Loss of touch with reality: “No one is immigrating into our social welfare system” – When Minister Bärbel Bas denies facts that her own coalition agreement confirms

21 billion euros in costs: The disastrous basic income rate that is costing SPD voters

Citizen's income scandal in the Bundestag: How Bärbel Bas ignored her own coalition agreement

Federal Labor Minister Bärbel Bas (SPD) caused widespread head-shaking with a single parliamentary statement: "No one is immigrating into our social welfare system." However, a sober look at the official figures from the Federal Employment Agency refutes this categorical assertion. At €21.7 billion annually, almost half of all citizen's income payments now go to people without German passports – an increase of more than 200 percent in the last fifteen years. The minister's refusal to acknowledge the issue not only ignores the empirical reality and the concerns of many taxpayers, but also blatantly contradicts her own coalition agreement, which calls for reducing incentives for immigration into the social welfare system. This is an in-depth analysis of ideological blinders, exploding fiscal costs, and the question of why the SPD is increasingly losing the trust of its core electorate with precisely such statements.

Related to this:

• TAGESSPIEGEL: Bas surprises in government questioning: "No one is immigrating into our social welfare system"
• BILD: "No one is immigrating into our social welfare system"

A sentence that reveals a political stance

On May 7, 2026, Federal Labor Minister Bärbel Bas (SPD) made a statement during the government's question time in the German Bundestag that was politically and analytically astonishing in its simplicity. When asked by AfD member of parliament René Springer why, given the strained budget situation, the minister wasn't cutting spending "where it's obvious: on immigration into our social welfare system," Bas categorically replied: "No one is immigrating into our social welfare system."

This statement is not only factually incorrect. It is symptomatic. It shows how far removed parts of the social democratic establishment are from empirical reality and the everyday lives of broad segments of the population. It reveals an ideological shielding mentality that doesn't process inconvenient data with analytical acumen, but rather defines it away. And it perfectly illustrates why the SPD suffered one of its worst historical defeats in the 2025 federal election – not despite, but precisely because of this stance on the issue of migration.

Related to this:

• Is the traditional people's party a thing of the past? The real reasons for the dramatic decline of the SPD

The numbers that a minister doesn't want to see

The facts are clear and come from the Federal Employment Agency, a public authority formally overseen by Bärbel Bas as Minister of Labor. On average, around 5.3 million people in Germany received citizen's income in 2025. Of these, 2.8 million were German citizens (52.8 percent), while 2.5 million were foreign nationals, representing 47.2 percent. At the turn of the year 2024/2025, the proportion of foreign nationals had even temporarily risen to almost 48 percent.

In absolute financial terms, the picture is even clearer: In 2025, Germany spent a total of €46.6 billion on basic income support. Of this, €24.9 billion went to German citizens and €21.7 billion to foreign recipients. Almost half of the statutory basic income support for employable individuals thus went to people without German passports. By comparison, in 2010, payments to foreign recipients amounted to around €6.9 billion – since then, they have risen to €22.2 billion in 2024 and €21.7 billion in 2025. This represents an increase of more than 200 percent in fifteen years.

The largest groups of foreign benefit recipients come from Ukraine, followed by Syria, Afghanistan, and Turkey. According to data from the Federal Employment Agency from April 2025, Ukrainians constitute the second-largest group of all citizen's benefit recipients at 13 percent, followed by Syrians at 9 percent and Afghans at 3.7 percent. Around 660,000 people from Ukraine were receiving citizen's benefit payments at the end of 2025.

The structural background: Flight, asylum and the open social welfare system

An honest analysis does not permit a simplistic equation of all foreign recipients of citizen's benefits with the phenomenon of "welfare state migration" in its original sense. The composition of this group is multifaceted, and a nuanced consideration is required.

A significant proportion are war refugees from Ukraine who have sought protection in Germany since 2022. From the outset, they were granted special status under the EU Mass Migration Directive, meaning they received citizen's income benefits instead of the lower asylum seeker benefits – a deliberate political decision intended to facilitate immediate integration into the job center system and thus faster labor market integration. The Institute for Employment Research (IAB) confirmed that this group experienced significantly faster labor market integration than previous cohorts of refugees: Three and a half years after their arrival, around 50 percent of the Ukrainians who entered Germany at the beginning of the war were employed, while refugees who arrived in 2015 only reached this rate after approximately six years. Nevertheless, many remain in the low-wage sector and require supplementary citizen's income benefits.

