In 2023, around 1.93 million people immigrated to Germany. Numbers fluctuated during the time period covered in the graph at hand, peaking in 2015 during the high point of Europe’s refugee crisis. Significantly lower figures in 2020 may be attributed to the first year of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, and subsequent restrictions implemented by the German government on entering the country, in order to control the spread of the disease. Immigration to Germany “Immigrant” is a term used from the point of view of the receiving country, or the country being migrated to by a person. While reasons for and circumstances leading to an immigrant entering a foreign country may vary, they often include love, include seeking residence, employment, family reunions, or applying for asylum. Various countries are represented among foreigners living in Germany, though currently the leading three by numbers are Turkey, Ukraine, and Syria. Around 5.2 million immigrants living in Germany do not need a residence permit due to having EU citizenship, and therefore being allowed freedom of movement based on EU law. Another 2.64 million immigrants were granted an unlimited permit to stay in Germany. The near future Germany remains a popular choice for immigrants, even in currently challenging economic and political times. Welfare benefits, healthcare, and various support initiatives for those moving to or arriving in the country are on the list of selling points, though in practice, difficulties may be encountered depending on individual situations and laws in different German federal states. While the unemployment rate among foreigners living in Germany had gone up in 2020, it dropped again in the following years, but increased once more in 2023 and 2024 to over 16 percent. The country is Europe’s largest economy, housing many global players in various industries, which continues to attract jobseekers, despite these very industries facing struggles of their own brought on both by the ongoing coronavirus pandemic and geopolitical events in Europe.

The largest number of immigrants in Germany were from Ukraine, as of 2023. The top three origin countries were rounded up by Romania and Turkey. Immigrants are defined as having left a country, which may be their home country, to permanently reside in another. Upon arriving, immigrants do not hold the citizenship of the country they move to. Immigration in the EU All three aforementioned countries are members of the European Union, which means their citizens have freedom of movement between EU member states. In practice, this means that citizens of any EU member country may relocate between them to live and work there. Unrestricted by visas or residence permits, the search for university courses, jobs, retirement options, and places to live seems to be defined by an enormous amount of choice. However, even in this freedom of movement scheme, immigration may be hampered by bureaucratic hurdles or financial challenges. Prosperity with a question mark While Germany continues to be an attractive destination for foreigners both in and outside the European Union, as well as asylum applicants, it remains to be seen how current events might influence these patterns, whether the number of immigrants arriving from certain countries will shift. Europe’s largest economy is suffering. Climbing inflation levels in the last few months, as well as remaining difficulties from the ongoing coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic are affecting global economic development. Ultimately, future immigrants may face the fact of moving from one struggling economy to another.

These replication files reproduce the analyses from the paper ‘Schaub, Max, Johanna Gereke, and Delia Baldassarri. 2020. “Strangers in Hostile Lands: Exposure to Refugees and Right-Wing Support in Germany’s Eastern Regions.”

This paper provides a comprehensive analysis of the dynamic labor market effects of one of the largest forced population movements in history, the mass inflow of eight million German expellees into West Germany after World War II. The expellee inflow was distributed very asymmetrically across two West German regions. We develop a dynamic equilibrium model that closely fits two decades of historical data on the regional unemployment differential and the regional migration rate. Both variables increase dramatically after the expellee inflow and decline only gradually over the next decade. The long-lasting adjustment process implies losses in the lifetime labor income of native workers that are not covered by conventional steady state analyses. Regional migration serves as an important adjustment margin for native workers to insure against local labor supply shocks.

The diversification of Western European electorates due to immigration raises the question whether politicians discriminate against constituents with an immigrant background. While ethnic distance can explain lower responsiveness to outgroup constituents, shared partisanship might mitigate discrimination. We examine this issue through an audit experiment with 1,522 MPs in fifteen German state legislatures. We find that politicians are eleven percentage points less likely to respond to a constituent’s email asking for a personal meeting if the sender has an immigrant background (RI p-value < .001). Surprisingly, there is no difference in rates of discrimination between leftist and rightist parties. We also find evidence that signalling partisanship can mitigate the immigrant-background effect. Our findings imply that on the dimension of responsiveness, politicians – on the right and the left – might hamper rather than foster the political integration of immigrants.

How does the framing of immigration influence support for the welfare state? Drawing on research from psychology, specifically the notion of negativity bias and the sequencing of negative and positive information, we argue that negative immigration frames undermine welfare support, while positive frames have little or no effect. Individuals take less notice of positive frames and the effect of such frames is further undermined by the previous exposure to negative frames, which tend to stick longer in people’s minds. Our findings, based on survey experiments on over 9,000 individuals in Germany, Sweden and the UK, show a strong and pervasive effect of negative framing of immigration on welfare support. We also find some evidence that this effect is further amplified for people who hold anti-immigrant and anti-welfare attitudes or feel economically insecure. The effect of positive framing is considerably weaker and does not strengthen welfare support in any of our countries.

This statistic shows the results of a survey regarding opinions on a immigration law regulating the immigration of specialists from countries outside of the EU in Germany in 2018. 73 percent of respondents were in support of such a law, while 21 percent were against.

