Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T20:08:08.308Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Ethics of Welfare Provision for Migrants: A Case for Equal Treatment and the Repositioning of Welfare

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 December 2010

HELEN BOLDERSON
HELEN BOLDERSON*
Affiliation:
Retired, formerly Reader in Social Policy in the Department of Government, Brunel University Home address: 3a Millfield Place, London N6 6JP email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The paper examines the structure of selection that determines migrants’ welfare rights. Using illustrations from the UK, it confirms that migrants’ welfare rights are stratified by, and dependent on, immigration status. It describes the outcome of this structure and shows why welfare policies need to reclaim independence from immigration policies to which they have become tied. Using terms from Walzer (1983), an argument is made for ‘autonomy’ in these different ‘spheres’.

An alternative approach is suggested in which access to welfare provisions for migrants is made regardless of immigration status and is based instead on equal treatment and non-discrimination between migrants and nationals of the receiving country. Nationals are seen to be migrants’ comparators, and unequal treatment between them constitutes discrimination. Alternative approaches to migrants’ welfare include reliance on universal international human rights law, and approaches that take into account more radical, substantive equality values than equal treatment. We argue, however, that amongst the advantages of an equal treatment policy are the rights retained by national governments to exercise sovereignty in determining the shape of their welfare provisions whilst also engaging international law on human rights.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Social Policy , Volume 40 , Issue 2 , April 2011 , pp. 219 - 235
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

A (FC) and Others (FC) (Appellants) v. The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) [2004] UKHL 56.Google Scholar
Arnardóttir, O. M. (2003), Equality and Non-discrimination under the European Convention of Human Rights, The Hague/London: M. Nyhoff Publishers.Google Scholar
Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 (c.49), London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 (c.23), London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants) Act 2004 (c.19), London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Benhabib, S. (2004), The Rights of Others: Aliens, Residents and Citizens, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beveridge, W. (1942), Social Insurance and Allied Services, Report by Sir William Beveridge, Cmd. 6404, London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Blake, N. (2004), ‘Judicial review of expulsion decisions: reflections on the UK experience’, in Dyzenhaus, D. (ed.), The Unity of Public Law, Oxford: Hart.Google Scholar
Bolderson, H. (2006), ‘Hosting destitution: universal and categorical convention rights and the construction of the asylum seeker’, paper presented at an Interdisciplinary Academic Conference on Human Rights, Crossing the boundaries: the place of human rights in contemporary scholarship, London School of Economics and Political Science, 24 March.Google Scholar
Bolderson, H. (2007a), ‘Exclusion of vulnerable groups from equal access to social security – the case of asylum seekers in the UK’, in Riedel, E. H. (ed.), Social Security as a Human Right: Drafting a General Comment on Article 9 of ICESCR – Some Challenges, Berlin/New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Bolderson, H. (2007b), ‘The use and abuse of frontiers: welfare categories, immigration status and universal human rights’, paper presented at the Social Policy Association Annual Conference New Frontiers? Social Policy in the 21st Century, University of Birmingham, July.Google Scholar
Bommes, M. and Geddes, A. (eds.) (2000), Immigration and Welfare: Challenging the Borders of the Welfare State, London/New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act, 2009 (Ch 11), London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Brubaker, W. R. (1989), Immigration and the Politics of Citizenship in Europe and North America, Lanham/London: University Press of America.Google Scholar
Castles, S. (2007), ‘National and empire: hierarchies of citizenship in the new global order’, in Bertossi, C. (ed.), European Anti-Discrimination and the Politics of Citizenship: Britain and France, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Cholewinski, R. (1998), ‘Enforced destitution of asylum seekers in the United Kingdom: the denial of fundamental human rights’, International Journal of Refugee Law, 10: 3, 462–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Council of Europe (1966), The European Social Charter 1961 (Revised 1966), Strasbourg: Council of Europe.Google Scholar
Council of Europe (2003), Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms as Amended by Protocol No. 11 with Protocol Nos. 1, 4, 6, 7, 12 and 13, Strasbourg: Council of Europe.Google Scholar
