Germany's federal parliament broke into a charged debate, as lawmakers took up a motion filed by the AfD parliamentary group titled "Stop Immigration into the Social System and Abuse of Social Benefits" (document 21/6642). After a partly heated exchange across party lines, the motion was referred to the Committee on Labour and Social Affairs for further deliberation.
The AfD motion puts forward six concrete demands directed at the federal government:
Foreign nationals in Germany must support themselves without relying on public welfare. The AfD argues that settling in Germany should come with the basic expectation of financial independence.
Tax-funded benefits must never function as a reason to move to Germany. The AfD maintains that generous welfare payments should not serve as a pull factor that attracts migrants with no intention of entering the labour market.
Any employable adult receiving welfare for six months must perform reasonable community service in return. State support should not be unconditional, those who are able to contribute should do so while seeking regular employment.
Benefit recipients must remain reachable within Germany at all times. If unauthorised absence is suspected, payments, including housing costs, must be suspended immediately until the situation is clarified.
A restricted payment card must replace cash payments in cases involving rule violations, suspected misuse, no domestic bank account, or misuse of transferred funds, ensuring benefits are spent within Germany for their intended purpose.
Foreign nationals must generally be barred from SGB II benefits unless they prove at least ten years of qualifying employment (non-EU nationals) or five years (EU citizens), along with German language proficiency at B2 level.
AfD MP Gerrit Huy argued during the debate that the total cost of social benefits for refugees currently stands at 50 billion euros annually, and that no generation of refugees had yet managed to fund their own pensions.
She noted that large numbers of refugees from Syria and Afghanistan continue to receive welfare despite those countries no longer being at war, and stated that immigration into the social system must end "if we want to continue as a nation." Fellow AfD MP Peter Bohnhof pointed to an ongoing court case involving a group of migrants accused of welfare fraud, calling it the result of a policy that turns the welfare state into an open invitation to the entire world.
CDU/CSU MP Kai Whittaker rejected the AfD's claim that the government was inactive on welfare abuse, pointing to existing measures against illegal employment, undeclared work, and tax fraud.
He stressed that his party upholds the three pillars of the welfare state, individual dignity, subsidiarity, and solidarity, and does not judge human dignity by economic usefulness alone. Peter Aumer (CDU/CSU) put it simply: "Whoever needs help must get help", but "whoever defrauds the system must face consequences."
Timon Dzienus of the Greens called migration "something wonderful, something enriching" and accused the AfD of trying to divide society. He pointed to the ongoing Football World Cup, asking what the German national team would look like without Jonathan Tah, Jamal Musiala, and Denis Undav. Lamya Kaddor added that the AfD's real aim was not tackling abuse but humiliating people, calling the motion incompatible with Germany's constitution.
SPD MP Rasha Nasr noted that 800,000 people from the main asylum-seeker countries are currently working in Germany, with 700,000 in jobs subject to social insurance contributions. She said the coalition would not let the AfD decide who belongs to Germany's welfare system.
Cansin Köktürk of Die Linke argued that Germany's welfare state is built on need, not nationality, while Ferat Koçak reminded the chamber that migrant and guest workers had fundamentally contributed to building that welfare state in the first place.
The AfD motion now moves to committee for further review.
From breaking news to thought-provoking opinion pieces, our newsletter keeps you informed & engaged.