For other groups – particularly Afghans and Syrians – the integration record is far less rosy. The rate of those receiving citizen's income among refugees from the eight main countries of origin for asylum seekers is just under 40 percent for people of working age. For Afghans, the rate is around 47 percent, and for Syrians it is also high. The Federal Employment Agency has self-critically acknowledged that the integration of women from asylum-seeking countries is failing structurally. BA board member Daniel Terzenbach stated this directly: "The integration of women from asylum-seeking countries is not working." The main reasons cited are a lack of language skills, inadequate childcare infrastructure, and patriarchal cultures of origin in which women's employment is not socially accepted.

There is also a factual explanation for the increase in the proportion of foreigners receiving citizen's income over time, which any serious analysis must consider: German employees who lose their jobs are initially covered by unemployment insurance (ALG I) for up to twelve months before they fall into the basic income support system. Refugees, on the other hand, enter citizen's income directly from the outset, as they generally cannot demonstrate any years of contributions. Statistically, this explains part of the overrepresentation. Nevertheless, this systemic explanation does not change the fact that the absolute sum of €21.7 billion annually represents a structural challenge that cannot be ignored.

The paradox: Bas' own coalition agreement contradicts it

The politically explosive aspect of Bärbel Bas's statement is not merely her factual contradiction of the data from the Federal Employment Agency. It is the fact that she is also contradicting the coalition agreement that her own party signed.

The coalition agreement between the CDU/CSU and SPD from April 2025, the founding political document of the current federal government, contains the unambiguous statement in the chapter on migration policy: "The incentives to immigrate into the social welfare system must be significantly reduced." It further states: "Germany is pursuing a different, more consistent course in migration policy." This passage necessarily presupposes that the phenomenon of social welfare immigration is recognized as real – because one cannot reduce incentives that, according to the ministerial statement itself, do not even exist.

CDU labor expert Carolin Bosbach summed it up perfectly: "Of course there is immigration into our social welfare system, especially since the figures speak for themselves. Anyone who still denies this is exacerbating the problem." And CDU domestic policy expert Burkhard Dregger added: "Those who no longer perceive reality cannot eliminate the problems. The appeal of the German welfare state remains unbroken."

The contradiction between the coalition's political foundation and Bas's ministerial statement is therefore not merely between government and opposition. It is a contradiction within the coalition itself – a symptom of the fact that the SPD ministry and the Chancellor's Office are drifting apart on fundamental issues of perception.

The semantic trap: What “immigration into social welfare systems” means – and what it doesn't

Defenders of the "bas" position sometimes attempt to salvage the issue through a semantic narrowing of the term, but this substantive argument is ultimately unsalvageable. The argument goes that immigration into social welfare systems presupposes a deliberate influx primarily motivated by social benefits – and this is not empirically verifiable, since most migrants come from war zones and crisis regions, not because of the German basic income. An analysis by the German Bundestag's Research Service notes that while social benefits are not the primary reason for migration, they can certainly act as a "pull factor" in conjunction with other factors.

This limitation is scientifically correct and should not be ignored. Indeed, the majority of people currently receiving citizen's income do not migrate to Germany primarily because of the €563 standard benefit rate. That is true. Wars, persecution, and extreme poverty are the primary drivers. However, distinguishing between the primary motive and the incentive effects of a social policy is a scientific distinction that is crucial for the political management of systems—but not for the question of whether the fiscal burden caused by foreign benefit recipients is real.

And this fiscal burden is real. €21.7 billion in 2025 for foreign recipients of citizen's benefits is not an abstract figure. It corresponds roughly to twice the annual budget of the Federal Ministry of Education and Research. The question, therefore, is not whether this burden exists, but how it is dealt with politically – with an honest diagnosis of the problem or with ideological denial.

The crucial difference between a sound analysis and a populist oversimplification lies precisely here: The AfD instrumentalizes these figures to create a black-and-white narrative that portrays all migrants as parasitic welfare recipients. Bärbel Bas, on the other hand, completely denies the fiscal reality and claims that 21.7 billion euros in annual social benefits for foreigners do not exist. This is false – and potentially more counterproductive in its political impact than the AfD's claim.

Our EU and German expertise in business development, sales and marketing - Image: Xpert.Digital

Industry focus areas: B2B, digitalization (from AI to XR), mechanical engineering, logistics, renewable energies and industry

More information here:

• Expert Business Hub

A thematic hub offering insights and expertise:

• Knowledge platform covering global and regional economies, innovation and industry-specific trends
• A collection of analyses, insights, and background information from our key areas of focus
• A place for expertise and information on current developments in business and technology
• A hub for companies seeking information on markets, digitalization, and industry innovations

The German social system in an international context: its attractiveness and its limits

The coalition agreement speaks of reducing "incentives" for welfare state migration – a term that implicitly acknowledges the international competitive dimension of social benefit levels. Indeed, with around 41 percent of government spending on social security, Germany is among the world leaders. Comparable EU countries such as Finland, France, and Austria each spend around 32 percent of their gross domestic product on social benefits, while the EU average is 27 percent of GDP.