Council of the European Union (2003), ‘Council Directive 2003/9/EC of 27th January 2003 laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers’, Official Journal of the European Union, L 31, 6.2.2003, pp. 18–25.Google Scholar
Council of the European Union (2004), ‘Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for qualification and status of third country national or stateless persons as refugees or as person who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted’, Official Journal of the European Union, L 304, 30/09/2004, pp. 12–23.Google Scholar
Department of Health (n.d.), ‘Guidance to overseas visitors’, available at: http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Healthcare/Entitlementsandcharges/OverseasVisitors/index.htm; http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Healthcare/Entitlementsandcharges/OverseasVisitors/Browsable/DH_074373; both accessed 27 November 2009.Google Scholar
Department of Health and Social Security (1989), ‘The National Health (Charges to Overseas Visitors) Regulations 1989’, Statutory Instrument 1989 No. 306.Google Scholar
European Council, European Parliament and European Commission (2000), ‘Charter of the Fundamental Rights of the European Union’, Official Journal of the European Communities, C 364, pp. 1–22.Google Scholar
Fitzpatrick, P., Ripley, F. and Singh, A. (2007), Migration and Social Security Handbook, 4th edn, London: Child Poverty Action Group.Google Scholar
Fredman, S. (1999), ‘A critical review of the concept of equality in UK anti-discrimination law’, Working paper No. 3, Centre for Public Law and Judge Institute of Management Studies, University of Cambridge, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Fredman, S. (2007), ‘The positive right to social security’, in Goold, M. and Lazarus, L. (eds.), Security and Human Rights, Oxford/Portland: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
Geddes, A. (2000), ‘Denying access: asylum seekers and welfare benefits in the UK’, in Bommes, M. and Geddes, A. (eds.), Immigration and Welfare: Challenging the Borders of the Welfare State, London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Goodwin-Gill, G. S. (1996), The Refugee in International Law, 2nd edn, Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Guild, E. (2005), ‘The legal framework: who is entitled to move?’, in Bigo, D. and Guild, E. (eds.), Controlling Frontiers: Free Movement into and Within Europe, Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Guild, E. (2006), ‘The Europeanisation of Europe's asylum policy’, International Journal of Refugee Law, 18: 3–4, 630–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guild, E. (2008), ‘Sovereignty on the move: the changing landscape of territory, people and governance’, paper presented at London Migration Research Group seminar, 4 November.Google Scholar
Guiraudon, V. (2000), ‘The Marshallian triptych reordered: the role of courts and bureaucracies in furthering migrants’ social rights’, in Bommes, M. and Geddes, A. (eds.), Immigration and Welfare: Challenging the Borders of the Welfare State, London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hammar, T. (1989), Democracy and the Nation State: Aliens, Denizens and Citizens in a World of International Migration, Aldershot: Avebury.Google Scholar
Hathaway, J. (2005), The Rights of Refugees under International Law, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Home Office (2002), Secure Borders, Safe Haven: Integration with Diversity in Modern Britain, Cm 5387, London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Home Office (2009), ‘Immigration Act gives UK Border Agency customs powers’ [Press release], 22 July, available at: http://www.bia.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/newsarticles/2009/july/immigration-act-ukba-customs, accessed on 28 November 2009.Google Scholar
Home Office, UK Border Agency (n.d.), ‘No recourse to public funds: what does it mean?’, UK Border Agency, London.Google Scholar
Home Office, UK Border Agency (2009), ‘Reforming asylum support: effective support for those with asylum needs’, November, available at: http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/documents/aboutus/consultations/221878/simplifying-imm-law-new-frame-w1/asylum-support-consultation?view=Binary, accessed on 5 December 2009.Google Scholar
House of Commons, Social Security Committee (1996), ‘First Report, Session 1995–6: benefits for asylum seekers, appendices to Minutes of Evidence, HMSO, London.Google Scholar
Human Rights Act (1998) (c.42), The Stationery Office, –> London.+London.>Google Scholar
Hunter, A. (2006), Diversity in the Labour Market: The Legal Framework and Support Services for Migrants Entitled to Working in the United Kingdom, Oxford: Centre on Migration, Policy and Society.Google Scholar
Immigration Act 1971 (c.77), HMSO, London.Google Scholar
Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (c.33), HMSO, London.Google Scholar
The Income Support (General), Amendment No. 3 Regulations 1993 (1993), Statutory Instrument 1993 No. 1679, HMSO, London.Google Scholar
Joint Committee on Human Rights (1981), Proposals for Revision of the Immigration Rules, Cmnd. 8683, London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Joly, D. (1996), Haven or Hell? Asylum Policies and Refugees in Europe, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
