There is no blueprint

It is rare for Social Democrats to discuss immigration narratives without Denmark or Spain coming up sooner or later. Denmark or Spain? Two countries, two models – and for many Social Democrats, they represent the hope of a communication strategy that could also work in the German context. Behind these two models stand two key figures: Mette Frederiksen, leader of the Danish Social Democrats and prime minister of Denmark, who has made limiting immigration the hallmark of her political agenda and has since championed this approach as the party’s path back to electoral strength. With similar conviction, Pedro Sánchez, secretary-general of the Spanish Partido Socialista Obrero Español (PSOE) and prime minister of Spain, frames open borders as an economic necessity and has drawn widespread attention across Europe with his plan to integrate over 500,000 undocumented immigrants into Spain’s formal labour market. Within social democratic circles, both camps have their supporters and they are all asking the same question: Why does Germany not simply adopt the same immigration narrative? 

Two sucessful narratives

It is this very question that the recent publication Migrationspolitische Narrative im Vergleich: Dänemark, Spanien und die Grenzen der Übertragbarkeit (available in German) addresses by analysing the underlying conditions required for effective narratives to succeed. These narratives emerge in specific contexts and are rooted in historical experiences, economic structures and institutional arrangements that vary across societies. The author’s aim is to identify these conditions in each of the two cases, trace the rationale behind the construction of the two narratives and derive a set of guiding principles that could help Germany develop its own strategies. 

Denmark’s restrictive policy

When it comes to Denmark, the Social Democrats consistently frame immigration as a fiscal management issue. Every krone spent on the asylum system is a krone not spent on schools or pensions, while uncontrolled immigration puts a strain on a welfare system that depends on mutual trust. Frederiksen and her party present this approach not as a shift to the right, but as a way of defending the welfare state on behalf of those sustaining and funding it – and thus as a genuinely social democratic position. The roots of this narrative, however, extend far beyond the party itself. It was already deeply entrenched in mainstream social and political thinking long before Denmark’s Social Democrats made it their core message. Economically, the narrative is underpinned by a labour market structure that views immigration primarily as a cost factor. Historically, it has evolved within a society that had long regarded homogeneity as the natural foundation of welfare-state solidarity. Institutionally, it is reinforced by government agencies that continue to this day to provide statistical evidence that supports this interpretation. 

A structural prerequisite in Spain

In Spain, on the other hand, the PSOE portrays immigration as a demographic necessity, supported by key institutions such as the central bank, industry associations and the church. This narrative reflects an economic reality that has developed over decades: in key sectors such as construction, tourism and agriculture, migrant labour is a structural prerequisite for Spanish economic growth. It is underpinned by a labour market in which labour-intensive sectors – along with the shadow economy – continuously absorb incoming migrant workers. Economic interests and political institutions are closely intertwined, making any fundamental challenge to this arrangement unrealistic for the majority of stakeholders. Yet this acceptance of cost-benefit logic does not render political debate meaningless – it merely shifts it to a different arena. Those critical of immigration no longer fundamentally question the need for it, but instead focus on immigrants’ countries of origin – Latin American immigration is considered culturally compatible, while immigration from North Africa is more frequently framed in terms of security risks and costs. 

A blueprint for German Social Democracy?

For Germany’s Social Democrats, this does not provide a blueprint, but a method. With this in mind, the author offers insights relevant to the German context, asking: Which shared understandings could be shifted in a more progressive direction? Which actors outside of party politics could help provide the institutional basis for a viable narrative? And what would it mean to treat immigration not as an issue to be managed or addressed, but as part of the broader social democratic project? The answers to these questions might come as a surprise: the German landscape offers more points of reference for a distinctive, home-grown progressive narrative than the current debate would suggest.

Leon Schaller is a political scientist specialising in political economy, social inequality and labour migration. He studied in Munich, Paris and London on a scholarship from the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung. Today, he divides his time between research and practice, having held positions with the OECD and the European Union. He writes regular contributions for the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung.