the receiving society highly depends on the original reason for immigration. Placed on a continuum from high to low return probability, I suppose that educational migrants have the highest likelihood of returning, followed by economically-motivated migrants, whereas newcomers who have migrated for family reasons only rarely return (H1). Of course, the relationship between the original motive for immigration and return intentions is rather strong; however, it is non-deterministic. Future migration plans also depend on the balance between an immigrant’s ties to the receiving society and their ties to their country of origin (Carling and Pettersen 2014: 14). Previous research has shown that, immediately after immigration, migrants vary considerably in terms of their ties to the receiving country and home country (Diehl and Preisendörfer 2007; Ette, Heß, and Sauer 2016). The theoretical expectation concerning the link between return intentions and immigrants’ ties to their host and origin countries is not always straightforward. Research has revealed that some sorts of ties to the host country as well as to the origin country are negatively associated and others are positively associated with return intentions (de Haas and Fokkema 2011: 776). When presenting the following theoretical argumentation and hypotheses, these diverging views are explicitly taken into account.7 3.1.2 Ties to the receiving country. Proponents of the classical assimilation theories (e.g. Gordon 1964) assume that immigrants’ intentions to return are closely linked to their degree of integration in the host society. Being well-integrated implies having accumulated the receiving country’s resources: that is, economic (e.g. employment), social (e.g. having a partner in the receiving society), and cultural (e.g. speaking the host country’s language) ties.8 Basically, these ties facilitate the achievement of the individuals’ goals in the host society, which, in turn, strengthens their settlement intentions (Diehl and Preisendörfer 2007: 11). Moreover, for integrated immigrants, re-migration is not necessarily worth striving for, because the receiving country’s ties would be exposed to the risk of devaluation, meaning they could not be applied equally in the country of origin (Friedberg 2000: 225). Consequently, there is a negative relationship between the (economic, social, and cultural) ties to the receiving country and the immigrant’s return intentions (H2a). However, being successfully integrated is not necessarily associated with a permanent stay. According to the new economics of labour migration, immigrants are interested in developing their economic ties to the receiving society because a job and sufficient income provide the possibility of financially supporting their relatives at home. After having accumulated enough monetary resources, immigrants aspire to return immediately (de Haas and Fokkema 2011: 759). Certainly, it should not be forgotten that economic ties could also be at least partly endogenous; thus, causality is presumably bidirectional in this case. Further, against the backdrop of a rather accelerated global market situation for human capital, especially highly skilled immigrants try to maximize their profit in the shortest time possible, without establishing other (cultural or social) ties (Massey and Akresh 2006: 969). Following this logic, economic ties to the host country should be positively related to immigrants’ tendency to return (H2b). 3.1.3 Ties to the country of origin. If immigrants maintain a social existence in their home country while staying abroad, they have more to return to. Empirical research shows that, indeed, transnational activities are signs of strengthened return intentions (Haug 2008: 588). From the perspective of the new economics of labour migration, immigrants leave the destination country if their monetary targets have been achieved. Such a strategy allows (or even requires) the maintaining of transnational ties, because these links facilitate later reintegration into the origin country. In this sense, potential returnees arrange their subsequent stage of life by taking care of economic (e.g. sending remittances), social (e.g. regularly visiting their home country) and cultural (e.g. consuming ethnic media) ties to their home country (Cassarino 2004: 262). In line with this reasoning, I expect a positive relationship between the (economic, social, and cultural) home-country ties and immigrants’ return intentions (H3a). Studies of transnationalism proceed on the assumption that immigrants live in transnational fields with ties, sustained exchanges, and constant activities that link together their country of origin and their country of destination (Faist, Fauser, and Reisenauer 2013: 8). Technological advances that create low-priced mobility opportunities and almost unrestricted communication options facilitate these cross-border links. According to this logic, maintaining social ties to the homeland might offer a social network which the receiving country cannot provide, at least shortly after migrating. Resources obtained from these social ties can in that case help to settle in the new country. Therefore, social ties to the origin country are negatively associated with immigrants’ inclination toward returning (H3b). 3.1.4 Perception of ethnic boundaries. Returning or not returning is also a result of perceived boundaries between ethnic majority and minority groups. These ethnic boundaries emerge from acts of social distancing (such as discriminatory behaviour) by majority members towards immigrants (Wimmer 2009: 254). This lack of acceptance gives rise to a lack of opportunity for immigrants in Germany (e.g. in the labour market). Very recent research shows that, indeed, immigrants who are exposed to anti-immigrant sentiments are less prone to settle in their country of destination (de Haas, Fokkema, and Fihri 2015: 12). Hence, I assume that the experience of ethnic boundaries is positively related to return intentions (H4). 3.2 Group-level differences Differences in return intentions between Poles and Turks result from an unequal opportunity structure and a variable distribution of the above-mentioned individual explanatory factors; motives for immigration, (economic, social, and cultural) ties to receiving and sending countries, and perceptions of ethnic boundaries. With regard to the opportunity structure: Poland and Turkey differ with respect to their geographical location and even more importantly, Polish and Turkish immigrants are faced with a legal framework that provides different opportunities to legally enter Germany. Regarding the first aspect, migrating from Germany to Poland is less cost-intensive and less time-consuming (due to geographical proximity) compared with a move from Germany to Turkey. Concerning the second aspect, Turks and Poles migrating to Germany match two different ideal types of migration, which are attributable to varying legal regulations. Engbersen and Snel (2013: 30–35) differentiate between a (‘old’) stable form of migration from the Mediterranean area and a (‘new’) liquid form of migration from Central and Eastern European countries. Whereas the former comprises family migrants with permanent settlement intentions, the latter labels economic migrants, who plan to stay temporarily. Although both types of migration still exist, the authors identify a trend towards more liquid migration, which is due to the disappearance of EU internal borders. Whereas Turks still resemble the ‘old’ type of migrants, Poles are an example for the ‘new’ type. Migrating to Germany for economic reasons is much easier for EU citizens (Poles) compared with third-country nationals (Turks). Due to the guaranteed freedom of movement for workers, EU citizens do not need to have a residence permit when staying in Germany for a longer time. Apart from a few exceptions (e.g. highly qualified employees), moving to Germany as an economic migrant is more difficult for Turks, because, at least for employment that requires approval from the foreigner registration office, a residence permit has to be granted. Such approval is based on Germany’s labour market requirements and is only given if there is a concrete employment proposition (BAMF 2016: 36ff). This would imply that migration from Poland to Germany is more often economically motived than migration from Turkey to Germany. Family-related migration is regulated by the Residence Act (Aufenthaltsgesetz), which is applied to foreigners that are neither EU citizens nor relatives of EU citizens. In order to obtain a residence permit, the subsistence of a person who has already been living in Germany has to be assured. A glance at current numbers concerning visas for the purpose of family migration granted in Germany in 2014 shows that Turkish immigrants still account for the largest share of family migrants (BAMF 2016: 93). Family migration is the most important path to permanent settlement for people from countries that do not belong to the EU. Thus, compared with Polish new arrivals, Turkish immigrants more frequently migrate to Germany for reasons of family. The existing legal framework (limited and free movement) yields two immigrant groups (‘old’ and ‘new’) from different countries (Turkey and Poland) with varying motives for immigration (family and economy). As elaborated above, economic migrants should have a higher tendency to return than family migrants. Therefore, Poles plan to leave Germany more often compared with Turks, because Polish immigrants mainly migrate for economic reasons, whereas the group of Turkish newcomers primarily contains family migrants (H5). Immigrants’ diverging initial motives for migration go along with varying degrees of receiving-country and origin-country ties, that is, specific combinations of migration motives and ties exist. It is plausible to assume that economic migrants, compared with newcomers with all other migration motives, hold a comparatively high degree of both receiving-country and home-country economic ties. Following the idea of the new economics of labour migration, the former serves as a basis for achieving a financial goal in Germany, while maintaining the latter prepares for life after returning. On the supposition that Poles are predominantly migrants with economic motives, it is hypothesized that the average Polish return intention is stronger than that of the Turkish group, because Polish immigrants, compared with Turkish newcomers, have more economic ties to the destination country as well as to their origin country (H6). In addition, it is reasonable to suppose that family migrants have more social ties to the receiving country and fewer ties to the home country, in comparison to other groups of immigrants. This is obviously the case because relatives had already been living in Germany before migration. Assuming that Turks are mostly family migrants, Poles plan to leave Germany more often than Turks, because Polish immigrants have more (less) social ties to the home (receiving) country, whereas, for Turks, it is the exact opposite (H7). There is reason to assume that cultural ties do not contribute to explaining differences in group-specific return intentions. Whereas the two immigrant groups should clearly differ with respect to economic and social ties (even before the act of migration), this is not the case for cultural ties. The short period after arrival is not enough to develop distinct group differences. As a result, I postulate that cultural ties are not associated with the group-specific return intentions of Poles and Turks (H8). As argued above, return intentions should be influenced by ethnic boundaries; these are quite different for Turkish and Polish immigrants in Germany. As in other European countries, ethnic boundaries are predominantly defined on religious terms (Foner and Alba 2008). Whereas Poles (mainly Catholic) are spared from critical discourse Turks (generally Muslim) are exposed to an ongoing public debate about Muslims’ alleged reluctance to actively integrate into the German society. An example provides the debate surrounding the Muslim immigration-sceptical book Deutschland schafft sich ab (Germany abolishes itself).9 This and other controversial debates are reflected in the more pronounced social distance of natives towards Turks in comparison to other groups (Wasmer 2013: 182) and the more frequently reported discrimination of Turkish immigrants (Hans 2010: 286). Thus, in contrast to Polish immigrants, Turks are faced with a negative climate that presumably influences their future migration plans. I expect that group-level differences between Polish and Turkish immigrants even increase, taking into account that Poles perceive ethnic boundaries as less strong than Turks do (H9).10 Finally, the varying legal framework for Poles and Turks might also lead to selection effects on unobserved characteristics. For instance, entering Germany through different migration channels creates groups that are associated with different personality traits. Compared with Turkish immigrants, Polish immigrants are more often pioneer migrants, who can be described as bringing along a thirst for adventure, having a high level of self-efficacy and possessing high aspirations (van Dalen and Henkens 2013: 233). These characteristics again can possibly have an influence on return migration intentions. 4. Method Data from the SCIP-project and the construction of the dependent variable have already been described above. In this section, independent variables and the analytical strategy are presented. My modelling approach directly follows my theoretical discussion; that is, all independent variables are derived from the theoretical argumentation stated above. I have distinguished between four dimensions of explanatory factors that may have an impact on an immigrant’s decision to leave or not to leave Germany. A person’s initial motive for migrating to Germany is captured with four categories. Respondents have migrated for economic reasons (0), such as working and earning money in Germany; immigrants have planned on participating in the educational system (1), for example, studying in Germany or taking language classes; or the main motive was family-related (2), for example, marriage or joining another family member. A residual category encompasses all other possible reasons as well as mixed motives (3). Receiving- and origin-country ties come in three forms, that is: economic, social, and cultural ties. Economic ties to the receiving country are measured by means of four variables. Respondents were asked about their current employment status. Answer categories were working (0), unemployed (1), and other status (2). The last category is a heterogeneous one that is comprised of all other activities. For currently employed respondents, a five-point scale ranging from ‘very dissatisfied’ to ‘very satisfied’ measures someone’s satisfaction with their occupation and the associated income. As settlement intentions are dependent on a partner’s economic status as well, the partner’s employment status is captured in a manner similar to the interviewee’s employment status. The presence of friends and relatives in Germany is used to capture newcomers’ social ties to the host country. A dummy variable indicates whether the respondent had already known people in Germany before moving there. I have further taken into account the ethnic composition of the respondent’s five closest friends in Germany. The number of German friends (based on their country of birth) is measured on a scale ranging from 0 (no German friends at all) to 1 (all the closest friends are German). I have also included a variable concerning the existence of a partner in Germany (regardless of whether or not they are living in the respondent’s household). If a respondent’s partner currently lives outside Germany but plans to migrate within the next 12 months, this counts as having a partner in Germany. Respondents were also asked about the presence of children in Germany. Immigrants with at least one child in the host country are coded 1, everybody else receives a 0. Cultural ties to the country of destination are displayed by an immigrant’s German language proficiency and their usage of the media of the receiving country. The first indicator is a subjective self-reported measure. The continuous variable contains a scale from ‘not speaking German at all’ (0) to ‘speaking German very well’ (3). Cultural consumption of German media was computed by using three questions about an individual’s media-consuming behaviour (reading German printed or online newspapers, watching German-language television, and listening to music by German artists). I coded the highest value observed among the three. Answers range on a scale from ‘never’ (0) to ‘every day’ (4). Two variables have been employed to investigate the influence of economic ties to the origin country on return intentions. The effect of remittances has been tested with a dummy variable. The first category contains immigrants remitting for personal savings, for instance, for themself or to financially support their partner in their country of origin (1). The second category subsumes respondents who do not remit at all and those who do remit but to other people, such as parents or friends (0). An additional explanatory factor is the ownership of property in the country of origin (such as land, an apartment, or a house). Further, social ties to the country of origin are quantified by making use of three variables. As an indicator of closeness to friends and relatives in the home country, I have included a categorical variable that indicates whether an immigrant has visited their country of origin since moving to Germany. The variable is recoded into three categories: ‘no trips’ (0), ‘less than 10 trips’ (1), and ‘10 or more trips’ (2). The dimension is further represented by two dummy variables, which indicate whether the respondents have a partner and/or children in their country of origin (1) or not (0). Cultural ties to the home country are gathered in the following way:11 Cultural consumption of Polish/Turkish media is constructed analogously to German media consumption. Further, an immigrant’s degree of religiosity is taken into account as a cultural dimension of ties to the home country, because access to religious infrastructure is easier to obtain in the country of origin. The measurement of religiosity is based on an individual’s self-reporting. Answer categories range on a four-point scale from ‘not religious at all’ (0) to ‘very religious’ (3). The perception of ethnic boundaries is measured in terms of three indicators. Immigrants’ perceived group discrimination ranges from ‘never’ to (0) ‘very often’ (4). A dummy indicates whether respondents have experienced some form of personal discrimination. In addition, respondents were asked a question about the incompatibility of the values of Germans and Poles/Turks. The continuous variable contains a five-point scale ranging from ‘low incompatibility’ to ‘high incompatibility’. I have additionally controlled for other factors known to influence return intentions, such as gender to capture gender-specific patterns. I have also incorporated a measure of age (and age squared) that is a continuous variable measured in years.12 Duration since immigration was measured in months, based on date of immigration and date of interview. Respondents had to report their highest level of completed education in their home country and in Germany. In order to facilitate comparisons between education obtained in the country of origin and the receiving country, I constructed three categories: none/primary, secondary, and tertiary. Further, I have taken into account a comparison of pre- and post-migration life situations. Respondents were prompted to compare their current life situation with that in their home country. Immigrants who evaluated the step to move to Germany positively from a retrospective point of view (1) have been tested against all those who stated that their life in Germany was about the same or (much) worse (0). Finally, I have controlled for differences among the interview cities and the missing values of all independent variables.13 Hypotheses concerning individual-level differences were first assessed in separate logistic (logit) regression models for each explanatory dimension. The models include both Polish and Turkish immigrants. In a second step, all explanatory factors were examined in an integrated model to test whether the identified associations still existed when other explanatory dimensions are controlled. Following this, I tested hypotheses for group-level differences by indicating gross and net differences (after controlling for certain explanatory dimensions) in return intentions between Poles and Turks. To simplify interpretation, I present average marginal effects (AME). The advantage of AME in comparison to regression coefficients and odds ratios is an intuitive interpretation and the opportunity to compare the effects of one model with another. A comparison is feasible because AME are not affected by unobserved heterogeneity (Mood 2010: 78). AME indicate by how many percentage points a dependent variable changes when an independent variable increases by one unit, while all other explaining factors are held constant (Auspurg and Hinz 2011: 66). 5. Empirical findings Before turning to the explanation of group-specific return intentions, the effects of all four explanatory dimensions on immigrants’ mobility plans are empirically tested. 5.1 Individual-level differences In Table 1, Model 1 examines the influence of the initial migration motive on return intentions. The findings are in line with Hypothesis 1: Family migrants are especially prone to stay, whereas educational migrants usually intend to return after finishing their studies abroad. As expected, economic migrants’ probability of returning falls in between those of the two other groups. Table 1. Explanatory factors of intentions to leave Germany (average marginal effects) M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 Main motive for immigration     Reasons for migration (ref. = economic)         Education 0.092* 0.110*         Family –0.313*** –0.148***         Mixed or other reasons –0.269*** –0.163*** Ties to the receiving country Economic ties     Employment status (ref. = working)         Unemployed –0.085 –0.049         Other status 0.018 –0.003     Satisfied with current job –0.045* –0.051**     Satisfied with current earnings 0.030* 0.031     Partner’s employment status (ref. = working)         Unemployed –0.042 –0.031         Other status 0.064* 0.067* Social ties     People known before immigration in Germany 0.006 0.013     Proportion of German friends in Germany –0.128*** –0.111**     Partner in Germany –0.471*** –0.163     Children in Germany –0.024 –0.012 Cultural ties     German language proficiency –0.026 –0.028     Consumption of German media –0.057*** –0.046*** Ties to the country of origin Economic ties     Remitting to Poland/ Turkey (personal savings) 0.126* 0.096     Property in Poland/Turkey 0.127*** 0.111*** Social ties     Trips to Poland/Turkey since migration (ref. = no trips)         Less than 10 trips 0.076** 0.036         10 or more trips 0.157*** 0.123**     Partner in Poland/Turkey 0.370*** 0.198     Children in Poland/Turkey –0.048 –0.076 Cultural ties     Consumption of Polish/ Turkish media 0.046*** 0.040***     Religiosity 0.002 0.034** Perception of ethnic boundaries     Group discrimination 0.037** 0.015     Experienced discrimination –0.014 0.010     Incompatibility of values 0.018 0.019 Control variables     Gender (ref. = female) 0.018 –0.003 0.026 0.068** –0.014     Age (in years) –0.015 –0.004 –0.034*** –0.035*** –0.000     Age² 0.000* 0.000 0.000*** 0.001*** 0.000     Duration since immigration (in months) –0.003 –0.001 –0.007** –0.005* –0.004     Level of education (ref. = none/primary)         Secondary 0.036 0.071* 0.066 0.076* 0.049         Tertiary 0.074* 0.144*** 0.128*** 0.158*** 0.088*     Pre–post comparison of living situation (ref. = not improved) –0.076*** –0.086*** –0.086*** –0.083*** –0.077*** Observations 2456 2456 2456 2456 2456 Pseudo R² (Nagelkerke) 0.211 0.265 0.202 0.117 0.333 M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 Main motive for immigration     Reasons for migration (ref. = economic)         Education 0.092* 0.110*         Family –0.313*** –0.148***         Mixed or other reasons –0.269*** –0.163*** Ties to the receiving country Economic ties     Employment status (ref. = working)         Unemployed –0.085 –0.049         Other status 0.018 –0.003     Satisfied with current job –0.045* –0.051**     Satisfied with current earnings 0.030* 0.031     Partner’s employment status (ref. = working)         Unemployed –0.042 –0.031         Other status 0.064* 0.067* Social ties     People known before immigration in Germany 0.006 0.013     Proportion of German friends in Germany –0.128*** –0.111**     Partner in Germany –0.471*** –0.163     Children in Germany –0.024 –0.012 Cultural ties     German language proficiency –0.026 –0.028     Consumption of German media –0.057*** –0.046*** Ties to the country of origin Economic ties     Remitting to Poland/ Turkey (personal savings) 0.126* 0.096     Property in Poland/Turkey 0.127*** 0.111*** Social ties     Trips to Poland/Turkey since migration (ref. = no trips)         Less than 10 trips 0.076** 0.036         10 or more trips 0.157*** 0.123**     Partner in Poland/Turkey 0.370*** 0.198     Children in Poland/Turkey –0.048 –0.076 Cultural ties     Consumption of Polish/ Turkish media 0.046*** 0.040***     Religiosity 0.002 0.034** Perception of ethnic boundaries     Group discrimination 0.037** 0.015     Experienced discrimination –0.014 0.010     Incompatibility of values 0.018 0.019 Control variables     Gender (ref. = female) 0.018 –0.003 0.026 0.068** –0.014     Age (in years) –0.015 –0.004 –0.034*** –0.035*** –0.000     Age² 0.000* 0.000 0.000*** 0.001*** 0.000     Duration since immigration (in months) –0.003 –0.001 –0.007** –0.005* –0.004     Level of education (ref. = none/primary)         Secondary 0.036 0.071* 0.066 0.076* 0.049         Tertiary 0.074* 0.144*** 0.128*** 0.158*** 0.088*     Pre–post comparison of living situation (ref. = not improved) –0.076*** –0.086*** –0.086*** –0.083*** –0.077*** Observations 2456 2456 2456 2456 2456 Pseudo R² (Nagelkerke) 0.211 0.265 0.202 0.117 0.333 Source: SCIP-project, own calculations. Notes: * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001; ***logistic (logit) regression; all models control for ethnic origin, city of interview and missing values (effects are not reported). Table 1. Explanatory factors of intentions to leave Germany (average marginal effects) M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 Main motive for immigration     Reasons for migration (ref. = economic)         Education 0.092* 0.110*         Family –0.313*** –0.148***         Mixed or other reasons –0.269*** –0.163*** Ties to the receiving country Economic ties     Employment status (ref. = working)         Unemployed –0.085 –0.049         Other status 0.018 –0.003     Satisfied with current job –0.045* –0.051**     Satisfied with current earnings 0.030* 0.031     Partner’s employment status (ref. = working)         Unemployed –0.042 –0.031         Other status 0.064* 0.067* Social ties     People known before immigration in Germany 0.006 0.013     Proportion of German friends in Germany –0.128*** –0.111**     Partner in Germany –0.471*** –0.163     Children in Germany –0.024 –0.012 Cultural ties     German language proficiency –0.026 –0.028     Consumption of German media –0.057*** –0.046*** Ties to the country of origin Economic ties     Remitting to Poland/ Turkey (personal savings) 0.126* 0.096     Property in Poland/Turkey 0.127*** 0.111*** Social ties     Trips to Poland/Turkey since migration (ref. = no trips)         Less than 10 trips 0.076** 0.036         10 or more trips 0.157*** 0.123**     Partner in Poland/Turkey 0.370*** 0.198     Children in Poland/Turkey –0.048 –0.076 Cultural ties     Consumption of Polish/ Turkish media 0.046*** 0.040***     Religiosity 0.002 