Social Security and Immigration: An Agenda for Future Research?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we argue that during recent periods of welfare state retrenchment, new immigrants generally have experienced greater levels of restriction on their social rights when compared with long-term migrants and citizens. However, the extent of new immigrants’ social rights (here social security) also depends on the structure of the welfare state prior to the period of retrenchment, and domestic political factors, which may either facilitate or limit the potential of government to initiate reforms that affect this group. The paper reviews the way institutional, political and macro-economic factors shape immigrant eligibility to welfare in contemporary legal systems. Drawing upon examples from Australia and Canada, we show that domestic policy considerations of social cohesion and harmonious integration, as well as concerns over welfare state costs, generally trump competing local or international values regarding possible labour law or social security entitlements of non citizens. The paper explores the theoretical argument that while institutional differences in the welfare state regimes of countries may at least partially explain the type of welfare state provision, and can even help to explain differing degrees of receptiveness to welfare provision for new immigrants within these regimes, compassion towards noncitizens ranks consistently very low within the domestic hierarchy of political values, and is trumped by the constellation of values comprising ‘national sovereignty’, and by other ‘path dependency’ values within the nation state. Our proposed future research agenda opens the opportunity to explore these theoretical arguments in more detail and across a wider range of countries to offer new insights into the worlds of immigrant welfare.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".