Ten years after Germany's Integration Act: achievements and shortcomings

Ten years after Germany's Integration Act was introduced in August 2016, political debate about migration and social cohesion remains intense. The law — built on the principle "support and obligations" — expanded language and integration courses, eased access to the labor market and introduced the so-called 3+2 rule for vocational trainees with rejected asylum claims, but it also included tougher duties such as compulsory residence assignments and sanctions for refusing integration measures.

Mixed results: faster training, constrained mobility

Experts say the law produced tangible gains in some areas and harmful side effects in others. "For someone who thinks strictly in terms of public order and political control, this integration law contained too much support and at the same time set too few demands. For example, a negatively concluded asylum procedure does not necessarily have to lead to leaving the country and was put in the background," says Holger Kolb of the Council of Experts on Integration and Migration (SVR).

One of the most praised innovations is the 3+2 rule: asylum seekers whose procedures end negatively may complete three years of vocational training in Germany and afterwards be allowed to work for two years in that profession. Observers say this arrangement benefited employers, the individuals involved and the social security system because it creates incentives to invest in language learning and job training.

At the same time, researchers point to unintended consequences. "We carried out an evaluation and found that in particular the obligation to live in a specified place at regional level reduced employment rates by five to ten percent. The reason is that the people who came to us were distributed disproportionately to structurally weak regions with high unemployment. If we keep people in regions where the economy does not work well, that naturally has negative consequences for their integration into the labor market," says Herbert Briker, head of Migration, Labour Market and Economy at the Berlin Institute for Empirical Research on Integration and Migration.

Still, on average migrants' integration into work has improved. Ten years after the 2015–2016 arrivals, employment rates among the affected groups now range between 65 and 67 percent, only about three percentage points below the overall population average — a level that, together with Norway, places Germany among the best in Europe. Critics say this result is linked to the wide availability of language courses and qualification programs.

Concerns over costs led the Federal Ministry of the Interior and the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF) to propose limiting free access to integration courses to those with a "positive prospect of stay." After protests from associations, trade unions and several federal states, the government partially reversed course: since June 2026 Ukrainians, EU citizens and other groups without a secure prospect of stay may again participate in integration courses. Briker warned against deep cuts: "Of course, funds for integration courses can be reduced to some extent, but not to the extent they were cut. If I may say so directly, that is an extremely unintelligent measure. Integration courses are a relatively cheap instrument for integration. They increase employment rates after completion of the course by five to ten percent. Reducing integration courses delays labor market integration and prolongs the use of social benefits. That does not save money, it costs us a lot of money."

Experts propose adjustments rather than a rewrite: speed up asylum procedures so those with protection status can enter the labor market sooner, start integration courses already one month after arrival, ease the post-procedure residence obligation, and improve coordination between federal and state authorities. Holger Kolb argues the law's name overpromises: "From an integration law one would expect comprehensive regulation of the integration of the people who live here. But this law is actually specialized material for people who arrived through refugee migration. It would be more useful to better manage public expectations and a regulation that would communicate much more simply and clearly who, under what conditions, has what opportunities for integration."

Photo: press material from the event