League of Nations (1933), Convention Relating to the International Status of Refugees, Treaty Series Vol. CLIX No. 3663, available at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3dd8cf374.html, accessed on 3 December 2009, Geneva: League of Nations.Google Scholar
Levy, J. T. (1997), ‘Classifying cultural rights’, in Shapiro, I. and Kymlicka, W. (eds.), Ethnicity and Group Rights, New York/London: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Lockwood, D. (1996), ‘Civic integration and class formation’, British Journal of Sociology, 47: 3, 531–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McAdam, J. (2007), Complementary Protection in International Refugee Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, L. (2002), Managing Migration: Civic Stratification and Migrants’ Rights, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Morris, L. (2007), ‘New Labour's community of rights: welfare, immigration and asylum’, Journal of Social Policy, 36: 1, 39–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mourão Permoser, J. (2008), ‘Equality in diversity: the European social model, anti-discrimination, and the rights of third country nationals’, paper presented at ESPAnet 6th Annual Conference, University of Helsinki, Finland, 18–20 September.Google Scholar
Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (c.41), HMSO, London.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, M. C. (2000), Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach, Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phelan, M. and Gillespie, J. (2007), Immigration Law Handbook, 5th edn, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
R (Limbuela) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [(2005)] UKHL 66.Google Scholar
Refugee Council Online (2009), Letter to Home Secretary, 30 July, available at: http://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/news/news/2009/july/20090730.htm, accessed on 27 November 2009.Google Scholar
Riedel, E. (ed.) (2007), Social Security as a Human Right: Drafting a General Comment on Article 9 ICESCR – Some Challenges, Berlin/New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sawyer, C. (2007), ‘Elephants in the room, or: a can of worms: Szoma and “lawful presence” in the United Kingdom’, Journal of Social Security Law, 14: 2, 86–104.Google Scholar
Sawyer, C. and Turpin, P. (2005), ‘Neither here nor there: temporary admission to the UK’, Journal of International Refugee Law, 17: 4, 688–728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singh, R. (2005), ‘The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights’, lecture given at Centre for the Study of Human Rights, London School of Economics, 31 October.Google Scholar
Smart, K. (2009), ‘The second destitution tally: Asylum Support Partnership’, available at: http://www.refugee-action.org.uk/campaigns/destitution/documents/090501SecondDestitutionTallyFinal.pdf, accessed on 4 December 2009.Google Scholar
Soysal, Y. N. (1994), Limits of Citizenship: Migrants and Postnational Membership in Europe, Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Soysal, Y. N. (1996), ‘Boundaries and identity: immigrants in Europe’, EUI Working paper EUF, no.96/3, Badia Fiesolana: European University Institute, European Forum.Google Scholar
Sztuki, J. (1999), ‘Who is a “refugee”? The convention definition: universal or obsolete?’, in Nicholson, F. and Twomey, P. (eds.), Refugee Rights and Realities: Evolving International Concepts and Regimes, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Thielemann, E. and El-Enany, N. (2009), ‘Beyond fortress Europe? How European cooperation strengthens refugee protection’, paper presented at London Migration Research Group seminar, 3 February.Google Scholar
Travis, A. (2009), ‘Queen's speech 2009: draft immigration bill’, Guardian, 18 November [online], available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/nov/18/queens-speech-draft-immigration-bill, accessed on 3 December 2009.Google Scholar
United Nations (UN) (1948), Universal Declaration of Human Rights [Adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948], Geneva: United Nations.Google Scholar
United Nations (UN) (1951, 1967), Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (1951) and Protocol (1967), Geneva: United Nations.Google Scholar
United Nations (UN) (1966a), International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Geneva: United Nations.Google Scholar
United Nations (UN) (1966b), International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Geneva: United Nations.Google Scholar
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) (1992), Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees, Geneva: UNHCR.Google Scholar
Vizard, P. (2005), The Contributions of Professor Amartya Sen in the Field of Human Rights, CASE Paper 91, London: Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, London School of Economics.Google Scholar
Walzer, M. (1983), Spheres of Justice: A Defense of Pluralism and Equality, New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar