Unaccompanied refugee minors in Germany: attitudes of the general population towards a vulnerable group

Among people seeking refuge, adolescents and young adults present a majority and it has been estimated that around 50% of refugees worldwide are below the age of 18 [1]. Germany saw a steep rise in the numbers of refugees in the year 2015, with the federal office for migration and refugees reporting that among them 31.1% were below the age of 18 and 26.5% below the age of 16 [2]. Among them were many unaccompanied refugee minors (URMs), defined as persons under 18 years of age seeking refuge in a foreign country without an adult being responsible for them [for definition, see 2, 3]. Although the large majority (86%) of refugee minors travel with their parents [4], recently, a large number of URM came to Europe, with their numbers in Germany increasing tenfold within 2 years [4]. In 2015, 14,439 applications for asylum were handed in by URM, of which 28.7% were handed in by URM younger than 16 years of age and 71.3% from the age group 16–18. With regard to the country of origin, the largest groups of URM came from Afghanistan (32.9%), Syria (27.6%), Eritrea, and Iraq (9.3% each) [2]. Not all URMs enter the registration in European countries and the EUROPOL has warned that many URMs seem to disappear from asylum or reception centers [5] and are used for labor exploitation. In addition, according to the International Organization for Migration (IOM) and UNICEF, there is a group of especially young, male asylum seekers, who avoid registration to escape protection measures and are at an especially high risk for exploitation [6]. With regard to legal aspects, it is noteworthy that URMs also include minors, who came to their new host countries through human trafficking [7].

Based on the aforementioned questions regarding attitudes towards refugees [21], we adapted the items to assess attitudes towards UMR, asking if participants thought that Germany will be able to host more URM (Is Germany capable of hosting more URM?). Participants were able to answer positively, negatively, or could state that they were undecided on that issue. To assess attitudes towards URM from different regions of origin we asked, whether URM (in general, from the Balkan peninsula, from Africa, and from the Middle East) should be sent back to their home countries. Answers could be provided on a four-point Likert scale (fully agree-fully opposed). Regarding schooling or apprenticeship, we asked whether URM should have the same rights to access schooling or apprenticeship as adolescents with German nationality, also providing a four-point Likert-scale answering scheme (fully agree–fully opposed). The same answer format was used when asking if URM should be allowed to stay in Germany if they have finished either school or apprenticeship in Germany. Our last question pertained to the housing situation of URM, assessing where participants thought that URM should live (with pre-defined answer categories being based on the actual situation in Germany: in refugee housing, in youth welfare homes, and in foster care or “elsewhere”).

To assess political attitudes and attitudes to asylum seekers, in general, we used a validated measure of political right-wing extremist attitudes (Fragebogen zum Rechtsextremismus-Leipziger Form: FR-LF). This 18 item scale consists of six subscales (approval of dictatorship, chauvinism, hostility to foreigners, anitsemitism, socialdarwinism, and belittlement of nationalsocialism) with three items/subscale. This scale has been used in bi-annual representative population surveys in Germany from the year 2002 to detect trends in right-wing extremism attitudes [24‐26]. Furthermore, we used assessment of islamophobia and rejection of asylum seekers in general (with two items each) as proposed in Decker et al. [25]. Participants were asked to rate themselves on a political spectrum from left to right wings on a ten-point Likert scale [25, 26], so that we were both able to assess right-wing extremism (by the FR-LF scale) and political attitudes (using the ten-point Likert scale).

The survey was in concordance with the Declaration of Helsinki met ethical guidelines of the international code of Marketing and Social Research practice by the International Chamber of Commerce and the European Society for Opinion and Marketing Research and was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Medical Faculty of the University of Leipzig. Statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS, Vers. 21.

Only 22.8% agreed that it is possible for Germany to take in more URM, with no significant gender difference (χ ²: 5.19; p = 0.075). There was a tendency to a more positive attitude in younger participants with lower rates of approval in older participants. Furthermore, participants, who did not have a German citizenship, more often agreed to the statement that Germany has the potential to accept more URM (39.8 vs. 22.1%; χ ²: 21.67, p < 0.001). In participants with a lower monthly income after taxes, more negative attitudes were present (χ ²: 15.78, p = 0.003). Having graduated from high school was associated with a more positive attitude (χ ²: 99.04, p < 0.001) (see Table 1 for details).

Differentiating between regions of origin of URM and asking whether URM from different parts of the globe should be sent back, an interesting pattern emerged. Although few people fully agreed to sending back URM from the middle east, more than half of the participants (fully) agreed that URM from the Balkan peninsula or from Africa should be sent back to their home countries. There was a gender effect with females being more clearly opposed to sending back URM to their home country in general (χ ²2: 15.20, p = 0.002) to the Balkans (χ ²2: 27.76, p < 0.001), Africa (χ ²2: 26.23, p < 0,001), and the Middle East (χ ²2: 33,40, p < 0.001) (Table 2).

