The decision by Germany’s Federal Employment Agency to formulate informational brochures regarding citizen’s allowance (“Bürgergeld”) solely in standard German and simplified language is drawing responses from across the political spectrum.
Ottilie Klein, a member of the CDU’s Committee on Labour and Social Affairs, expressed support for the move, arguing that while on-site assistance in multiple languages at job centers is crucial for those in need, multilingual online promotion of social benefits is counterproductive. Klein stated that such promotion erodes trust in the social welfare system and fuels populist rhetoric. She emphasized the need for skilled immigration, distinguishing it from reliance on social welfare benefits.
Conversely, Clara Bünger, spokesperson for The Left on migration and domestic policy, condemned the decision as unnecessarily obstructive. Bünger argued that restricting access to information will lead to misunderstandings and delays within already overburdened agencies. She characterized the decision as discriminatory towards individuals with limited German proficiency, dismissing claims it would significantly reduce benefit claims or encourage emigration. Bünger accused proponents of the change of succumbing to right-wing pressure.
Andreas Audretsch, Deputy Parliamentary Group Leader of the Greens, criticized the decision’s potential impact on employment services. He asserted that job centers should prioritize facilitating employment, vocational training and continuing education and that language barriers do not contribute to this goal. He suggested the move is rooted in a desire to unfairly criticize recipients of citizen’s allowance while simultaneously hindering efforts to connect them with employment opportunities.
Elena Weber, a specialist in labour market policy at the Diakonie, advocated for accessibility for all benefit recipients, including those unable to utilize online translation tools due to age or other limitations.
Joachim Rock, CEO of the Paritätische welfare association, strongly refuted claims that providing translated information incentivizes “social tourism”. He emphasized that the brochures explicitly state that individuals with foreign residency and asylum seekers are generally not eligible for the benefits. Rock further noted that underutilization of available social services, rather than abuse, is the primary issue and that curtailing existing information resources is a prime example of bureaucratic inefficiency.