0.034** Perception of ethnic boundaries     Group discrimination 0.037** 0.015     Experienced discrimination –0.014 0.010     Incompatibility of values 0.018 0.019 Control variables     Gender (ref. = female) 0.018 –0.003 0.026 0.068** –0.014     Age (in years) –0.015 –0.004 –0.034*** –0.035*** –0.000     Age² 0.000* 0.000 0.000*** 0.001*** 0.000     Duration since immigration (in months) –0.003 –0.001 –0.007** –0.005* –0.004     Level of education (ref. = none/primary)         Secondary 0.036 0.071* 0.066 0.076* 0.049         Tertiary 0.074* 0.144*** 0.128*** 0.158*** 0.088*     Pre–post comparison of living situation (ref. = not improved) –0.076*** –0.086*** –0.086*** –0.083*** –0.077*** Observations 2456 2456 2456 2456 2456 Pseudo R² (Nagelkerke) 0.211 0.265 0.202 0.117 0.333 M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 Main motive for immigration     Reasons for migration (ref. = economic)         Education 0.092* 0.110*         Family –0.313*** –0.148***         Mixed or other reasons –0.269*** –0.163*** Ties to the receiving country Economic ties     Employment status (ref. = working)         Unemployed –0.085 –0.049         Other status 0.018 –0.003     Satisfied with current job –0.045* –0.051**     Satisfied with current earnings 0.030* 0.031     Partner’s employment status (ref. = working)         Unemployed –0.042 –0.031         Other status 0.064* 0.067* Social ties     People known before immigration in Germany 0.006 0.013     Proportion of German friends in Germany –0.128*** –0.111**     Partner in Germany –0.471*** –0.163     Children in Germany –0.024 –0.012 Cultural ties     German language proficiency –0.026 –0.028     Consumption of German media –0.057*** –0.046*** Ties to the country of origin Economic ties     Remitting to Poland/ Turkey (personal savings) 0.126* 0.096     Property in Poland/Turkey 0.127*** 0.111*** Social ties     Trips to Poland/Turkey since migration (ref. = no trips)         Less than 10 trips 0.076** 0.036         10 or more trips 0.157*** 0.123**     Partner in Poland/Turkey 0.370*** 0.198     Children in Poland/Turkey –0.048 –0.076 Cultural ties     Consumption of Polish/ Turkish media 0.046*** 0.040***     Religiosity 0.002 0.034** Perception of ethnic boundaries     Group discrimination 0.037** 0.015     Experienced discrimination –0.014 0.010     Incompatibility of values 0.018 0.019 Control variables     Gender (ref. = female) 0.018 –0.003 0.026 0.068** –0.014     Age (in years) –0.015 –0.004 –0.034*** –0.035*** –0.000     Age² 0.000* 0.000 0.000*** 0.001*** 0.000     Duration since immigration (in months) –0.003 –0.001 –0.007** –0.005* –0.004     Level of education (ref. = none/primary)         Secondary 0.036 0.071* 0.066 0.076* 0.049         Tertiary 0.074* 0.144*** 0.128*** 0.158*** 0.088*     Pre–post comparison of living situation (ref. = not improved) –0.076*** –0.086*** –0.086*** –0.083*** –0.077*** Observations 2456 2456 2456 2456 2456 Pseudo R² (Nagelkerke) 0.211 0.265 0.202 0.117 0.333 Source: SCIP-project, own calculations. Notes: * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001; ***logistic (logit) regression; all models control for ethnic origin, city of interview and missing values (effects are not reported). Model 2 contains all variables related to host-country ties. Regarding economic ties, it reveals mixed results. The difference between employed and unemployed newcomers (and their partners) concerning their return intention is—in contrast to previous research (Diehl and Preisendörfer 2007: 22)—not statistically significant. The reason for this could be that the quality of the job is decisive, not the employment per se. Indeed, (dis)satisfaction with the current job and the associated income plays a substantial role. However, the findings are rather inconsistent: In the logic of neoclassical economics, job satisfaction increases the chance of remaining in Germany. By contrast, satisfaction with current earnings enhances the chance of leaving the country. This finding can be interpreted in the sense of the new economics of labour migration. Satisfaction with a certain income level also means being closer to the anticipated income goal in the receiving society, which, in turn, is associated with leaving the country. Thus, economic ties to the receiving country are neither clearly positively nor negatively associated with return intentions. This finding of failure and success being both or not at all related to returning corresponds to earlier research in different European host countries (de Haas and Fokkema 2011: 776; Snel et al. 2015: 18). Social ties to Germany are important for newcomers’ return intentions. Whereas pre-migration contacts are unrelated to future migration plans, the number of German friends plays a decisive role for new arrivals’ mobility decisions. Poles’ and Turks’ numbers of German friends is negatively related to the intention to return. Again, it is worth mentioning that the causal direction of the found relationship is not evident. The findings further reveal that relationships to close people (such as partners and children) in Germany are important for explaining return intentions. However, only the effect of the residence of a partner reached significance. Having a partner in Germany is positively associated with settlement intentions, whereas the presence of children appears to have no impact. All effects of cultural ties to Germany point in the expected direction. Surprisingly, potential stayers and returners do not differ significantly in their self-reported German language skills. This contrasts with previous research that found a negative correlation between destination language abilities and return intentions (Gundel and Peters 2008: 773). It is reasonable to assume that this is the case because differences in language proficiency are more distinct when immigrants have been in the country for a longer time. As expected, exposure to German media enhances the probability of intending to stay in the receiving country. To conclude, Hypothesis 2a is only partially supported: Whereas having social and cultural ties to the host society increases the chance of staying, the pattern for economic ties to the host country is less obvious. It follows logically that the alternative Hypothesis 2b has to be rejected; economic ties to the receiving country do not unequivocally promote return intentions. In Model 3, the influence of ties to the origin country is considered. If immigrants maintain economic ties, such as sending remittances for personal savings and having property in their country of origin, their chance of returning home increases. Regarding social ties, another way to prepare for a subsequent phase of life in Poland/Turkey is to visit friends or relatives living in the country of origin. In fact, travelling home is positively associated with immigrants’ intentions of returning. The chance of expressing return intentions is especially high if newcomers have been visiting their home country very often (10 or more times since immigration). As theoretically expected immigrants with a partner living in Poland/Turkey often express intentions to leave the receiving society. Surprisingly, and unlike previous results (Constant and Massey 2002: 22), immigrants with children in the country of origin are not more inclined to leave Germany. Cultural ties to the origin country also explain patterns of return migration. As expected, a higher consumption of Polish/Turkish media corresponds with the tendency to leave Germany. Cultural ties, in the form of religiosity, do not have the presumed effect on future migration plans. Altogether, Hypothesis 3a can be confirmed; that is, if immigrants maintain (economic, social, and cultural) ties to their country of origin, they are more prone to return. Cause and effect might also be reversed; newcomers who already intend to return may be more inclined to uphold transnational ties to allow later reintegration into their origin countries. Accordingly, upholding social ties to the home country does not serve as a tool to settle in Germany; hence, Hypothesis 3b has been falsified. Model 4 provides information on the relation between immigrants’ experiences of ethnic boundaries and their return intentions. Perceived group discrimination is associated with a higher chance of leaving Germany. However, personal discrimination and perceived differences in values are not related to immigrants’ future migration plans. Therefore, Hypothesis 4 (that the experience of ethnic boundaries is associated with mobility decisions) is not definitely supported by the results. The final model simultaneously includes all explanatory variables. Primarily, deviations from the results of the separate models are discussed here. After considering all explanatory factors, the effect of satisfaction with income narrowly misses significance (p = 0.052). Likewise, no more effects have been found for the two variables concerning the residence of a partner. However, a more detailed analysis (not reported here) shows that having a partner in Germany and having a partner in Poland/Turkey correlates highly (−0.39). If one of these variables is omitted, the other one turns statistically significant. Once all other variables were controlled for, sending remittances lost significance (p = 0.065). As opposed to making at least 10 trips to the country of origin after migrating, travelling home a few times (less than 10 trips to Poland/Turkey) no longer has an effect on return intentions. When all variables are taken into account, the effect of religiosity turns statistically significant, which confirms the theoretical expectations; namely, that immigrants with stronger cultural ties to their origin country show a higher frequency of leaving Germany. The effect of group discrimination diminishes and thus is irrelevant for the explanation of future migration plans. Overall, the results of each explanatory dimension in the common model confirm the findings of the separate models. Among the control variables, no gender or age differences have been found. For new arrivals, the length of stay makes no significant difference in deciding whether to stay or to return. More highly educated immigrants (with tertiary education) are significantly more prone to leave Germany compared to all other educational groups. This pattern is in line with the findings of previous research on remigration (Kuhlenkasper and Steinhardt 2012: 30f). Finally, a positively evaluated comparison of pre- and post-migration situation decreases the chance of returning. In total, the model fit is appropriate (Pseudo R2 = 0.333) and indicates that the specified model is parsimonious as well as sufficiently comprehensive. To conclude, I present evidence of heterogeneity among (return) migrants by calculating predicted values of expressing return intentions for two extreme cases of respondents. Predicted values were calculated based on Model 5; if not indicated differently, independent variables are held constant at the mean. The predicted value of a highly qualified exchange student without any German friends, who consumes ethnic media every day, amounts to 90.2 per cent. By contrast, the estimated return probability of a woman migrating for family reasons, and who is unemployed, lives with a partner in Germany, does not remit, and has a low level of education, is just 40.9 per cent. 5.2 Group-level differences In the following, hypotheses on group-level differences are tested. Figure 2 displays gross and net differences in return intentions between Polish and Turkish immigrants (referred to as the ‘ethnicity effect’). The explanatory dimensions have been examined in separate models in order to avoid multicollinearity. For a detailed overview of all the calculated models displayed in Figure 2, see Appendix (Table A3). For two models that separately analyse the effects for Polish and Turkish immigrants, see Appendix (Table A4). The effects presented illustrate the differences in the return probabilities between the two groups, while simultaneously controlling for different explanatory dimensions (net differences). A negative ‘ethnicity effect’ indicates that Turks have a lower chance of returning than Poles, whereas a positive ‘ethnicity effect’ shows the opposite. The basic model confirms the previous bivariate findings (gross differences): After considering control variables, Turks have a likelihood of returning that is nine percentage points lower than that of Poles (Model 1). In the following models, the roles of all four explanatory dimensions are reviewed in order to assess why new Polish and Turkish migrants differ in their numbers of potential returnees. Figure 2. View largeDownload slide Gross and net differences in return intentions between Polish and Turkish new immigrants (average marginal effects). Source: SCIP-project, own calculations. Notes: Black bar, p < 0.05; grey bar, p ≥ 0.05; RC, receiving country; CO, country of origin. Reference category: Poles. All models also take control variables into account. Figure 2. View largeDownload slide Gross and net differences in return intentions between Polish and Turkish new immigrants (average marginal effects). Source: SCIP-project, own calculations. Notes: Black bar, p < 0.05; grey bar, p ≥ 0.05; RC, receiving country; CO, country of origin. Reference category: Poles. All models also take control variables into account. As theoretically supposed, if the motive for immigration is taken into account, the ‘ethnicity effect’ becomes positive and insignificant (Model 2). Thus, the results provide evidence for Hypothesis 5: Differences in return intentions are connected to the fact that Poles are predominantly economic migrants and Turks mainly migrate for family reasons. Further, after taking economic ties to Germany into consideration, the two groups no longer differ from each other with respect to their future migration plans (Model 3). The ‘ethnicity effect’ has also been reduced by controlling for economic ties to the origin country, but the group difference is still significant (Model 4). Therefore, Hypothesis 6 is only partially supported: While economic ties to the host country help to explain group-specific return intentions, economic ties to Poland/Turkey play a minor role. A possible explanation has to take into account that even if, for Poles, owning a house provides a rather strong incentive to return someday, this is not necessarily the case for Turks. Many travel agencies specialize in facilitating journeys from Germany to Turkey (Ehrkamp 2005: 346). Thus, homeownership in the origin country can function exclusively for the purposes of a holiday home or as an additional source of income. Unfortunately, the data provide no information about the particular use of the property. As hypothesized, differences in social ties account for group-specific return intentions (Model 5 and 6). Hypothesis 7 has been confirmed: The average return intention of Poles is stronger than that of the Turkish group because the two groups possess opposing patterns of social ties. Whereas the social circles of Turks predominantly live in Germany, Polish immigrants have much stronger social bonds in their home country. I expected that cultural ties would not be responsible for group differences in return intentions. This applied to receiving-country ties, but not to origin-country ties (Model 7 and 8). When controlling for home-country cultural ties, group-level differences increase slightly. This is a result of Turkish immigrants’ more frequent use of ethnic media. The finding reflects previous research and reveals that Turks use German and home-country media complementarily, but, compared with other immigrant groups, the consumption of ethnic media is still prevailing (Geißler and Weber-Menges 2013: 280). Thus, the results support Hypothesis 8, but to a limited extent. The final hypothesis states that, taking perceived ethnic boundaries into account, group-specific differences would increase because Turks are faced with a particularly negative climate in Germany. The ‘ethnicity effect’ does not change fundamentally (Model 9). Therefore, Hypothesis 9 has been refuted. An alternative explanation would be that ethnic boundaries are not perceived as group-specific from the beginning, but only after a certain period of residence. Research shows that the perception of ethnic boundaries develops differently for the two groups investigated: Poles report rather stable experiences of group discrimination over time, whereas Turkish immigrants perceive more acts of discrimination (Diehl, Fischer-Neumann, and Mühlau 2016). This suggests that the non-existent influence of perceived ethnic boundaries on return intentions only applies to the special case of recent migrants. After considering all the variables, the ‘ethnicity effect’ has changed direction and has become statistically significant (Model 10). In other words, if both immigrant groups had similar motives for migration, were endowed with the same kind of ties, and perceived ethnic boundaries equally, Turks would have a chance of leaving Germany seven percentage points higher than Poles. 6. Conclusion and discussion Migration and re-migration are rather common phenomena in contemporary Europe. Over the past few years, Germany in particular has experienced rising numbers of inflows and outflows. In order to gain some insight into this, I have offered a systematic perspective on explanatory factors of the return intentions of recently arrived Polish and Turkish immigrants. What are the main findings of my study? The first part is concerned with individual-level differences. Almost all the dimensions identified contributed to the explanations of newcomers’ future migration plans. Whether immigrants settle permanently or plan to leave their host country depends foremost on their initial motive for migration: As expected, the return of educational migrants was very likely. Family migrants intended to return only in rare cases. Economic migrants’ chance of returning lay in between those of the other groups. In addition, ties to the host country played a decisive role for new immigrants’ remigration. Whereas economic ties were both positively and negatively linked to return plans, strong social and cultural ties indicated stronger settlement intentions. Furthermore, findings revealed that all forms of home-country ties enhanced the chance of leaving Germany. At least for recent immigrants, perceived boundaries between majority and minority groups did not explain individual variance in future mobility plans. In the second part, group-level differences were examined. The starting point was to show that group-specific return intentions existed. Poles’ share of potential returnees is substantially higher than the proportion of Turks who planned to return (namely, by 15.2 percentage points). The analysis shows that group-specific return intentions are mainly attributable to differences in four dimensions (and their corresponding variables): motives for immigration (economic- and family-related reasons for migration), economic ties to the receiving country (employment status, satisfaction with job and earnings), social ties to the host (proportion of German friends in Germany, partner in Germany) and the origin countries (trips to Poland/Turkey since migration, partner in Poland/Turkey). This finding mainly reflects the impact of the political regulations that shape the composition of newcomers migrating to Germany. Polish and Turkish immigrants have access to different migration channels; whereas Poles (EU citizens) benefit from the free movement for workers in the EU, Turks (third-country nationals) rely on the restrictions of the Residence Act. Both laws are key parts of the German Immigration Act of 2005. This has led to the fact that people migrating from the two countries differ substantially in their motives for migration and their endowment with ties, which, in turn, has an influence on their future migration plans. What are the shortcomings of my study? The first weakness is concerned with the problem of causality. In the theoretical part, it is argued that all explanatory dimensions influence the explanandum. However, it is not certain whether causal effects actually run exclusively in the specified direction. Deterministic interpretations should be avoided because endogeneity problems cannot be ruled out; hence, explanatory factors reflect respondents’ return intentions at least to a certain extent. In order to overcome such problems, future research should apply a longitudinal perspective that is better suited to test causal inferences. Secondly, the study suffers from the problem of selectivity. The sample used is probably skewed, as up to 18 months have passed between the date of respondent arrival and the date of survey interview. It cannot be ruled out that a specific group of immigrants with a particularly short length of stay (e.g. seasonal workers) is under-represented, because they would have already left the country before an interview was possible. What do the results mean for theories of (re)migration? The findings do not unequivocally support a single theory. Some immigrants follow the idea of neoclassical economics (e.g. satisfaction with one’s current job has a negative effect on returning), others operate according to the logic of the new economics of labour migration (e.g. satisfaction with one’s own earnings is positively associated with leaving the country) and others again correspond with the assumptions of transnationalism (e.g. maintaining economic, social, and cultural ties to one’s origin country is positively related to return intentions). Particular theories of migration always refer to specific groups of (return) migrants: Supporters of neoclassical economics assume that migrants are ‘true economic men’. Following the new economics of labour migration means thinking of migrants as ‘target earners’. Being attached to transnationalism implicates the consideration of migrants as ‘transnational migrants’. Hence, every theory of migration is only capable of explaining the (re)migration of one group. However, as empirical findings suggest, the group of recently arrived immigrants in Germany is very much heterogeneous. Consequently, there is no single theory that has the ability to satisfactorily explain Polish and Turkish newcomers’ remigration intentions. What are the conclusions for future research on (re)migration? From the analysis of individual-level differences, I have concluded that the purpose of future research on migration is to overcome the competitive use of migration theories (at least when it comes to explaining the migration processes of heterogeneous groups). Instead, it is appropriate to apply migration theories in a complementary way, which allows one to explain one aspect of migration movements with one theory and another part with another. Few researchers have acknowledged this necessity; for instance, de Haas and colleagues (2015: 427) emphasized ‘that there is no uniform process of (return) migration’ and ‘future research should pay more attention to the heterogeneity of migrants’. The first promising step in this direction was undertaken by Carling and Pettersen (2014) in their development of the so-called ‘integration-transnationalism matrix’, which takes into account the relative strength of ties to the receiving country and ties to the origin country and their influence on return migration. Further, the analysis of group-level differences shows that a lot of migration theories have blind spots because the pre-structuring of (return) migration processes through immigration regulations is not sufficiently considered. Future research should take into consideration the ideas of a structural approach, which conceives of return migration as ‘not only a personal issue, but above all a social and contextual one, affected by situational and structural factors’ (Cassarino 2004: 257). Qualitative research on re-migration provides evidence for this assumption and Şenyürekli and Menjívar (2012: 15) have highlighted ‘that seemingly individual decisions are influenced by […] the broader structural context (e.g. immigration policies […])’. Consequently, future research should start to combine individual-level data with structural-level data (particularly immigration regulations) when analysing (group-specific) re-migration. Finally, future research should consider that the outcomes regarding economic ties to the receiving country mirror the findings of other recent studies, which provide anything but consistent results (e.g. de Vroome and van Tubergen 2014; de Haas, Fokkema, and Fihri 2015). Thus, researchers should examine the relation between economic ties and migration plans more closely by focusing on the effects of economic ties in relative terms (e.g. a comparison of pre- and post-migration employment status). Furthermore, it is important to notice that mobility decisions are not stable and may change over time (Erdal and Ezzati 2015). Interesting questions would be: What kinds of immigrants change their migration plans at a later point in time? What kinds of mechanisms are responsible for this change of mind? Acknowledgements I would like to thank Silke Hans, Claudia Diehl, the anonymous reviewers and the editors of Migration Studies for their helpful comments and suggestions for an earlier version of this article. I owe special thanks to Lea Voges. Conflict of interest statement: None declared. Footnotes 1. Nonetheless, I have used the expressions ‘return’ and ‘intending to return’ (and equivalent terms) interchangeably in this paper. 2. For practical reasons drawing a national probability sample was not possible. 77.1 per cent of the Turkish and only 50.7 per cent of the Polish population reside in urban areas. If immigrants living in rural areas had been surveyed, predominantly Polish seasonal workers (with a short length of stay) would have been added to the sample (Gresser and Schacht 2015: 6). Including this group in the analysis would presumably have strengthened the effects found. Therefore, the conducted analysis is a rather conservative approach. 3. An analysis (not reported here) showed that these omitted cases are not different from those that remain in the analysis with regard to relevant explanatory factors. 4. A fourth type of migration that is often differentiated is politically motivated. However, this form has been neglected here because (at least during the sample period) it is limited in number (BAMF 2016: 27). 5. However, this category also contains numerically less important subgroups, such as language course participants and people who migrated for vocational education and training. 6. Nowadays, Piore’s terminology of the ‘true economic man’ (1979) sounds out-dated because it can obviously be used to describe any sex. However, the term still creates a reference to the theory of neoclassical economics. 7. I further assume that having distinct transnational ties is entirely compatible with being integrated into the receiving society (for a theoretical argumentation, see Faist, Fauser, and Reisenauer 2013; for empirical evidence, for Norway, see Carling and Pettersen 2014, for the Netherlands, see Engbersen et al. 2013). 8. The differentiation of these dimensions of integration can be found in several constitutive papers that address immigrants’ integration processes (e.g. Yinger 1994). The fourth dimension, identificational integration, has been omitted here because the causal direction between this dimension and the explanandum is particularly unclear. 9. For an overview of this debate, initiated by the German politician Thilo Sarrazin in 2010, and an analysis how natives’ migration-related attitudes changed during this debate, see Diehl and Steinmann (2012). 10. For an overview of all the hypotheses, see Appendix (Table A1). 11. Language proficiency as an indicator of cultural ties has been omitted because respondents do not vary considerably from one another (i.e. nearly all immigrants speak their native language ‘very well’). 12. Typically, in studies on remigration age at immigration is considered. However, in the case of new immigrants, age at the date of the interview and age at immigration do not differ fundamentally. 