MIGRATION AND SOCIAL PROTECTION IN THE EUROPEAN UNION: PUBLIC POLICIES, MIGRANT PRACTICES AND THE POLITICS OF WELFARE

27 FEBRUARY, 28 FEBRUARY & 1 MARCH 2019 LIÈGE – BELGIUM

IMISCOESPRINGCONFERENCEINCOOPERATIONWITHTHEERC-FUNDEDPROJECTMiTSoPro

#IMISCOEMITSOPRO

2

Foreword WelcometoLiège!As one of the founding member ofIMISCOE, the Centre for Ethnic andMigration Studies (CEDEM) of theUniversityof Liège isdelighted tohostthe 2019 Spring Conference. Over thecourseof threedaysyouwillhave theopportunity to attend panels andlecturesbyscholarsproceedingfromalloverEuropewhoshareastronginterestinissuesrelatedtomigrationandsocialprotection.Forseveralyears,questionssuch as mobile EU citizens’ access tobenefits or the treatment given byWelfare states to third countrynationalsaretriggeringheateddebatesacrossEurope.Theseissuesarealsoatthe core of the ERC-funded projectMigration and Transnational SocialProtection in (post) crisis Europe(MiTSoPro) that is co-organizing thiseventtogetherwithIMISCOE.

Inlinewiththetopicofthisconference,panels will be held at the ValdorHospital (rue Basse-Wez 147, 4020Liège) which we warmly thank forhosting us. This public institution hashistorically responded to the needs ofprecariouspopulationsinthecity.Morerecently,ithasalsoadapteditspracticesto the growing diversity of the city. Inaddition, the keynote lecture by Pr.Virginie Guiraudon and the IMISCOEBoardofDirectors’meetingwillbeheldat the University of Liège city centrecampus located on Place du 20-août(20-minutewalkfromthehospital).Wehope that reaching these differentlocationswillalsogiveyouachancetodiscover this city whose past andpresent is tightly connected toBelgium’simmigrationhistory.

Jean-MichelLafleur

ConferenceOrganizerMiTSoPro-ERCPrincipalInvestigatorAssociateDirectorofCEDEMLiègeUniversity@LafleurJeanM

MarcoMartiniello

DirectorofCEDEMF.R.S.-FNRSResearchDirectorLiègeUniversity

3

4

Contents MiTSoPro-ERC ___________________________________________ 5 Timetable _____________________________________________ 6 Programme ____________________________________________ 7 Abstracts _____________________________________________ 11 Venues and Contacts _____________________________________ 25 Aknowledgements _______________________________________ 30

5

MiTSoPro-ERC MigrationandTransnationalSocialProtectionin(post)crisisEurope

MiTSoPro is a 5-year research project(2016-2021) funded by a Starting GrantfromtheEuropeanResearchCouncil(ERC)and led byDr. Jean-Michel Lafleur at theCentre for Ethnic and Migration Studies(CEDEM) of the University of Liège. Thisproject combines quantitative andqualitative approaches to the study ofpolicies and strategies that enablemigrantsandmobileEUcitizenstoaccesstosocialprotection.

Step1

Relying on an expert survey conductedwith social policy and immigration policyexperts in the EU-28 and in 12 non-EUcountries of origin, MiTSoPro intends todeliver:A) A cross-country database on theconditionsofaccesstocoresocialbenefitsin the area of unemployment, old-agepensions, health, family benefits andguaranteedminimumresources;B)Anindexonwelfarestates’inclusivenesstowardsmobileandimmobileindividuals;

C)Acomparativedatabaseonconsularanddiasporapoliciesofferedby40EUandnon-EU sending states to nationals residingabroad.

Step2

Conducting multi-sited ethnographicfieldwork with four immigrantcommunities (Romanian, French,Senegalese, Tunisian) in differentEuropean cities (including Brussels,Bucharest,Marseille,andValencia)andinorigin countries of origin, MiTSoPro aimsto:A) Identify the barriers to the exercise ofwelfareentitlementsbymobileindividuals;andB) Highlight the articulation betweenformal sending and receiving states’welfarepoliciesandalternativeimmigrantstrategiesthatmobilizefamily,marketandnon-profit actors to access socialprotection.

