W Germany's subject of migration and social integration is one more time stimulating. This time, due to data on the most common names among the beneficiaries of Bürgergeld, the German equivalent of social benefits.
The fresh information, revealed as a consequence of a parliamentary interpelled by AfD MP René Springer, undermined the earlier findings of the national government and shed light on the way statistic are presented socially sensitive. According to the updated list, the most common name among the downloaders of Bürgergeld is no longer Michael, as previously stated, but Mohammed — if you number all his spelling variants.
The data presented by the government to date have been criticised as incomplete and misleading. Individual versions of names specified as ‘Mohammad’, ‘Mohamed’ or ‘Muhammad’ were treated as separate individuals, which automatically lowered their place in the ranking of popularity. In the case of the name ‘Mohammed’, a full of 19 variants of the entry were identified, which appear in German registers nearly 40 000 times. In comparison, the second in order is the name ‘Michael’ and its variants, specified as ‘Michel’, ‘Mischa’ (Ukrainian form), ‘Michilla’ (also Ukrainian form) and ‘Maik’, happen in full about 24,6 1000 times. 3rd place was taken by ‘Ahmad’ with more than 20,000 entries. Interestingly, the top 10 names besides include another names indicating origin from outside Germany, including ‘Ali’ and Ukrainian female name ‘Olena’, which closes the first ten.
Names of Ukrainian origin are noticeable in the list, not only in men's forms, specified as "Michło" (Michael's option), but besides female. "Olena" is the Ukrainian counterpart of Helena's name and in the classification she placed in tenth place, which is an crucial signal of the presence of Ukrainian women in the benefit system. It is worth remembering that as a consequence of the war in Ukraine hundreds of thousands of refugees went to Germany, a large part of whom were women with children. For many of them, Bürgergeld has just become the only origin of livelihood. The presence of Ukrainian names in the ranking is so not an accident, but a reflection of current migratory realities.
This seemingly method item on how to calculate proved politically and socially important. For a group specified as AfD, which has been basing its transmission on the criticism of the migration and social policy of the government for years, the fresh message has proved that the actual impact of migration on the benefit strategy is greater than it has been granted. The organization expressed its view that the government deliberately concealed the scale of participation of persons with names indicating the origin of migration among the beneficiaries of the scheme. AfD's message stresses that as many as 23 out of the 50 most common names among the downloaders of Bürgergeld suggests migration background. The organization one more time called for the rule that social benefits should be granted only to German citizens. In her opinion, mass migration to the welfare strategy should be stopped.
The national government tried to reduce emotions, recalling that names are not a clear indicator of nationality, and many German citizens have Arabic or east European names, not typical of German tradition. However, statistic show that at the end of 2024 about 5.42 million people in Germany utilized Bürgergeld, of which 48% were foreigners and 52% were German citizens. These data do not clearly find to what degree persons with circumstantial names are migrants or nationals born in Germany but show any general trends.
It is worth noting that the name ‘Mohammed’ dominates not only beneficiaries of benefits but besides statistic on newborn children. In 2024 it was the most frequently named for boys in the 3 union states: Berlin, Bremen and Hamburg. In Hessen he finished second, and in North Rhine-Westphalia he finished third. On the full German scale, the name “Mohammed” and its varieties advanced from 15th place in 2023 to 11th in 2024. This increase reflects the changing demographic structures of the country and the fact that in any cultural environments, naming “Mohammed” — in various versions — has a peculiar spiritual and conventional significance.
The opposition indicates that government data are frequently presented in a way that may lead to incorrect conclusions or to aggravation of real social problems. In this case, it was not only a statistical name, but a way of presenting data, which falsified the image of reality. According to critics, the rulers should be more transparent in informing the public about the consequences of migration policy, especially in the context of the burden on the welfare system.
In the background there is besides a wider debate on the function and effectiveness of Bürgergeld. Supporters of the program say that it is essential to support people in a hard situation, regardless of their origin. Critics, in turn, argue that the current strategy demotivates work and creates besides much incentives to live with the benefit, which is peculiarly problematic for migrants who do not integrate or engage in work.
In the context of rising costs of living, social tensions and challenges associated with the integration of migrants, data on the most common names among the recipients of benefits become a symbolic indicator of deeper problems. For some, it is simply a statistic, for others an alarming signal that the social strategy can be overburdened by people outside Germany's cultural circle. The differences in the assessment of these data are clearly political and cultural. On the 1 hand, there are those who see evidence of the multiculturalism and openness of society. On the another hand, those who see signs of an integration crisis and abuse of public aid.
All points to the fact that the subject will be repeated again and again in public debate, especially in the context of upcoming elections and increasing support for parties specified as AfD. For society, which increasingly has to face divisions on an identity, cultural and economical basis, specified data is no longer just a statistic — they become an inflammatory point in the fight for the form of Germany’s future.
