General information

1. DNA and immigration: Social, political and ethical implications of DNA analysis for family reunification (‘Immigene‘) Project workshop (Project Family Reunification - barrier or facilitator of integration?), May 10, 2012 Ursula Naue and Kevin Hall

2. General information Trilateral project ELSAGEN project (GEN-AU) Start: February 2010, 3 years 3 country case studies (Austria, Finland, Germany), comparative perspective Philosophical subproject (ethical implications) Frankfurt (Lemke, Heinemann), Helsinki (Helén, Tapaninen), Vienna (Naue, Hall), Klagenfurt (Weiss, Guggenheimer) Background: Political science, sociology, cultural anthropology and philosophy

3. Research questions What are the social, political and ethical implications of DNA analysis for family reunification? How do different stakeholders in the procedure act in given legal, political, historical and societal contexts? How do the actual practices look like? How do persons who had to undergo (with their family members) such DNA tests perceive these tests?

4. Main objectives to develop a general understanding of how DNA analysis is affecting the formulation of immigration policies and politics to identify emerging cross-national patterns of the use of DNA analysis for immigration purposes to examine different ways of using DNA tests for immigration purposes in national contexts and make it possible to understand the implications for society and politics to evaluate DNA analysis for family reunication against the background of a changing understanding of the concept of ‘family‘

5. Theoretical and methodological approach Two very influential debates in the social sciences: 1) Concept of geneticisation coined by Abby Lippman (1991), extending it (predominant focus on medical sphere) 2) Notion of ’biological citizenship’ (Petryna 2002) or ‘genetic citizenship’ (Kerr 2003) Interpretative approach to the analysis of public policy and governance (Yanow 1996; Yanow 2000; Fischer 2003) Research strategy and design: Qualitative social-scientific case study approach (Yin 2003)

6. Data collection Interviews: Interviews per country on average: 25 interviews Interviews with national authorities, NGOs, DNA labs, international organisations, lawyers, persons who had to undergo such tests Analysis of media coverage, legal framework, policy documents and court cases

7. Background information Used since the 1990s Tool for decision-making in the context of family reunification No statistical data available No strict regulations when to use Media coverage differs between the three countries Nearly no research and scientific literature on this specific topic

8. Differences on an administrative, discursive and legal level Situatedness of such DNA tests: Different laws concerning family definitions, privacy and informed consent regulations Different migration discourses Different definitions of immigrants eligible for reuniting with their families Differing discourses on forensic DNA analysis Used differently in the administrative context and thus gaining a different role for the authorities’ decision on reunification

9. Austria, Finland and Germany (1) Pilot research project on DNA testing in 1996-1997 Government Proposal that introduced DNA testing as an amendment to the Aliens Act (Ulkomaalaislaki 378/1991) Amendments to the Finnish Aliens Act (Ulkomaalaislaki 378/1999) regarding DNA testing were passed with unambiguous consensus, and entered into force in 2000

10. Austria, Finland and Germany (2) The Immigration Act does not regulate the possibility of DNA analysis in family reunification cases However, DNA kinship testing is explicitly provided in the general administrative regulations for the Residence Act (no. 27.0.5 AVwV AufenthG, 2009) DNA testing for immigration purposes was first regulated in the Genetic Diagnostics Law (Gendiagnostikgesetz) which entered into force in 2010

11. Austria, Finland and Germany (3) EFF/ERF pilot project 2006 - 2009 The2009Austrian Aliens Law Package (Fremdenrechtsänderungsgesetz 2009) introduced DNA analysis in the context of family reunification cases However, DNA analysis for family reunification had already been in use for several years before the amendments to the Aliens Law Package

12. Some preliminary results – Similarities and differences Option (framing of DNA tests) Eligibility (vertical family ties, age testing, initiating the test etc.) Finding one‘s family members Documents, interviews by authorities and DNA tests (relationship between these tools) Costs (who pays what?) Role of embassies DNA labs (number of labs, standards, tests as such, advance payment, informed consent, report etc.)

13. Eligible: Minor child, parent of minor child, spouse or legal partner (e.g. § 2 (22) AsylG) Proof of eligibility: Documents and/or establishing trustworthiness by coherent narrations in consecutive interviews DNA as scientific evidence for veracity of documents and/or the accounts given in the interviews Limits of DNA evidence: Not all countries issue marriage certificates or certificates of adoption; DNA-testing can only proof/verify a relationship through a joint child; adoptions cannot be verified by DNA evidence, but trustworthiness could be increased if DNA profiling/analysis supports the reuniting person‛s account (change in policy) Some preliminary results

14. Austria: No legal regulations concerning lab-procedures; no regulations on informed consent, data storage or sample storage; all labs have a court certified expert, though, resulting in four forensic labs based at Austrian universities and three private labs; broad range of prices Finland: Law for forensic genetic paternity testing; two state funded labs do the testing; pricing regulated by government decree on forensic genetic paternity testing (252,28 EUR/person paid by the state); IC required; samples stored for two years, results stored indefinitely Germany: DNA testing for family reunification is regulated by GenDG; Certification in accordance to ISO/DIN 17025 required resulting in approx. 60 eligible labs for testing; IC required; results stored for 30 years; samples are destroyed after closure of the case; broad range of prices DNA laboratories

15. Austria: Distinction between refugees and other immigrants (AsylG and NAG); refunding of positive tests (AsylG); no lawyer required; application of family reunification has to be filed by family members abroad at the Austrian embassy Finland: No legal distinction between refugees and other immigrants; test is paid by Migri (irrespective of results) and until recently applications for family reunification could be filed in Finland by the reuniting person Germany: 3 months period of grace for refugees – double burden of applying for asylum and finding family members; financial and legal hurdles (lawyer, DNA testing, journeys to embassy and related costs, flight tickets to Germany, etc) Enacting the human right to family life (Art. 7 Charter of Fundamental Rights)

16. For further questions please contact us: Immigene Team Case Study Austria: Ursula Naue: ursula.naue@univie.ac.at Kevin Hall: khall@stud.uni-frankfurt.de Thank you for your attention!