PrincipalInvestigator:LeadPostdoctoralResearchers:

DoctoralResearchers:

Externalcollaborators:

Website:Twitter:

Facebook:

Dr.Jean-MichelLafleur,AssociateDirectorofCEDEMDr.DanielaVintilaFéliciendeHeuschAngelikiKonstantinidouCaroleWengerLarisaLaraGuerrero(UniversityofLiège)RobertaPerna(FondazioneLuigiEinaudi,Turin)MariaVivasRomero(UniversityofLiège)İnciÖyküYener-Roderburg(UniversityofDuisburg-Essen)http://labos.ulg.ac.be/socialprotection@mitsopro_EUMitsopro_EU

6

Timetable Publicevents:

Closedevents:

Wed.27 Thu.28 Fri.1

13.30-14.00 Registration 09.00-10.30 PANEL3 09.00-10.30 PANEL7

14.00-14.15 Welcome 10.30-11.00 Coffeebreak 10.30-11.00 Coffeebreak

14.15-16.00 PANEL1 11.00-12.30 PANEL4 11.00-12.00 PANEL8

16.00-16.15 Coffeebreak 12.30 Lunchbreak 12.00 Lunch

16.15-17.45 PANEL2 13.45-15.30 PANEL5

19.30 Dinner 15.30-15.45 Coffeebreak

15.45-17.15 PANEL6

18.00-18.30 Opening

18.30-19.30 Keynote

19.30-20.15 NetworkingDrink

20.30 Dinner

Thu.28

09.00-12.00 IMISCOEEditorialCommitteeMeeting(ValdorHospital

VIPRoom)

14.00-17.30 IMISCOEBoardofDirectorsMeeting(LiègeUniversity

SalledesProfesseurs)

7

Programme

PublicEvents

Wednesday27February2019

13.30–14.00 ConferenceRegistration–VALDORHOSPITAL,RueBasse-Wez145,4020Liège

14.00–14.15 WelcomeJean-MichelLafleur–LiègeUniversity

14.15–16.00 PANEL1:ConditionalityinwelfareanditsconsequencesDiscussant:RobertaPERNA(InternationalandEuropeanForumofResearchonMigration)ExploringthelinksbetweenresidenceandsocialrightsformobileEUcitizens

SandraMANTUandPaulMINDERHOUD(RadboudUniversityNijmegen)

Wewriteforthecourts,notforthepeople’.Irregularmigrants,socialworkersandwelfarebureaucraciesinFrench-speakingBelgium

SophieANDREETTA(MaxPlanckInstituteforSocialAnthropology)

Theconditionality-dependencynexusinthesocialprotectionofyoungEUmigrants:Dilemmasoffinancialdependenceandprecariousness

AnnaSIMOLA(UniversityofHelsinki)paperco-authoredwithSirpaWREDE

Welfare,socialprotectionandthedeportationofforeigners:theSwisscase

IbrahimSOYSÜREN(UniversityofNeuchâtel)

16.00–16.15 Coffeebreak

16.15–17.45 PANEL:2ObstaclesindealingwithEuropeanwelfarestatesDiscussant:SandraMANTUPortuguesemigrantsinFranceandpublicinstitutions:anethnographicapproachofcomparisonwithinEuropeanworkingclasses

YasmineSIBILOT(UniversityParis8,INED)

Offers,useandeffectsofacademicpost-andfurtherqualificationforimmigrantacademicsinGermany

UteKLAMMER(UniversityofDuisburg-Essen)paperco-authoredwithMatthiasKNUTHandAlexandraGRAEVSKAIA

Re-delimitinghealthcareformigrantswithirregularstatusintimesofcrisis.Spanishreformandcounter-reformbetweensymbolicpolitics,convergingoutputsandoppositionfrombelow

MaríaBRUQUETASCALLEJO(RadboudUniversity)andRobertaPERNA(InternationalandEuropeanForumofResearchonMigration)

19.30 DinnerL’Aquiloneasbl–BldSaucy25,4020Liège

8

Thursday28February2019

9.00–10.30 PANEL3:DiasporapoliciesasresponsestothesocialprotectionneedsofmobileEUcitizens

Discussant:AngelikiKONSTANTINIDOU–LiègeUniversityDiasporapoliciesandsocialprotectioninCzechia

EvaJANSKA(CharlesUniversityPrague)paperco-authoredwithKristýnaJANUROVA

Germany:Areluctantlandofemigration?