13. For a descriptive overview of all model variables, see Appendix (Table A2). References Alberts H. C. , Hazen H. D. ( 2005 ) ‘“There are always Two Voices …”: International Students’ Intentions to Stay in the United States or Return to their Home Countries’ , International Migration , 43 / 3 : 131 – 54 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Anniste K. , Tammaru T. ( 2014 ) ‘Ethnic Differences in Integration Levels and Return Migration Intentions: A Study of Estonian Migrants in Finland’ , Demographic Research , 30 / 13 : 377 – 412 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Auspurg K. , Thomas H. ( 2011 ) ‘Gruppenvergleiche bei Regressionen mit binären abhängigen Variablen—Probleme und Fehleinschätzungen am Beispiel von Bildungschancen im Kohortenverlauf’ , Zeitschrift für Soziologie , 40 / 1 : 62 – 73 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS BAMF (Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge) ( 2016 ) ‘Migrationsbericht des Bundesamtes für Migration und Flüchtlinge im Auftrag der Bundesregierung Migrationsbericht 2014’ <https://www.bamf.de/SharedDocs/Anlagen/DE/Publikationen/Migrationsberichte/migrationsbericht-2014.pdf?__blob=publicationFile> accessed 28 February 2017. Bessey D. ( 2012 ) ‘International Student Migration to Germany’ , Empirical Economics , 42 / 1 : 345 – 61 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Borjas G. J. , Bratsberg B. ( 1996 ) ‘Who Leaves? The Outmigration of the Foreign-Born’ , Review of Economics and Statistics , 78 / 1 : 165 – 76 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Bovenkerk F. ( 1974 ) The Sociology of Return Migration: A Bibliographic Essay . The Hague : Nijhoff . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Carling J. , Pettersen S. V. ( 2014 ) ‘Return Migration Intentions in the Integration–Transnationalism Matrix’ , International Migration , 52 / 6 : 13 – 30 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Cassarino J.-P. ( 2004 ) ‘Theorising Return Migration: The Conceptual Approach to Return Migrants Revisited’ , International Journal on Multicultural Societies , 6 / 2 : 253 – 79 . Constant A. F. , Massey D. S. ( 2002 ) ‘Return Migration by German Guest Workers: Neoclassical versus New Economic Theories’ , International Migration , 40 / 4 : 5 – 38 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Constant A. F. , Massey D. S. ( 2003 ) ‘Self-Selection, Earnings, and Out-Migration: A Longitudinal Study of Immigrants to Germany’ , Journal of Population Economics , 16 / 4 : 631 – 33 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Constant A. F. , Zimmermann K. F. ( 2012 ) ‘The Dynamics of Repeat Migration: A Markov Chain Analysis’ , International Migration Review , 46 / 2 : 362 – 88 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS de Haas H. , Fokkema T. ( 2011 ) ‘The Effects of Integration and Transnational Ties on International Return Migration Intentions’ , Demographic Research , 25 / 24 : 755 – 82 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS de Haas H. , Fihri M.F. ( 2015 ) ‘Return Migration as Failure or Success? The Determinants of Return Migration Intentions among Moroccan Migrants in Europe’ , Journal of International Migration and Integration , 16 / 2 : 415 – 29 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed de Jong G. F. , Fawcett J. T. ( 1981 ) ‘Motivations for Migration: An Assessment and a Value-expectancy Research Model’, in de Jong G.F. , Gardner R.W. (eds) Migration Decision Making: Multidisciplinary Approaches to Microlevel Studies in Developed and Developing Countries , pp. 13 – 58 . New York : Pergamon Press . de Vroome T. , van Tubergen F. ( 2014 ) ‘Settlement Intentions of Recently Arrived Immigrants and Refugees in the Netherlands’ , Journal of Immigrant & Refugee Studies , 12 / 1 : 47 – 66 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Diehl C. , Preisendörfer P. ( 2007 ) ‘Gekommen um zu bleiben? Bedeutung und Bestimmungsfaktoren der Bleibeabsicht von Neuzuwanderern in Deutschland’ , Soziale Welt , 58 / 1 : 5 – 28 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Diehl C. , Steinmann J.-P. ( 2012 ) ‘Cool Minds in Heated Debates? Migration-related Attitudes Before and After a Natural Intervention in Germany’ , International Journal of Conflict and Violence , 6 / 1 : 141 – 62 . Diehl C. , Preisendörfer P. , Liebau E. ( 2015 ) ‘Turning back to Turkey—Or Turning the Back on Germany? Remigration Intentions and Behavior of Turkish Immigrants in Germany between 1984 and 2011’ , Zeitschrift für Soziologie , 44 / 1 : 22 – 41 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Diehl C. et al. ( 2015 ) ‘Causes and Consequences of Socio-Cultural Integration Processes among New Immigrants in Europe (SCIP)’, GESIS Datenarchiv. <https://dbk.gesis.org/dbksearch/sdesc2.asp?no=5956&db=d&doi=10.4232/1.12341> accessed 3 February 2017. Diehl C. , Preisendörfer P. , Fischer-Neumann M. , Mühlau P. ( 2016 ) ‘Between Ethnic Options and Ethnic Boundaries—Recent Polish and Turkish Migrants’ Identification with Germany’ , Ethnicities , 16 / 2 : 236 – 60 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Dustmann C. , Weiss Y. ( 2007 ) ‘Return Migration: Theory and Empirical Evidence from the UK’ , British Journal of Industrial Relations , 45 / 2 : 236 – 56 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Ehrkamp P. ( 2005 ) ‘Placing Identities: Transnational Practices and Local Attachments of Turkish Immigrants in Germany’ , Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies , 31 / 2 : 345 – 64 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Engbersen G. et al. ( 2013 ) ‘On the Differential Attachments of Migrants from Central and Eastern Europe: A Typology of Labour Migration’ , Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies , 39 / 6 : 959 – 81 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Engbersen G. , Snel E. ( 2013 ) ‘Liquid Migration. Dynamic and Fluid Patterns of Post-Accession Migration Flows’, in Glorius G. , Grabowska-Lusińska I. , Kuvik A. (eds) Mobility in Transition. Migration Patterns after EU Enlargement , pp. 21 – 40 . Amsterdam : Amsterdam University Press . Erdal M.B. , Ezzati R. ( 2015 ) ‘“Where Are You From?” or “When Did You Come?” Temporal Dimensions in Migrants’ Reflections about Settlement and Return’ , Ethnic and Racial Studies , 38 / 7 : 1202 – 17 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Ette A. , Heß B. , Sauer F. ( 2016 ) ‘Tackling Germany’s Demographic Skills Shortage: Permanent Settlement Intentions of the Recent Wave of Labour Migrants from Non-European Countries’ , Journal of International Migration and Integration , 17 / 2 : 429 – 48 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Faist T. , Fauser M. , Reisenauer E. ( 2013 ) Transnational Migration . New York : John Wiley & Sons . Fassmann H. , Içduygu A. ( 2013 ) ‘Turks in Europe: Migration Flows, Migrant Stocks and Demographic Structure’ , European Review , 21 / 3 : 349 – 61 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Foner N. , Alba R. ( 2008 ) ‘Immigrant Religion in the U.S. and Western Europe: Bridge or Barrier to Inclusion?’ International Migration Review , 42 / 2 ; 360 – 92 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Friedberg R. M. ( 2000 ) ‘You Can’t Take It with You? Immigrant Assimilation and the Portability of Human Capital’ , Journal of Labor Economics , 18 / 2 : 221 – 51 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Geißler R. , Weber-Menges S. ( 2013 ) ‘Medien und Integration. Mediennutzung und Vorstellungen zur medialen Integration bei Migranten’, in Brinkmann H. U. , Uslucan H.-H. (eds) Dabeisein und Dazugehören. Integration in Deutschland , pp. 273 – 89 . Wiesbaden : Springer-VS . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Gordon M. M. ( 1964 ) Assimilation in American Life. The Role of Race, Religion, and National Origins . New York : Oxford University Press . Gresser A. , Schacht D. ( 2015 ) ‘SCIP Survey. Methodological Report’ <http://www.scip-info.org> accessed 30 August 2017. Gundel S. , Peters H. ( 2008 ) ‘What Determines the Duration of Stay of Immigrants in Germany? Evidence from a Longitudinal Duration Analysis’ , International Journal of Social Economics , 35 / 11 : 769 – 82 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Halm D. et al. ( 2012 ) ‘Polish and Turkish Migrant Organizations in Germany’, in Pries L. , Sezgin Z. (eds) Cross Border Migrant Organizations in Comparative Perspective , pp. 37 – 89 . Houndsmill : Palgrave . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Hans S. ( 2010 ) Assimilation oder Segregation? Anpassungsprozesse von Einwanderern in Deutschland . Wiesbaden : VS-Verlag . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Haug S. ( 2008 ) ‘Migration Networks and Migration Decision-Making’ , Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies , 34 / 4 : 585 – 605 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Kofman E. ( 2004 ) ‘Family‐related Migration: A Critical Review of European Studies’ , Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies , 30 / 2 : 243 – 62 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Kuhlenkasper T. , Steinhardt M. F. ( 2012 ) ‘Who Leaves and When?—Selective Outmigration of Immigrants from Germany’, SOEP papers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research 490, <https://www.diw.de/documents/publikationen/73/diw_01.c.409030.de/diw_sp0490.pdf> accessed 3 February 2017. Massey D. S. , Akresh I. R. ( 2006 ) ‘Immigrant Intentions and Mobility in a Global Economy: The Attitudes and Behavior of Recently Arrived U.S. Immigrants’ , Social Science Quarterly , 87 / 5 : 954 – 71 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Mood C. ( 2010 ) ‘Logistic Regression: Why We Cannot Do What We Think We Can Do, and What We Can Do About It’ , European Sociological Review , 26 / 1 : 67 – 82 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) ( 2014 ) ‘International Migration Database’ <http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=MIG> accessed 3 February 2017. Piore M. J. ( 1979 ) Birds of Passage: Migrant Labor and Industrial Societies . Cambridge : Cambridge University Press . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Şenyürekli A. R. , Menjívar C. ( 2012 ) ‘Turkish Immigrants’ Hopes and Fears around Return Migration’ , International Migration , 50 / 1 : 3 – 19 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Snel E. , Faber M. , Engbersen G. ( 2015 ) ‘To Stay or Return? Explaining Return Intentions of Central and Eastern European Labour Migrants’ , Central and Eastern European Migration Review , 4 / 2 : 5 – 24 . Taylor E. J. ( 1999 ) ‘The New Economics of Labour Migration and the Role of Remittances in the Migration Process’ , International Migration , 37 / 1 : 63 – 88 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed van den Berg G. J. , Weynandt M. A. ( 2013 ) ‘Explaining Differences between the Expected and Actual Duration Until Return Migration: Economic Changes’ , Journal of Applied Social Science Studies , 133 / 2 : 249 – 61 . van Dalen H. P. , Henkens K. ( 2013 ) ‘Explaining Emigration Intentions and Behaviour in the Netherlands, 2005–10’ , Population Studies , 67 / 2 : 225 – 41 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed Wasmer M. ( 2013 ) ‘Public debates and public opinion on multiculturalism in Germany’, in Taras R. (ed.) Challenging Multiculturalism: European Models of Diversity , pp. 163 – 89 . Edinburgh : Edinburgh University Press . Wimmer A. ( 2009 ) ‘Herder’s Heritage and the Boundary-Making Approach: Studying Ethnicity in Immigrant Societies’ , Sociological Theory , 27 / 3 : 244 – 70 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Yinger J. M. ( 1994 ) Ethnicity: Source of Strength? Source of Conflict? Albany : State University of New York Press . Appendix Table A1. Hypotheses and results Individual-level differences Main motive for immigration H1: Educational migrants have the highest likelihood to return, followed by economically motivated migrants, whereas newcomers who migrated because of family reasons only rarely return. confirmed Ties to the receiving country H2a: There is a negative relationship between the (economic, social and cultural) receiving country ties and immigrants’ return intentions. partially supported H2b: Economic ties to the host country are positively related to immigrants’ tendency of returning. rejected Ties to the country of origin H3a: I expect a positive relationship between the (economic, social and cultural) home country ties and immigrants’ return intentions. confirmed H3b: Social ties to the origin country are negatively associated with immigrants’ inclination of returning. rejected Perception of ethnic boundaries H4: I assume that the experience of ethnic boundaries is positively related to return intentions. rejected Group-level differences H5: Poles more often plan to leave Germany, compared to Turks, because Polish immigrants mainly migrated for economic reasons, whereas the group of Turkish newcomers primarily contains family migrants. confirmed H6: The average Polish return intention is higher than that of the Turkish group, because Polish immigrants, compared to Turkish newcomers, have more economic ties to the destination country as well as to their country of origin. partially supported H7: Poles more often plan to leave Germany, compared to Turks, because Polish immigrants have more (less) social ties to the home (receiving) country, whereas for Turks, it is the exact opposite. confirmed H8: Cultural ties do not explain group-specific return intentions between Poles and Turks. partially supported H9: Group-level differences between Polish and Turkish immigrants would even increase, taking into account that Poles perceive ethnic boundaries as less strong than Turks do. rejected Individual-level differences Main motive for immigration H1: Educational migrants have the highest likelihood to return, followed by economically motivated migrants, whereas newcomers who migrated because of family reasons only rarely return. confirmed Ties to the receiving country H2a: There is a negative relationship between the (economic, social and cultural) receiving country ties and immigrants’ return intentions. partially supported H2b: Economic ties to the host country are positively related to immigrants’ tendency of returning. rejected Ties to the country of origin H3a: I expect a positive relationship between the (economic, social and cultural) home country ties and immigrants’ return intentions. confirmed H3b: Social ties to the origin country are negatively associated with immigrants’ inclination of returning. rejected Perception of ethnic boundaries H4: I assume that the experience of ethnic boundaries is positively related to return intentions. rejected Group-level differences H5: Poles more often plan to leave Germany, compared to Turks, because Polish immigrants mainly migrated for economic reasons, whereas the group of Turkish newcomers primarily contains family migrants. confirmed H6: The average Polish return intention is higher than that of the Turkish group, because Polish immigrants, compared to Turkish newcomers, have more economic ties to the destination country as well as to their country of origin. partially supported H7: Poles more often plan to leave Germany, compared to Turks, because Polish immigrants have more (less) social ties to the home (receiving) country, whereas for Turks, it is the exact opposite. confirmed H8: Cultural ties do not explain group-specific return intentions between Poles and Turks. partially supported H9: Group-level differences between Polish and Turkish immigrants would even increase, taking into account that Poles perceive ethnic boundaries as less strong than Turks do. rejected Table A1. Hypotheses and results Individual-level differences Main motive for immigration H1: Educational migrants have the highest likelihood to return, followed by economically motivated migrants, whereas newcomers who migrated because of family reasons only rarely return. confirmed Ties to the receiving country H2a: There is a negative relationship between the (economic, social and cultural) receiving country ties and immigrants’ return intentions. partially supported H2b: Economic ties to the host country are positively related to immigrants’ tendency of returning. rejected Ties to the country of origin H3a: I expect a positive relationship between the (economic, social and cultural) home country ties and immigrants’ return intentions. confirmed H3b: Social ties to the origin country are negatively associated with immigrants’ inclination of returning. rejected Perception of ethnic boundaries H4: I assume that the experience of ethnic boundaries is positively related to return intentions. rejected Group-level differences H5: Poles more often plan to leave Germany, compared to Turks, because Polish immigrants mainly migrated for economic reasons, whereas the group of Turkish newcomers primarily contains family migrants. confirmed H6: The average Polish return intention is higher than that of the Turkish group, because Polish immigrants, compared to Turkish newcomers, have more economic ties to the destination country as well as to their country of origin. partially supported H7: Poles more often plan to leave Germany, compared to Turks, because Polish immigrants have more (less) social ties to the home (receiving) country, whereas for Turks, it is the exact opposite. confirmed H8: Cultural ties do not explain group-specific return intentions between Poles and Turks. partially supported H9: Group-level differences between Polish and Turkish immigrants would even increase, taking into account that Poles perceive ethnic boundaries as less strong than Turks do. rejected Individual-level differences Main motive for immigration H1: Educational migrants have the highest likelihood to return, followed by economically motivated migrants, whereas newcomers who migrated because of family reasons only rarely return. confirmed Ties to the receiving country H2a: There is a negative relationship between the (economic, social and cultural) receiving country ties and immigrants’ return intentions. partially supported H2b: Economic ties to the host country are positively related to immigrants’ tendency of returning. rejected Ties to the country of origin H3a: I expect a positive relationship between the (economic, social and cultural) home country ties and immigrants’ return intentions. confirmed H3b: Social ties to the origin country are negatively associated with immigrants’ inclination of returning. rejected Perception of ethnic boundaries H4: I assume that the experience of ethnic boundaries is positively related to return intentions. rejected Group-level differences H5: Poles more often plan to leave Germany, compared to Turks, because Polish immigrants mainly migrated for economic reasons, whereas the group of Turkish newcomers primarily contains family migrants. confirmed H6: The average Polish return intention is higher than that of the Turkish group, because Polish immigrants, compared to Turkish newcomers, have more economic ties to the destination country as well as to their country of origin. partially supported H7: Poles more often plan to leave Germany, compared to Turks, because Polish immigrants have more (less) social ties to the home (receiving) country, whereas for Turks, it is the exact opposite. confirmed H8: Cultural ties do not explain group-specific return intentions between Poles and Turks. partially supported H9: Group-level differences between Polish and Turkish immigrants would even increase, taking into account that Poles perceive ethnic boundaries as less strong than Turks do. rejected Table A2. Distribution of model variables by ethnicity (percentages and means) Total Poles Turks Dependent variable     Future migration plans         Intention to stay 33.7 26.9 42.1         Intention to leave 66.3 73.1 57.9 Independent variables Main motive for immigration     Reasons for migration         Economic 34.1 55.9 6.0         Education 15.5 11.1 21.1         Family 37.2 15.5 65.1         Mixed or other reasons 13.2 17.5 7.8 Ties to the receiving country Economic ties     Employment status         Working 44.6 63.7 20.2         Unemployed 17.3 8.4 28.7         Other status 38.1 27.9 51.4     Satisfied with current job (0-4) 2.9 3.0 2.8     Satisfied with current earnings (0-4) 2.8 2.8 2.4     Partner’s employment status         Working 64.1 62.8 65.3         Unemployed 11.2 9.7 12.7         Other status 24.7 27.5 22.0 Social ties     People known before immigration in Germany 74.7 76.4 72.5     Proportion of German friends in Germany (0-1) .14 .11 .18     Partner in Germany 53.9 39.1 72.8     Children in Germany 21.0 17.7 25.2 Cultural ties     German language proficiency (0-3) 1.3 1.4 1.2     Consumption of German media (0-4) 2.9 2.9 2.9 Ties to the country of origin Economic ties     Remitting to Poland/Turkey (personal savings) 12.1 19.4 2.5     Property in Poland/Turkey 27.8 32.5 21.6 Social ties     Trips to Poland/Turkey since migration         No trips 33.9 11.8 62.4         Less than 10 trips 52.8 65.0 37.1         10 or more trips 13.3 23.3 0.5     Partner in Poland/Turkey 12.1 19.9 2.0     Children in Poland/Turkey 21.0 32.7 5.9 Cultural ties     Consumption of Polish/Turkish media (0-4) 3.2 3.0 3.5     Religiosity (0-3) 1.5 1.6 1.4 Perception of ethnic boundaries     Group discrimination (0-4) 1.8 1.7 1.8     Experienced discrimination 32.3 31.7 32.9     Incompatibility of values (0-4) 2.0 1.8 2.3 Control variables     Gender         Males 53.6 54.7 52.1         Females 46.5 45.3 47.9     Age (in years) 31.5 33.6 28.9     Duration since immigration (in months) 8.1 8.8 7.3     Level of education         None/primary 9.0 3.2 16.8         Secondary 44.8 50.4 37.3         Tertiary 46.2 46.4 45.9     Pre-post comparison of living situation         not improved 71.1 75.6 65.2         improved 28.9 24.4 34.8 Source: SCIP-project, own calculations Total Poles Turks Dependent variable     Future migration plans         Intention to stay 33.7 26.9 42.1         Intention to leave 66.3 73.1 57.9 Independent variables Main motive for immigration     Reasons for migration         Economic 34.1 55.9 6.0         Education 15.5 11.1 21.1         Family 37.2 15.5 65.1         Mixed or other reasons 13.2 17.5 7.8 Ties to the receiving country Economic ties     Employment status         Working 44.6 63.7 20.2         Unemployed 17.3 8.4 28.7         Other status 38.1 27.9 51.4     Satisfied with current job (0-4) 2.9 3.0 2.8     Satisfied with current earnings (0-4) 2.8 2.8 2.4     Partner’s employment status         Working 64.1 62.8 65.3         Unemployed 11.2 9.7 12.7         Other status 24.7 27.5 22.0 Social ties     People known before immigration in Germany 74.7 76.4 72.5     Proportion of German friends in Germany (0-1) .14 .11 .18     Partner in Germany 53.9 39.1 72.8     Children in Germany 21.0 17.7 25.2 Cultural ties     German language proficiency (0-3) 1.3 1.4 1.2     Consumption of German media (0-4) 2.9 2.9 2.9 Ties to the country of origin Economic ties     Remitting to Poland/Turkey (personal savings) 12.1 19.4 2.5     Property in Poland/Turkey 27.8 32.5 21.6 Social ties     Trips to Poland/Turkey since migration         No trips 33.9 11.8 62.4         Less than 10 trips 52.8 65.0 37.1         10 or more trips 13.3 23.3 0.5     Partner in Poland/Turkey 12.1 19.9 2.0     Children in Poland/Turkey 21.0 32.7 5.9 Cultural ties     Consumption of Polish/Turkish media (0-4) 3.2 3.0 3.5     Religiosity (0-3) 1.5 1.6 1.4 Perception of ethnic boundaries     Group discrimination (0-4) 1.8 1.7 1.8     Experienced discrimination 32.3 31.7 32.9     Incompatibility of values (0-4) 2.0 1.8 2.3 Control variables     Gender         Males 53.6 54.7 52.1         Females 46.5 45.3 47.9     Age (in years) 31.5 33.6 28.9     Duration since immigration (in months) 8.1 8.8 7.3     Level of education         None/primary 9.0 3.2 16.8         Secondary 44.8 50.4 37.3         Tertiary 46.2 46.4 45.9     Pre-post comparison of living situation         not improved 71.1 75.6 65.2         improved 28.9 24.4 34.8 Source: SCIP-project, own calculations Table A2. Distribution of model variables by ethnicity (percentages and means) Total Poles Turks Dependent variable     Future migration plans         Intention to stay 33.7 26.9 42.1         Intention to leave 66.3 73.1 57.9 Independent variables Main motive for immigration     Reasons for migration         Economic 34.1 55.9 6.0         Education 15.5 11.1 21.1         Family 37.2 15.5 65.1         Mixed or other reasons 13.2 17.5 7.8 Ties to the receiving country Economic ties     Employment status         Working 44.6 63.7 20.2         Unemployed 17.3 8.4 28.7         Other status 38.1 27.9 51.4     Satisfied with current job (0-4) 2.9 3.0 2.8     Satisfied with current earnings (0-4) 2.8 2.8 2.4     Partner’s employment status         Working 64.1 62.8 65.3         Unemployed 11.2 9.7 12.7         Other status 24.7 27.5 22.0 Social ties     People known before immigration in Germany 74.7 76.4 72.5     Proportion of German friends in Germany (0-1) .14 .11 .18     Partner in Germany 53.9 39.1 72.8     Children in Germany 21.0 17.7 25.2 Cultural ties     German language proficiency (0-3) 1.3 1.4 1.2     Consumption of German media (0-4) 2.9 2.9 2.9 Ties to the country of origin Economic ties     Remitting to Poland/Turkey (personal savings) 12.1 19.4 2.5     Property in Poland/Turkey 27.8 32.5 21.6 Social ties     Trips to Poland/Turkey since migration         No trips 33.9 11.8 62.4         Less than 10 trips 52.8 65.0 37.1         10 or more trips 13.3 23.3 0.5     Partner in Poland/Turkey 12.1 19.9 2.0     Children in Poland/Turkey 21.0 32.7 5.9 Cultural ties     Consumption of Polish/Turkish media (0-4) 3.2 3.0 3.5     Religiosity (0-3) 1.5 1.6 1.4 Perception of ethnic boundaries     Group discrimination (0-4) 1.8 1.7 1.8     Experienced discrimination 32.3 31.7 32.9     Incompatibility of values (0-4) 2.0 1.8 2.3 Control variables     Gender         Males 53.6 54.7 52.1         Females 46.5 45.3 47.9     Age (in years) 31.5 33.6 28.9     Duration since immigration (in months) 8.1 8.8 7.3     Level of education         None/primary 9.0 3.2 16.8         Secondary 44.8 50.4 37.3         Tertiary 46.2 46.4 45.9     Pre-post comparison of living situation         not improved 71.1 75.6 65.2         improved 28.9 24.4 34.8 Source: SCIP-project, own calculations Total Poles Turks Dependent variable     Future migration plans         Intention to stay 33.7 26.9 42.1         Intention to leave 66.3 73.1 57.9 Independent variables Main motive for immigration     Reasons for migration         Economic 34.1 55.9 6.0         Education 15.5 11.1 21.1         Family 37.2 15.5 65.1         Mixed or other reasons 13.2 17.5 7.8 Ties to the receiving country Economic ties     Employment status         Working 44.6 63.7 20.2         Unemployed 17.3 8.4 28.7         Other status 38.1 27.9 51.4     Satisfied with current job (0-4) 2.9 3.0 2.8     Satisfied with current earnings (0-4) 2.8 2.8 2.4     Partner’s employment status         Working 64.1 62.8 65.3         Unemployed 11.2 9.7 12.7         Other status 24.7 27.5 22.0 Social ties     People known before immigration in Germany 74.7 76.4 72.5     Proportion of German friends in Germany (0-1) .14 .11 .18     Partner in Germany 53.9 39.1 72.8     Children in Germany 21.0 17.7 25.2 Cultural ties     German language proficiency (0-3) 1.3 1.4 1.2     Consumption of German media (0-4) 2.9 2.9 2.9 Ties to the country of origin Economic ties     Remitting to Poland/Turkey (personal savings) 12.1 19.4 2.5     Property in Poland/Turkey 27.8 32.5 21.6 Social ties     Trips to Poland/Turkey since migration         No trips 33.9 11.8 62.4         Less than 10 trips 52.8 65.0 37.1         10 or more trips 13.3 23.3 0.5     Partner in Poland/Turkey 12.1 19.9 2.0     Children in Poland/Turkey 21.0 32.7 5.9 Cultural ties     Consumption of Polish/Turkish media (0-4) 3.2 3.0 3.5     Religiosity (0-3) 1.5 1.6 1.4 Perception of ethnic boundaries     Group discrimination (0-4) 1.8 1.7 1.8     Experienced discrimination 32.3 31.7 32.9     Incompatibility of values (0-4) 2.0 1.8 2.3 Control