"We can't see any effects that promote integration" - Prof Dr Felix Weinhardt on the residence regulation for refugees

Mr Weinhardt, the residence regulation for refugees was introduced out of concern for regional overloading of the integration infrastructure and to improve integration. To what extent does this regulation restrict refugees' freedom to choose their place of residence?
From a legal perspective, refugees are not allowed to move for three years once their protection status has been recognised as a result of the residence regulation that became effective in 2016. However, there are exceptions. And: for the majority of refugees, it is not a restriction at all, as 58 per cent of refugees did not move before the introduction of the residence regulation.

Where did the other 42 per cent move to?
One of the reasons for the introduction of the residence regulation was the concern about overburdened integration infrastructures. However, if we now look at where refugees have moved to without the residence regulation - if at all - we can see that many of these moves have evened out. Some moved from A to B and vice versa. However, before the introduction of the residence regulation, twelve per cent of refugees moved to the so-called hotspots, i.e. places where the integration infrastructure is heavily utilised. The residence regulation has reduced these moves to five per cent.

Does this mean that the majority of refugees are restricted in their mobility, even though they have no intention of moving to regions that are already overcrowded?
Yes, that is the case! This regulation does succeed in relieving the hotspots somewhat, but it restricts the mobility of a large number of people who weren't planning to move there anyway.

Does the residence regulation help or hinder the integration of refugees?
It is interesting that the law is not only intended to avoid hotspots, but also to promote integration in the areas of work, housing, social affairs and language. However, our data does not actually show any effects that promote integration. Instead, the effects are actually rather negative. In the area of housing in particular, we see that it takes longer for refugees to find their own accommodation.

How high is the administrative burden caused by the residence regulation?
The administrative burden is enormous, especially for the immigration authorities. The exceptions that allow refugees to move despite the residence regulation make it even more difficult, for example if they can provide proof of a job offer. To do this, immigration authorities in different locations have to coordinate their efforts. This creates a huge amount of work and contributes to important tasks being left behind.

How could the situation be improved without it being a disadvantage for the overburdened regions?
In fact, there is something that is already provided for in the law and has already been practised locally - the negative allocation. Instead of obliging refugees to stay in the places to which they were more or less randomly assigned at the beginning, even after their protection status has been recognised, it is also possible to simply define immigration bans for particularly busy areas and continue to allow people to move freely in the rest of Germany.

(The interview was first published on the website of the German Institute for Economic Research, DIW Berlin.)

Translated by Deepl and edited