Amanda KLEKOWSKI VON KOPPENFELS (University of Kent at Brussels/ Brussels School ofInternationalStudies)

SocialrightsofDanishdiaspora

RomanaCAJERA(UniversityofSouthernDenmark)

10.30–11.00 Coffeebreak

11.00–12.30 PANEL4:DiasporapoliciesasresponsesthesocialprotectionneedsofthirdcountrynationalsintheEUDiscussant:JensSCHNEIDER–UniversityofOsnabrückA largenetworkwithaguichetunique: thehistorical structuringof socialpolicies for Swissnationalsabroad

LorenzoPICCOLI(EuropeanUniversityInstituteandUniversityofNeuchatel)

Russia'spolicytowardsitsdiaspora

AnnaPROKHOROVA(EuropeanUniversitySt.Petersburg)

Sendingstates’privateactorsassocialprotectionprovidersfordiasporas.ThecaseofTurkishclinicsinGermany

InciÖyküYENER-RODERBURG(UniversityofStrasbourg&UniversityofDuisburg-Essen)paperco-authoredwithJean-MichelLAFLEUR

12.30 Lunch(conferencevenue)

13.45–15.30 PANEL5:Socialprotectionandmigrationdecisions:beyondthewelfaremagnethypothesisDiscussant:DanielaVINTILA–LiègeUniversityWelfareandmigrationaspirations:attracting,discouragingorfacilitating?Empiricalevidencefromafactorialsurvey

PetraDEJONGandHelgaDEVALK(NetherlandsInterdisciplinaryDemographicInstitute)EndemicformsofmigrantexclusioninEuropeanunemploymentinsurancesystems

LutzGSCHWIND(UppsalaUniversity)

9

Situatinghealthneedsinthestudyofintra-Europeanmobility.ExperiencesofyoungSouthern

EuropeansinGermany

SimoneCASTELLANI(UniversityInstituteofLisbon)paperco-authoredwithRoxanaBARBULESCU

TransnationalsocialprotectionofRomaniansinSpain:welfareforworkingandlinked-lives

AngelinaKUSSY(AutonomousUniversityofBarcelona)paperco-authoredwithMirandaJessicaLubbersandJoséLuísMolina

15.30–15.45 Coffeebreak

15.45–17.15 PANEL6:AccesstotheLabourmarketandsocialprotectionDiscussant:SimoneCASTELLANI–UniversityInstituteofLisbonFast-tracktoemployment?Reflectionsonnewlyarrivedmigrants’opportunitiestoentertheSwedishlabourmarket

ElinENNERBERGandCatarinaECONOMOU(MalmöUniversity)Doeslocalitymatter?Comparingrefugees’experiencesinthefieldoflabourmarketinclusioninGermanyandFrance

AnjaBARTEL(UniversityofStrasbourg)andThorstenSCHLEE(UniversityofDuisburg-Essen)Private brokerage agencies for live-in migrant care work: improving “quality” in aEuropeanisedgreymarketbetweenGermanyandPoland?

SimoneLEIBER(UniversityofDuisburg-Essen)paperco-authoredwithVerenaROSSOW

18.00–18.30 OfficialOpeningSalleAcadémique,LiègeUniversity,Placedu20Août7Anne-SophieNyssen,Vice-RectoroftheUniversityofLiegeWelcomefromCentreforEthnicandMigrationStudies,MarcoMartiniello,CEDEMdirectorOverviewoftheERC-fundedprojectMiTSoPro,Jean-MichelLafleurandDanielaVintila

18.30–19.30 KeynoteLectureSalleAcadémique,LiègeUniversity,Placedu20Août7Prof.VirginieGUIRAUDON,CNRS&Sciences-PoParis

Whocares?Whobenefits?Theroleofmigrantsintherestructuringofwelfarestates

19.30–20.15 CocktailandNetworkingEventwithCivilSocietyOrganizationsincooperationwiththeH2020project“ResearchSocialPlatformonMigrationandAsylum”(ReSOMA)LiègeUniversity,Placedu20Août7

20.30 DinnerThéâtredeLiège,LeBalcondel’Émulation,Placedu20Août16(forIMISCOEdirectorsandregisteredconferenceparticipants)

10

Friday1March2019

9.00–10.30 PANEL7:DiasporapoliciesasresponsestothesocialprotectionneedsofmobileEUcitizens

Discussant:UteKLAMMER–UniversityofDuisburg-EssenConceptualizingthenexusofmigrationandsocialprotection:assemblinginstitutionaldoingsofmigrationandpoliticsofdeservingness

Anna AMELINA (University of Cottbus) and Karolina BARGLOWSKI (Technical UniversityDortmund)Comparingmigrants’accesstosocialprotectionanddiasporapoliciesintheEU

Jean-MichelLAFLEURandDanielaVINTILA(LiègeUniversity)EUmigration,varietiesofcapitalismandBrexit

