Phantomgrenzen im Kontext grenzüberschreitender Wohnmigration: das Beispiel des deutsch-luxemburgischen Grenzraums

The article begins with a discussion about the desubstantialization and the simultaneous continuation of the border. The authors state that the term phantom is appropriate to describe this circumstance. On the basis of cross-border residential migration in the German-Luxembourg border region, this article examines the connection between territorial borders and social border demarcations. After an introduction to research perspectives within Border Studies in relation to the processes of (de-)differentiation in the context of residential migration, BOESEN et al. explain the concept of the phantom border, as this proves to be helpful in analyzing the processes mentioned. This is followed by a detailed description of the study area (Luxembourg, neighboring federal states of Saarland and Rhineland-Palatinate in Germany), in which both everyday mobility (cross-border employee mobility) and residential migration are described in detail. Over the past 15 years, the number of Luxembourg nationals relocating to the neighboring German border area has steadily increased. The reasons for this are to be found in the housing costs asymmetries.

This article analyses the data from four empirical studies dealing with the Saarland and Rhineland-Palatinate border regions. The four studies are:

• a cartographic documentation and a geostatic survey of the spatial distribution of Luxembourg citizens in the municipality of Perl in Saarland (2011),
• an analysis of a qualitative interview with a Luxembourg migrant living in Merzig (Saarland) about the reasons for the migration and the choice of residence (2013),
• a quantitative study on opinions in relation to residential migrants, which was carried out in rural districts in Rhineland-Palatinate,
• and ethnographic case study in the Rhineland-Palatinate border region to Luxembourg.

The methods applied differ, but the results of the studies are fundamentally consistent in that the residential migration of Luxembourg nationals to the German border area leads to social border demarcations and spatial differentiations at both a regional and local level. BOESEN et al. write about the municipality of Perl in Saarland, which has good transportion connections to Luxembourg, that in recent years new development areas have been created here in order to meet the demand of migrants from Luxembourg. The number of residents in the municipality from Luxembourg has almost tripled in four years (2006-2010). Since 2009, there has been a procurement directive in place to cushion price increases, which stipulates that autochthons have to pay a lower price for a square meter of building land than allochthons. The studies indicate a strong spatial concentration of Luxembourg nationals in some districts and streets. This can be interpreted as an expression of “wanting to stay with other Luxembourgers.” However, contrary trends are also becoming apparent, as can be seen from the qualitative interview with a Luxembourg residential migrant living in Merzig. He left Luxembourg because of experiences of alienation, but has deliberately decided not to settle in the immediate vicinity of the border, as he does not want to participate in the Luxembourg enclave formation. He criticizes this in an interview and consciously accepts a longer commute to his job in Luxembourg. Similar points are also made for the Rhineland-Palatinate border region. In addition, the opinions of autochthons and immigrants from German federal states 2012/2013 are presented. The border appears “diffuse in the perceptions of social and cultural distance and proximity.” Its phantom-like nature allows it to “proceed in an individually differentiated and creative way with categories such as ‘the typical Luxembourger’ or ‘the Freudenburger’ and to make them the basis of self-perception and identification.” (p. 124)