Germany's temporary ban on family reunification for beneficiaries of subsidiary protection - A comparative discourse analysis of (de)-legitimation strategies

Sammanfattning: The German government’s decision in 2016 to reduce the number of incoming immigrants by suspending family reunification for beneficiaries of subsidiary protection for two years, sparked a controversial debate, with some critics arguing that family reunification represents a human right. Contributing to the very scarce literature about this development, the aim pursued in this thesis is to better understand the differing discourses and (de-)legitimation strategies regarding the suspension by comparatively analysing written statements handed in to German parliament by the government and civil society organisations in March of 2017. The theoretical framework underlying this thesis are the discursive understanding of human rights by Seyla Benhabib and Michel Foucault’s theorisation of power and knowledge. The methodological framework consists of a three-dimensional critical discourse analysis by Norman Fairclough complemented with an analysis of the four categories of (de-)legitimation by Theo van Leeuwen. The results of the analysis show that two types of discourse are pursued in the material: a legal, technical discourse by the government supported by (de-)legitimation strategies relying on national laws, administrative court decisions and the value of qualities like leadership and a discourse focused on the value of family life by the civil society organisations. Despite the diverse backgrounds of the civil society organisations analysed, coinciding (de-)legitimation strategies based on the importance of family life for integration and based on the case law of federal and European courts were identified.