Looking into integration, questions regarding schooling/job training and housing were asked. There was a large majority both for granting URM the same schooling or apprenticeship possibilities as adolescents from Germany and for allowing URM with a finished school exam and job training to stay in Germany (see Fig. 1). Female participants agreed even stronger to URM being granted the same schooling or job training possibilities (χ ²2: 17.0, p = 0.001) and the right to stay in Germany after finishing school or a job training (χ ²2: 26.19, p < 0.001).

Asked in which place URM should live, most participants were in favor of youth welfare homes (44.6%), followed by refugee housings (29.2%) and foster care (18.5%) (elsewhere: 7.7%). This results in more than half of the participants approve of offering the same options to URM (youth welfare institutions and foster care) than to all other children in need in Germany.

Only a fifth (22.8%) of participants thought that Germany could accommodate more URM, whereas 45.6% responded negatively. This is quite a low rate, especially in comparison with the studies from Petersen [21] and Koecher [22], who reported rates of 31 or 32%, respectively, to a comparable question asking whether Germany would be capable to welcome refugees in general. There are two possible explanations for this rather low rate. One could be the time of the survey. While the studies of Petersen [21] and Koecher [22] were conducted in August and October 2015, our study was conducted between January and March 2016. At this time, there might have been a shift in the public opinion about refugees, following the events on new year’s eve in Cologne, where a mass sexual harassment was linked by media to a high number of immigrants [27, 28], thus creating a more hostile attitude. Furthermore, it might well be that the attitude against URM is more negative in comparison with the attitude against refugees in general, also including families and—when looking into gender issue—more girls. As accompanied refuge minors show lower rates of male adolescents in comparison with URM (50 vs. 86%), our finding could also be interpreted as a more opposing attitude to a predominantly male refugee group, also in light of the aforementioned events of sexual harassment and the associated media coverage and the perceived menace of terrorist attacks in European countries.

We found a differentiation for countries of origin when asking for immediate deportation as often claimed by right-wing populists. While fewer participants argued in support of immediate deportation of URM in general (38.6%) or of URM from the Middle East (35.3%), a majority advocated for immediate deportations of URM from the Balkan region (62%) or from Africa (51.1%). Of note, regression analysis revealed that attitudes to deportation were influenced by islamophobic tendencies and a general negative attitude towards asylum seekers. Gender and age only predicted attitudes towards deportation of youth from the Balkans or Africa, with generally more negative attitudes towards URM in male and in older participants. This might be due to the fact that there are no current war zones in the Balkans and these countries of origin have been declared as “safe” by the German administration. However, this is not true for a large number of countries or regions in Africa. It might be that our questions were to crude to differentiate between peaceful African nations and warzones, and it would be advisable to assess this distinction in future studies. It seems hardly understandable why islamophobic tendencies influenced tendencies towards deportation of URM from the Balkan peninsula, as only Bosnia and Hercegovina, and Albania and Kosovo have a muslim majority population. However, it might be that this result is due to over-generalization.

Looking into explanations for attitudes towards deportation, we assessed both demographic variables as well as political attitudes. In doing so, we saw that political attitudes more leaning to the right spectrum, right-wing extremism, a general rejection of asylum seekers as well as islamophobic attitudes influenced the attitudes towards URM.

The finding that right-wing political attitudes led to a lower acceptance of URM are in line with a study of 216 US students, also showing that a more conservative political attitude led to lower levels of acceptance regarding the intake of more refugees than a more liberal attitude [29].

We saw that a higher level of education was associated with more positive attitudes towards URM, and it seems warranted to state that education holds the key to a more welcoming and accepting attitude towards URM. This is a finding often encountered in research on attitudes towards immigration per se [30].

With regard to integration of URM already in Germany, high rates of approval where found for guaranteeing the same chances to schooling or apprenticeship for URM as to German children. This is in line with Article 22 of the Convention of children’s rights [31]. In addition, nearly, three quarters of participants were in favor of bestowing URM a right to permanent residence if they were able to complete school or apprenticeship. This should inform politics, showing that besides a reluctance against accepting more URM, austerity and depriving URM of rights to education are not acceptable for a large majority.

Although it has been shown that psychiatric disorders in URM seem to remain stable over time [20], some factors have the potential to increase mental health. In a study on 895 URM, who had stayed in Norway on average 3.5 years, support from the family had a positive influence on depressive symptomatology. Furthermore, also social support from friends had effects on levels of depression that were mediated by host cultural competence and discrimination [32]. As integrating URM in school or apprenticeship could lead to an increase in host cultural competence and decrease discrimination, these factors could have an influence on the mental health burden of URM.

It seems that education and qualification hold the key to integration based on a large consensus in German society. Of note, studies about needs and wishes of URM consistently report a high motivation to learn the language of their new host country and attend school [3]. At this point, hopes of URM and expectations of society meet, which underlines the importance of participation in education as key factor in integration.