This scatter chart displays population (people) against net migration (people) in Germany. The data is about countries per year.

The aim of the Transatlantic Trends Survey is to identify the attitudes of the public in the United States and European countries towards foreign policy issues and transatlantic issues. Transatlantic Trends: Immigration, a special topic public opinion survey conducted yearly since 2008, is a project of the German Marshall Fund of the United States. For 2011, the Immigration survey examined attitudes and policy preferences related to immigration in France, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, and the United States. This collection focused on respondent perceptions of legal and illegal immigrants, conditions for admittance of immigrants, level of support for policies to reduce immigration, preconditions for citizenship, and whether or not immigration enriched society. Respondents were asked to identify the most important issues facing their country, to evaluate their government's performance in managing immigration and the economy, whether immigration presented a national opportunity or a problem, and whether they believed immigrants were integrating well into society. Additional topics included the developments in North Africa and the Middle East, responsibility for displaced refugees coming from North Africa, and whether the respondent's nation should offer economic aid to countries committed to democracy. Lastly, respondents were asked about which political party they identified with, their voting intentions in the next national election, and whether political party agendas would influence their vote. Demographic and other background information includes gender, age, stage at which full-time education was completed, age when stopped full-time education, employment status, ethnic background, country of birth, citizenship, parents' citizenship status, type of phone line, ownership of a mobile phone, and the number of people in their household.

This scatter chart displays rural population (people) against net migration (people) in Germany. The data is filtered where the date is 2021. The data is about countries per year.

This scatter chart displays health expenditure per capita (current US$) against net migration (people) in Germany. The data is about countries per year.

Germany has long been involved with international asylum applications, especially in recent years. The most applications came from Syrian asylum seekers. These was followed by applications from Afghanistan and Turkey. Germany as a refuge choice Statistics on the number of asylum applicants in Germany are recorded by the BAMF, or the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge). The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has decreased refugee numbers in Europe, with travel bans across modes of transport and borders being closed. As the restrictions begin to lift, migration is beginning again. 2023 saw the highest number of applications for asylum since 2016. However, in 2024, numbers have decreased significanly again. Support for refugees remains a present issue, fraught with tension, legal complications and surrounded by constant debate with many believing that not enough is done to support them. Asylum decisions Not all asylum applications in Germany get accepted, due to various circumstances. Besides rejection, decisions regarding asylum may involve granting a legal status as a refugee, a grant of subsidiary protection or determining a deportation ban.

This scatter chart displays military expenditure (% of GDP) against net migration (people) in Germany. The data is about countries per year.

How do large-scale migration and resulting cultural diversity affect receiving societies? We argue that in contexts where individuals from different cultures regularly interact, exposure to cultural differences increases tolerance for deviant behavior, liberalizing social norms over time. We support this argument with evidence from Bavaria, which experienced a quasi-exogenous change in denominational diversity after WWII, following the arrival of 1.9 million German expellees from Central and Eastern Europe. Denominationally-blind allocation policy reduced the number of homogeneous settlements from 1,704 to nine as displaced Protestants were frequently assigned to predominantly Catholic communities and vice versa. Using original municipality-level data, we show that this sudden increase in denominational diversity reduced church attendance and membership, lowered support for socially conservative political parties, shored up support for progressive parties, and liberalized norms on gender, sexuality, and doctor-assisted suicide. These findings advance research on cultural change, intergroup contact, and consequences of migration.

This scatter chart displays net migration (people) against carbon dioxide emissions (CO2) (Mt of CO2 equivalent) in Germany. The data is about countries per year.

In 2023, the federal government's costs for refugees and asylum in Germany totaled around 29.7 billion euros. The largest cost item was social transfer payments following asylum procedures at 11.8 billion euros. In the following years, refugee costs are expected to fall to around 23.2 billion euros in 2027 and only rise again to 24.5 billion euros in 2028.

This scatter chart displays methane emissions (Mt of CO2 equivalent) against net migration (people) in Germany. The data is filtered where the date is 2021. The data is about countries per year.

Abstract This paper is focused in examining the digital news representation of Syrian refugee crisis and the conformation of the reader’s opinions in Germany. Data collection will be addressed on reviewing German online news and the reader’s comments related with one remarkable event during the actual migration crisis in Europe: The note about the child Aylan or Alan Kurdi, that drowned in the coast of Turkey in September 02 of 2015. The main aim of this paper is to understand the role of media crisis representation on the opinions of German people. How does media shape public reactions in pro and against helping refugees? And what kind of actions could the European authorities undertake to protect the human rights of refugees and to diminish hate discourse online.

Political situation in Germany. Attitudes towards political parties.

Topics: Turnout intention and voting intention (Sunday question); Alternative voting intention; other electable party: Pirate Party; other electable party: Free voters; voting behaviour in the last federal election in 2009 (recall); positive or negative association with terms (people´s party, compassion, conservative, christian, social, close to the economy, middle-class, liberal, opportunities, achievement, cohesion, freedom, security, stability, order, performance justice, social market economy, centre, qualified immigration, budget consolidation, freedom of choice for families, intelligent saving, respect, demographic change, values, tradition, home, trust); annoyance about political decisions; issues about which one was annoyed; affected by political decisions (current); decisions by which one was personally affected (current); positive or negative impact of the decision; affected by political decisions (prospective); decisions by which one will be personally affected (prospective); party with which one feels most comfortable; subjective affiliation with ´little people´.

