Susanne Lachenicht: How do political scientists use historical research for their analysis of today’s migrations?

Olaf Kleist: If historians are thought of as archaeologists of history, digging in archives pieces and scraps out of the rubble of time and piecing them together painstakingly to create artefacts from which they build an idea of the past – then, political scientists pick and choose from historians’ shiniest artefacts to curate an argument for a contemporary exhibition. This is true also for political migration studies. Due to the high relevance of the topic “migration” some historical vases and suitcases get more attention but are possibly mislabelled or misinterpreted by political scientist when related to today’s events.

First, tracing current migration phenomena since their origin in order to understand migration policy options, political decision-making and their limits in modern politics and polities, may reach back centuries – but more likely a few years or months in the past. Political science tends to avoid uncertain factors and variables in their analysis and thus, stays close to the present and away from historical data in their studies. This comes with a cost of ignoring more fundamental questions underlying migration policies, such as institutional or civil society responses, that may be better understood in their historical developments.

Thirdly, rather than analysing what migration histories could be used for in the present, political science looks where and what by whom is “dug up” from the migration past for political reasons – the memory politics of migration. Concern for memories, such as commemorations of important migration events and migration museums, is relevant for the analysis of politics in immigrant societies, specifically questions around belonging such as citizenship, integration and minorities. This requires a broader view than just considering state policies and integrates into a multidisciplinary analysis the important role of civil society, NGOs, migrant organisations and local communal institutions – and their respective versions of the history of migration. Thus, political science is able to look into migration history in the making and to provide migration history with a politically reflexive moment.

Susanne Lachenicht: How could political scientists and historians learn from each other in their analysis of past and present migrations?

In turn, political science has developed complex theories of the state, of politics and of migration policies. As institutions and political processes, they have massive impact beyond individual decisions and actions. Historiography is still strongly focused on historical figures, albeit on an increasingly broad spectrum including general populations, migrants and refugees. Yet, institutions are actors themselves with interests and norms that are of central concern to political science as it can impact migration more than any person. The theories and concepts that drive political science are probably the most important lesson for historians, specifically since the growing importance of (big) data in social science is hard to replicate with historical sources – which yields little generalisable knowledge anyways. And what are history and political science about migration good for if we can’t draw on their studies for the future?

Susanne Lachenicht: Whose interests are negotiated in present day refugee and asylum seeker policies?

Olaf Kleist: In the immediate sense, refugees are most impacted by refugee policies, of course. Yet, everybody participates in the negotiation of refugee policies – with different interests and impacts. Refugees are traditionally defined by their lack of a relationship to a state but as members of society and as migrants they can give voice to their interests, verbally or by action. The better organised they are, the more impact they have – while citizens have an advantage not only due to being able to vote but usually due to broader networks with greater political influence. Similarly, well connected and powerful interest groups, such as business associations or religious groups can have the greatest impact on migration policies. Ultimately, interests are not linked to certain positions in migration questions but are highly dependent on historical contexts and relationships to the state. Labour shortage can lead to more generous refugee policies and unemployment to closing borders; churches are among the most important voices for generous refugee policies but can also reject non-Christian immigrants. Some members of a host society might warmly welcome asylum seekers and others protest their presence, depending on how they view belonging in relation to the nation-state. Interests in migration policies shift and are hard fought over – with the exception of the modern nation state’s control over its borders: this is an interest crucial to its existence, though who receives entry and how differs and shifts. And therein lies also the difficulty in identifying interests regarding refugee policies: Asylum seekers are seeking protection under the state’s sovereignty, which they may have to overcome when crossing its sovereign borders to claim asylum. So, how do they relate to the state? What is negotiated in regard to refugee policies are not interests of certain people or groups, that are neither stable nor homogenous, but the political organisation of society and the interest in democracy, rights and diversity versus an exclusive and authoritarian state. Here, history can certainly be an important guide to what might follow from a form of government that offers protection to others in need over those that rely on a strong state.