variables     Gender         Males 53.6 54.7 52.1         Females 46.5 45.3 47.9     Age (in years) 31.5 33.6 28.9     Duration since immigration (in months) 8.1 8.8 7.3     Level of education         None/primary 9.0 3.2 16.8         Secondary 44.8 50.4 37.3         Tertiary 46.2 46.4 45.9     Pre-post comparison of living situation         not improved 71.1 75.6 65.2         improved 28.9 24.4 34.8 Source: SCIP-project, own calculations Table A3. Explanatory factors of intentions to leave Germany (average marginal effects) M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 Ethnicity (ref. = Poles) −.088*** .029 −.014 −.056** .016 (.021) (.027) (.024) (.022) (.023) Main motive for immigration Reasons for migration (ref. = economic) Education .092* (.043) Family −.313*** (.031) Mixed or other reasons −.269*** (.032) Economic ties Ties to the receiving country Employment status (ref. = working) Unemployed −.121* (.056) Other status −.001 (.051) Satisfied with current job −.053** (.019) Satisfied with current earnings .038* (.016) Partner’s employment status (ref. = working) Unemployed −.018 (.037) Other status .097** (.030) Ties to the country of origin Remitting to Poland/Turkey (personal savings) .301*** (.047) Property in Poland/Turkey .148*** (.025) Social ties Ties to the receiving country People known before immigration in Germany −.018 (.024) Proportion of German friends in Germany −.182*** (.035) Partner in Germany −.308*** (.024) Children in Germany −.008 (.025) Ties to the country of origin Trips to Poland/Turkey since migration (ref. = no trips) Less than 10 trips 10 or more trips Partner in Poland/Turkey Children in Poland/Turkey Cultural ties Ties to the receiving country German language proficiency Consumption of German media Ties to the country of origin Consumption of Polish/Turkish media Religiosity Perception of ethnic boundaries Group discrimination Experienced discrimination Incompatibility of values Control variables Gender (ref. = female) .067** .018 .037 .045* −.014 (.020) (.021) (.022) (.020) (.020) Age (in years) −.034*** −.015 −.034*** −.038*** −.008 (.008) (.008) (.008) (.008) (.008) Age² .001*** .000* .000*** .001*** .000 (.000) (.000) (.000) (.000) (.000) Duration since immigration (in months) −.004* −.003 −.003 −.004* −.001 (.002) (.002) (.002) (.002) (.002) Level of education (ref. = none/primary) Secondary .083* .036 .062 .080* .068 (.036) (.035) (.036) (.035) (036) Tertiary .165*** .074* .118** .154*** .138*** (.035) (.035) (.036) (.035) (.036) Pre-post comparison of living situation (ref. = not improved) −.086*** −.076*** −.082*** −.087*** −.087*** (.022) (.022) (.022) (.021) (.022) Observations 2456 2456 2456 2456 2456 Pseudo R² (Nagelkerke) .107 .221 .166 .157 .212 M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 Ethnicity (ref. = Poles) −.088*** .029 −.014 −.056** .016 (.021) (.027) (.024) (.022) (.023) Main motive for immigration Reasons for migration (ref. = economic) Education .092* (.043) Family −.313*** (.031) Mixed or other reasons −.269*** (.032) Economic ties Ties to the receiving country Employment status (ref. = working) Unemployed −.121* (.056) Other status −.001 (.051) Satisfied with current job −.053** (.019) Satisfied with current earnings .038* (.016) Partner’s employment status (ref. = working) Unemployed −.018 (.037) Other status .097** (.030) Ties to the country of origin Remitting to Poland/Turkey (personal savings) .301*** (.047) Property in Poland/Turkey .148*** (.025) Social ties Ties to the receiving country People known before immigration in Germany −.018 (.024) Proportion of German friends in Germany −.182*** (.035) Partner in Germany −.308*** (.024) Children in Germany −.008 (.025) Ties to the country of origin Trips to Poland/Turkey since migration (ref. = no trips) Less than 10 trips 10 or more trips Partner in Poland/Turkey Children in Poland/Turkey Cultural ties Ties to the receiving country German language proficiency Consumption of German media Ties to the country of origin Consumption of Polish/Turkish media Religiosity Perception of ethnic boundaries Group discrimination Experienced discrimination Incompatibility of values Control variables Gender (ref. = female) .067** .018 .037 .045* −.014 (.020) (.021) (.022) (.020) (.020) Age (in years) −.034*** −.015 −.034*** −.038*** −.008 (.008) (.008) (.008) (.008) (.008) Age² .001*** .000* .000*** .001*** .000 (.000) (.000) (.000) (.000) (.000) Duration since immigration (in months) −.004* −.003 −.003 −.004* −.001 (.002) (.002) (.002) (.002) (.002) Level of education (ref. = none/primary) Secondary .083* .036 .062 .080* .068 (.036) (.035) (.036) (.035) (036) Tertiary .165*** .074* .118** .154*** .138*** (.035) (.035) (.036) (.035) (.036) Pre-post comparison of living situation (ref. = not improved) −.086*** −.076*** −.082*** −.087*** −.087*** (.022) (.022) (.022) (.021) (.022) Observations 2456 2456 2456 2456 2456 Pseudo R² (Nagelkerke) .107 .221 .166 .157 .212 Source: SCIP-project, own calculations. Note: * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001; ***; logistic (logit) regression; all models control for city of interview and missing values (effects are not reported); SE in parentheses. Table A3. Explanatory factors of intentions to leave Germany (average marginal effects) M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 Ethnicity (ref. = Poles) −.088*** .029 −.014 −.056** .016 (.021) (.027) (.024) (.022) (.023) Main motive for immigration Reasons for migration (ref. = economic) Education .092* (.043) Family −.313*** (.031) Mixed or other reasons −.269*** (.032) Economic ties Ties to the receiving country Employment status (ref. = working) Unemployed −.121* (.056) Other status −.001 (.051) Satisfied with current job −.053** (.019) Satisfied with current earnings .038* (.016) Partner’s employment status (ref. = working) Unemployed −.018 (.037) Other status .097** (.030) Ties to the country of origin Remitting to Poland/Turkey (personal savings) .301*** (.047) Property in Poland/Turkey .148*** (.025) Social ties Ties to the receiving country People known before immigration in Germany −.018 (.024) Proportion of German friends in Germany −.182*** (.035) Partner in Germany −.308*** (.024) Children in Germany −.008 (.025) Ties to the country of origin Trips to Poland/Turkey since migration (ref. = no trips) Less than 10 trips 10 or more trips Partner in Poland/Turkey Children in Poland/Turkey Cultural ties Ties to the receiving country German language proficiency Consumption of German media Ties to the country of origin Consumption of Polish/Turkish media Religiosity Perception of ethnic boundaries Group discrimination Experienced discrimination Incompatibility of values Control variables Gender (ref. = female) .067** .018 .037 .045* −.014 (.020) (.021) (.022) (.020) (.020) Age (in years) −.034*** −.015 −.034*** −.038*** −.008 (.008) (.008) (.008) (.008) (.008) Age² .001*** .000* .000*** .001*** .000 (.000) (.000) (.000) (.000) (.000) Duration since immigration (in months) −.004* −.003 −.003 −.004* −.001 (.002) (.002) (.002) (.002) (.002) Level of education (ref. = none/primary) Secondary .083* .036 .062 .080* .068 (.036) (.035) (.036) (.035) (036) Tertiary .165*** .074* .118** .154*** .138*** (.035) (.035) (.036) (.035) (.036) Pre-post comparison of living situation (ref. = not improved) −.086*** −.076*** −.082*** −.087*** −.087*** (.022) (.022) (.022) (.021) (.022) Observations 2456 2456 2456 2456 2456 Pseudo R² (Nagelkerke) .107 .221 .166 .157 .212 M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 Ethnicity (ref. = Poles) −.088*** .029 −.014 −.056** .016 (.021) (.027) (.024) (.022) (.023) Main motive for immigration Reasons for migration (ref. = economic) Education .092* (.043) Family −.313*** (.031) Mixed or other reasons −.269*** (.032) Economic ties Ties to the receiving country Employment status (ref. = working) Unemployed −.121* (.056) Other status −.001 (.051) Satisfied with current job −.053** (.019) Satisfied with current earnings .038* (.016) Partner’s employment status (ref. = working) Unemployed −.018 (.037) Other status .097** (.030) Ties to the country of origin Remitting to Poland/Turkey (personal savings) .301*** (.047) Property in Poland/Turkey .148*** (.025) Social ties Ties to the receiving country People known before immigration in Germany −.018 (.024) Proportion of German friends in Germany −.182*** (.035) Partner in Germany −.308*** (.024) Children in Germany −.008 (.025) Ties to the country of origin Trips to Poland/Turkey since migration (ref. = no trips) Less than 10 trips 10 or more trips Partner in Poland/Turkey Children in Poland/Turkey Cultural ties Ties to the receiving country German language proficiency Consumption of German media Ties to the country of origin Consumption of Polish/Turkish media Religiosity Perception of ethnic boundaries Group discrimination Experienced discrimination Incompatibility of values Control variables Gender (ref. = female) .067** .018 .037 .045* −.014 (.020) (.021) (.022) (.020) (.020) Age (in years) −.034*** −.015 −.034*** −.038*** −.008 (.008) (.008) (.008) (.008) (.008) Age² .001*** .000* .000*** .001*** .000 (.000) (.000) (.000) (.000) (.000) Duration since immigration (in months) −.004* −.003 −.003 −.004* −.001 (.002) (.002) (.002) (.002) (.002) Level of education (ref. = none/primary) Secondary .083* .036 .062 .080* .068 (.036) (.035) (.036) (.035) (036) Tertiary .165*** .074* .118** .154*** .138*** (.035) (.035) (.036) (.035) (.036) Pre-post comparison of living situation (ref. = not improved) −.086*** −.076*** −.082*** −.087*** −.087*** (.022) (.022) (.022) (.021) (.022) Observations 2456 2456 2456 2456 2456 Pseudo R² (Nagelkerke) .107 .221 .166 .157 .212 Source: SCIP-project, own calculations. Note: * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001; ***; logistic (logit) regression; all models control for city of interview and missing values (effects are not reported); SE in parentheses. Table A3. (continued). Explanatory factors of intentions to leave Germany (average marginal effects) M6 M7 M8 M9 M10 Ethnicity (ref. = Poles) .009 −.082*** −.117*** −.097*** .066* (.025) (.022) (.023) (.022) (.032) Main motive of immigration Reasons for migration (ref. = economic) Education .110* (.048) Family −.148*** (.037) Mixed or other reasons −.163*** (.035) Economic ties Ties to the receiving country Employment status (ref. = working) Unemployed −.049 (.057) Other status −.003 (.052) Satisfied with current job −.051** (.019) Satisfied with current earnings .031 (.016) Partner’s employment status (ref. = working) Unemployed −.031 (.038) Other status .067* (.031) Ties to the country of origin Remitting to Poland/Turkey (personal savings) .096 (.052) Property in Poland/Turkey .111*** (.026) Social ties Ties to the receiving country People known before immigration in Germany .013 (.024) Proportion of German friends in Germany −.111** (.036) Partner in Germany −.163 (.113) Children in Germany −.012 (.026) Ties to the country of origin Trips to Poland/Turkey since migration (ref. = no trips) Less than 10 trips .088*** .036 (.025) (.026) 10 or more trips .190*** .123** (.041) (.043) Partner in Poland/Turkey .457*** .198 (.055) (.122) Children in Poland/Turkey −.023 −.076 (.037) (.039) Cultural ties Ties to the receiving country German language proficiency −.014 −.028 (.014) (.015) Consumption of German media −.072*** −.046*** (.009) (.009) Ties to the country of origin Consumption of Polish/Turkish media .051*** .040*** (.009) (.009) Religiosity .011 .034** (.012) (.012) Perception of ethnic boundaries Group discrimination .037** .015 (.011) (.011) Experienced discrimination −.014 .010 (.022) (.023) Incompatibility of values .018 .019 (.010) (.010) Control variables Gender (ref. = female) .031 .061** .061** .068** −.014 (.020) (.020) (.020) (.020) (.022) Age (in years) −.033 −.027*** −.033*** −.035*** −.000 (.008) (.008) (.008) (.008) (.008) Age² .000* .000*** .000*** .001*** .000 (.000) (.000) (.000) (.000) (.000) Duration since immigration (in months) −.007** −.004 −.005* −.005* −.004 (.002) (.002) (.002) (.002) (.002) Level of education (ref. = none/primary) Secondary .060 .102** .089* .076* .049 (.035) (.036) (.036) (.036) (035) Tertiary .139*** .185*** .164*** .158*** .088* (.035) (.036) (.036) (.036) (037) Pre-post comparison of living situation (ref. = not improved) −.089*** −.085*** −.087*** −.083*** −.077*** (.021) (.022) (.022) (.022) (.022) Observations 2456 2456 2456 2456 2456 Pseudo R² (Nagelkerke) .171 .149 .125 .117 .333 M6 M7 M8 M9 M10 Ethnicity (ref. = Poles) .009 −.082*** −.117*** −.097*** .066* (.025) (.022) (.023) (.022) (.032) Main motive of immigration Reasons for migration (ref. = economic) Education .110* (.048) Family −.148*** (.037) Mixed or other reasons −.163*** (.035) Economic ties Ties to the receiving country Employment status (ref. = working) Unemployed −.049 (.057) Other status −.003 (.052) Satisfied with current job −.051** (.019) Satisfied with current earnings .031 (.016) Partner’s employment status (ref. = working) Unemployed −.031 (.038) Other status .067* (.031) Ties to the country of origin Remitting to Poland/Turkey (personal savings) .096 (.052) Property in Poland/Turkey .111*** (.026) Social ties Ties to the receiving country People known before immigration in Germany .013 (.024) Proportion of German friends in Germany −.111** (.036) Partner in Germany −.163 (.113) Children in Germany −.012 (.026) Ties to the country of origin Trips to Poland/Turkey since migration (ref. = no trips) Less than 10 trips .088*** .036 (.025) (.026) 10 or more trips .190*** .123** (.041) (.043) Partner in Poland/Turkey .457*** .198 (.055) (.122) Children in Poland/Turkey −.023 −.076 (.037) (.039) Cultural ties Ties to the receiving country German language proficiency −.014 −.028 (.014) (.015) Consumption of German media −.072*** −.046*** (.009) (.009) Ties to the country of origin Consumption of Polish/Turkish media .051*** .040*** (.009) (.009) Religiosity .011 .034** (.012) (.012) Perception of ethnic boundaries Group discrimination .037** .015 (.011) (.011) Experienced discrimination −.014 .010 (.022) (.023) Incompatibility of values .018 .019 (.010) (.010) Control variables Gender (ref. = female) .031 .061** .061** .068** −.014 (.020) (.020) (.020) (.020) (.022) Age (in years) −.033 −.027*** −.033*** −.035*** −.000 (.008) (.008) (.008) (.008) (.008) Age² .000* .000*** .000*** .001*** .000 (.000) (.000) (.000) (.000) (.000) Duration since immigration (in months) −.007** −.004 −.005* −.005* −.004 (.002) (.002) (.002) (.002) (.002) Level of education (ref. = none/primary) Secondary .060 .102** .089* .076* .049 (.035) (.036) (.036) (.036) (035) Tertiary .139*** .185*** .164*** .158*** .088* (.035) (.036) (.036) (.036) (037) Pre-post comparison of living situation (ref. = not improved) −.089*** −.085*** −.087*** −.083*** −.077*** (.021) (.022) (.022) (.022) (.022) Observations 2456 2456 2456 2456 2456 Pseudo R² (Nagelkerke) .171 .149 .125 .117 .333 Source: SCIP-project, own calculations Note: * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001; ***; logistic (logit) regression; all models control for city of interview and missing values (effects are not reported); SE in parentheses Table A3. (continued). Explanatory factors of intentions to leave Germany (average marginal effects) M6 M7 M8 M9 M10 Ethnicity (ref. = Poles) .009 −.082*** −.117*** −.097*** .066* (.025) (.022) (.023) (.022) (.032) Main motive of immigration Reasons for migration (ref. = economic) Education .110* (.048) Family −.148*** (.037) Mixed or other reasons −.163*** (.035) Economic ties Ties to the receiving country Employment status (ref. = working) Unemployed −.049 (.057) Other status −.003 (.052) Satisfied with current job −.051** (.019) Satisfied with current earnings .031 (.016) Partner’s employment status (ref. = working) Unemployed −.031 (.038) Other status .067* (.031) Ties to the country of origin Remitting to Poland/Turkey (personal savings) .096 (.052) Property in Poland/Turkey .111*** (.026) Social ties Ties to the receiving country People known before immigration in Germany .013 (.024) Proportion of German friends in Germany −.111** (.036) Partner in Germany −.163 (.113) Children in Germany −.012 (.026) Ties to the country of origin Trips to Poland/Turkey since migration (ref. = no trips) Less than 10 trips .088*** .036 (.025) (.026) 10 or more trips .190*** .123** (.041) (.043) Partner in Poland/Turkey .457*** .198 (.055) (.122) Children in Poland/Turkey −.023 −.076 (.037) (.039) Cultural ties Ties to the receiving country German language proficiency −.014 −.028 (.014) (.015) Consumption of German media −.072*** −.046*** (.009) (.009) Ties to the country of origin Consumption of Polish/Turkish media .051*** .040*** (.009) (.009) Religiosity .011 .034** (.012) (.012) Perception of ethnic boundaries Group discrimination .037** .015 (.011) (.011) Experienced discrimination −.014 .010 (.022) (.023) Incompatibility of values .018 .019 (.010) (.010) Control variables Gender (ref. = female) .031 .061** .061** .068** −.014 (.020) (.020) (.020) (.020) (.022) Age (in years) −.033 −.027*** −.033*** −.035*** −.000 (.008) (.008) (.008) (.008) (.008) Age² .000* .000*** .000*** .001*** .000 (.000) (.000) (.000) (.000) (.000) Duration since immigration (in months) −.007** −.004 −.005* −.005* −.004 (.002) (.002) (.002) (.002) (.002) Level of education (ref. = none/primary) Secondary .060 .102** .089* .076* .049 (.035) (.036) (.036) (.036) (035) Tertiary .139*** .185*** .164*** .158*** .088* (.035) (.036) (.036) (.036) (037) Pre-post comparison of living situation (ref. = not improved) −.089*** −.085*** −.087*** −.083*** −.077*** (.021) (.022) (.022) (.022) (.022) Observations 2456 2456 2456 2456 2456 Pseudo R² (Nagelkerke) .171 .149 .125 .117 .333 M6 M7 M8 M9 M10 Ethnicity (ref. = Poles) .009 −.082*** −.117*** −.097*** .066* (.025) (.022) (.023) (.022) (.032) Main motive of immigration Reasons for migration (ref. = economic) Education .110* (.048) Family −.148*** (.037) Mixed or other reasons −.163*** (.035) Economic ties Ties to the receiving country Employment status (ref. = working) Unemployed −.049 (.057) Other status −.003 (.052) Satisfied with current job −.051** (.019) Satisfied with current earnings .031 (.016) Partner’s employment status (ref. = working) Unemployed −.031 (.038) Other status .067* (.031) Ties to the country of origin Remitting to Poland/Turkey (personal savings) .096 (.052) Property in Poland/Turkey .111*** (.026) Social ties Ties to the receiving country People known before immigration in Germany .013 (.024) Proportion of German friends in Germany −.111** (.036) Partner in Germany −.163 (.113) Children in Germany −.012 (.026) Ties to the country of origin Trips to Poland/Turkey since migration (ref. = no trips) Less than 10 trips .088*** .036 (.025) (.026) 10 or more trips .190*** .123** (.041) (.043) Partner in Poland/Turkey .457*** .198 (.055) (.122) Children in Poland/Turkey −.023 −.076 (.037) (.039) Cultural ties Ties to the receiving country German language proficiency −.014 −.028 (.014) (.015) Consumption of German media −.072*** −.046*** (.009) (.009) Ties to the country of origin Consumption of Polish/Turkish media .051*** .040*** (.009) (.009) Religiosity .011 .034** (.012) (.012) Perception of ethnic boundaries Group discrimination .037** .015 (.011) (.011) Experienced discrimination −.014 .010 (.022) (.023) Incompatibility of values .018 .019 (.010) (.010) Control variables Gender (ref. = female) .031 .061** .061** .068** −.014 (.020) (.020) (.020) (.020) (.022) Age (in years) −.033 −.027*** −.033*** −.035*** −.000 (.008) (.008) (.008) (.008) (.008) Age² .000* .000*** .000*** .001*** .000 (.000) (.000) (.000) (.000) (.000) Duration since immigration (in months) −.007** −.004 −.005* −.005* −.004 (.002) (.002) (.002) (.002) (.002) Level of education (ref. = none/primary) Secondary .060 .102** .089* .076* .049 (.035) (.036) (.036) (.036) (035) Tertiary .139*** .185*** .164*** .158*** .088* (.035) (.036) (.036) (.036) (037) Pre-post comparison of living situation (ref. = not improved) −.089*** −.085*** −.087*** −.083*** −.077*** (.021) (.022) (.022) (.022) (.022) Observations 2456 2456 2456 2456 2456 Pseudo R² (Nagelkerke) .171 .149 .125 .117 .333 Source: SCIP-project, own calculations Note: * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001; ***; logistic (logit) regression; all models control for city of interview and missing values (effects are not reported); SE in parentheses Table A4. Explanatory factors of intentions to leave Germany by ethnicity (average marginal effects) M1: M2: Poles Turks Main motive for immigration Reasons for migration (ref. = economic) Education .108* .178 Family −.078* −.237* Mixed or other reasons −.108** −.203 Ties to the receiving country Economic ties Employment status (ref. = working) Unemployed .006 −.181 Other status 0.45 −.112 Satisfied with current job −.051** −.010 Satisfied with current earnings .028 −.015 Partner’s employment status (ref. = working) Unemployed −.079 −.002 Other status .018 .121* Social ties People known before immigration in Germany −.041 .072 Proportion of German friends in Germany −.066 −.146* Partner in Germany −.152 −.014 Children in Germany −.054 .014 Cultural ties German language proficiency −.030 −.010 Consumption of German media −.045*** −.041 Ties to the country of origin Economic ties Remitting to Poland/Turkey (personal savings) .079 .142 Property in Poland/Turkey .133*** .051 Social ties Trips to Poland/Turkey since migration (ref. = no trips) Less than 10 trips .025 .060 10 or more trips .105* −.399 Partner in Poland/Turkey .133 .364 Children in Poland/Turkey −.111** .080 Cultural ties Consumption of Polish/Turkish media .033** .037* Religiosity .020 .047* Perception of ethnic boundaries Group discrimination .015 .007 Experienced discrimination −.010 .046 Incompatibility of values .021 .011 Control variables Gender (ref. = female) .016 −.068 Age (in years) −.005 .007 Age² .000 −.000 Duration since immigration (in months) −.002 −.005 Level of education (ref. = none/primary) Secondary .119 .046 Tertiary .146* .082 Pre-post comparison of living situation (ref. = not improved) −.004 −.160*** Observations 1356 1100 Pseudo R² (Nagelkerke) .368 .311 M1: M2: Poles Turks Main motive for immigration Reasons for migration (ref. = economic) Education .108* .178 Family −.078* −.237* Mixed or other reasons −.108** −.203 Ties to the receiving country Economic ties Employment status (ref. = working) Unemployed .006 −.181 Other status 0.45 −.112 Satisfied with current job −.051** −.010 Satisfied with current earnings .028 −.015 Partner’s employment status (ref. = working) Unemployed −.079 −.002 Other status .018 .121* Social ties People known before immigration in Germany −.041 .072 Proportion of German friends in Germany −.066 −.146* Partner in Germany −.152 −.014 Children in Germany −.054 .014 Cultural ties German language proficiency −.030 −.010 Consumption of German media −.045*** −.041 Ties to the country of origin Economic ties Remitting to Poland/Turkey (personal savings) .079 .142 Property in Poland/Turkey .133*** .051 Social ties Trips to Poland/Turkey since migration (ref. = no trips) Less than 10 trips .025 .060 10 or more trips .105* −.399 Partner in Poland/Turkey .133 .364 Children in Poland/Turkey −.111** .080 Cultural ties Consumption of Polish/Turkish media .033** .037* Religiosity .020 .047* Perception of ethnic boundaries Group discrimination .015 .007 Experienced discrimination −.010 .046 Incompatibility of values .021 .011 Control variables Gender (ref. = female) .016 −.068 Age (in years) −.005 .007 Age² .000 −.000 Duration since immigration (in months) −.002 −.005 Level of education (ref. = none/primary) Secondary .119 .046 Tertiary .146* .082 Pre-post comparison of living situation (ref. = not improved) −.004 −.160*** Observations 1356 1100 Pseudo R² (Nagelkerke) .368 .311 Source: SCIP-project, own calculations Note: * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001; ***; logistic (logit) regression; all models control for city of interview and missing values (effects are not reported) Table A4. Explanatory factors of intentions to leave Germany by ethnicity (average marginal effects) M1: M2: Poles Turks Main motive for immigration Reasons for migration (ref. = economic) Education .108* .178 Family −.078* −.237* Mixed or other reasons −.108** −.203 Ties to the receiving country Economic ties Employment status (ref. = working) Unemployed .006 −.181 Other status 0.45 −.112 Satisfied with current job −.051** −.010 Satisfied with current earnings .028 −.015 Partner’s employment status (ref. = working) Unemployed −.079 −.002 Other status .018 .121* Social ties People known before immigration in Germany −.041 .072 Proportion of German friends in Germany −.066 −.146* Partner in Germany −.152 −.014 Children in Germany −.054 .014 Cultural ties German language proficiency −.030 −.010 Consumption of German media −.045*** −.041 Ties to the country of origin Economic ties Remitting to Poland/Turkey (personal savings) .079 .142 Property in Poland/Turkey .133*** .051 Social ties Trips to Poland/Turkey since migration (ref. = no trips) Less than 10 trips .025 .060 10 or more trips .105* −.399 Partner in Poland/Turkey .133 .364 Children in Poland/Turkey −.111** .080 Cultural ties Consumption of Polish/Turkish media .033** .037* Religiosity .020 .047* Perception of ethnic boundaries Group discrimination .015 .007 Experienced discrimination −.010 .046 Incompatibility of values .021 .011 Control variables Gender (ref. = female) .016 −.068 Age (in years) −.005 .007 Age² .000 −.000 Duration since immigration (in months) −.002 −.005 Level of education (ref. = none/primary) Secondary .119 .046 Tertiary .146* .082 Pre-post comparison of living situation (ref. = not improved) −.004 −.160*** Observations 1356 1100 Pseudo R² (Nagelkerke) .368 .311 M1: M2: Poles Turks Main motive for immigration Reasons for migration (ref. = economic) Education .108* .178 Family −.078* −.237* Mixed or other reasons −.108** −.203 Ties to the receiving country Economic ties Employment status (ref. = working) Unemployed .006 −.181 Other status 0.45 −.112 Satisfied with current job −.051** −.010 Satisfied with current earnings .028 −.015 Partner’s employment status (ref. = working) Unemployed −.079 −.002 Other status .018 .121* Social ties People known before immigration in Germany −.041 .072 Proportion of German friends in Germany −.066 −.146* Partner in Germany −.152 −.014 Children in Germany −.054 .014 Cultural ties German language proficiency −.030 −.010 Consumption of German media −.045*** −.041 Ties to the country of origin Economic ties Remitting to Poland/Turkey (personal savings) .079 .142 Property in Poland/Turkey .133*** .051 Social ties Trips to Poland/Turkey since migration (ref. = no trips) Less than 10 trips .025 .060 10 or more trips .105* −.399 Partner in Poland/Turkey .133 .364 Children in Poland/Turkey −.111** .080 Cultural ties Consumption of Polish/Turkish media .033** .037* Religiosity .020 .047* Perception of ethnic boundaries Group discrimination .015 .007 Experienced discrimination −.010 .046 Incompatibility of values .021 .011 Control variables Gender (ref. = female) .016 −.068 Age (in years) −.005 .007 Age² .000 −.000 Duration since immigration (in months) −.002 −.005 Level of education (ref. = none/primary) Secondary .119 .046 Tertiary .146* .082 Pre-post comparison of living situation (ref. = not improved) −.004 −.160*** Observations 1356 1100 Pseudo R² (Nagelkerke) .368 .311 Source: SCIP-project, own calculations Note: * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001; ***; logistic (logit) regression; all models control for city of interview and missing values (effects are not reported) © The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Migration Studies Oxford University Press

One-way or return? Explaining group-specific return intentions of recently arrived Polish and Turkish immigrants in Germany

Migration Studies , Volume Advance Article – Jan 23, 2018

Loading next page...
 
/lp/ou_press/one-way-or-return-explaining-group-specific-return-intentions-of-1G2E5f4kDz
Publisher
Oxford University Press
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com
ISSN
2049-5838
eISSN
2049-5846
D.O.I.