Political positions (politics takes care of the problems of the little people, concern about limiting living standards, debt reduction to maintain prosperity, public debt is good if it is made for the future of the children, fear of going out alone in the evening, problems keeping up with the pace of everyday life, state support for those who are willing to perform, acceptance of the performance principle, people´s parties prevent the assertion of individual interests, 30 km/h speed limit in cities, support for large-scale projects); association of certain terms with parties (people´s party, modern, compassionate, conservative, christian, down-to-earth, social, close to the economy, middle-class, liberal, advancement, opportunities, achievement, cohesion, freedom, security, stability, order, performance fairness, future, social market economy, centre, prosperity, qualified immigration, budget consolidation, freedom of choice for families, intelligent savings, demographic change, values, tradition, home, good governance, expertise, cares for citizens, party for all, can move Germany forward, strong leadership, energetic, honest, reliable, credible, responsible, trust).

Demography: age; highest school-leaving qualification; intended school-leaving qualification, completed studies; completed apprenticeship; occupation; profession; household size; frequency of churchgoing; party identification (direction, strength, stability); sex.

Additionally coded were: Federal state; inhabitant of place of residence; target persons in the household; number of telephone numbers; indicator replenishment sample; weighting factors.

The German Survey “Attitudes and Reported Experiences of the German Welfare State” is a joint project of the University of Duisburg-Essen, the University of Gothenburg, and the Institute for Social Research, Oslo. The data set has been developed with respect to an extensive comparability with a parallel study conducted in Norway (see Kumlin et al. 2017).

Starting in 2015, information of 3,393 respondents from a German population sample was collected in three annually repeated waves until 2017. The main interest of the data collection lies on the temporal change of the data, whereas the sampling design, an online quota sample, does not allow any conclusions to be drawn about the underlying German population. The aim of this academic study is to create a high-quality panel data set, focusing on attitudes towards the welfare state within the German population. In addition, questions on political, religious, social and demographic topics were asked.
Political participation in the last four years (participation in a demonstration, writing about political issues in a newspaper, online newspaper or blog, member of a political party, member of a trade union, member of another political organization); general social trust; group-related trust (Hartz IV recipients, richest people in Germany, people met for the first time, Germans without migration background, people with migration background from non-European countries, people with migration background from Eastern Europe); interest in politics; frequency of political discussions; frequency of political information; left-right self-ranking; attitude toward political asylum; attitude toward the right to social benefits for migrants; party affiliation; party voted for in the 2013 federal election; other party voted for in the 2013 federal election; actual voting behavior in 2013; party preference (Sunday question); party preference (Sunday question - open); retrospective voting behavior in the 2015 federal election; retrospective voting behavior in the 2015 federal election (open); probability of party choice (CDU/CSU, SPD, Bündnis90/Die Grünen, FDP, Die Linke, AfD, ALFA, NPD, Piratenpartei Deutschland); assessment of the living situation of various groups in Germany (pensioners and retirees, unemployed, families with children, single parents, recipients of disability pensions, recipients of Hartz IV, people with a migration background from European countries and from non-European countries); perceived personal risk in the next 12 months with regard to: unemployment, caring for family members, inability to work, divorce, parental leave, not enough money for household needs, pension due to reduced earning capacity; use of various facilities or services (family doctor, emergency doctor or emergency room in hospital, specialist, medical specialist, retirement or nursing home, home care by a private provider or by one of the welfare associations, rehabilitation center, public or private kindergarten, daycare center or day nursery, day nanny or day father, state elementary school without church orientation or with church orientation, private elementary school, open all-day care after school, secondary state school, secondary private school with church orientation, vocational training, college or university). with church orientation, private elementary school, open all-day care after school, secondary state school, secondary school with church orientation, secondary private school, vocational training, technical college or university); satisfaction with these facilities or services; personal experience with these facilities and services (staff worked quickly and efficiently, I got the support and help I was entitled to, staff were helpful and listened to me, I had the opportunity to influence the type of support and help I received, I had difficulty finding the right person to talk to, I was treated worse than most, I had the opportunity to choose between different facilities); use of transfer benefits (unemployment benefit 1, Hartz IV, sickness benefit, reduced earning capacity pension, early retirement pension, company pension, retirement or pension); framing experiment: Assessment of future levels in Germany in various areas of social security and provision of public services (health care, old-age pension and old-age pensions, support in case of temporary incapacity to work due to illness, unemployment benefits, social assistance/unemployment benefit II/basic income support, care for the elderly and sick, public child care in kindergartens/day nursery/daycare centers); evaluation of various strategies to adjust social benefits and services (lower the level of social benefits and services, raise general taxation levels, increase fees for the use of public services and contributions to social insurance, push recipients of social support more to look for and accept new jobs, offer better retraining and continuing education measures for the unemployed and sick,...