The standard benefit rate of €563 for single recipients of citizen's income is, in absolute terms, considerably higher than the basic social security benefits in many other European countries – particularly those of the countries of origin of the main migrant groups. This is supplemented by the coverage of housing costs as well as entitlements to healthcare and language course funding. The total benefit for a single citizen's income recipient, including housing costs and additional benefits, can quickly rise to two or three times the standard benefit rate alone. While this comprehensive package of benefits is fundamentally justifiable from a social policy perspective, the German Bundestag's Research Service has concluded that, in combination with other factors, it creates incentive effects that can be politically manipulated.

The fact that the coalition has begun to counteract this trend is demonstrated by the transformation of the citizen's income into the new basic income support, which will come into effect gradually from July 1, 2026. Key elements include the return to the priority of job placement, increased requirements for the obligation to work for employable individuals, and the limitation of benefits under Book II of the German Social Code (SGB II) for employable adult foreigners to a fixed term of twelve months. These reforms effectively acknowledge what Bärbel Bas denied during the government question time: that the social system contains structural flaws that encourage migration into benefit dependency.

The skilled worker argument: Both correct and misleading

In her response, Bärbel Bas resorted to an argument that, while correct in itself, comes across as a distraction in the present context: Germany is suffering from a severe shortage of skilled workers, and many companies need "everyone who is in the country and can work." This is true. The shortage of skilled workers is real and structural, and a forward-looking immigration policy must address it. The Federal Ministry of the Interior proudly pointed to a 77 percent increase in skilled worker immigration since 2021.

However, this argument conflates two completely different categories. Skilled worker immigration is regulated, qualification-based, and optimized for the labor market. The majority of people currently receiving citizen's income in large numbers are not skilled workers in the economic sense. According to the Federal Employment Agency, only about 20 percent of people of working age from the main countries of origin for asylum seekers aspire to skilled work. The vast majority find employment—if at all—in the low-wage sector. Around 40 percent of the 1.546 million people of working age from these countries of origin were living on citizen's income at the beginning of 2024.

According to the IAB (Institute for Employment Research), the unemployment rate among foreign nationals was 15.1 percent in April 2024 – more than twice the general unemployment rate of 6.9 percent. The IAB rightly cautions that this overall rate is not very meaningful because it does not differentiate according to migration status and length of stay. In fact, it appears that labor market integration increases with length of stay – an important indication that access to social welfare systems and rapid integration into the labor market can indeed generate productive effects in the long term.

But this is not an argument for denying the problem, but rather for addressing it intelligently. Responsible social policy must tolerate and openly communicate the tension between short-term burdens and long-term integration – not try to define it away.

Related to this:

• Surprising study results: How second-generation immigrants really think about asylum policy

The political diagnosis: Why the SPD is no longer allowed to say this sentence

Bärbel Bas's statement is not a political slip-up. It is the distilled result of the SPD's years-long refusal to acknowledge the tension between the value system of cosmopolitan internationalism and the real-world experiences of its traditional electorate. The consequences of this refusal are measurable: In the 2025 federal election, 20 percent of former SPD voters cited migration as the most important issue that had led them to leave the party—more than social security, internal security, or economic issues. The SPD lost more than 1.7 million voters to the CDU/CSU and 720,000 to the AfD. Among blue-collar workers, only 12 percent voted for the traditional workers' party, the SPD—while 38 percent voted for the AfD.

There is also significant internal criticism. The Young Socialists of Baden-Württemberg wrote in a remarkably self-critical analysis: “Within our party, there is a tendency to dismiss any discussion about migration as pandering to the right wing. It is often claimed that the issue is a manufactured problem. But the debate exists, it is present in the media, and it affects people – whether we like it or not.” These voices, however, fall on deaf ears in a party whose leading politicians still exhibit the reflex to minimize inconvenient facts or to politically label them as a concession to right-wing extremism.