10.1093/migration/mnx073
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Abstract This article analyses return intentions of new migrants on both the individual and the group level. The aim is, firstly, to systemize factors commonly discussed in studies on (re)migration to explain newcomers’ return intentions on the individual level. Secondly, I ask whether these identified factors account for differences in return intentions between two ethnic groups. The hypotheses are tested with data from the SCIP-project (‘Socio-cultural integration processes among new immigrants in Europe’) collected from new Polish and Turkish arrivals in Germany. The findings reveal that initial motives for migration, as well as (economic, social, and cultural) ties to receiving and origin countries, contribute to explaining newcomers’ return plans, whereas perception of ethnic boundaries plays a minor role. Moreover, group-specific return intentions can be explained by the fact that Poles and Turks differ in their motives for migration and their endowment with ties. These findings reflect the impact of the immigration regulations that shape the composition of newcomers migrating to Germany, which, in turn, has an influence on their return intentions. In the conclusion, implications for migration theories are discussed. It is argued that future research should use migration theories in a complementary rather than a competitive way. 1. Introduction In recent years, several European countries have become more and more multi-ethnic due to rising numbers of immigrants (OECD 2014). The public and academic debates about the risks and benefits of increased immigration are rather controversial and primarily revolve around the impact of immigration on social cohesion. These debates generally focus on the question ‘Who enters the country?’ However, it is easily forgotten that this question alone is not enough, because research has shown that large numbers of immigrants do not stay but leave the host country after a relatively short period of time (Constant and Massey 2003: 643). This suggests that the question ‘Who stays in the country, and who leaves?’ is equally important. Research on return migration has been given more attention lately (e.g. Constant and Zimmermann 2012; de Vroome and van Tubergen 2014; Diehl and Liebau 2015). The vast majority of these studies have focused on the explanation of individual-level differences only, whereas explaining group-level differences has been widely neglected (for an exception, see Anniste and Tammaru 2014). This is remarkable because, in his seminal work, Bovenkerk (1974: 44) described ‘the study of return migration as a phenomenon of groups’, and official statistics show that leaving the receiving country is highly group-specific (OECD 2014). I study return migration exemplarily for Polish and Turkish immigrants who have recently arrived in Germany (2009–2011). The first purpose of the study is to describe early patterns of Polish and Turkish migrants’ future migration plans. Secondly, I focus on factors commonly discussed in studies on (re)migration, and I try to find out whether these factors are related to new migrants’ return intentions. Finally, I ask whether some of these identified factors might explain the differing patterns of Polish and Turkish immigrants’ return intentions. Germany is a natural choice for my study because the country has had a rather high inflow of immigrants compared with other European countries over the last few years (OECD 2014). Regarding current inflows, Poles make up the largest group of immigrants migrating to Germany, whereas Turks represent the largest group of immigrants in Germany concerning the stocks (BAMF 2016). Further, and most importantly, a comparison between Polish and Turkish immigrants is promising because the share of potential returnees between these two groups differs highly. This has enabled me to study differences in return migration, not only on the individual, but also on the group level. The presence of Turkish and Polish immigrants in Germany has distinct historical reasons. A bilateral agreement between Germany and Turkey enabled migration of so-called ‘guest workers’, starting in the 1960s, and subsequent family reunification and formation, which is still the main motive of migration among Turkish immigrants nowadays (Fassmann and İçduygu 2013). For Polish immigrants, Germany has always been an important receiving country. In the 1970s, primarily political refugees and ethnic Germans (Aussiedler) moved to Germany. Due to Poland’s EU accession in 2004, Polish migration to Germany has become more economically motivated (Halm et al. 2012). In either case, political change (guest worker programme and accession to the EU) was, among other things, dedicated to facilitate temporary migration between two countries. However, the political project was only successfully implemented in case of Polish–German migration, whereas migration from Turkey to Germany is often of permanent nature. An ideal research design in a study of remigration processes would compare returnees with those new arrivals who remain in the country of immigration for a longer period of time. As such data are not yet available I focus on return migration intentions, instead of return migration behaviour.1 There are some drawbacks to this approach. Some authors have argued that putting a return intention into practice might be influenced by several intervening factors; for example, social, political, or economic barriers. Thus, it remains unclear whether the potential returnees would actually remigrate (Constant and Massey 2002: 23; van den Berg and Weynandt 2013: 249). However, there are convincing arguments for nevertheless focusing on return intentions: Firstly, even if intentions do not predict behaviour perfectly, recent research shows that return intentions are the best proxy for real behaviour (van Dalen and Henkens 2013: 233). Secondly, only the use of return intentions offers the opportunity to examine the interplay between integration, transnationalism, and an immigrant’s decision as to whether to stay or return (Alberts and Hazen 2005: 133). I begin by presenting the paper’s point of departure: empirical evidence concerning group-specific return intentions, based on unique data from the SCIP-project (‘Socio-cultural integration processes among new immigrants in Europe’). The next section presents hypotheses derived from common migration- and integration-related theories. However, the idea is not to conduct a theory test, because the theoretical approaches presented are not mutually exclusive. When studying return intentions in a thorough way all approaches have to be taken into account, as each approach highlights different influencing factors that contribute to the explanation. I systemize these factors along four dimensions (main motive for immigration, ties to the receiving country and the origin country and perception of ethnic boundaries) and additionally explicate theoretical considerations of why Poles and Turks differ in their numbers of potential returnees. Then, operationalization and methodology are described. After displaying descriptive evidence, multivariate analyses are conducted, and main findings are presented. The final section recapitulates the most important aspects of the paper and discusses implications for migration theories. 2. Return intentions of Polish and Turkish newcomers In recent years, increasing numbers of Poles, and still a smaller number of Turks, have migrated to Germany (OECD 2014). However, do these people also intend to stay? In order to obtain a more nuanced picture, I have used novel data from the SCIP-project, which were collected between 2010 and 2013 (Diehl et al. 2015). This survey is a two-wave panel study of approximately 7,000 immigrants between 18 and 60 years of age. It mainly aims at explaining group- and country-specific variation in socio-cultural and socio-structural integration processes. The target population of the project is comprised of recently arrived immigrants in four European countries (Germany, Great Britain, Ireland, and the Netherlands). For my study, I have used the German data from the first wave; a sample was randomly drawn from the population registers of five major cities (Berlin, Bremen, Cologne, Hamburg, and Munich).2 In total, 2,697 face-to-face interviews (CAPI) were conducted with Polish (1,516) and Turkish (1,181) respondents who had been living in the receiving country for up to 1.5 years. Immigrants were contacted and interviewed in their native languages. I excluded 241 (8.9%) respondents because no information on return intentions was available for them.3 Net of these observations with missing values 2,456 respondents remain in the analysis. The dependent variable represents immigrants’ future migration plans and is measured with a categorical variable that divides the respondents into four different groups. A person expects to stay in Germany, plans to return to their country of origin or to another country or wants to live transnationally and moves between Germany and their country of origin. For the purpose of the present study, I have distinguished between immigrants who intend to stay (0) and those in all other categories (1). Thus, if a person does not intend to live in Germany in the future, this is interpreted as an intention to leave the country. Although re-migrating to the country of origin, migrating to a third country, and moving back and forth are not equivalent categories, what these answers have in common is that they indicate a respondent’s intention to leave Germany (at least temporarily). The results reported in Figure 1 reveal clear group differences. When Polish and Turkish immigrants are asked fairly soon after migration to Germany about their future migration plans, the largest share of Turkish respondents plan to stay in Germany (42.1%), whereas only a minority of Polish immigrants want to do so (26.9%). Respondents’ intention to leave Germany is much stronger for Polish newcomers (73.1%) compared with Turkish immigrants (57.9%). Thus, the probability of Poles reporting return intentions is 15.2 percentage points higher than that of Turks. In the next section, theoretical arguments are presented to explain these differences. Figure 1. View largeDownload slide Future migration plans of Polish and Turkish new immigrants in Germany. Source: SCIP-project, own calculations. Figure 1. View largeDownload slide Future migration plans of Polish and Turkish new immigrants in Germany. Source: SCIP-project, own calculations. 3. Theoretical framework An immigrant’s decision to stay or return is a complex phenomenon. In the following section, major influencing factors on return migration (intentions) are introduced. However, it should be noted that no unidirectional relation between integration/transnationalism and migration plans can be assumed. I first present hypotheses concerning explanatory factors that account for individual-level differences. The main purpose here is to condense the numerous factors existent in the research literature and to present a comprehensive but parsimonious explanatory model. In a second step, I formulate theoretical expectations to explain group-level differences, that is, why Poles plan to leave Germany more often than Turks. 3.1 Individual-level differences Whether an immigrant wants to stay permanently in a receiving society depends on a variety of influencing factors, which can be grouped into four categories (for a similar approach, see de Haas, Fokkema, and Fihri 2015): (1) The main motive for initial immigration, (2) the immigrant’s ties to their receiving country, (3) the immigrant’s ties to their sending country, and (4) the immigrant’s perception of ethnic boundaries. 3.1.1 Main motive for immigration Motivations behind initial migration have an important influence on an immigrant’s decision to return or to remain abroad, because these motivations are often associated with a person’s goals and perceptions about medium- and long-term life-planning. However, considering motives for immigration in the theoretical framework is also worthwhile, because even though they are understood as individual characteristics, varying structural conditions are reflected in these motives. Whether migrants develop a certain migration motive highly depends on legal agreements, economic disparities and historical connections between two or more countries, as I will show below. The reasons for migration are diverse and multidimensional. However, three types of migration with different motives can typically be distinguished: education, family, and economic migration4 (Diehl and Preisendörfer 2007: 8). The group of educational migrants mainly includes students who study at German universities associated with the goal to accumulate (transnational) human capital and gain international experience.5 At present, Germany is among the most popular destination countries for international students. This can be attributed to the fact that tuition fees at German state universities are low compared to international practice (Bessey 2012: 346). It can be expected that only a small proportion of foreign students settle in Germany permanently. This mainly results from two issues: According to human capital theory, re-migration may be triggered because human capital acquired during a stay abroad is rewarded more highly in the country of origin than in the host country (Dustmann and Weiss 2007: 246). Further, in Germany, credit mobility (such as a temporary stay with the ERASMUS programme) is much more common than degree mobility (i.e. a longer stay abroad for an entire academic programme) (Alberts and Hazen 2005: 148). Therefore, foreign students entering German universities often take into account returning to their origin country because their stay abroad has presumably been planned for a limited period of time only. The second category, family-related migration, is a heterogeneous one that is comprised of different types of migrants. Family reunification indicates that immediate family members (e.g. spouses, children, and parents) join another primary migrant. Family formation (or marriage migration) exists if citizens or permanent residents bring along a partner from a foreign country and if a (future) spouse follows a descendant of immigrants. Further, the extremely rare case (at least in Western societies nowadays) exists where the whole family migrates at once (Kofman 2004: 246f). Family migrants are usually very likely to express settlement intentions (at least if family members have no plans to return themselves). This can be explained by two basic mechanisms: Firstly, migrants who leave their home country because of family reunification or formation are emotionally bound to the host country because they benefit from living close to their family members (de Jong and Fawcett 1981: 51). Secondly, for family migrants, returning home is usually not an option, because they often rely on other people living in the receiving country who assure their livelihood. Therefore, if the core of a family migrant’s life is not already rooted in the receiving country before migrating, it probably shifts there as a result of migration. This shift implies that newcomers with family motives probably plan to settle permanently in the host country (Diehl and Preisendörfer 2007: 9). Economic migrants who come for work and better income may be distinguished according to their applied strategy in the new country: income-maximizing and target-earning. Considering economically-motivated migrants against the backdrop of neoclassical economics, they are perceived as ‘true economic men’,6 who rationally balance their costs and benefits in order to decide if an act of migration will lead to a greater (financial) net return (Piore 1979: 54). Return migration is the result of miscalculations or the reassessment of (changing) economic conditions. Conditions may change in host and/or origin country. Depending on these developments migrants move to where the return to their human capital is highest. Thus, the decision to migrate is revised because human capital is not rewarded as initially anticipated in the host country or the rewards have increased in the origin country. Whereas, in line with neoclassical economics, remigration is a sign of failed experience abroad, in the logic of the new economics of labour migration, it is the successful end of a calculated plan (Borjas and Bratsberg 1996: 165; Cassarino 2004: 255). In this approach, migration is regarded as a strategy applied by households (not by single individuals) to diversify income risks in order to compensate for market risks (e.g. constraints on insurance and credit markets). ‘Target earners’ are sent abroad coupled with the goal of supporting the family back home by regularly delivering remittances (Taylor 1999: 74f). Consequently, economically-motivated migrants should have an average probability of returning because the category of economic migrants contains two subgroups with different strategies; financially successful (unsuccessful) ‘true economic men’ probably stay (return), whereas ‘target earners’ who succeed (fail) in the labour market are very likely to return (stay). To conclude, whether immigrants stay permanently in the receiving society highly depends on the original reason for immigration. Placed on a continuum from high to low return probability, I suppose that educational migrants have the highest likelihood of returning, followed by economically-motivated migrants, whereas newcomers who have migrated for family reasons only rarely return (H1). Of course, the relationship between the original motive for immigration and return intentions is rather strong; however, it is non-deterministic. Future migration plans also depend on the balance between an immigrant’s ties to the receiving society and their ties to their country of origin (Carling and Pettersen 2014: 14). Previous research has shown that, immediately after immigration, migrants vary considerably in terms of their ties to the receiving country and home country (Diehl and Preisendörfer 2007; Ette, Heß, and Sauer 2016). The theoretical expectation concerning the link between return intentions and immigrants’ ties to their host and origin countries is not always straightforward. Research has revealed that some sorts of ties to the host country as well as to the origin country are negatively associated and others are positively associated with return intentions (de Haas and Fokkema 2011: 776). When presenting the following theoretical argumentation and hypotheses, these diverging views are explicitly taken into account.7 3.1.2 Ties to the receiving country. Proponents of the classical assimilation theories (e.g. Gordon 1964) assume that immigrants’ intentions to return are closely linked to their degree of integration in the host society. Being well-integrated implies having accumulated the receiving country’s resources: that is, economic (e.g. employment), social (e.g. having a partner in the receiving society), and cultural (e.g. speaking the host country’s language) ties.8 Basically, these ties facilitate the achievement of the individuals’ goals in the host society, which, in turn, strengthens their settlement intentions (Diehl and Preisendörfer 2007: 11). Moreover, for integrated immigrants, re-migration is not necessarily worth striving for, because the receiving country’s ties would be exposed to the risk of devaluation, meaning they could not be applied equally in the country of origin (Friedberg 2000: 225). Consequently, there is a negative relationship between the (economic, social, and cultural) ties to the receiving country and the immigrant’s return intentions (H2a). However, being successfully integrated is not necessarily associated with a permanent stay. According to the new economics of labour migration, immigrants are interested in developing their economic ties to the receiving society because a job and sufficient income provide the possibility of financially supporting their relatives at home. After having accumulated enough monetary resources, immigrants aspire to return immediately (de Haas and Fokkema 2011: 759). Certainly, it should not be forgotten that economic ties could also be at least partly endogenous; thus, causality is presumably bidirectional in this case. Further, against the backdrop of a rather accelerated global market situation for human capital, especially highly skilled immigrants try to maximize their profit in the shortest time possible, without establishing other (cultural or social) ties (Massey and Akresh 2006: 969). Following this logic, economic ties to the host country should be positively related to immigrants’ tendency to return (H2b). 3.1.3 Ties to the country of origin. If immigrants maintain a social existence in their home country while staying abroad, they have more to return to. Empirical research shows that, indeed, transnational activities are signs of strengthened return intentions (Haug 2008: 588). From the perspective of the new economics of labour migration, immigrants leave the destination country if their monetary targets have been achieved. Such a strategy allows (or even requires) the maintaining of transnational ties, because these links facilitate later reintegration into the origin country. In this sense, potential returnees arrange their subsequent stage of life by taking care of economic (e.g. sending remittances), social (e.g. regularly visiting their home country) and cultural (e.g. consuming ethnic media) ties to their home country (Cassarino 2004: 262). In line with this reasoning, I expect a positive relationship between the (economic, social, and cultural) home-country ties and immigrants’ return intentions (H3a). Studies of transnationalism proceed on the assumption that immigrants live in transnational fields with ties, sustained exchanges, and constant activities that link together their country of origin and their country of destination (Faist, Fauser, and Reisenauer 2013: 8). Technological advances that create low-priced mobility opportunities and almost unrestricted communication options facilitate these cross-border links. According to this logic, maintaining social ties to the homeland might offer a social network which the receiving country cannot provide, at least shortly after migrating. Resources obtained from these social ties can in that case help to settle in the new country. Therefore, social ties to the origin country are negatively associated with immigrants’ inclination toward returning (H3b). 3.1.4 Perception of ethnic boundaries. Returning or not returning is also a result of perceived boundaries between ethnic majority and minority groups. These ethnic boundaries emerge from acts of social distancing (such as discriminatory behaviour) by majority members towards immigrants (Wimmer 2009: 254). This lack of acceptance gives rise to a lack of opportunity for immigrants in Germany (e.g. in the labour market). Very recent research shows that, indeed, immigrants who are exposed to anti-immigrant sentiments are less prone to settle in their country of destination (de Haas, Fokkema, and Fihri 2015: 12). Hence, I assume that the experience of ethnic boundaries is positively related to return intentions (H4). 3.2 Group-level differences Differences in return intentions between Poles and Turks result from an unequal opportunity structure and a variable distribution of the above-mentioned individual explanatory factors; motives for immigration, (economic, social, and cultural) ties to receiving and sending countries, and perceptions of ethnic boundaries. With regard to the opportunity structure: Poland and Turkey differ with respect to their geographical location and even more importantly, Polish and Turkish immigrants are faced with a legal framework that provides different opportunities to legally enter Germany. Regarding the first aspect, migrating from Germany to Poland is less cost-intensive and less time-consuming (due to geographical proximity) compared with a move from Germany to Turkey. Concerning the second aspect, Turks and Poles migrating to Germany match two different ideal types of migration, which are attributable to varying legal regulations. Engbersen and Snel (2013: 30–35) differentiate between a (‘old’) stable form of migration from the Mediterranean area and a (‘new’) liquid form of migration from Central and Eastern European countries. Whereas the former comprises family migrants with permanent settlement intentions, the latter labels economic migrants, who plan to stay temporarily. Although both types of migration still exist, the authors identify a trend towards more liquid migration, which is due to the disappearance of EU internal borders. Whereas Turks still resemble the ‘old’ type of migrants, Poles are an example for the ‘new’ type. Migrating to Germany for economic reasons is much easier for EU citizens (Poles) compared with third-country nationals (Turks). Due to the guaranteed freedom of movement for workers, EU citizens do not need to have a residence permit when staying in Germany for a longer time. Apart from a few exceptions (e.g. highly qualified employees), moving to Germany as an economic migrant is more difficult for Turks, because, at least for employment that requires approval from the foreigner registration office, a residence permit has to be granted. Such approval is based on Germany’s labour market requirements and is only given if there is a concrete employment proposition (BAMF 2016: 36ff). This would imply that migration from Poland to Germany is more often economically motived than migration from Turkey to Germany. Family-related migration is regulated by the Residence Act (Aufenthaltsgesetz), which is applied to foreigners that are neither EU citizens nor relatives of EU citizens. In order to obtain a residence permit, the subsistence of a person who has already been living in Germany has to be assured. A glance at current numbers concerning visas for the purpose of family migration granted in Germany in 2014 shows that Turkish immigrants still account for the largest share of family migrants (BAMF 2016: 93). Family migration is the most important path to permanent settlement for people from countries that do not belong to the EU. Thus, compared with Polish new arrivals, Turkish immigrants more frequently migrate to Germany for reasons of family. The existing legal framework (limited and free movement) yields two immigrant groups (‘old’ and ‘new’) from different countries (Turkey and Poland) with varying motives for immigration (family and economy). As elaborated above, economic migrants should have a higher tendency to return than family migrants. Therefore, Poles plan to leave Germany more often compared with Turks, because Polish immigrants mainly migrate for economic reasons, whereas the group of Turkish newcomers primarily contains family migrants (H5). Immigrants’ diverging initial motives for migration go along with varying degrees of receiving-country and origin-country ties, that is, specific combinations of migration motives and ties exist. It is plausible to assume that economic migrants, compared with newcomers with all other migration motives, hold a comparatively high degree of both receiving-country and home-country economic ties. Following the idea of the new economics of labour migration, the former serves as a basis for achieving a financial goal in Germany, while maintaining the latter prepares for life after returning. On the supposition that Poles are predominantly migrants with economic motives, it is hypothesized that the average Polish return intention is stronger than that of the Turkish group, because Polish immigrants, compared with Turkish newcomers, have more economic ties to the destination country as well as to their origin country (H6). In addition, it is reasonable to suppose that family migrants have more social ties to the receiving country and fewer ties to the home country, in comparison to other groups of immigrants. This is obviously the case because relatives had already been living in Germany before migration. Assuming that Turks are mostly family migrants, Poles plan to leave Germany more often than Turks, because Polish immigrants have more (less) social ties to the home (receiving) country, whereas, for Turks, it is the exact opposite (H7). There is reason to assume that cultural ties do not contribute to explaining differences in group-specific return intentions. Whereas the two immigrant groups should clearly differ with respect to economic and social ties (even before the act of migration), this is not the case for cultural ties. The short period after arrival is not enough to develop distinct group differences. As a result, I postulate that cultural ties are not associated with the group-specific return intentions of Poles and Turks (H8). As argued above, return intentions should be influenced by ethnic boundaries; these are quite different for Turkish and Polish immigrants in Germany. As in other European countries, ethnic boundaries are predominantly defined on religious terms (Foner and Alba 2008). Whereas Poles (mainly Catholic) are spared from critical discourse Turks (generally Muslim) are exposed to an ongoing public debate about Muslims’ alleged reluctance to actively integrate into the German society. An example provides the debate surrounding the Muslim immigration-sceptical book Deutschland schafft sich ab (Germany abolishes itself).9 This and other controversial debates are reflected in the more pronounced social distance of natives towards Turks in comparison to other groups (Wasmer 2013: 182) and the more frequently reported discrimination of Turkish immigrants (Hans 2010: 286). Thus, in contrast to Polish immigrants, Turks are faced with a negative climate that presumably influences their future migration plans. I expect that group-level differences between Polish and Turkish immigrants even increase, taking into account that Poles perceive ethnic boundaries as less strong than Turks do (H9).10 Finally, the varying legal framework for Poles and Turks might also lead to selection effects on unobserved characteristics. For instance, entering Germany through different migration channels creates groups that are associated with different personality traits. Compared with Turkish immigrants, Polish immigrants are more often pioneer migrants, who can be described as bringing along a thirst for adventure, having a high level of self-efficacy and possessing high aspirations (van Dalen and Henkens 2013: 233). These characteristics again can possibly have an influence on return migration intentions. 