Armed conflict, economic despair, and systematic violations of human rights have produced unprecedented challenges to today’s international system. It is thus; the post-Cold War era has become witness to significant alterations in global politics that has subsequently generated acute increases in the number of worldwide migrants. Consequently, it is the relationship staggered between immigration and welfare that continues to become an increasingly salient European affair. Immigration continues to remain a contentious issue spawning vigorous debates intensely focused on welfare and social rights. Areimmigrants likely to make positive contributions to welfare states? Or are immigrants rather liable to be a threat, posingfinancial, social and political burdens, and an overall risk to the survival of these welfare states? Underpinning these ubiquitousquestions has been a realignment of debates about the needs and resources of European welfare states, with the renewed interest in immigration as a means of offsetting skills and labour market shortages, while countering the effects of a demographicallyaging European population.1Immigration additionally has beenviewed as a means in achieving the European Union’s ambitious Lisbon targets, in that Europe “would become the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion”.2Yet as with most social issues, the simple term ‘immigration’ fails to do justice to the wide range of issues that this policy area entails. In fact, there is much to be said about the composition of immigrants, and it would be a huge oversight to classify immigration as though it were homogenous. An acute distinction must be drawn between ‘desired’ and ‘undesired’ forms of immigration, in the ways in which debates about needs and resources have been recast in Europe. Indeed, it seems that through this differentiation, European welfare states have pursued a janus-headed approach to immigration, in that European welfare states continue to open their doors, to highly-skilled immigrants, deemed as positive, but on the otherhand have continued to vigorously close their doors, particularly to asylum immigrants, which have become increasingly unwanted and the source of restrictive polices.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Defining immigration and welfare
A. Highly-skilled immigration
B. Asylum immigration
3. Historically, two very different countries: types of migration and forms of the welfare state
A. Britain
B. Germany
4. Comparing and contrasting citizenship
5. The significance of citizenship
6. Asylum immigration: what is really happening?
7. Towards an EU common immigration and asylum policy: does the Treaty of Amsterdam or Tampere actually make a difference?
8. Conclusion
9. Bibliography
10. Appendix
Research Objectives and Themes
This paper examines the dual approach of Britain and Germany toward immigration, specifically investigating how these welfare states facilitate social inclusion for highly-skilled migrants while concurrently pursuing restrictive, exclusionary policies against asylum seekers. The primary research question addresses the underlying justifications for this "janus-headed" immigration strategy and the role of national citizenship traditions in shaping these welfare responses.
- Comparison of welfare state regimes in Britain and Germany
- Categorization of "desired" (highly-skilled) versus "undesired" (asylum) migration
- The impact of citizenship traditions on minority integration and political access
- The influence of international law and EU policies on national asylum procedures
- The evolution of "denizenship" and its role in modern welfare states
Excerpt from the Book
3. Historically, two very different countries: types of migration and forms of the welfare state
European welfare states have certainly been shaped by immigration in different ways, reflecting each state’s international political relations such as its colonial traditions, involvement in competitive nation-building processes, in addition to their historically established concepts of the national citizenship and welfare. In relation to immigration, these factors have characterized the background against which welfare states operate. As Bommes and Geddes contend:
National welfare states can be viewed as political filters that mediate efforts by immigrants to realise their chances for social participation. These filters exclude certain norms of unwanted immigration, define a variety of legal conditions for immigration and residence, combine them with differentiated welfare entitlements and, consequently, pave the social options for those who enter the country.
Thus, it seems that responses to immigration in both Germany and Britain would understandably differ, with social inclusion and exclusion mediated by national historical, political and social differences. To this end, it seems that these differences may be revealed to a significant extent in the form of welfare state that each country comprises. In his distinguished typology Esping-Andersen differentiates between three types of welfare states: liberal, conservative and social democratic. Evidently, the effects of international immigration were not considered when Esping-Andersen developed his classification, but distinctions between these welfare states are of course valuable in examining immigration and welfare. With this said, it will be central that this papers analysis if we are to classify and observe the essential features of both German and British welfare state regimes.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: The introduction sets the context of global migration challenges and outlines the central argument that European welfare states adopt contradictory approaches toward highly-skilled versus asylum migrants.
2. Defining immigration and welfare: This chapter defines the distinction between "desired" highly-skilled labor and "undesired" asylum seekers, identifying the "liberal paradox" faced by EU member states.
3. Historically, two very different countries: types of migration and forms of the welfare state: This section explores how historical national contexts and different welfare regimes—liberal in Britain and conservative in Germany—shape the political filtration of immigrants.
4. Comparing and contrasting citizenship: The chapter contrasts Britain's multicultural pluralist model of citizenship with Germany's ethno-cultural exclusionist tradition.
5. The significance of citizenship: This chapter discusses the evolution of citizenship from T.H. Marshall’s classical theory to the contemporary concept of "denizenship" in a post-national context.
6. Asylum immigration: what is really happening?: An analysis of the restrictive measures and internal controls, such as dispersal and voucher systems, used to marginalize asylum seekers.
7. Towards an EU common immigration and asylum policy: does the Treaty of Amsterdam or Tampere actually make a difference?: This chapter examines the attempts at EU-level harmonization, arguing that national interests often undermine the goal of a fair protection system.
8. Conclusion: The conclusion synthesizes the findings, highlighting the persistent tension between national interests and the international obligations of liberal democratic states.
Keywords
Immigration, Welfare State, Britain, Germany, Asylum Seekers, Highly-skilled Migration, Citizenship, Denizenship, Social Inclusion, Social Exclusion, European Union, Treaty of Amsterdam, Labour Shortages, Welfare Entitlement, Migration Policy
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the central focus of this research paper?
The paper explores the divergent ways in which the British and German welfare states treat two categories of immigrants: highly-skilled professionals and asylum seekers.
What are the core themes analyzed in the study?
The research focuses on the classification of migrants, the role of national citizenship, the influence of welfare state regimes, and the impact of EU-level policy harmonization on national migration control.
What is the primary objective of the author?
The aim is to reveal that both countries provide social inclusion for "desired" migrants while actively creating barriers to exclude "undesired" asylum seekers, effectively utilizing the welfare state as a filter.
Which scientific methodology is employed?
The author uses a comparative perspective, contrasting national histories, welfare typologies, and political strategies between the two countries to explain different approaches to social integration.
What is covered in the main body of the work?
The main body examines historical backgrounds, the distinction between liberal and conservative welfare models, the role of citizenship and denizenship, and the effectiveness of EU-wide policies resulting from the Treaties of Amsterdam and Tampere.
Which keywords best characterize this work?
Key concepts include Welfare State, Asylum Seekers, Citizenship, Denizenship, Migration Policy, and European Harmonization.
How does Germany’s concept of citizenship differ from Britain’s?
Germany is characterized by an ethno-cultural, exclusionist model where naturalization is difficult, whereas Britain tends toward a multicultural, pluralist model with relatively easier access to civil and social rights.
What does the author mean by "janus-headed" immigration policy?
It refers to a contradictory state approach: simultaneously opening borders to highly-skilled migrants to address labor shortages while aggressively restricting access for asylum seekers to protect welfare resources.
What role does the EU play in national asylum policies?
The EU provides a framework for cooperation and minimum standards; however, member states often use these negotiations to implement the "lowest common denominator," prioritizing national interests over cohesive protection systems.
- Quote paper
- Susanne Taron (Author), 2006, Immigration and the welfare state - A comparative perspective of asylum and highly-skilled migration in Britain and Germany , Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/64596
