As Germany debates new asylum restrictions and far-right parties gain ground, migration has become a symbol of broader fears about an unstable world.
Ten years ago, Germany symbolised Europe’s ‘Willkommenskultur’ [Welcome Culture].
Chancellor Angela Merkel’s decision to open borders to refugees in 2015 was framed as a moral and historical responsibility. Public discourse centred on solidarity, integration and humanitarian duty.
A decade later, the tone has shifted dramatically. Migration is now framed primarily as a security concern, a strain on resources, and a political liability.
Germany’s transformation reflects a broader global turn — from solidarity to interest-driven governance, from rights-based narratives to securitisation.
The German debate on migration today bears little resemblance to that of 2015.
Political language increasingly revolves around border controls, deportations, limits on asylum and externalisation agreements. Even mainstream parties have adopted rhetoric that was once confined to far-right actors.
This shift is reflected in policy debates surrounding the EU Pact on Migration and Asylum and Germany’s tightening asylum measures in recent years.
Migrants are no longer primarily discussed as rights-holders, but as administrative, economic and security challenges.
Language matters
When migration is framed as a threat, public perception follows — legitimising restrictive policies that would have been politically unthinkable a decade ago.
Germany’s political landscape has changed significantly over the past decade. The far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD), once a marginal political force, has become a major actor, polling at around a quarter of the electorate in recent national surveys and leading in several regional polls.
Migration has been central to this rise.
The AfD has consistently framed asylum and integration as existential challenges to German society. More importantly, elements of this framing have increasingly influenced mainstream political debates, as centrist parties respond to electoral pressure and public anxieties.
In parallel, Germany has introduced tighter migration measures, including expanded border checks and new restrictions within its asylum framework. These steps reflect a broader political shift toward deterrence-oriented governance rather than rights-based protection.
The resurgence of global conflicts and militarisation has reshaped public sentiment in Europe and beyond. Russia’s war in Ukraine, escalating tensions in the Middle East, and renewed discussions about defence and strategic territories have contributed to a broader sense of uncertainty.
These developments do not necessarily translate into immediate threats for most citizens, but they affect how people perceive the future: as less predictable, more fragile and increasingly shaped by power competition.
Growing segments of the public increasingly perceive global stability as fragile and future crises as difficult to anticipate.
In this environment, migration becomes entangled with broader anxieties about war, inflation, energy security and social cohesion. Political actors increasingly link migrants to these insecurities, framing them as competitors for limited resources in an unstable world.
The return of war to the European continent has not only transformed security policy — it has also transformed the politics of belonging.
Donald Trump’s rhetoric and political trajectory have coincided with a broader return to power politics in global discourse.
Alongside Russia’s military expansionism, renewed geopolitical competition in areas such as the Arctic and the North Atlantic has entered mainstream political debates.
Discussions about strategic territories, including Greenland, illustrate how territorial and military considerations have resurfaced in public conversations. Trump’s transactional and unilateral approach to international relations has contributed to the perception that long-standing norms and alliances can no longer be taken for granted.
For societies across the world, this has created a psychological climate of uncertainty. Such perceptions revive historical memories of instability and conflict, even when direct threats remain distant.
Humanity’s collective memory includes the trauma of how authoritarian expansionism once led to global war. When political discourse again embraces power politics and territorial competition, this memory resurfaces, fuelling anxiety about what the future might hold.
In this atmosphere of uncertainty, migration becomes symbolically linked to a broader sense of loss of control. Migrants are increasingly framed within narratives of vulnerability and loss of control, rather than as individuals seeking protection.
Despite increasingly hostile discourse, Germany and other European economies remain structurally dependent on migrant labour in healthcare, agriculture, construction and services.
Migrants are welcomed as workers, yet increasingly rejected as political and social subjects.
This contradiction exposes the governing logic of contemporary migration policy: migrants are economically useful but politically inconvenient.
They are essential to sustaining ageing societies and labour markets, but politically costly in a climate of fear and uncertainty.
Interest over solidarity
Germany’s discursive shift is part of a wider global pattern. As geopolitical competition intensifies and security concerns dominate political agendas, states prioritise control and domestic political stability over humanitarian commitments.
The post-war promise of solidarity and collective responsibility is eroding.
In its place, interest and political utility have become dominant organising principles. Migration policy is increasingly shaped by electoral calculations, security narratives and geopolitical bargaining, rather than rights-based frameworks.
Migrants and refugees are among the first casualties of this transformation. In a world governed by uncertainty and strategic competition, human rights become conditional, solidarity becomes negotiable, and fear becomes a powerful tool of governance.