4. Method Data from the SCIP-project and the construction of the dependent variable have already been described above. In this section, independent variables and the analytical strategy are presented. My modelling approach directly follows my theoretical discussion; that is, all independent variables are derived from the theoretical argumentation stated above. I have distinguished between four dimensions of explanatory factors that may have an impact on an immigrant’s decision to leave or not to leave Germany. A person’s initial motive for migrating to Germany is captured with four categories. Respondents have migrated for economic reasons (0), such as working and earning money in Germany; immigrants have planned on participating in the educational system (1), for example, studying in Germany or taking language classes; or the main motive was family-related (2), for example, marriage or joining another family member. A residual category encompasses all other possible reasons as well as mixed motives (3). Receiving- and origin-country ties come in three forms, that is: economic, social, and cultural ties. Economic ties to the receiving country are measured by means of four variables. Respondents were asked about their current employment status. Answer categories were working (0), unemployed (1), and other status (2). The last category is a heterogeneous one that is comprised of all other activities. For currently employed respondents, a five-point scale ranging from ‘very dissatisfied’ to ‘very satisfied’ measures someone’s satisfaction with their occupation and the associated income. As settlement intentions are dependent on a partner’s economic status as well, the partner’s employment status is captured in a manner similar to the interviewee’s employment status. The presence of friends and relatives in Germany is used to capture newcomers’ social ties to the host country. A dummy variable indicates whether the respondent had already known people in Germany before moving there. I have further taken into account the ethnic composition of the respondent’s five closest friends in Germany. The number of German friends (based on their country of birth) is measured on a scale ranging from 0 (no German friends at all) to 1 (all the closest friends are German). I have also included a variable concerning the existence of a partner in Germany (regardless of whether or not they are living in the respondent’s household). If a respondent’s partner currently lives outside Germany but plans to migrate within the next 12 months, this counts as having a partner in Germany. Respondents were also asked about the presence of children in Germany. Immigrants with at least one child in the host country are coded 1, everybody else receives a 0. Cultural ties to the country of destination are displayed by an immigrant’s German language proficiency and their usage of the media of the receiving country. The first indicator is a subjective self-reported measure. The continuous variable contains a scale from ‘not speaking German at all’ (0) to ‘speaking German very well’ (3). Cultural consumption of German media was computed by using three questions about an individual’s media-consuming behaviour (reading German printed or online newspapers, watching German-language television, and listening to music by German artists). I coded the highest value observed among the three. Answers range on a scale from ‘never’ (0) to ‘every day’ (4). Two variables have been employed to investigate the influence of economic ties to the origin country on return intentions. The effect of remittances has been tested with a dummy variable. The first category contains immigrants remitting for personal savings, for instance, for themself or to financially support their partner in their country of origin (1). The second category subsumes respondents who do not remit at all and those who do remit but to other people, such as parents or friends (0). An additional explanatory factor is the ownership of property in the country of origin (such as land, an apartment, or a house). Further, social ties to the country of origin are quantified by making use of three variables. As an indicator of closeness to friends and relatives in the home country, I have included a categorical variable that indicates whether an immigrant has visited their country of origin since moving to Germany. The variable is recoded into three categories: ‘no trips’ (0), ‘less than 10 trips’ (1), and ‘10 or more trips’ (2). The dimension is further represented by two dummy variables, which indicate whether the respondents have a partner and/or children in their country of origin (1) or not (0). Cultural ties to the home country are gathered in the following way:11 Cultural consumption of Polish/Turkish media is constructed analogously to German media consumption. Further, an immigrant’s degree of religiosity is taken into account as a cultural dimension of ties to the home country, because access to religious infrastructure is easier to obtain in the country of origin. The measurement of religiosity is based on an individual’s self-reporting. Answer categories range on a four-point scale from ‘not religious at all’ (0) to ‘very religious’ (3). The perception of ethnic boundaries is measured in terms of three indicators. Immigrants’ perceived group discrimination ranges from ‘never’ to (0) ‘very often’ (4). A dummy indicates whether respondents have experienced some form of personal discrimination. In addition, respondents were asked a question about the incompatibility of the values of Germans and Poles/Turks. The continuous variable contains a five-point scale ranging from ‘low incompatibility’ to ‘high incompatibility’. I have additionally controlled for other factors known to influence return intentions, such as gender to capture gender-specific patterns. I have also incorporated a measure of age (and age squared) that is a continuous variable measured in years.12 Duration since immigration was measured in months, based on date of immigration and date of interview. Respondents had to report their highest level of completed education in their home country and in Germany. In order to facilitate comparisons between education obtained in the country of origin and the receiving country, I constructed three categories: none/primary, secondary, and tertiary. Further, I have taken into account a comparison of pre- and post-migration life situations. Respondents were prompted to compare their current life situation with that in their home country. Immigrants who evaluated the step to move to Germany positively from a retrospective point of view (1) have been tested against all those who stated that their life in Germany was about the same or (much) worse (0). Finally, I have controlled for differences among the interview cities and the missing values of all independent variables.13 Hypotheses concerning individual-level differences were first assessed in separate logistic (logit) regression models for each explanatory dimension. The models include both Polish and Turkish immigrants. In a second step, all explanatory factors were examined in an integrated model to test whether the identified associations still existed when other explanatory dimensions are controlled. Following this, I tested hypotheses for group-level differences by indicating gross and net differences (after controlling for certain explanatory dimensions) in return intentions between Poles and Turks. To simplify interpretation, I present average marginal effects (AME). The advantage of AME in comparison to regression coefficients and odds ratios is an intuitive interpretation and the opportunity to compare the effects of one model with another. A comparison is feasible because AME are not affected by unobserved heterogeneity (Mood 2010: 78). AME indicate by how many percentage points a dependent variable changes when an independent variable increases by one unit, while all other explaining factors are held constant (Auspurg and Hinz 2011: 66). 5. Empirical findings Before turning to the explanation of group-specific return intentions, the effects of all four explanatory dimensions on immigrants’ mobility plans are empirically tested. 5.1 Individual-level differences In Table 1, Model 1 examines the influence of the initial migration motive on return intentions. The findings are in line with Hypothesis 1: Family migrants are especially prone to stay, whereas educational migrants usually intend to return after finishing their studies abroad. As expected, economic migrants’ probability of returning falls in between those of the two other groups. Table 1. Explanatory factors of intentions to leave Germany (average marginal effects) M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 Main motive for immigration     Reasons for migration (ref. = economic)         Education 0.092* 0.110*         Family –0.313*** –0.148***         Mixed or other reasons –0.269*** –0.163*** Ties to the receiving country Economic ties     Employment status (ref. = working)         Unemployed –0.085 –0.049         Other status 0.018 –0.003     Satisfied with current job –0.045* –0.051**     Satisfied with current earnings 0.030* 0.031     Partner’s employment status (ref. = working)         Unemployed –0.042 –0.031         Other status 0.064* 0.067* Social ties     People known before immigration in Germany 0.006 0.013     Proportion of German friends in Germany –0.128*** –0.111**     Partner in Germany –0.471*** –0.163     Children in Germany –0.024 –0.012 Cultural ties     German language proficiency –0.026 –0.028     Consumption of German media –0.057*** –0.046*** Ties to the country of origin Economic ties     Remitting to Poland/ Turkey (personal savings) 0.126* 0.096     Property in Poland/Turkey 0.127*** 0.111*** Social ties     Trips to Poland/Turkey since migration (ref. = no trips)         Less than 10 trips 0.076** 0.036         10 or more trips 0.157*** 0.123**     Partner in Poland/Turkey 0.370*** 0.198     Children in Poland/Turkey –0.048 –0.076 Cultural ties     Consumption of Polish/ Turkish media 0.046*** 0.040***     Religiosity 0.002 0.034** Perception of ethnic boundaries     Group discrimination 0.037** 0.015     Experienced discrimination –0.014 0.010     Incompatibility of values 0.018 0.019 Control variables     Gender (ref. = female) 0.018 –0.003 0.026 0.068** –0.014     Age (in years) –0.015 –0.004 –0.034*** –0.035*** –0.000     Age² 0.000* 0.000 0.000*** 0.001*** 0.000     Duration since immigration (in months) –0.003 –0.001 –0.007** –0.005* –0.004     Level of education (ref. = none/primary)         Secondary 0.036 0.071* 0.066 0.076* 0.049         Tertiary 0.074* 0.144*** 0.128*** 0.158*** 0.088*     Pre–post comparison of living situation (ref. = not improved) –0.076*** –0.086*** –0.086*** –0.083*** –0.077*** Observations 2456 2456 2456 2456 2456 Pseudo R² (Nagelkerke) 0.211 0.265 0.202 0.117 0.333 M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 Main motive for immigration     Reasons for migration (ref. = economic)         Education 0.092* 0.110*         Family –0.313*** –0.148***         Mixed or other reasons –0.269*** –0.163*** Ties to the receiving country Economic ties     Employment status (ref. = working)         Unemployed –0.085 –0.049         Other status 0.018 –0.003     Satisfied with current job –0.045* –0.051**     Satisfied with current earnings 0.030* 0.031     Partner’s employment status (ref. = working)         Unemployed –0.042 –0.031         Other status 0.064* 0.067* Social ties     People known before immigration in Germany 0.006 0.013     Proportion of German friends in Germany –0.128*** –0.111**     Partner in Germany –0.471*** –0.163     Children in Germany –0.024 –0.012 Cultural ties     German language proficiency –0.026 –0.028     Consumption of German media –0.057*** –0.046*** Ties to the country of origin Economic ties     Remitting to Poland/ Turkey (personal savings) 0.126* 0.096     Property in Poland/Turkey 0.127*** 0.111*** Social ties     Trips to Poland/Turkey since migration (ref. = no trips)         Less than 10 trips 0.076** 0.036         10 or more trips 0.157*** 0.123**     Partner in Poland/Turkey 0.370*** 0.198     Children in Poland/Turkey –0.048 –0.076 Cultural ties     Consumption of Polish/ Turkish media 0.046*** 0.040***     Religiosity 0.002 0.034** Perception of ethnic boundaries     Group discrimination 0.037** 0.015     Experienced discrimination –0.014 0.010     Incompatibility of values 0.018 0.019 Control variables     Gender (ref. = female) 0.018 –0.003 0.026 0.068** –0.014     Age (in years) –0.015 –0.004 –0.034*** –0.035*** –0.000     Age² 0.000* 0.000 0.000*** 0.001*** 0.000     Duration since immigration (in months) –0.003 –0.001 –0.007** –0.005* –0.004     Level of education (ref. = none/primary)         Secondary 0.036 0.071* 0.066 0.076* 0.049         Tertiary 0.074* 0.144*** 0.128*** 0.158*** 0.088*     Pre–post comparison of living situation (ref. = not improved) –0.076*** –0.086*** –0.086*** –0.083*** –0.077*** Observations 2456 2456 2456 2456 2456 Pseudo R² (Nagelkerke) 0.211 0.265 0.202 0.117 0.333 Source: SCIP-project, own calculations. Notes: * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001; ***logistic (logit) regression; all models control for ethnic origin, city of interview and missing values (effects are not reported). Table 1. Explanatory factors of intentions to leave Germany (average marginal effects) M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 Main motive for immigration     Reasons for migration (ref. = economic)         Education 0.092* 0.110*         Family –0.313*** –0.148***         Mixed or other reasons –0.269*** –0.163*** Ties to the receiving country Economic ties     Employment status (ref. = working)         Unemployed –0.085 –0.049         Other status 0.018 –0.003     Satisfied with current job –0.045* –0.051**     Satisfied with current earnings 0.030* 0.031     Partner’s employment status (ref. = working)         Unemployed –0.042 –0.031         Other status 0.064* 0.067* Social ties     People known before immigration in Germany 0.006 0.013     Proportion of German friends in Germany –0.128*** –0.111**     Partner in Germany –0.471*** –0.163     Children in Germany –0.024 –0.012 Cultural ties     German language proficiency –0.026 –0.028     Consumption of German media –0.057*** –0.046*** Ties to the country of origin Economic ties     Remitting to Poland/ Turkey (personal savings) 0.126* 0.096     Property in Poland/Turkey 0.127*** 0.111*** Social ties     Trips to Poland/Turkey since migration (ref. = no trips)         Less than 10 trips 0.076** 0.036         10 or more trips 0.157*** 0.123**     Partner in Poland/Turkey 0.370*** 0.198     Children in Poland/Turkey –0.048 –0.076 Cultural ties     Consumption of Polish/ Turkish media 0.046*** 0.040***     Religiosity 0.002 0.034** Perception of ethnic boundaries     Group discrimination 0.037** 0.015     Experienced discrimination –0.014 0.010     Incompatibility of values 0.018 0.019 Control variables     Gender (ref. = female) 0.018 –0.003 0.026 0.068** –0.014     Age (in years) –0.015 –0.004 –0.034*** –0.035*** –0.000     Age² 0.000* 0.000 0.000*** 0.001*** 0.000     Duration since immigration (in months) –0.003 –0.001 –0.007** –0.005* –0.004     Level of education (ref. = none/primary)         Secondary 0.036 0.071* 0.066 0.076* 0.049         Tertiary 0.074* 0.144*** 0.128*** 0.158*** 0.088*     Pre–post comparison of living situation (ref. = not improved) –0.076*** –0.086*** –0.086*** –0.083*** –0.077*** Observations 2456 2456 2456 2456 2456 Pseudo R² (Nagelkerke) 0.211 0.265 0.202 0.117 0.333 M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 Main motive for immigration     Reasons for migration (ref. = economic)         Education 0.092* 0.110*         Family –0.313*** –0.148***         Mixed or other reasons –0.269*** –0.163*** Ties to the receiving country Economic ties     Employment status (ref. = working)         Unemployed –0.085 –0.049         Other status 0.018 –0.003     Satisfied with current job –0.045* –0.051**     Satisfied with current earnings 0.030* 0.031     Partner’s employment status (ref. = working)         Unemployed –0.042 –0.031         Other status 0.064* 0.067* Social ties     People known before immigration in Germany 0.006 0.013     Proportion of German friends in Germany –0.128*** –0.111**     Partner in Germany –0.471*** –0.163     Children in Germany –0.024 –0.012 Cultural ties     German language proficiency –0.026 –0.028     Consumption of German media –0.057*** –0.046*** Ties to the country of origin Economic ties     Remitting to Poland/ Turkey (personal savings) 0.126* 0.096     Property in Poland/Turkey 0.127*** 0.111*** Social ties     Trips to Poland/Turkey since migration (ref. = no trips)         Less than 10 trips 0.076** 0.036         10 or more trips 0.157*** 0.123**     Partner in Poland/Turkey 0.370*** 0.198     Children in Poland/Turkey –0.048 –0.076 Cultural ties     Consumption of Polish/ Turkish media 0.046*** 0.040***     Religiosity 0.002 0.034** Perception of ethnic boundaries     Group discrimination 0.037** 0.015     Experienced discrimination –0.014 0.010     Incompatibility of values 0.018 0.019 Control variables     Gender (ref. = female) 0.018 –0.003 0.026 0.068** –0.014     Age (in years) –0.015 –0.004 –0.034*** –0.035*** –0.000     Age² 0.000* 0.000 0.000*** 0.001*** 0.000     Duration since immigration (in months) –0.003 –0.001 –0.007** –0.005* –0.004     Level of education (ref. = none/primary)         Secondary 0.036 0.071* 0.066 0.076* 0.049         Tertiary 0.074* 0.144*** 0.128*** 0.158*** 0.088*     Pre–post comparison of living situation (ref. = not improved) –0.076*** –0.086*** –0.086*** –0.083*** –0.077*** Observations 2456 2456 2456 2456 2456 Pseudo R² (Nagelkerke) 0.211 0.265 0.202 0.117 0.333 Source: SCIP-project, own calculations. Notes: * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001; ***logistic (logit) regression; all models control for ethnic origin, city of interview and missing values (effects are not reported). Model 2 contains all variables related to host-country ties. Regarding economic ties, it reveals mixed results. The difference between employed and unemployed newcomers (and their partners) concerning their return intention is—in contrast to previous research (Diehl and Preisendörfer 2007: 22)—not statistically significant. The reason for this could be that the quality of the job is decisive, not the employment per se. Indeed, (dis)satisfaction with the current job and the associated income plays a substantial role. However, the findings are rather inconsistent: In the logic of neoclassical economics, job satisfaction increases the chance of remaining in Germany. By contrast, satisfaction with current earnings enhances the chance of leaving the country. This finding can be interpreted in the sense of the new economics of labour migration. Satisfaction with a certain income level also means being closer to the anticipated income goal in the receiving society, which, in turn, is associated with leaving the country. Thus, economic ties to the receiving country are neither clearly positively nor negatively associated with return intentions. This finding of failure and success being both or not at all related to returning corresponds to earlier research in different European host countries (de Haas and Fokkema 2011: 776; Snel et al. 2015: 18). Social ties to Germany are important for newcomers’ return intentions. Whereas pre-migration contacts are unrelated to future migration plans, the number of German friends plays a decisive role for new arrivals’ mobility decisions. Poles’ and Turks’ numbers of German friends is negatively related to the intention to return. Again, it is worth mentioning that the causal direction of the found relationship is not evident. The findings further reveal that relationships to close people (such as partners and children) in Germany are important for explaining return intentions. However, only the effect of the residence of a partner reached significance. Having a partner in Germany is positively associated with settlement intentions, whereas the presence of children appears to have no impact. All effects of cultural ties to Germany point in the expected direction. Surprisingly, potential stayers and returners do not differ significantly in their self-reported German language skills. This contrasts with previous research that found a negative correlation between destination language abilities and return intentions (Gundel and Peters 2008: 773). It is reasonable to assume that this is the case because differences in language proficiency are more distinct when immigrants have been in the country for a longer time. As expected, exposure to German media enhances the probability of intending to stay in the receiving country. To conclude, Hypothesis 2a is only partially supported: Whereas having social and cultural ties to the host society increases the chance of staying, the pattern for economic ties to the host country is less obvious. It follows logically that the alternative Hypothesis 2b has to be rejected; economic ties to the receiving country do not unequivocally promote return intentions. In Model 3, the influence of ties to the origin country is considered. If immigrants maintain economic ties, such as sending remittances for personal savings and having property in their country of origin, their chance of returning home increases. Regarding social ties, another way to prepare for a subsequent phase of life in Poland/Turkey is to visit friends or relatives living in the country of origin. In fact, travelling home is positively associated with immigrants’ intentions of returning. The chance of expressing return intentions is especially high if newcomers have been visiting their home country very often (10 or more times since immigration). As theoretically expected immigrants with a partner living in Poland/Turkey often express intentions to leave the receiving society. Surprisingly, and unlike previous results (Constant and Massey 2002: 22), immigrants with children in the country of origin are not more inclined to leave Germany. Cultural ties to the origin country also explain patterns of return migration. As expected, a higher consumption of Polish/Turkish media corresponds with the tendency to leave Germany. Cultural ties, in the form of religiosity, do not have the presumed effect on future migration plans. Altogether, Hypothesis 3a can be confirmed; that is, if immigrants maintain (economic, social, and cultural) ties to their country of origin, they are more prone to return. Cause and effect might also be reversed; newcomers who already intend to return may be more inclined to uphold transnational ties to allow later reintegration into their origin countries. Accordingly, upholding social ties to the home country does not serve as a tool to settle in Germany; hence, Hypothesis 3b has been falsified. Model 4 provides information on the relation between immigrants’ experiences of ethnic boundaries and their return intentions. Perceived group discrimination is associated with a higher chance of leaving Germany. However, personal discrimination and perceived differences in values are not related to immigrants’ future migration plans. Therefore, Hypothesis 4 (that the experience of ethnic boundaries is associated with mobility decisions) is not definitely supported by the results. The final model simultaneously includes all explanatory variables. Primarily, deviations from the results of the separate models are discussed here. After considering all explanatory factors, the effect of satisfaction with income narrowly misses significance (p = 0.052). Likewise, no more effects have been found for the two variables concerning the residence of a partner. However, a more detailed analysis (not reported here) shows that having a partner in Germany and having a partner in Poland/Turkey correlates highly (−0.39). If one of these variables is omitted, the other one turns statistically significant. Once all other variables were controlled for, sending remittances lost significance (p = 0.065). As opposed to making at least 10 trips to the country of origin after migrating, travelling home a few times (less than 10 trips to Poland/Turkey) no longer has an effect on return intentions. When all variables are taken into account, the effect of religiosity turns statistically significant, which confirms the theoretical expectations; namely, that immigrants with stronger cultural ties to their origin country show a higher frequency of leaving Germany. The effect of group discrimination diminishes and thus is irrelevant for the explanation of future migration plans. Overall, the results of each explanatory dimension in the common model confirm the findings of the separate models. Among the control variables, no gender or age differences have been found. For new arrivals, the length of stay makes no significant difference in deciding whether to stay or to return. More highly educated immigrants (with tertiary education) are significantly more prone to leave Germany compared to all other educational groups. This pattern is in line with the findings of previous research on remigration (Kuhlenkasper and Steinhardt 2012: 30f). Finally, a positively evaluated comparison of pre- and post-migration situation decreases the chance of returning. In total, the model fit is appropriate (Pseudo R2 = 0.333) and indicates that the specified model is parsimonious as well as sufficiently comprehensive. To conclude, I present evidence of heterogeneity among (return) migrants by calculating predicted values of expressing return intentions for two extreme cases of respondents. Predicted values were calculated based on Model 5; if not indicated differently, independent variables are held constant at the mean. The predicted value of a highly qualified exchange student without any German friends, who consumes ethnic media every day, amounts to 90.2 per cent. By contrast, the estimated return probability of a woman migrating for family reasons, and who is unemployed, lives with a partner in Germany, does not remit, and has a low level of education, is just 40.9 per cent. 5.2 Group-level differences In the following, hypotheses on group-level differences are tested. Figure 2 displays gross and net differences in return intentions between Polish and Turkish immigrants (referred to as the ‘ethnicity effect’). The explanatory dimensions have been examined in separate models in order to avoid multicollinearity. For a detailed overview of all the calculated models displayed in Figure 2, see Appendix (Table A3). For two models that separately analyse the effects for Polish and Turkish immigrants, see Appendix (Table A4). The effects presented illustrate the differences in the return probabilities between the two groups, while simultaneously controlling for different explanatory dimensions (net differences). A negative ‘ethnicity effect’ indicates that Turks have a lower chance of returning than Poles, whereas a positive ‘ethnicity effect’ shows the opposite. The basic model confirms the previous bivariate findings (gross differences): After considering control variables, Turks have a likelihood of returning that is nine percentage points lower than that of Poles (Model 1). In the following models, the roles of all four explanatory dimensions are reviewed in order to assess why new Polish and Turkish migrants differ in their numbers of potential returnees. Figure 2. View largeDownload slide Gross and net differences in return intentions between Polish and Turkish new immigrants (average marginal effects). Source: SCIP-project, own calculations. Notes: Black bar, p < 0.05; grey bar, p ≥ 0.05; RC, receiving country; CO, country of origin. Reference category: Poles. All models also take control variables into account. Figure 2. View largeDownload slide Gross and net differences in return intentions between Polish and Turkish new immigrants (average marginal effects). Source: SCIP-project, own calculations. Notes: Black bar, p < 0.05; grey bar, p ≥ 0.05; RC, receiving country; CO, country of origin. Reference category: Poles. All models also take control variables into account. As theoretically supposed, if the motive for immigration is taken into account, the ‘ethnicity effect’ becomes positive and insignificant (Model 2). Thus, the results provide evidence for Hypothesis 5: Differences in return intentions are connected to the fact that Poles are predominantly economic migrants and Turks mainly migrate for family reasons. Further, after taking economic ties to Germany into consideration, the two groups no longer differ from each other with respect to their future migration plans (Model 3). The ‘ethnicity effect’ has also been reduced by controlling for economic ties to the origin country, but the group difference is still significant (Model 4). Therefore, Hypothesis 6 is only partially supported: While economic ties to the host country help to explain group-specific return intentions, economic ties to Poland/Turkey play a minor role. A possible explanation has to take into account that even if, for Poles, owning a house provides a rather strong incentive to return someday, this is not necessarily the case for Turks. Many travel agencies specialize in facilitating journeys from Germany to Turkey (Ehrkamp 2005: 346). Thus, homeownership in the origin country can function exclusively for the purposes of a holiday home or as an additional source of income. Unfortunately, the data provide no information about the particular use of the property. As hypothesized, differences in social ties account for group-specific return intentions (Model 5 and 6). Hypothesis 7 has been confirmed: The average return intention of Poles is stronger than that of the Turkish group because the two groups possess opposing patterns of social ties. Whereas the social circles of Turks predominantly live in Germany, Polish immigrants have much stronger social bonds in their home country. I expected that cultural ties would not be responsible for group differences in return intentions. This applied to receiving-country ties, but not to origin-country ties (Model 7 and 8). When controlling for home-country cultural ties, group-level differences increase slightly. This is a result of Turkish immigrants’ more frequent use of ethnic media. The finding reflects previous research and reveals that Turks use German and home-country media complementarily, but, compared with other immigrant groups, the consumption of ethnic media is still prevailing (Geißler and Weber-Menges 2013: 280). Thus, the results support Hypothesis 8, but to a limited extent. The final hypothesis states that, taking perceived ethnic boundaries into account, group-specific differences would increase because Turks are faced with a particularly negative climate in Germany. The ‘ethnicity effect’ does not change fundamentally (Model 9). Therefore, Hypothesis 9 has been refuted. An alternative explanation would be that ethnic boundaries are not perceived as group-specific from the beginning, but only after a certain period of residence. Research shows that the perception of ethnic boundaries develops differently for the two groups investigated: Poles report rather stable experiences of group discrimination over time, whereas Turkish immigrants perceive more acts of discrimination (Diehl, Fischer-Neumann, and Mühlau 2016). This suggests that the non-existent influence of perceived ethnic boundaries on return intentions only applies to the special case of recent migrants. After considering all the variables, the ‘ethnicity effect’ has changed direction and has become statistically significant (Model 10). In other words, if both immigrant groups had similar motives for migration, were endowed with the same kind of ties, and perceived ethnic boundaries equally, Turks would have a chance of leaving Germany seven percentage points higher than Poles. 