A study from Germany’s Federal Office for Migration and Refugees examines how people from Muslim-majority countries view belonging, integration, and social distance — and finds a mostly open society with some troubling exceptions
A Question of Belonging
What does it mean to belong to a society? Is it enough to speak the language, obey the laws, and hold a job? Or must you also share ancestors, a birthplace, and a faith?
These questions sit at the heart of a 2023 research report by Amrei Maddox and Katrin Pfündel from Germany’s Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF). The study analyses data from “Muslimisches Leben in Deutschland 2020” (MLD 2020), a representative survey of 5,120 people. It compares the attitudes of people with migration backgrounds from Muslim-majority countries against those without migration backgrounds.
The findings reveal a society that is largely open — but not without tensions. Most people embrace civic, achievable criteria for belonging. Yet significant minorities still hold exclusionary views. And some groups face more social distance than others.
What Makes Someone German?
The study asked respondents to rate the importance of seven criteria for belonging to German society. Three were civic and achievable: speaking good German, having a steady job, and obeying German laws. Three were ethnic-religious and difficult or impossible to achieve: having German ancestors, being born in Germany, and belonging to the Christian faith. One — German citizenship — occupied a middle ground.
The results are striking in their consistency. Over 95% of both groups rated obeying German laws as important. Similarly high shares valued good German language skills. A steady job mattered to 93% of people with migration backgrounds and 87% of those without.
Ethnic-religious criteria received far less support. Only about 20% of people with migration backgrounds considered German ancestors important. Roughly 33% valued being born in Germany. The Christian faith mattered to just 19% of people with migration backgrounds — and 24% of those without.
These findings suggest that most people view belonging as something earned through effort and participation, not inherited through blood or birth.
Importance of Belonging Criteria (Percentage Rating as Important)
| Criterion | With Migration Background | Without Migration Background |
|---|---|---|
| Obeying German laws | 98.6% | 97.9% |
| Speaking good German | 97.4% | 95.3% |
| Having a steady job | 93.1% | 87.2% |
| German citizenship | 68.1% | 54.3% |
| Being born in Germany | 33.3% | 17.8% |
| Having German ancestors | 23.0% | 15.9% |
| Christian faith | 20.7% | 24.0% |
Acculturation Preferences by Group (Percentage)
| Preference | With Migration Background | Without Migration Background |
|---|---|---|
| Integration | 66.1% | 56.0% |
| Assimilation | 16.9% | 24.1% |
| Segregation | 13.3% | 15.4% |
| Marginalization | 3.9% | 4.5% |
Integration, Not Assimilation
The study also examines acculturation attitudes — how people think immigrants should adapt. Four scenarios emerge from combining attitudes toward maintaining heritage culture and participating in German society.
Integration means participating in German life while keeping one’s heritage traditions. Assimilation means participating fully but abandoning heritage traditions. Segregation means keeping traditions without participating. Marginalization means neither.
Integration is the clear favourite. Two-thirds of people with migration backgrounds (66.1%) prefer it, compared to 56% of those without. Assimilation appeals more to people without migration backgrounds (24.1%) than to those with (16.9%).
Notably, recent arrivals show the strongest preference for integration (70.9%). They also reject segregation most strongly. This challenges assumptions that newcomers resist integration. In fact, those who arrived most recently express the greatest desire to participate.
However, about one in five people born in Germany to migrant parents prefers segregation — keeping traditions without fully participating. This suggests that some second-generation individuals feel alienated despite being born and raised in Germany.
Established Privileges: Who Deserves More?
The concept of “established privileges” examines whether long-term residents should have more rights than newcomers. The study asked two questions: Should newcomers be satisfied with less? Should those who have lived here longer have more rights?
Most respondents agreed that newcomers should initially be satisfied with less. This view was strongest among recent arrivals themselves (42.9% fully agreed). Those born in Germany were least likely to agree (22.6%).
The second question met with more resistance. A majority rejected the idea that long-term residents should have more rights. Only about 14% of people with migration backgrounds fully agreed.
Fear of immigration plays a role. People who worry about competition for jobs or housing — or about cultural loss — are more likely to support established privileges. This connection holds across religious groups.
Social Distance: Who Would You Welcome?
Social distance measures how comfortable people feel with different groups as neighbours or family members. The study examined attitudes toward homosexual people, asylum seekers, Muslims, EU immigrants, and ethnic Germans.
Overall, acceptance is higher for neighbours than for family members who marry into the family. This pattern reflects the deeper significance of marriage, which involves religious and cultural norms.
For people with migration backgrounds, the greatest distance is toward homosexual people. More than half (55.8%) would not want a homosexual person marrying into their family. Nearly a quarter (22.6%) would not want a homosexual neighbour.
For people without migration backgrounds, the greatest distance is toward Muslims. Over a quarter (26.3%) would not want a Muslim marrying into their family. Asylum seekers also face significant distance from both groups.
