In the American debate about integration and assimilation ‘then and now’, changing economic conditions and the social context of the ethnic communities feature prominently, but little consideration is given to the possible impact of changing political conditions on integration processes – although the problem is occasionally mentioned. To some extent this may reflect a general disregard for the state in migration research – as observed by James Hollifield as well as Aristide Zolberg. Thus Zolberg noted that ‘‘the role of states in shaping international migration has been largely ignored by immigration theorists’’. And Hollifield sees theorists scrambling to ‘‘‘bring the state back in’ to social scientific analyses of migration.’’ While Hollifield mentions the ‘issue of incorporation’ as one major theme and poses the question of the role of the state ‘in incorporating immigrants into society and the economy’, his review of the literature, like Zolberg's discussion, reflect the fact that recently revived discussions on the role of the state have focussed on migration control, i.e., in Tomas Hammar's terms, immigration policy rather than immigrant policy.

For the US it may to some extent be justified to assume continuity of at least major political structures and disregard change in this field as one component of the framework for integration. For Germany, however, this would be absurd. Here, in the last 100 to 120 years, enormous ruptures have occurred: Two world wars were fought by and inside the country, and six different regimes (seven if we include the occupation of 1945-1949) partly represent radically differing political structures. And yet, if we reconsider the literature on Germany's migratory experience, the emphasis is often on continuity, and it is the assumed continuity of the key aims of government policy and the legal framework that is at its core.

So does it make sense to compare the integration processes of immigrants in Germany today and, say one hundred years ago? And what impact did state policies have on integration processes, to what extent did differing political frameworks determine integration outcomes?

As an analytical framework, it seems useful to refer to a model suggested by Alejandro Portes among others.