6. Conclusion and discussion Migration and re-migration are rather common phenomena in contemporary Europe. Over the past few years, Germany in particular has experienced rising numbers of inflows and outflows. In order to gain some insight into this, I have offered a systematic perspective on explanatory factors of the return intentions of recently arrived Polish and Turkish immigrants. What are the main findings of my study? The first part is concerned with individual-level differences. Almost all the dimensions identified contributed to the explanations of newcomers’ future migration plans. Whether immigrants settle permanently or plan to leave their host country depends foremost on their initial motive for migration: As expected, the return of educational migrants was very likely. Family migrants intended to return only in rare cases. Economic migrants’ chance of returning lay in between those of the other groups. In addition, ties to the host country played a decisive role for new immigrants’ remigration. Whereas economic ties were both positively and negatively linked to return plans, strong social and cultural ties indicated stronger settlement intentions. Furthermore, findings revealed that all forms of home-country ties enhanced the chance of leaving Germany. At least for recent immigrants, perceived boundaries between majority and minority groups did not explain individual variance in future mobility plans. In the second part, group-level differences were examined. The starting point was to show that group-specific return intentions existed. Poles’ share of potential returnees is substantially higher than the proportion of Turks who planned to return (namely, by 15.2 percentage points). The analysis shows that group-specific return intentions are mainly attributable to differences in four dimensions (and their corresponding variables): motives for immigration (economic- and family-related reasons for migration), economic ties to the receiving country (employment status, satisfaction with job and earnings), social ties to the host (proportion of German friends in Germany, partner in Germany) and the origin countries (trips to Poland/Turkey since migration, partner in Poland/Turkey). This finding mainly reflects the impact of the political regulations that shape the composition of newcomers migrating to Germany. Polish and Turkish immigrants have access to different migration channels; whereas Poles (EU citizens) benefit from the free movement for workers in the EU, Turks (third-country nationals) rely on the restrictions of the Residence Act. Both laws are key parts of the German Immigration Act of 2005. This has led to the fact that people migrating from the two countries differ substantially in their motives for migration and their endowment with ties, which, in turn, has an influence on their future migration plans. What are the shortcomings of my study? The first weakness is concerned with the problem of causality. In the theoretical part, it is argued that all explanatory dimensions influence the explanandum. However, it is not certain whether causal effects actually run exclusively in the specified direction. Deterministic interpretations should be avoided because endogeneity problems cannot be ruled out; hence, explanatory factors reflect respondents’ return intentions at least to a certain extent. In order to overcome such problems, future research should apply a longitudinal perspective that is better suited to test causal inferences. Secondly, the study suffers from the problem of selectivity. The sample used is probably skewed, as up to 18 months have passed between the date of respondent arrival and the date of survey interview. It cannot be ruled out that a specific group of immigrants with a particularly short length of stay (e.g. seasonal workers) is under-represented, because they would have already left the country before an interview was possible. What do the results mean for theories of (re)migration? The findings do not unequivocally support a single theory. Some immigrants follow the idea of neoclassical economics (e.g. satisfaction with one’s current job has a negative effect on returning), others operate according to the logic of the new economics of labour migration (e.g. satisfaction with one’s own earnings is positively associated with leaving the country) and others again correspond with the assumptions of transnationalism (e.g. maintaining economic, social, and cultural ties to one’s origin country is positively related to return intentions). Particular theories of migration always refer to specific groups of (return) migrants: Supporters of neoclassical economics assume that migrants are ‘true economic men’. Following the new economics of labour migration means thinking of migrants as ‘target earners’. Being attached to transnationalism implicates the consideration of migrants as ‘transnational migrants’. Hence, every theory of migration is only capable of explaining the (re)migration of one group. However, as empirical findings suggest, the group of recently arrived immigrants in Germany is very much heterogeneous. Consequently, there is no single theory that has the ability to satisfactorily explain Polish and Turkish newcomers’ remigration intentions. What are the conclusions for future research on (re)migration? From the analysis of individual-level differences, I have concluded that the purpose of future research on migration is to overcome the competitive use of migration theories (at least when it comes to explaining the migration processes of heterogeneous groups). Instead, it is appropriate to apply migration theories in a complementary way, which allows one to explain one aspect of migration movements with one theory and another part with another. Few researchers have acknowledged this necessity; for instance, de Haas and colleagues (2015: 427) emphasized ‘that there is no uniform process of (return) migration’ and ‘future research should pay more attention to the heterogeneity of migrants’. The first promising step in this direction was undertaken by Carling and Pettersen (2014) in their development of the so-called ‘integration-transnationalism matrix’, which takes into account the relative strength of ties to the receiving country and ties to the origin country and their influence on return migration. Further, the analysis of group-level differences shows that a lot of migration theories have blind spots because the pre-structuring of (return) migration processes through immigration regulations is not sufficiently considered. Future research should take into consideration the ideas of a structural approach, which conceives of return migration as ‘not only a personal issue, but above all a social and contextual one, affected by situational and structural factors’ (Cassarino 2004: 257). Qualitative research on re-migration provides evidence for this assumption and Şenyürekli and Menjívar (2012: 15) have highlighted ‘that seemingly individual decisions are influenced by […] the broader structural context (e.g. immigration policies […])’. Consequently, future research should start to combine individual-level data with structural-level data (particularly immigration regulations) when analysing (group-specific) re-migration. Finally, future research should consider that the outcomes regarding economic ties to the receiving country mirror the findings of other recent studies, which provide anything but consistent results (e.g. de Vroome and van Tubergen 2014; de Haas, Fokkema, and Fihri 2015). Thus, researchers should examine the relation between economic ties and migration plans more closely by focusing on the effects of economic ties in relative terms (e.g. a comparison of pre- and post-migration employment status). Furthermore, it is important to notice that mobility decisions are not stable and may change over time (Erdal and Ezzati 2015). Interesting questions would be: What kinds of immigrants change their migration plans at a later point in time? What kinds of mechanisms are responsible for this change of mind? Acknowledgements I would like to thank Silke Hans, Claudia Diehl, the anonymous reviewers and the editors of Migration Studies for their helpful comments and suggestions for an earlier version of this article. I owe special thanks to Lea Voges. Conflict of interest statement: None declared. Footnotes 1. Nonetheless, I have used the expressions ‘return’ and ‘intending to return’ (and equivalent terms) interchangeably in this paper. 2. For practical reasons drawing a national probability sample was not possible. 77.1 per cent of the Turkish and only 50.7 per cent of the Polish population reside in urban areas. If immigrants living in rural areas had been surveyed, predominantly Polish seasonal workers (with a short length of stay) would have been added to the sample (Gresser and Schacht 2015: 6). Including this group in the analysis would presumably have strengthened the effects found. Therefore, the conducted analysis is a rather conservative approach. 3. An analysis (not reported here) showed that these omitted cases are not different from those that remain in the analysis with regard to relevant explanatory factors. 4. A fourth type of migration that is often differentiated is politically motivated. However, this form has been neglected here because (at least during the sample period) it is limited in number (BAMF 2016: 27). 5. However, this category also contains numerically less important subgroups, such as language course participants and people who migrated for vocational education and training. 6. Nowadays, Piore’s terminology of the ‘true economic man’ (1979) sounds out-dated because it can obviously be used to describe any sex. However, the term still creates a reference to the theory of neoclassical economics. 7. I further assume that having distinct transnational ties is entirely compatible with being integrated into the receiving society (for a theoretical argumentation, see Faist, Fauser, and Reisenauer 2013; for empirical evidence, for Norway, see Carling and Pettersen 2014, for the Netherlands, see Engbersen et al. 2013). 8. The differentiation of these dimensions of integration can be found in several constitutive papers that address immigrants’ integration processes (e.g. Yinger 1994). The fourth dimension, identificational integration, has been omitted here because the causal direction between this dimension and the explanandum is particularly unclear. 9. For an overview of this debate, initiated by the German politician Thilo Sarrazin in 2010, and an analysis how natives’ migration-related attitudes changed during this debate, see Diehl and Steinmann (2012). 10. For an overview of all the hypotheses, see Appendix (Table A1). 11. Language proficiency as an indicator of cultural ties has been omitted because respondents do not vary considerably from one another (i.e. nearly all immigrants speak their native language ‘very well’). 12. Typically, in studies on remigration age at immigration is considered. However, in the case of new immigrants, age at the date of the interview and age at immigration do not differ fundamentally. 13. For a descriptive overview of all model variables, see Appendix (Table A2). References Alberts H. C. , Hazen H. D. ( 2005 ) ‘“There are always Two Voices …”: International Students’ Intentions to Stay in the United States or Return to their Home Countries’ , International Migration , 43 / 3 : 131 – 54 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Anniste K. , Tammaru T. ( 2014 ) ‘Ethnic Differences in Integration Levels and Return Migration Intentions: A Study of Estonian Migrants in Finland’ , Demographic Research , 30 / 13 : 377 – 412 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Auspurg K. , Thomas H. ( 2011 ) ‘Gruppenvergleiche bei Regressionen mit binären abhängigen Variablen—Probleme und Fehleinschätzungen am Beispiel von Bildungschancen im Kohortenverlauf’ , Zeitschrift für Soziologie , 40 / 1 : 62 – 73 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS BAMF (Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge) ( 2016 ) ‘Migrationsbericht des Bundesamtes für Migration und Flüchtlinge im Auftrag der Bundesregierung Migrationsbericht 2014’ <https://www.bamf.de/SharedDocs/Anlagen/DE/Publikationen/Migrationsberichte/migrationsbericht-2014.pdf?__blob=publicationFile> accessed 28 February 2017. Bessey D. ( 2012 ) ‘International Student Migration to Germany’ , Empirical Economics , 42 / 1 : 345 – 61 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Borjas G. J. , Bratsberg B. ( 1996 ) ‘Who Leaves? The Outmigration of the Foreign-Born’ , Review of Economics and Statistics , 78 / 1 : 165 – 76 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Bovenkerk F. ( 1974 ) The Sociology of Return Migration: A Bibliographic Essay . The Hague : Nijhoff . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Carling J. , Pettersen S. V. ( 2014 ) ‘Return Migration Intentions in the Integration–Transnationalism Matrix’ , International Migration , 52 / 6 : 13 – 30 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Cassarino J.-P. ( 2004 ) ‘Theorising Return Migration: The Conceptual Approach to Return Migrants Revisited’ , International Journal on Multicultural Societies , 6 / 2 : 253 – 79 . Constant A. F. , Massey D. S. ( 2002 ) ‘Return Migration by German Guest Workers: Neoclassical versus New Economic Theories’ , International Migration , 40 / 4 : 5 – 38 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Constant A. F. , Massey D. S. ( 2003 ) ‘Self-Selection, Earnings, and Out-Migration: A Longitudinal Study of Immigrants to Germany’ , Journal of Population Economics , 16 / 4 : 631 – 33 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Constant A. F. , Zimmermann K. F. ( 2012 ) ‘The Dynamics of Repeat Migration: A Markov Chain Analysis’ , International Migration Review , 46 / 2 : 362 – 88 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS de Haas H. , Fokkema T. ( 2011 ) ‘The Effects of Integration and Transnational Ties on International Return Migration Intentions’ , Demographic Research , 25 / 24 : 755 – 82 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS de Haas H. , Fihri M.F. ( 2015 ) ‘Return Migration as Failure or Success? The Determinants of Return Migration Intentions among Moroccan Migrants in Europe’ , Journal of International Migration and Integration , 16 / 2 : 415 – 29 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed de Jong G. F. , Fawcett J. T. ( 1981 ) ‘Motivations for Migration: An Assessment and a Value-expectancy Research Model’, in de Jong G.F. , Gardner R.W. (eds) Migration Decision Making: Multidisciplinary Approaches to Microlevel Studies in Developed and Developing Countries , pp. 13 – 58 . New York : Pergamon Press . de Vroome T. , van Tubergen F. ( 2014 ) ‘Settlement Intentions of Recently Arrived Immigrants and Refugees in the Netherlands’ , Journal of Immigrant & Refugee Studies , 12 / 1 : 47 – 66 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Diehl C. , Preisendörfer P. ( 2007 ) ‘Gekommen um zu bleiben? Bedeutung und Bestimmungsfaktoren der Bleibeabsicht von Neuzuwanderern in Deutschland’ , Soziale Welt , 58 / 1 : 5 – 28 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Diehl C. , Steinmann J.-P. ( 2012 ) ‘Cool Minds in Heated Debates? Migration-related Attitudes Before and After a Natural Intervention in Germany’ , International Journal of Conflict and Violence , 6 / 1 : 141 – 62 . Diehl C. , Preisendörfer P. , Liebau E. ( 2015 ) ‘Turning back to Turkey—Or Turning the Back on Germany? Remigration Intentions and Behavior of Turkish Immigrants in Germany between 1984 and 2011’ , Zeitschrift für Soziologie , 44 / 1 : 22 – 41 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Diehl C. et al. ( 2015 ) ‘Causes and Consequences of Socio-Cultural Integration Processes among New Immigrants in Europe (SCIP)’, GESIS Datenarchiv. <https://dbk.gesis.org/dbksearch/sdesc2.asp?no=5956&db=d&doi=10.4232/1.12341> accessed 3 February 2017. Diehl C. , Preisendörfer P. , Fischer-Neumann M. , Mühlau P. ( 2016 ) ‘Between Ethnic Options and Ethnic Boundaries—Recent Polish and Turkish Migrants’ Identification with Germany’ , Ethnicities , 16 / 2 : 236 – 60 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Dustmann C. , Weiss Y. ( 2007 ) ‘Return Migration: Theory and Empirical Evidence from the UK’ , British Journal of Industrial Relations , 45 / 2 : 236 – 56 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Ehrkamp P. ( 2005 ) ‘Placing Identities: Transnational Practices and Local Attachments of Turkish Immigrants in Germany’ , Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies , 31 / 2 : 345 – 64 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Engbersen G. et al. ( 2013 ) ‘On the Differential Attachments of Migrants from Central and Eastern Europe: A Typology of Labour Migration’ , Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies , 39 / 6 : 959 – 81 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Engbersen G. , Snel E. ( 2013 ) ‘Liquid Migration. Dynamic and Fluid Patterns of Post-Accession Migration Flows’, in Glorius G. , Grabowska-Lusińska I. , Kuvik A. (eds) Mobility in Transition. Migration Patterns after EU Enlargement , pp. 21 – 40 . Amsterdam : Amsterdam University Press . Erdal M.B. , Ezzati R. ( 2015 ) ‘“Where Are You From?” or “When Did You Come?” Temporal Dimensions in Migrants’ Reflections about Settlement and Return’ , Ethnic and Racial Studies , 38 / 7 : 1202 – 17 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Ette A. , Heß B. , Sauer F. ( 2016 ) ‘Tackling Germany’s Demographic Skills Shortage: Permanent Settlement Intentions of the Recent Wave of Labour Migrants from Non-European Countries’ , Journal of International Migration and Integration , 17 / 2 : 429 – 48 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Faist T. , Fauser M. , Reisenauer E. ( 2013 ) Transnational Migration . New York : John Wiley & Sons . Fassmann H. , Içduygu A. ( 2013 ) ‘Turks in Europe: Migration Flows, Migrant Stocks and Demographic Structure’ , European Review , 21 / 3 : 349 – 61 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Foner N. , Alba R. ( 2008 ) ‘Immigrant Religion in the U.S. and Western Europe: Bridge or Barrier to Inclusion?’ International Migration Review , 42 / 2 ; 360 – 92 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Friedberg R. M. ( 2000 ) ‘You Can’t Take It with You? Immigrant Assimilation and the Portability of Human Capital’ , Journal of Labor Economics , 18 / 2 : 221 – 51 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Geißler R. , Weber-Menges S. ( 2013 ) ‘Medien und Integration. Mediennutzung und Vorstellungen zur medialen Integration bei Migranten’, in Brinkmann H. U. , Uslucan H.-H. (eds) Dabeisein und Dazugehören. Integration in Deutschland , pp. 273 – 89 . Wiesbaden : Springer-VS . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Gordon M. M. ( 1964 ) Assimilation in American Life. The Role of Race, Religion, and National Origins . New York : Oxford University Press . Gresser A. , Schacht D. ( 2015 ) ‘SCIP Survey. Methodological Report’ <http://www.scip-info.org> accessed 30 August 2017. Gundel S. , Peters H. ( 2008 ) ‘What Determines the Duration of Stay of Immigrants in Germany? Evidence from a Longitudinal Duration Analysis’ , International Journal of Social Economics , 35 / 11 : 769 – 82 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Halm D. et al. ( 2012 ) ‘Polish and Turkish Migrant Organizations in Germany’, in Pries L. , Sezgin Z. (eds) Cross Border Migrant Organizations in Comparative Perspective , pp. 37 – 89 . Houndsmill : Palgrave . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Hans S. ( 2010 ) Assimilation oder Segregation? Anpassungsprozesse von Einwanderern in Deutschland . Wiesbaden : VS-Verlag . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Haug S. ( 2008 ) ‘Migration Networks and Migration Decision-Making’ , Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies , 34 / 4 : 585 – 605 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Kofman E. ( 2004 ) ‘Family‐related Migration: A Critical Review of European Studies’ , Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies , 30 / 2 : 243 – 62 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Kuhlenkasper T. , Steinhardt M. F. ( 2012 ) ‘Who Leaves and When?—Selective Outmigration of Immigrants from Germany’, SOEP papers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research 490, <https://www.diw.de/documents/publikationen/73/diw_01.c.409030.de/diw_sp0490.pdf> accessed 3 February 2017. Massey D. S. , Akresh I. R. ( 2006 ) ‘Immigrant Intentions and Mobility in a Global Economy: The Attitudes and Behavior of Recently Arrived U.S. Immigrants’ , Social Science Quarterly , 87 / 5 : 954 – 71 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Mood C. ( 2010 ) ‘Logistic Regression: Why We Cannot Do What We Think We Can Do, and What We Can Do About It’ , European Sociological Review , 26 / 1 : 67 – 82 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) ( 2014 ) ‘International Migration Database’ <http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=MIG> accessed 3 February 2017. Piore M. J. ( 1979 ) Birds of Passage: Migrant Labor and Industrial Societies . Cambridge : Cambridge University Press . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Şenyürekli A. R. , Menjívar C. ( 2012 ) ‘Turkish Immigrants’ Hopes and Fears around Return Migration’ , International Migration , 50 / 1 : 3 – 19 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Snel E. , Faber M. , Engbersen G. ( 2015 ) ‘To Stay or Return? Explaining Return Intentions of Central and Eastern European Labour Migrants’ , Central and Eastern European Migration Review , 4 / 2 : 5 – 24 . Taylor E. J. ( 1999 ) ‘The New Economics of Labour Migration and the Role of Remittances in the Migration Process’ , International Migration , 37 / 1 : 63 – 88 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed van den Berg G. J. , Weynandt M. A. ( 2013 ) ‘Explaining Differences between the Expected and Actual Duration Until Return Migration: Economic Changes’ , Journal of Applied Social Science Studies , 133 / 2 : 249 – 61 . van Dalen H. P. , Henkens K. ( 2013 ) ‘Explaining Emigration Intentions and Behaviour in the Netherlands, 2005–10’ , Population Studies , 67 / 2 : 225 – 41 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed Wasmer M. ( 2013 ) ‘Public debates and public opinion on multiculturalism in Germany’, in Taras R. (ed.) Challenging Multiculturalism: European Models of Diversity , pp. 163 – 89 . Edinburgh : Edinburgh University Press . Wimmer A. ( 2009 ) ‘Herder’s Heritage and the Boundary-Making Approach: Studying Ethnicity in Immigrant Societies’ , Sociological Theory , 27 / 3 : 244 – 70 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Yinger J. M. ( 1994 ) Ethnicity: Source of Strength? Source of Conflict? Albany : State University of New York Press . Appendix Table A1. Hypotheses and results Individual-level differences Main motive for immigration H1: Educational migrants have the highest likelihood to return, followed by economically motivated migrants, whereas newcomers who migrated because of family reasons only rarely return. confirmed Ties to the receiving country H2a: There is a negative relationship between the (economic, social and cultural) receiving country ties and immigrants’ return intentions. partially supported H2b: Economic ties to the host country are positively related to immigrants’ tendency of returning. rejected Ties to the country of origin H3a: I expect a positive relationship between the (economic, social and cultural) home country ties and immigrants’ return intentions. confirmed H3b: Social ties to the origin country are negatively associated with immigrants’ inclination of returning. rejected Perception of ethnic boundaries H4: I assume that the experience of ethnic boundaries is positively related to return intentions. rejected Group-level differences H5: Poles more often plan to leave Germany, compared to Turks, because Polish immigrants mainly migrated for economic reasons, whereas the group of Turkish newcomers primarily contains family migrants. confirmed H6: The average Polish return intention is higher than that of the Turkish group, because Polish immigrants, compared to Turkish newcomers, have more economic ties to the destination country as well as to their country of origin. partially supported H7: Poles more often plan to leave Germany, compared to Turks, because Polish immigrants have more (less) social ties to the home (receiving) country, whereas for Turks, it is the exact opposite. confirmed H8: Cultural ties do not explain group-specific return intentions between Poles and Turks. partially supported H9: Group-level differences between Polish and Turkish immigrants would even increase, taking into account that Poles perceive ethnic boundaries as less strong than Turks do. rejected Individual-level differences Main motive for immigration H1: Educational migrants have the highest likelihood to return, followed by economically motivated migrants, whereas newcomers who migrated because of family reasons only rarely return. confirmed Ties to the receiving country H2a: There is a negative relationship between the (economic, social and cultural) receiving country ties and immigrants’ return intentions. partially supported H2b: Economic ties to the host country are positively related to immigrants’ tendency of returning. rejected Ties to the country of origin H3a: I expect a positive relationship between the (economic, social and cultural) home country ties and immigrants’ return intentions. confirmed H3b: Social ties to the origin country are negatively associated with immigrants’ inclination of returning. rejected Perception of ethnic boundaries H4: I assume that the experience of ethnic boundaries is positively related to return intentions. rejected Group-level differences H5: Poles more often plan to leave Germany, compared to Turks, because Polish immigrants mainly migrated for economic reasons, whereas the group of Turkish newcomers primarily contains family migrants. confirmed H6: The average Polish return intention is higher than that of the Turkish group, because Polish immigrants, compared to Turkish newcomers, have more economic ties to the destination country as well as to their country of origin. partially supported H7: Poles more often plan to leave Germany, compared to Turks, because Polish immigrants have more (less) social ties to the home (receiving) country, whereas for Turks, it is the exact opposite. confirmed H8: Cultural ties do not explain group-specific return intentions between Poles and Turks. partially supported H9: Group-level differences between Polish and Turkish immigrants would even increase, taking into account that Poles perceive ethnic boundaries as less strong than Turks do. rejected Table A1. Hypotheses and results Individual-level differences Main motive for immigration H1: Educational migrants have the highest likelihood to return, followed by economically motivated migrants, whereas newcomers who migrated because of family reasons only rarely return. confirmed Ties to the receiving country H2a: There is a negative relationship between the (economic, social and cultural) receiving country ties and immigrants’ return intentions. partially supported H2b: Economic ties to the host country are positively related to immigrants’ tendency of returning. rejected Ties to the country of origin H3a: I expect a positive relationship between the (economic, social and cultural) home country ties and immigrants’ return intentions. confirmed H3b: Social ties to the origin country are negatively associated with immigrants’ inclination of returning. rejected Perception of ethnic boundaries H4: I assume that the experience of ethnic boundaries is positively related to return intentions. rejected Group-level differences H5: Poles more often plan to leave Germany, compared to Turks, because Polish immigrants mainly migrated for economic reasons, whereas the group of Turkish newcomers primarily contains family migrants. confirmed H6: The average Polish return intention is higher than that of the Turkish group, because Polish immigrants, compared to Turkish newcomers, have more economic ties to the destination country as well as to their country of origin. partially supported H7: Poles more often plan to leave Germany, compared to Turks, because Polish immigrants have more (less) social ties to the home (receiving) country, whereas for Turks, it is the exact opposite. confirmed H8: Cultural ties do not explain group-specific return intentions between Poles and Turks. partially supported H9: Group-level differences between Polish and Turkish immigrants would even increase, taking into account that Poles perceive ethnic boundaries as less strong than Turks do. rejected Individual-level differences Main motive for immigration H1: Educational migrants have the highest likelihood to return, followed by economically motivated migrants, whereas newcomers who migrated because of family reasons only rarely return. confirmed Ties to the receiving country H2a: There is a negative relationship between the (economic, social and cultural) receiving country ties and immigrants’ return intentions. partially supported H2b: Economic ties to the host country are positively related to immigrants’ tendency of returning. rejected Ties to the country of origin H3a: I expect a positive relationship between the (economic, social and cultural) home country ties and immigrants’ return intentions. confirmed H3b: Social ties to the origin country are negatively associated with immigrants’ inclination of returning. rejected Perception of ethnic boundaries H4: I assume that the experience of ethnic boundaries is positively related to return intentions. rejected Group-level differences H5: Poles more often plan to leave Germany, compared to Turks, because Polish immigrants mainly migrated for economic reasons, whereas the group of Turkish newcomers primarily contains family migrants. confirmed H6: The average Polish return intention is higher than that of the Turkish group, because Polish immigrants, compared to Turkish newcomers, have more economic ties to the destination country as well as to their country of origin. partially supported H7: Poles more often plan to leave Germany, compared to Turks, because Polish immigrants have more (less) social ties to the home (receiving) country, whereas for Turks, it is the exact opposite. confirmed H8: Cultural ties do not explain group-specific return intentions between Poles and Turks. partially supported H9: Group-level differences between Polish and Turkish immigrants would even increase, taking into account that Poles perceive ethnic boundaries as less strong than Turks do. rejected Table A2. Distribution of model variables by ethnicity (percentages and means) Total Poles Turks Dependent variable     Future migration plans         Intention to stay 33.7 26.9 42.1         Intention to leave 66.3 73.1 57.9 Independent variables Main motive for immigration     Reasons for migration         Economic 34.1 55.9 6.0         Education 15.5 11.1 21.1         Family 37.2 15.5 65.1         Mixed or other reasons 13.2 17.5 7.8 Ties to the receiving country Economic ties     Employment status         Working 44.6 63.7 20.2         Unemployed 17.3 8.4 28.7         Other status 38.1 27.9 51.4     Satisfied with current job (0-4) 2.9 3.0 2.8     Satisfied with current earnings (0-4) 2.8 2.8 2.4     Partner’s employment status         Working 64.1 62.8 65.3         Unemployed 11.2 9.7 12.7         Other status 24.7 27.5 22.0 Social ties     People known before immigration in Germany 74.7 76.4 72.5     Proportion of German friends in Germany (0-1) .14 .11 .18     Partner in Germany 53.9 39.1 72.8     Children in Germany 21.0 17.7 25.2 Cultural ties     German language proficiency (0-3) 1.3 1.4 1.2     Consumption of German media (0-4) 2.9 2.9 2.9 Ties to the country of origin Economic ties     Remitting to Poland/Turkey (personal savings) 12.1 19.4 2.5     Property in Poland/Turkey 27.8 32.5 21.6 Social ties     Trips to Poland/Turkey since migration         No trips 33.9 11.8 62.4         Less than 10 trips 52.8 65.0 37.1         10 or more trips 13.3 23.3 0.5     Partner in Poland/Turkey 12.1 19.9 2.0     Children in Poland/Turkey 21.0 32.7 5.9 Cultural ties     Consumption of Polish/Turkish media (0-4) 3.2 3.0 3.5     Religiosity (0-3) 1.5 1.6 1.4 Perception of ethnic boundaries     Group discrimination (0-4) 1.8 1.7 1.8     Experienced discrimination 32.3 31.7 32.9     Incompatibility of values (0-4) 2.0 1.8 2.3 Control variables     Gender         Males 53.6 54.7 52.1         Females 46.5 45.3 47.9     Age (in years) 31.5 33.6 28.9     Duration since immigration (in months) 8.1 8.8 7.3     Level of education         None/primary 9.0 3.2 16.8         Secondary 44.8 50.4 37.3         Tertiary 46.2 46.4 45.9     Pre-post comparison of living situation         not improved 71.1 75.6 65.2         improved 28.9 24.4 34.8 Source: SCIP-project, own calculations Total Poles Turks Dependent variable     Future migration plans         Intention to stay 33.7 26.9 42.1         Intention to leave 66.3 73.1 57.9 Independent variables Main motive for immigration     Reasons for migration         Economic 34.1 55.9 6.0         Education 15.5 11.1 21.1         Family 37.2 15.5 65.1         Mixed or other reasons 13.2 17.5 7.8 Ties to the receiving country Economic ties     Employment status         Working 44.6 63.7 20.2         Unemployed 17.3 8.4 28.7         Other status 38.1 27.9 51.4     Satisfied with current job (0-4) 2.9 3.0 2.8     Satisfied with current earnings (0-4) 2.8 2.8 2.4     Partner’s employment status         Working 64.1 62.8 65.3         Unemployed 11.2 9.7 12.7         Other status 24.7 27.5 22.0 Social ties     People known before immigration in Germany 74.7 76.4 72.5     Proportion of German friends in Germany (0-1) .14 .11 .18     Partner in Germany 53.9 39.1 72.8     Children in Germany 21.0 17.7 25.2 Cultural ties     German language proficiency (0-3) 1.3 1.4 1.2     Consumption of German media (0-4) 2.9 2.9 2.9 Ties to the country of origin Economic ties     Remitting to Poland/Turkey (personal savings) 12.1 19.4 2.5     Property in Poland/Turkey 27.8 32.5 21.6 Social ties     Trips to Poland/Turkey since migration         No trips 33.9 11.8 62.4         Less than 10 trips 52.8 65.0 37.1         10 or more trips 13.3 23.3 0.5     Partner in Poland/Turkey 12.1 19.9 2.0     Children in Poland/Turkey 21.0 32.7 5.9 Cultural ties     Consumption of Polish/Turkish media (0-4) 3.2 3.0 3.5     Religiosity (0-3) 1.5 1.6 1.4 Perception of ethnic boundaries     Group discrimination (0-4) 1.8 1.7 1.8     Experienced discrimination 32.3 31.7 32.9     Incompatibility of values (0-4) 2.0 1.8 2.3 Control variables     Gender         Males 