Notably, people without migration backgrounds are more accepting of homosexual neighbours (only 4.5% objected) but more rejecting of Muslim neighbours (11.3% objected). This reflects different cultural priorities.
Religion and Social Distance
Religious affiliation shapes social distance in complex ways.
People with no religion show the least social distance toward homosexual people. Only 20.9% would object to a homosexual person marrying into their family, compared to 60.9% of Muslims and 47.8% of Christians with migration backgrounds.
Gläubigkeit — personal religiosity — matters more than affiliation for some attitudes. Among Muslims with migration backgrounds, stronger religiosity correlates with greater distance toward homosexual people. This pattern holds across religious groups.
For asylum seekers, the picture differs. Fear of immigration — not religiosity — best predicts distance. People who worry about competition for resources or cultural change are more likely to reject asylum seekers as neighbours.
The Integration Paradox
One of the study’s most intriguing findings is the “integration paradox.” People born in Germany to migrant parents report feeling more discriminated against than recent arrivals. They also express more segregationist preferences.
Several explanations emerge. People who are highly integrated have higher expectations of equal treatment. When discrimination occurs, it hurts more. They also interact more with majority society, creating more opportunities for negative experiences.
Additionally, second-generation individuals may feel caught between two worlds. They are told they belong but treated as outsiders. This tension can lead to re-ethnicization — a stronger identification with heritage culture as a response to exclusion.
The study finds that discrimination experiences correlate with segregationist preferences among second-generation individuals. The more discrimination they experience, the more they want to maintain heritage traditions without fully participating in German society.
Perceived Integration Opportunities
Most respondents believe Muslims can integrate as well as Christians. This view is stronger among people with migration backgrounds (83.6%) than those without (74.6%).
Muslims themselves are most optimistic (86.5% agree). Christians and people of other religions with migration backgrounds are less convinced. Among people without migration backgrounds, the non-religious are slightly more optimistic than Christians.
Interreligious contact matters. People who have regular contact with Muslims are more likely to believe Muslims can integrate successfully. This supports the contact hypothesis — positive interactions reduce prejudice.
Conversely, people who see the Christian faith as essential for belonging are less likely to believe Muslims can integrate. They view Germany as fundamentally Christian and Muslims as outsiders.
Perceived Social Exclusion
The study also examines whether people believe Muslims are excluded from German society.
People without migration backgrounds are more likely to perceive such exclusion (49.5%) than people with migration backgrounds (36.8%). This may reflect greater awareness among the majority of societal prejudices.
Within the migration background group, Muslims and the non-religious are most likely to perceive exclusion (44.8% and 45.4%). Christians and other religious groups are less likely (29.1% and 31.1%).
Personal discrimination experiences strongly predict perceived exclusion. The more discrimination someone experiences, the more they believe Muslims are excluded. This connection is strongest among Muslims themselves.
Recent arrivals are least likely to perceive exclusion. They may be in a “honeymoon phase,” focused on opportunities rather than barriers. As time passes, awareness of exclusion may grow.
What This Means for Germany
The study’s findings have important implications.
First, most people embrace inclusive, civic criteria for belonging. They value effort and participation over ancestry and faith. This is a foundation for social cohesion.
Second, integration is the preferred acculturation strategy for all groups. Most people want immigrants to participate in German society while maintaining their heritage. This is a recipe for a pluralistic society.
Third, significant minorities hold exclusionary views. About one in five people without migration backgrounds considers the Christian faith essential for belonging. About a quarter would not want a Muslim in their family. These attitudes require attention.
Fourth, social distance toward homosexual people is high among people with migration backgrounds. This reflects cultural and religious norms from origin countries. Educational efforts should address this without stigmatizing communities.
Fifth, discrimination harms integration. When people feel excluded, they withdraw. The integration paradox shows that success does not guarantee acceptance. Combating discrimination is essential for social cohesion.
Sixth, contact reduces prejudice. Interreligious and interethnic contact correlates with more positive attitudes. Promoting such contact is a practical strategy for improving relations.
Why This Matters for Ordinary People
Why should this study matter beyond academic circles?
Because it speaks to how societies hold together. It shows that most people — regardless of background — share common ground. They value law-abiding behaviour, hard work, and language skills. They want immigrants to integrate while keeping their heritage.
But it also shows that division persists. Some people view Muslims as outsiders. Some people with migration backgrounds reject homosexual people. Some second-generation individuals feel so excluded they withdraw.
These tensions are not inevitable. They respond to context. When people interact across lines, prejudice decreases. When discrimination occurs, exclusion grows. Policy and culture shape attitudes.
The study offers hope. It shows that most people want integration, not segregation. Most value participation over ancestry. Most believe Muslims and Christians can integrate equally.
It also offers a challenge. Building an inclusive society requires addressing the prejudices that remain. It requires contact, education, and a commitment to equal treatment. The data shows both the promise and the work ahead.
