Abstract Cities in Europe are shrinking and depend on immigration to stabilise their populations. In most cases, urban policy is growth-oriented and local actors are unlikely to accept shrinkage as a development paradigm. Despite this growth postulate, however, most cities have not yet developed any explicit strategies in respect to migration. In many urban development concepts, only the desire for the immigration of young and qualified workers is articulated. Many cities are depending on the arrival of the “creative class”. In contrast, the immigration of refugees and asylum seekers is not part of a city’s development strategy, but management thereof is delegated to city authorities responsible for the integration of migrants. As a result of the state-quoted allocation of refugees and asylum seekers, which is framed as “burden sharing”, cities have little room for manoeuvre in terms of managing immigration proactively. This issue therefore examines the following questions: Which immigration strategies are being developed by cities in Germany? How much room for manoeuvre does urban policy have to control and steer immigration? What resistance to immigration exists in local government policy? Against the background of the current political discussion about an immigration law in Germany, a contribution from Canada compares local policy options in a classic immigration country with those in Europe.

中文翻译：

---

客座社论

摘要 欧洲的城市正在萎缩，依靠移民来稳定人口。在大多数情况下，城市政策以增长为导向，当地参与者不太可能接受收缩作为发展范式。然而，尽管有这种增长假设，但大多数城市尚未制定任何明确的移民战略。在许多城市发展概念中，只表达了对年轻合格工人移民的渴望。许多城市都依赖于“创意阶层”的到来。相比之下，难民和寻求庇护者的移民不是城市发展战略的一部分，而是委托给负责移民融合的城市当局进行管理。由于国家引用的难民和寻求庇护者的分配被称为“负担分担”，城市在主动管理移民方面几乎没有回旋余地。因此，本期探讨了以下问题：德国的城市正在制定哪些移民策略？城市政策在控制和引导移民方面有多少回旋余地？地方政府政策存在哪些移民阻力？在当前关于德国移民法的政治讨论的背景下，加拿大的一篇文章将经典移民国家的当地政策选择与欧洲的政策选择进行了比较。德国的城市正在制定哪些移民策略？城市政策在控制和引导移民方面有多少回旋余地？地方政府政策存在哪些移民阻力？在当前关于德国移民法的政治讨论的背景下，加拿大的一篇文章将经典移民国家的当地政策选择与欧洲的政策选择进行了比较。德国的城市正在制定哪些移民策略？城市政策在控制和引导移民方面有多少回旋余地？地方政府政策存在哪些移民阻力？在当前关于德国移民法的政治讨论的背景下，加拿大的一篇文章将经典移民国家的当地政策选择与欧洲的政策选择进行了比较。