The fundamental problem is a fundamental gap in perception between political elites and large segments of the population. Studies show that in Germany, there is a strong awareness of the fiscal costs of the social welfare system. For people with middle and low incomes, who can barely build up any savings themselves but finance the welfare state through taxes and contributions, the question of distributive justice is existential – not abstract. When a minister says that no one is immigrating into the social welfare system, even though €21.7 billion flows to foreign recipients, it doesn't reassure people. It breeds distrust, contempt, and a search for alternative political solutions.

Trust in political institutions was at a historic low in the run-up to the 2025 federal elections. Statements like Bärbel Bas's fuel this loss of trust because they demonstrate the silence of a political class that no longer speaks honestly to the country.

Structural consequences: What a responsible social policy should achieve

Beyond the partisan political debate, the serious economic question arises: what are the implications of the data for social policy? The answer lies neither in denial nor in blanket isolation.

First, Germany needs a clearer distinction between the humanitarian protection system and labor market migration. War refugees from Ukraine have shown that direct access to the labor market, combined with involvement from job centers, does indeed lead to faster integration. This model is fundamentally sound. At the same time, integration is failing structurally for other groups – particularly for women from predominantly Muslim countries of origin. This requires an honest assessment and consistent measures, not cultural glossing over.

Secondly, the incentive system of the social welfare system must be honestly examined for malfunctions. The federal government has taken initial steps with the reform of basic income support starting in July 2026. Prioritizing job placement, stricter cooperation requirements, and the time limit for employable foreigners are sensible signals. However, these reforms will only work if they are accompanied by a coherent integration policy that views language courses, training, and childcare as investments, not burdens.

Thirdly, the debate on skilled worker immigration needs to be clearly distinguished from the debate on the residency of those granted protection without labor market prospects. Answering both issues with one and the same argument – ​​“We need skilled workers” – as Bärbel Bas did, creates not understanding, but confusion and mistrust.

Fourth, the long-term fiscal perspective must be communicated honestly. The IAB has demonstrated that, despite increased immigration over the past fifteen years, the number of native-born citizens receiving benefits has declined historically – an indication that economic dynamism has also boosted employment among native-born citizens. Under current demographic conditions, financing pensions without immigration would be impossible. However, these structural arguments for orderly migration must be coupled with a willingness to openly address dysfunctional integration processes.

Related to this:

• What is needed is not the 47th master plan or the next emergency program, but a common basic economic policy model

The credibility problem of an entire party

Bärbel Bas's statement exemplifies a credibility problem that the SPD has come to recognize as a systemic characteristic. It is the inability—or unwillingness—to speak uncomfortable truths when they contradict an ideological self-definition. This inability is not even coherent: the very same coalition agreement signed by SPD officials explicitly acknowledges the need to reduce incentives for social welfare immigration. One coalition partner, the CDU, draws the necessary conclusion to publicly address the problem and work on solutions. The other, the SPD, represented by its Minister of Labor, denies the problem's existence at the first parliamentary inquiry.

This isn't a question of left or right, of social or antisocial. It's a question of intellectual honesty and political respect for a population directly confronted with the consequences of these policies. When someone lives in a structurally weak community where schools, kindergartens, and job centers are groaning under the onslaught of recent years, and a federal minister says that no one is immigrating into the social welfare system—that's not just wrong. It's an insult to the actual reality of these people's lives.

Former SPD supporters who have defected to the CDU/CSU or the AfD cite precisely this pattern as the main reason in post-election surveys: not the wrong positions themselves, but the discrepancy between lived reality and what political officeholders are willing to acknowledge as reality. This discrepancy is the real political poison. And statements like Bärbel Bas's are drops in a barrel that is slowly overflowing.

Realism as a prerequisite for solutions

The economic and socio-political challenge arising from the high proportion of foreign nationals receiving citizen's benefits is solvable. It requires neither isolationism, nor hostility towards foreigners, nor populist knee-jerk reactions. It requires structural clarity: What are the costs? Who is in which system and why? Which integration measures are effective, and which are not? What changes can be made to residency laws to minimize perverse incentives?

Bärbel Bas's answer to the parliamentary question was not an answer of this kind. It was a reflex of ideological self-affirmation that doesn't solve the problem but exacerbates it – both politically and fiscally. Anyone sitting in government who denies what their own Federal Employment Agency has documented to the tune of billions and what their own coalition agreement identifies as a problem to be solved has ceased to govern. They are merely engaging in self-preservation.

The truly interesting question following the government's question time is therefore not whether Bärbel Bas was wrong. That has been clearly proven. The truly interesting question is what it says about the state of a major political party when its minister declares 21.7 billion euros in social benefits for foreigners non-existent – ​​and does so in a parliament where the coalition agreement states precisely the opposite.