Who Belongs, and How Far? Refugees and Bureaucrats Within the German Active Welfare State

Abstract

Concepts such as “belonging” (Yuval‐Davis, 2011) and “community of value” (Anderson, 2013) try to capture the multiple ways of classifying migrants. In this article, we argue that belonging needs to be analyzed against the backdrop of active social citizenship in European welfare states. Although the literature acknowledges the increasing links between migration and social policies, the latest “turn to activation” in social policy has hardly been accounted for. By focusing on two policy fields in Germany, the labor market and health policies, we briefly describe discourses and social right entitlements and their ambivalences. Empirically we show (a) how bureaucrats within the two policy fields regulate and justify refugees’ social rights in practice and (b) how refugees act vis‐à‐vis relevant institutional opportunity structures. Our study contributes to previous research twofold: Firstly, we illustrate processes of positioning and selecting refugees that stem from recent social policy architecture. Secondly, we demonstrate everyday experiences from refugees’ vis‐á‐vis relevant institutional opportunity structures in Germany. Our results show that inconsistencies within and between social policy fields of one welfare state have to be taken into consideration for further national and transnational research.

Migrant Agricultural Workers’ Experiences of Support in Three Migrant‐Intensive Communities in Canada

“…The transnational and increasingly stratified nature of migration (Menke & Rumpel, 2022;Scheibelhofer, 2022) generates hierarchies of belonging that lead us to ask not only who, but also how and to what degree specific migrants are included. The relationship between formal belonging and its everyday character articulates with everyday boundaries, gender, and racialized norms to inhibit belonging, including access to resources and services (Mattes & Lang, 2021;Menke & Rumpel, 2022;Ottonelli & Torresi, 2019;Speed et al, 2021).…”

“…The stratification of (im)migration necessitates a complex and multi-layered approach to belonging that attends to inequalities, the dynamic of exclusions and inclusions, and the situatedness of migrant workers (Menke & Rumpel, 2022;Scheibelhofer, 2022;Speed et al, 2021;Yuval-Davis, 2006). Support may form an important aspect of social inclusion, which may in turn create belonging.…”

“…Support may form an important aspect of social inclusion, which may in turn create belonging. A sense of belonging not only shapes identity-making and well-being (May, 2013;Soto Saavedra et al, 2023;Yuval-Davis, 2006) but also how and whether MAWs access the benefits, relationships, and activities to which they are entitled (Caxaj & Diaz, 2018;Mattes & Lang, 2021;Menke & Rumpel, 2022;Soto Saavedra et al, 2023;Speed et al, 2021). MAWs require a range of supports to forge their inclusion and belonging; however, the architecture of Canada's temporary migration schemes differentiates workers and their access to these entitlements.…”