450 MAREN MÖHRING
developed to deal with this topic.^8 In the 1990s, transnational approaches
began to replace earlier analytical frameworks that concentrated on em-
igration and immigration, thereby defi ning migration as a one-time tran-
sition from a clear location of origin to a clear destination.^9 Although
such new conceptual perspectives have proven to be very eff ective in
furthering research on international migration, the movement of people
that took place between East and West presents a very particular case
that needs to be handled diff erently. Thanks to the prohibitions and
tightly limited opportunities that made leaving the countries in Eastern
Europe diffi cult, the decision to move to the West was often a very fi nal
one. It was usually diffi cult for those who left the East to maintain con-
tacts across the border, and it was virtually impossible for them to visit
their old home country. The migration regime in Eastern Europe after
1945 was therefore very unique in that the strict regulations on leaving
the country separated it from most other systems of migration.^10 Corre-
spondingly, “transnationality” is a problematic term with respect to the
migration movements analyzed in this chapter, because although those
East German citizens who fl ed or left the GDR for the FRG crossed a state
border, they were considered to be German nationals when they arrived
in the West and treated as citizens immediately. Even those migrants
known as Aussiedler, which was a term used to refer to ethnic Germans
who “came back” to Germany from Eastern Europe sometimes after sev-
eral generations, were still considered to be German by descent. Con-
sequently, although the Aussiedler essentially migrated from Russia to
West Germany, their migration fostered the development of a new kind of
Russian-German identity. Nonetheless, this was a singular kind of trans-
national migration because the Aussiedler did not fall under the category
of “foreigners.” Transnationality, therefore, cannot be presumed in these
cases, but rather it must be interrogated as a problem within debates over
nationality and belonging within its respective historical contexts.
Two other current trends in migration research inform the approach
adopted within this chapter: fi rst, the notion of the “autonomy of migra-
tion,” which downplays the role of government migration policy as a key
factor behind migration by stressing that these policies were more of an
answer to migrant practices, sheds new light on migratory movements.^11
Actions undertaken by the state—such as closing borders—therefore
clearly appear to be responses to self-willed practices, such as the desire
of some GDR citizens to defect to the West. Such an approach shifts the
focus to the “perseverance of migration movements” and their practices
as well as aspects of materiality despite the enormous hurdles that had to
be overcome. The tenacity of such migration often forces the permanent
reformulation of state migration policies or even leads to their retraction,