Vanessa Grifo develops a framework for a sociology of migration analysis of private international personal status and family law. The aim is to uncover the conflicts of interest that shape legislation and judicial decision-making in the context of migration. In migration sociology, the concept of the post-migrant society describes how politics and society have been renegotiating the cultural integration of immigrants since federal policymakers first acknowledged in 2001 that "Germany is a country of immigration." In this process, conflicts between the cultural identity of immigrants and the national identity of the host society-often articulated particularly in relation to Muslim immigrants-are being newly balanced. Within these post-migrant identity conflicts, private international law (PIL) assumes a distinctive mediating function, as it determines which legal order governs the private status relationships of immigrants. The application of foreign legal systems, particularly those shaped by Islamic law, may challenge elements of the national identity of the host country. With the concept of a "Jurisprudence of Identities," the author proposes a new analytical framework for private international personal status and family law. She demonstrates that the criteria developed in migration sociology for analyzing post-migrant identity conflicts can be translated into the concepts and methods of private international law. A sociology of migration analysis of selected legislative acts and judicial decisions since the 1970s reveals that, since the turn of the millennium, courts and legislators no longer automatically equate immigrants' cultural identity with the law of their country of origin. At the same time, they increasingly draw on the national identity of the host country when shaping and applying conflict of laws rules. As a result, conflict of laws doctrine reflects a shift in the understanding of integration-from a pluralist approach toward one that is increasingly assimilation-oriented.