53.6 54.7 52.1         Females 46.5 45.3 47.9     Age (in years) 31.5 33.6 28.9     Duration since immigration (in months) 8.1 8.8 7.3     Level of education         None/primary 9.0 3.2 16.8         Secondary 44.8 50.4 37.3         Tertiary 46.2 46.4 45.9     Pre-post comparison of living situation         not improved 71.1 75.6 65.2         improved 28.9 24.4 34.8 Source: SCIP-project, own calculations Table A2. Distribution of model variables by ethnicity (percentages and means) Total Poles Turks Dependent variable     Future migration plans         Intention to stay 33.7 26.9 42.1         Intention to leave 66.3 73.1 57.9 Independent variables Main motive for immigration     Reasons for migration         Economic 34.1 55.9 6.0         Education 15.5 11.1 21.1         Family 37.2 15.5 65.1         Mixed or other reasons 13.2 17.5 7.8 Ties to the receiving country Economic ties     Employment status         Working 44.6 63.7 20.2         Unemployed 17.3 8.4 28.7         Other status 38.1 27.9 51.4     Satisfied with current job (0-4) 2.9 3.0 2.8     Satisfied with current earnings (0-4) 2.8 2.8 2.4     Partner’s employment status         Working 64.1 62.8 65.3         Unemployed 11.2 9.7 12.7         Other status 24.7 27.5 22.0 Social ties     People known before immigration in Germany 74.7 76.4 72.5     Proportion of German friends in Germany (0-1) .14 .11 .18     Partner in Germany 53.9 39.1 72.8     Children in Germany 21.0 17.7 25.2 Cultural ties     German language proficiency (0-3) 1.3 1.4 1.2     Consumption of German media (0-4) 2.9 2.9 2.9 Ties to the country of origin Economic ties     Remitting to Poland/Turkey (personal savings) 12.1 19.4 2.5     Property in Poland/Turkey 27.8 32.5 21.6 Social ties     Trips to Poland/Turkey since migration         No trips 33.9 11.8 62.4         Less than 10 trips 52.8 65.0 37.1         10 or more trips 13.3 23.3 0.5     Partner in Poland/Turkey 12.1 19.9 2.0     Children in Poland/Turkey 21.0 32.7 5.9 Cultural ties     Consumption of Polish/Turkish media (0-4) 3.2 3.0 3.5     Religiosity (0-3) 1.5 1.6 1.4 Perception of ethnic boundaries     Group discrimination (0-4) 1.8 1.7 1.8     Experienced discrimination 32.3 31.7 32.9     Incompatibility of values (0-4) 2.0 1.8 2.3 Control variables     Gender         Males 53.6 54.7 52.1         Females 46.5 45.3 47.9     Age (in years) 31.5 33.6 28.9     Duration since immigration (in months) 8.1 8.8 7.3     Level of education         None/primary 9.0 3.2 16.8         Secondary 44.8 50.4 37.3         Tertiary 46.2 46.4 45.9     Pre-post comparison of living situation         not improved 71.1 75.6 65.2         improved 28.9 24.4 34.8 Source: SCIP-project, own calculations Total Poles Turks Dependent variable     Future migration plans         Intention to stay 33.7 26.9 42.1         Intention to leave 66.3 73.1 57.9 Independent variables Main motive for immigration     Reasons for migration         Economic 34.1 55.9 6.0         Education 15.5 11.1 21.1         Family 37.2 15.5 65.1         Mixed or other reasons 13.2 17.5 7.8 Ties to the receiving country Economic ties     Employment status         Working 44.6 63.7 20.2         Unemployed 17.3 8.4 28.7         Other status 38.1 27.9 51.4     Satisfied with current job (0-4) 2.9 3.0 2.8     Satisfied with current earnings (0-4) 2.8 2.8 2.4     Partner’s employment status         Working 64.1 62.8 65.3         Unemployed 11.2 9.7 12.7         Other status 24.7 27.5 22.0 Social ties     People known before immigration in Germany 74.7 76.4 72.5     Proportion of German friends in Germany (0-1) .14 .11 .18     Partner in Germany 53.9 39.1 72.8     Children in Germany 21.0 17.7 25.2 Cultural ties     German language proficiency (0-3) 1.3 1.4 1.2     Consumption of German media (0-4) 2.9 2.9 2.9 Ties to the country of origin Economic ties     Remitting to Poland/Turkey (personal savings) 12.1 19.4 2.5     Property in Poland/Turkey 27.8 32.5 21.6 Social ties     Trips to Poland/Turkey since migration         No trips 33.9 11.8 62.4         Less than 10 trips 52.8 65.0 37.1         10 or more trips 13.3 23.3 0.5     Partner in Poland/Turkey 12.1 19.9 2.0     Children in Poland/Turkey 21.0 32.7 5.9 Cultural ties     Consumption of Polish/Turkish media (0-4) 3.2 3.0 3.5     Religiosity (0-3) 1.5 1.6 1.4 Perception of ethnic boundaries     Group discrimination (0-4) 1.8 1.7 1.8     Experienced discrimination 32.3 31.7 32.9     Incompatibility of values (0-4) 2.0 1.8 2.3 Control variables     Gender         Males 53.6 54.7 52.1         Females 46.5 45.3 47.9     Age (in years) 31.5 33.6 28.9     Duration since immigration (in months) 8.1 8.8 7.3     Level of education         None/primary 9.0 3.2 16.8         Secondary 44.8 50.4 37.3         Tertiary 46.2 46.4 45.9     Pre-post comparison of living situation         not improved 71.1 75.6 65.2         improved 28.9 24.4 34.8 Source: SCIP-project, own calculations Table A3. Explanatory factors of intentions to leave Germany (average marginal effects) M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 Ethnicity (ref. = Poles) −.088*** .029 −.014 −.056** .016 (.021) (.027) (.024) (.022) (.023) Main motive for immigration Reasons for migration (ref. = economic) Education .092* (.043) Family −.313*** (.031) Mixed or other reasons −.269*** (.032) Economic ties Ties to the receiving country Employment status (ref. = working) Unemployed −.121* (.056) Other status −.001 (.051) Satisfied with current job −.053** (.019) Satisfied with current earnings .038* (.016) Partner’s employment status (ref. = working) Unemployed −.018 (.037) Other status .097** (.030) Ties to the country of origin Remitting to Poland/Turkey (personal savings) .301*** (.047) Property in Poland/Turkey .148*** (.025) Social ties Ties to the receiving country People known before immigration in Germany −.018 (.024) Proportion of German friends in Germany −.182*** (.035) Partner in Germany −.308*** (.024) Children in Germany −.008 (.025) Ties to the country of origin Trips to Poland/Turkey since migration (ref. = no trips) Less than 10 trips 10 or more trips Partner in Poland/Turkey Children in Poland/Turkey Cultural ties Ties to the receiving country German language proficiency Consumption of German media Ties to the country of origin Consumption of Polish/Turkish media Religiosity Perception of ethnic boundaries Group discrimination Experienced discrimination Incompatibility of values Control variables Gender (ref. = female) .067** .018 .037 .045* −.014 (.020) (.021) (.022) (.020) (.020) Age (in years) −.034*** −.015 −.034*** −.038*** −.008 (.008) (.008) (.008) (.008) (.008) Age² .001*** .000* .000*** .001*** .000 (.000) (.000) (.000) (.000) (.000) Duration since immigration (in months) −.004* −.003 −.003 −.004* −.001 (.002) (.002) (.002) (.002) (.002) Level of education (ref. = none/primary) Secondary .083* .036 .062 .080* .068 (.036) (.035) (.036) (.035) (036) Tertiary .165*** .074* .118** .154*** .138*** (.035) (.035) (.036) (.035) (.036) Pre-post comparison of living situation (ref. = not improved) −.086*** −.076*** −.082*** −.087*** −.087*** (.022) (.022) (.022) (.021) (.022) Observations 2456 2456 2456 2456 2456 Pseudo R² (Nagelkerke) .107 .221 .166 .157 .212 M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 Ethnicity (ref. = Poles) −.088*** .029 −.014 −.056** .016 (.021) (.027) (.024) (.022) (.023) Main motive for immigration Reasons for migration (ref. = economic) Education .092* (.043) Family −.313*** (.031) Mixed or other reasons −.269*** (.032) Economic ties Ties to the receiving country Employment status (ref. = working) Unemployed −.121* (.056) Other status −.001 (.051) Satisfied with current job −.053** (.019) Satisfied with current earnings .038* (.016) Partner’s employment status (ref. = working) Unemployed −.018 (.037) Other status .097** (.030) Ties to the country of origin Remitting to Poland/Turkey (personal savings) .301*** (.047) Property in Poland/Turkey .148*** (.025) Social ties Ties to the receiving country People known before immigration in Germany −.018 (.024) Proportion of German friends in Germany −.182*** (.035) Partner in Germany −.308*** (.024) Children in Germany −.008 (.025) Ties to the country of origin Trips to Poland/Turkey since migration (ref. = no trips) Less than 10 trips 10 or more trips Partner in Poland/Turkey Children in Poland/Turkey Cultural ties Ties to the receiving country German language proficiency Consumption of German media Ties to the country of origin Consumption of Polish/Turkish media Religiosity Perception of ethnic boundaries Group discrimination Experienced discrimination Incompatibility of values Control variables Gender (ref. = female) .067** .018 .037 .045* −.014 (.020) (.021) (.022) (.020) (.020) Age (in years) −.034*** −.015 −.034*** −.038*** −.008 (.008) (.008) (.008) (.008) (.008) Age² .001*** .000* .000*** .001*** .000 (.000) (.000) (.000) (.000) (.000) Duration since immigration (in months) −.004* −.003 −.003 −.004* −.001 (.002) (.002) (.002) (.002) (.002) Level of education (ref. = none/primary) Secondary .083* .036 .062 .080* .068 (.036) (.035) (.036) (.035) (036) Tertiary .165*** .074* .118** .154*** .138*** (.035) (.035) (.036) (.035) (.036) Pre-post comparison of living situation (ref. = not improved) −.086*** −.076*** −.082*** −.087*** −.087*** (.022) (.022) (.022) (.021) (.022) Observations 2456 2456 2456 2456 2456 Pseudo R² (Nagelkerke) .107 .221 .166 .157 .212 Source: SCIP-project, own calculations. Note: * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001; ***; logistic (logit) regression; all models control for city of interview and missing values (effects are not reported); SE in parentheses. Table A3. Explanatory factors of intentions to leave Germany (average marginal effects) M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 Ethnicity (ref. = Poles) −.088*** .029 −.014 −.056** .016 (.021) (.027) (.024) (.022) (.023) Main motive for immigration Reasons for migration (ref. = economic) Education .092* (.043) Family −.313*** (.031) Mixed or other reasons −.269*** (.032) Economic ties Ties to the receiving country Employment status (ref. = working) Unemployed −.121* (.056) Other status −.001 (.051) Satisfied with current job −.053** (.019) Satisfied with current earnings .038* (.016) Partner’s employment status (ref. = working) Unemployed −.018 (.037) Other status .097** (.030) Ties to the country of origin Remitting to Poland/Turkey (personal savings) .301*** (.047) Property in Poland/Turkey .148*** (.025) Social ties Ties to the receiving country People known before immigration in Germany −.018 (.024) Proportion of German friends in Germany −.182*** (.035) Partner in Germany −.308*** (.024) Children in Germany −.008 (.025) Ties to the country of origin Trips to Poland/Turkey since migration (ref. = no trips) Less than 10 trips 10 or more trips Partner in Poland/Turkey Children in Poland/Turkey Cultural ties Ties to the receiving country German language proficiency Consumption of German media Ties to the country of origin Consumption of Polish/Turkish media Religiosity Perception of ethnic boundaries Group discrimination Experienced discrimination Incompatibility of values Control variables Gender (ref. = female) .067** .018 .037 .045* −.014 (.020) (.021) (.022) (.020) (.020) Age (in years) −.034*** −.015 −.034*** −.038*** −.008 (.008) (.008) (.008) (.008) (.008) Age² .001*** .000* .000*** .001*** .000 (.000) (.000) (.000) (.000) (.000) Duration since immigration (in months) −.004* −.003 −.003 −.004* −.001 (.002) (.002) (.002) (.002) (.002) Level of education (ref. = none/primary) Secondary .083* .036 .062 .080* .068 (.036) (.035) (.036) (.035) (036) Tertiary .165*** .074* .118** .154*** .138*** (.035) (.035) (.036) (.035) (.036) Pre-post comparison of living situation (ref. = not improved) −.086*** −.076*** −.082*** −.087*** −.087*** (.022) (.022) (.022) (.021) (.022) Observations 2456 2456 2456 2456 2456 Pseudo R² (Nagelkerke) .107 .221 .166 .157 .212 M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 Ethnicity (ref. = Poles) −.088*** .029 −.014 −.056** .016 (.021) (.027) (.024) (.022) (.023) Main motive for immigration Reasons for migration (ref. = economic) Education .092* (.043) Family −.313*** (.031) Mixed or other reasons −.269*** (.032) Economic ties Ties to the receiving country Employment status (ref. = working) Unemployed −.121* (.056) Other status −.001 (.051) Satisfied with current job −.053** (.019) Satisfied with current earnings .038* (.016) Partner’s employment status (ref. = working) Unemployed −.018 (.037) Other status .097** (.030) Ties to the country of origin Remitting to Poland/Turkey (personal savings) .301*** (.047) Property in Poland/Turkey .148*** (.025) Social ties Ties to the receiving country People known before immigration in Germany −.018 (.024) Proportion of German friends in Germany −.182*** (.035) Partner in Germany −.308*** (.024) Children in Germany −.008 (.025) Ties to the country of origin Trips to Poland/Turkey since migration (ref. = no trips) Less than 10 trips 10 or more trips Partner in Poland/Turkey Children in Poland/Turkey Cultural ties Ties to the receiving country German language proficiency Consumption of German media Ties to the country of origin Consumption of Polish/Turkish media Religiosity Perception of ethnic boundaries Group discrimination Experienced discrimination Incompatibility of values Control variables Gender (ref. = female) .067** .018 .037 .045* −.014 (.020) (.021) (.022) (.020) (.020) Age (in years) −.034*** −.015 −.034*** −.038*** −.008 (.008) (.008) (.008) (.008) (.008) Age² .001*** .000* .000*** .001*** .000 (.000) (.000) (.000) (.000) (.000) Duration since immigration (in months) −.004* −.003 −.003 −.004* −.001 (.002) (.002) (.002) (.002) (.002) Level of education (ref. = none/primary) Secondary .083* .036 .062 .080* .068 (.036) (.035) (.036) (.035) (036) Tertiary .165*** .074* .118** .154*** .138*** (.035) (.035) (.036) (.035) (.036) Pre-post comparison of living situation (ref. = not improved) −.086*** −.076*** −.082*** −.087*** −.087*** (.022) (.022) (.022) (.021) (.022) Observations 2456 2456 2456 2456 2456 Pseudo R² (Nagelkerke) .107 .221 .166 .157 .212 Source: SCIP-project, own calculations. Note: * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001; ***; logistic (logit) regression; all models control for city of interview and missing values (effects are not reported); SE in parentheses. Table A3. (continued). Explanatory factors of intentions to leave Germany (average marginal effects) M6 M7 M8 M9 M10 Ethnicity (ref. = Poles) .009 −.082*** −.117*** −.097*** .066* (.025) (.022) (.023) (.022) (.032) Main motive of immigration Reasons for migration (ref. = economic) Education .110* (.048) Family −.148*** (.037) Mixed or other reasons −.163*** (.035) Economic ties Ties to the receiving country Employment status (ref. = working) Unemployed −.049 (.057) Other status −.003 (.052) Satisfied with current job −.051** (.019) Satisfied with current earnings .031 (.016) Partner’s employment status (ref. = working) Unemployed −.031 (.038) Other status .067* (.031) Ties to the country of origin Remitting to Poland/Turkey (personal savings) .096 (.052) Property in Poland/Turkey .111*** (.026) Social ties Ties to the receiving country People known before immigration in Germany .013 (.024) Proportion of German friends in Germany −.111** (.036) Partner in Germany −.163 (.113) Children in Germany −.012 (.026) Ties to the country of origin Trips to Poland/Turkey since migration (ref. = no trips) Less than 10 trips .088*** .036 (.025) (.026) 10 or more trips .190*** .123** (.041) (.043) Partner in Poland/Turkey .457*** .198 (.055) (.122) Children in Poland/Turkey −.023 −.076 (.037) (.039) Cultural ties Ties to the receiving country German language proficiency −.014 −.028 (.014) (.015) Consumption of German media −.072*** −.046*** (.009) (.009) Ties to the country of origin Consumption of Polish/Turkish media .051*** .040*** (.009) (.009) Religiosity .011 .034** (.012) (.012) Perception of ethnic boundaries Group discrimination .037** .015 (.011) (.011) Experienced discrimination −.014 .010 (.022) (.023) Incompatibility of values .018 .019 (.010) (.010) Control variables Gender (ref. = female) .031 .061** .061** .068** −.014 (.020) (.020) (.020) (.020) (.022) Age (in years) −.033 −.027*** −.033*** −.035*** −.000 (.008) (.008) (.008) (.008) (.008) Age² .000* .000*** .000*** .001*** .000 (.000) (.000) (.000) (.000) (.000) Duration since immigration (in months) −.007** −.004 −.005* −.005* −.004 (.002) (.002) (.002) (.002) (.002) Level of education (ref. = none/primary) Secondary .060 .102** .089* .076* .049 (.035) (.036) (.036) (.036) (035) Tertiary .139*** .185*** .164*** .158*** .088* (.035) (.036) (.036) (.036) (037) Pre-post comparison of living situation (ref. = not improved) −.089*** −.085*** −.087*** −.083*** −.077*** (.021) (.022) (.022) (.022) (.022) Observations 2456 2456 2456 2456 2456 Pseudo R² (Nagelkerke) .171 .149 .125 .117 .333 M6 M7 M8 M9 M10 Ethnicity (ref. = Poles) .009 −.082*** −.117*** −.097*** .066* (.025) (.022) (.023) (.022) (.032) Main motive of immigration Reasons for migration (ref. = economic) Education .110* (.048) Family −.148*** (.037) Mixed or other reasons −.163*** (.035) Economic ties Ties to the receiving country Employment status (ref. = working) Unemployed −.049 (.057) Other status −.003 (.052) Satisfied with current job −.051** (.019) Satisfied with current earnings .031 (.016) Partner’s employment status (ref. = working) Unemployed −.031 (.038) Other status .067* (.031) Ties to the country of origin Remitting to Poland/Turkey (personal savings) .096 (.052) Property in Poland/Turkey .111*** (.026) Social ties Ties to the receiving country People known before immigration in Germany .013 (.024) Proportion of German friends in Germany −.111** (.036) Partner in Germany −.163 (.113) Children in Germany −.012 (.026) Ties to the country of origin Trips to Poland/Turkey since migration (ref. = no trips) Less than 10 trips .088*** .036 (.025) (.026) 10 or more trips .190*** .123** (.041) (.043) Partner in Poland/Turkey .457*** .198 (.055) (.122) Children in Poland/Turkey −.023 −.076 (.037) (.039) Cultural ties Ties to the receiving country German language proficiency −.014 −.028 (.014) (.015) Consumption of German media −.072*** −.046*** (.009) (.009) Ties to the country of origin Consumption of Polish/Turkish media .051*** .040*** (.009) (.009) Religiosity .011 .034** (.012) (.012) Perception of ethnic boundaries Group discrimination .037** .015 (.011) (.011) Experienced discrimination −.014 .010 (.022) (.023) Incompatibility of values .018 .019 (.010) (.010) Control variables Gender (ref. = female) .031 .061** .061** .068** −.014 (.020) (.020) (.020) (.020) (.022) Age (in years) −.033 −.027*** −.033*** −.035*** −.000 (.008) (.008) (.008) (.008) (.008) Age² .000* .000*** .000*** .001*** .000 (.000) (.000) (.000) (.000) (.000) Duration since immigration (in months) −.007** −.004 −.005* −.005* −.004 (.002) (.002) (.002) (.002) (.002) Level of education (ref. = none/primary) Secondary .060 .102** .089* .076* .049 (.035) (.036) (.036) (.036) (035) Tertiary .139*** .185*** .164*** .158*** .088* (.035) (.036) (.036) (.036) (037) Pre-post comparison of living situation (ref. = not improved) −.089*** −.085*** −.087*** −.083*** −.077*** (.021) (.022) (.022) (.022) (.022) Observations 2456 2456 2456 2456 2456 Pseudo R² (Nagelkerke) .171 .149 .125 .117 .333 Source: SCIP-project, own calculations Note: * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001; ***; logistic (logit) regression; all models control for city of interview and missing values (effects are not reported); SE in parentheses Table A3. (continued). Explanatory factors of intentions to leave Germany (average marginal effects) M6 M7 M8 M9 M10 Ethnicity (ref. = Poles) .009 −.082*** −.117*** −.097*** .066* (.025) (.022) (.023) (.022) (.032) Main motive of immigration Reasons for migration (ref. = economic) Education .110* (.048) Family −.148*** (.037) Mixed or other reasons −.163*** (.035) Economic ties Ties to the receiving country Employment status (ref. = working) Unemployed −.049 (.057) Other status −.003 (.052) Satisfied with current job −.051** (.019) Satisfied with current earnings .031 (.016) Partner’s employment status (ref. = working) Unemployed −.031 (.038) Other status .067* (.031) Ties to the country of origin Remitting to Poland/Turkey (personal savings) .096 (.052) Property in Poland/Turkey .111*** (.026) Social ties Ties to the receiving country People known before immigration in Germany .013 (.024) Proportion of German friends in Germany −.111** (.036) Partner in Germany −.163 (.113) Children in Germany −.012 (.026) Ties to the country of origin Trips to Poland/Turkey since migration (ref. = no trips) Less than 10 trips .088*** .036 (.025) (.026) 10 or more trips .190*** .123** (.041) (.043) Partner in Poland/Turkey .457*** .198 (.055) (.122) Children in Poland/Turkey −.023 −.076 (.037) (.039) Cultural ties Ties to the receiving country German language proficiency −.014 −.028 (.014) (.015) Consumption of German media −.072*** −.046*** (.009) (.009) Ties to the country of origin Consumption of Polish/Turkish media .051*** .040*** (.009) (.009) Religiosity .011 .034** (.012) (.012) Perception of ethnic boundaries Group discrimination .037** .015 (.011) (.011) Experienced discrimination −.014 .010 (.022) (.023) Incompatibility of values .018 .019 (.010) (.010) Control variables Gender (ref. = female) .031 .061** .061** .068** −.014 (.020) (.020) (.020) (.020) (.022) Age (in years) −.033 −.027*** −.033*** −.035*** −.000 (.008) (.008) (.008) (.008) (.008) Age² .000* .000*** .000*** .001*** .000 (.000) (.000) (.000) (.000) (.000) Duration since immigration (in months) −.007** −.004 −.005* −.005* −.004 (.002) (.002) (.002) (.002) (.002) Level of education (ref. = none/primary) Secondary .060 .102** .089* .076* .049 (.035) (.036) (.036) (.036) (035) Tertiary .139*** .185*** .164*** .158*** .088* (.035) (.036) (.036) (.036) (037) Pre-post comparison of living situation (ref. = not improved) −.089*** −.085*** −.087*** −.083*** −.077*** (.021) (.022) (.022) (.022) (.022) Observations 2456 2456 2456 2456 2456 Pseudo R² (Nagelkerke) .171 .149 .125 .117 .333 M6 M7 M8 M9 M10 Ethnicity (ref. = Poles) .009 −.082*** −.117*** −.097*** .066* (.025) (.022) (.023) (.022) (.032) Main motive of immigration Reasons for migration (ref. = economic) Education .110* (.048) Family −.148*** (.037) Mixed or other reasons −.163*** (.035) Economic ties Ties to the receiving country Employment status (ref. = working) Unemployed −.049 (.057) Other status −.003 (.052) Satisfied with current job −.051** (.019) Satisfied with current earnings .031 (.016) Partner’s employment status (ref. = working) Unemployed −.031 (.038) Other status .067* (.031) Ties to the country of origin Remitting to Poland/Turkey (personal savings) .096 (.052) Property in Poland/Turkey .111*** (.026) Social ties Ties to the receiving country People known before immigration in Germany .013 (.024) Proportion of German friends in Germany −.111** (.036) Partner in Germany −.163 (.113) Children in Germany −.012 (.026) Ties to the country of origin Trips to Poland/Turkey since migration (ref. = no trips) Less than 10 trips .088*** .036 (.025) (.026) 10 or more trips .190*** .123** (.041) (.043) Partner in Poland/Turkey .457*** .198 (.055) (.122) Children in Poland/Turkey −.023 −.076 (.037) (.039) Cultural ties Ties to the receiving country German language proficiency −.014 −.028 (.014) (.015) Consumption of German media −.072*** −.046*** (.009) (.009) Ties to the country of origin Consumption of Polish/Turkish media .051*** .040*** (.009) (.009) Religiosity .011 .034** (.012) (.012) Perception of ethnic boundaries Group discrimination .037** .015 (.011) (.011) Experienced discrimination −.014 .010 (.022) (.023) Incompatibility of values .018 .019 (.010) (.010) Control variables Gender (ref. = female) .031 .061** .061** .068** −.014 (.020) (.020) (.020) (.020) (.022) Age (in years) −.033 −.027*** −.033*** −.035*** −.000 (.008) (.008) (.008) (.008) (.008) Age² .000* .000*** .000*** .001*** .000 (.000) (.000) (.000) (.000) (.000) Duration since immigration (in months) −.007** −.004 −.005* −.005* −.004 (.002) (.002) (.002) (.002) (.002) Level of education (ref. = none/primary) Secondary .060 .102** .089* .076* .049 (.035) (.036) (.036) (.036) (035) Tertiary .139*** .185*** .164*** .158*** .088* (.035) (.036) (.036) (.036) (037) Pre-post comparison of living situation (ref. = not improved) −.089*** −.085*** −.087*** −.083*** −.077*** (.021) (.022) (.022) (.022) (.022) Observations 2456 2456 2456 2456 2456 Pseudo R² (Nagelkerke) .171 .149 .125 .117 .333 Source: SCIP-project, own calculations Note: * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001; ***; logistic (logit) regression; all models control for city of interview and missing values (effects are not reported); SE in parentheses Table A4. Explanatory factors of intentions to leave Germany by ethnicity (average marginal effects) M1: M2: Poles Turks Main motive for immigration Reasons for migration (ref. = economic) Education .108* .178 Family −.078* −.237* Mixed or other reasons −.108** −.203 Ties to the receiving country Economic ties Employment status (ref. = working) Unemployed .006 −.181 Other status 0.45 −.112 Satisfied with current job −.051** −.010 Satisfied with current earnings .028 −.015 Partner’s employment status (ref. = working) Unemployed −.079 −.002 Other status .018 .121* Social ties People known before immigration in Germany −.041 .072 Proportion of German friends in Germany −.066 −.146* Partner in Germany −.152 −.014 Children in Germany −.054 .014 Cultural ties German language proficiency −.030 −.010 Consumption of German media −.045*** −.041 Ties to the country of origin Economic ties Remitting to Poland/Turkey (personal savings) .079 .142 Property in Poland/Turkey .133*** .051 Social ties Trips to Poland/Turkey since migration (ref. = no trips) Less than 10 trips .025 .060 10 or more trips .105* −.399 Partner in Poland/Turkey .133 .364 Children in Poland/Turkey −.111** .080 Cultural ties Consumption of Polish/Turkish media .033** .037* Religiosity .020 .047* Perception of ethnic boundaries Group discrimination .015 .007 Experienced discrimination −.010 .046 Incompatibility of values .021 .011 Control variables Gender (ref. = female) .016 −.068 Age (in years) −.005 .007 Age² .000 −.000 Duration since immigration (in months) −.002 −.005 Level of education (ref. = none/primary) Secondary .119 .046 Tertiary .146* .082 Pre-post comparison of living situation (ref. = not improved) −.004 −.160*** Observations 1356 1100 Pseudo R² (Nagelkerke) .368 .311 M1: M2: Poles Turks Main motive for immigration Reasons for migration (ref. = economic) Education .108* .178 Family −.078* −.237* Mixed or other reasons −.108** −.203 Ties to the receiving country Economic ties Employment status (ref. = working) Unemployed .006 −.181 Other status 0.45 −.112 Satisfied with current job −.051** −.010 Satisfied with current earnings .028 −.015 Partner’s employment status (ref. = working) Unemployed −.079 −.002 Other status .018 .121* Social ties People known before immigration in Germany −.041 .072 Proportion of German friends in Germany −.066 −.146* Partner in Germany −.152 −.014 Children in Germany −.054 .014 Cultural ties German language proficiency −.030 −.010 Consumption of German media −.045*** −.041 Ties to the country of origin Economic ties Remitting to Poland/Turkey (personal savings) .079 .142 Property in Poland/Turkey .133*** .051 Social ties Trips to Poland/Turkey since migration (ref. = no trips) Less than 10 trips .025 .060 10 or more trips .105* −.399 Partner in Poland/Turkey .133 .364 Children in Poland/Turkey −.111** .080 Cultural ties Consumption of Polish/Turkish media .033** .037* Religiosity .020 .047* Perception of ethnic boundaries Group discrimination .015 .007 Experienced discrimination −.010 .046 Incompatibility of values .021 .011 Control variables Gender (ref. = female) .016 −.068 Age (in years) −.005 .007 Age² .000 −.000 Duration since immigration (in months) −.002 −.005 Level of education (ref. = none/primary) Secondary .119 .046 Tertiary .146* .082 Pre-post comparison of living situation (ref. = not improved) −.004 −.160*** Observations 1356 1100 Pseudo R² (Nagelkerke) .368 .311 Source: SCIP-project, own calculations Note: * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001; ***; logistic (logit) regression; all models control for city of interview and missing values (effects are not reported) Table A4. Explanatory factors of intentions to leave Germany by ethnicity (average marginal effects) M1: M2: Poles Turks Main motive for immigration Reasons for migration (ref. = economic) Education .108* .178 Family −.078* −.237* Mixed or other reasons −.108** −.203 Ties to the receiving country Economic ties Employment status (ref. = working) Unemployed .006 −.181 Other status 0.45 −.112 Satisfied with current job −.051** −.010 Satisfied with current earnings .028 −.015 Partner’s employment status (ref. = working) Unemployed −.079 −.002 Other status .018 .121* Social ties People known before immigration in Germany −.041 .072 Proportion of German friends in Germany −.066 −.146* Partner in Germany −.152 −.014 Children in Germany −.054 .014 Cultural ties German language proficiency −.030 −.010 Consumption of German media −.045*** −.041 Ties to the country of origin Economic ties Remitting to Poland/Turkey (personal savings) .079 .142 Property in Poland/Turkey .133*** .051 Social ties Trips to Poland/Turkey since migration (ref. = no trips) Less than 10 trips .025 .060 10 or more trips .105* −.399 Partner in Poland/Turkey .133 .364 Children in Poland/Turkey −.111** .080 Cultural ties Consumption of Polish/Turkish media .033** .037* Religiosity .020 .047* Perception of ethnic boundaries Group discrimination .015 .007 Experienced discrimination −.010 .046 Incompatibility of values .021 .011 Control variables Gender (ref. = female) .016 −.068 Age (in years) −.005 .007 Age² .000 −.000 Duration since immigration (in months) −.002 −.005 Level of education (ref. = none/primary) Secondary .119 .046 Tertiary .146* .082 Pre-post comparison of living situation (ref. = not improved) −.004 −.160*** Observations 1356 1100 Pseudo R² (Nagelkerke) .368 .311 M1: M2: Poles Turks Main motive for immigration Reasons for migration (ref. = economic) Education .108* .178 Family −.078* −.237* Mixed or other reasons −.108** −.203 Ties to the receiving country Economic ties Employment status (ref. = working) Unemployed .006 −.181 Other status 0.45 −.112 Satisfied with current job −.051** −.010 Satisfied with current earnings .028 −.015 Partner’s employment status (ref. = working) Unemployed −.079 −.002 Other status .018 .121* Social ties People known before immigration in Germany −.041 .072 Proportion of German friends in Germany −.066 −.146* Partner in Germany −.152 −.014 Children in Germany −.054 .014 Cultural ties German language proficiency −.030 −.010 Consumption of German media −.045*** −.041 Ties to the country of origin Economic ties Remitting to Poland/Turkey (personal savings) .079 .142 Property in Poland/Turkey .133*** .051 Social ties Trips to Poland/Turkey since migration (ref. = no trips) Less than 10 trips .025 .060 10 or more trips .105* −.399 Partner in Poland/Turkey .133 .364 Children in Poland/Turkey −.111** .080 Cultural ties Consumption of Polish/Turkish media .033** .037* Religiosity .020 .047* Perception of ethnic boundaries Group discrimination .015 .007 Experienced discrimination −.010 .046 Incompatibility of values .021 .011 Control variables Gender (ref. = female) .016 −.068 Age (in years) −.005 .007 Age² .000 −.000 Duration since immigration (in months) −.002 −.005 Level of education (ref. = none/primary) Secondary .119 .046 Tertiary .146* .082 Pre-post comparison of living situation (ref. = not improved) −.004 −.160*** Observations 1356 1100 Pseudo R² (Nagelkerke) .368 .311 Source: SCIP-project, own calculations Note: * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001; ***; logistic (logit) regression; all models control for city of interview and missing values (effects are not reported) © The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com

Journal

Migration StudiesOxford University Press

Published: Jan 23, 2018

There are no references for this article.

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create lists to
organize your research

Export lists, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off