AdrianFAVELL(UniversityofLeeds)paperco-authoredwithAlbertVARELA

10.30–11.00 Coffeebreak

11.00–12.30 PANEL8:PublicopiniononmigrationandwelfareDiscussant:AdrianFAVELL–UniversityofLeedsPublicopinionandmediacoverageonirregularmigrantsintheUnitedKingdom,2015-2018

Diem-TuTRAN(StMary'sUniversity,London)

Welfarestateaccessfornewcomers?Comparingtheopinionsofnativecitizensandestablishedmigrants

JolienGALLE(KatholiekeUniversiteitLeuven)

12.30 Lunch(conferencevenue)

ClosedEvents

Thursday28February2019

9.00–12.00 IMISCOEEditorialCommitteeMeetingVIPRoom,VALDORHOSPITAL,RueBasse-Wez145,4020Liège

14.00–17.30 MISCOEBoardofDirectorsMeetingSalledesProfesseurs,LiègeUniversity,Placedu20Août7

11

Abstracts InorderofappearancePanel1:Conditionalityinwelfareanditsconsequences

SandraMANTUandPaulMINDERHOUD(RadboudUniversityNijmegen)ExploringthelinksbetweenresidenceandsocialrightsformobileEUcitizensThispaperexamines the linksbetween residenceandsocial rights in thecontextofEUcitizens’mobility.Thepaperbuildson28nationalreportsconcerningtheimplementationandapplicationofDirective2004/38at thenational level, including themanner inwhichnationalauthoritieshavetransposedrelevantECJjurisprudence(Dano,Brey,Alimanovic).ThefocusisonhowtheEU28areimplementing the provisions on social assistance and economically inactive EU citizens and theprovisionsonpermanentresidencewithaviewtoidentifyissuesrelevantfortheeffectiveexerciseofEUcitizenshiprightsinthesespecificareasoflaw.Askingforsocialbenefitsbecomesafirststeptowardsbeingconsideredby theadministrationasanunreasonableburden,which leads to theterminationofEUresidencerightsandevenexpulsion.OuranalysisshowsthatassertingresidencerightsunderArticles7and16ofDirective2004/38isbecomingproblematicforcertaincategoriesofEUcitizensandlinkedwiththemorerestrictivepositiontakenbysomeMemberStatesinrelationtoaccessingtheirnationalsocialassistancesystems.SophieANDREETTA(MaxPlanckInstituteforSocialAnthropology)Wewrite for the courts, not for the people’. Irregularmigrants, socialworkers andwelfarebureaucraciesinFrench-speakingBelgiumInBelgium,dependingon their immigration status, foreigners areentitled todifferent formsofsocial assistance, ranging fromemergencymedical care towelfarebenefits. In a contextwhereresidencepermitsare constantlyupdated, reexaminedorwithdrawnby theadministration, thispaperexploresthewaysinwhichwelfarebureaucratsreceive,fileandactondocumentsfromtheimmigration office. Based on ethnographic fieldwork within welfare offices in French-speakingBelgium, it examines the daily practices of social workers, their interactionswith beneficiaries,immigration lawyers and with the national database though which administrations shareinformation on residence, social protection or employment. This contribution asks how socialworkersnavigateconflictingnormssuchasprofessionalethics,instructionsfromaboveandstateregulations,andeventuallydemonstratesthatalongwithtightbudgets,theintricaterelationshipbetweenimmigrationproceedingsontheonehand,andtherighttowelfareontheotherhasledtothejudicializationofsocialassistance.

12

AnnaSIMOLA(UniversityofHelsinki)paperco-authoredwithSirpaWREDEThe conditionality-dependencynexus in the social protectionof youngEUmigrants:DilemmasoffinancialdependenceandprecariousnessForyoungEuropeans looking foropportunities to transit fromeducationtoprofessionalcareersoptingforintra-EUmigrationhascometoappearincreasinglycompellinginthecontextoflabourmarkets where young people risk becoming marginalized. However, when young EU migrantsexperience precarious conditions in the course of their employment paths, they may findthemselves inanambiguouspositionshaped,on theonehand,by recentpolicies invariousEUcountries that have reinforced the conditionality of EU migrants’ rights to welfare and evenresidence.Ontheotherhand,asweclaiminthisarticle,youngEUmigrants’welfarerightsarealsocriticallyfashionedbythepoliciesoftheircountryoforigin.Wepresentresultsfromaqualitativestudyfocusingonyounguniversity-educatedEUmigrants,whohavemovedtoBrusselseitherfromSouthernEuropeortheNordiccountrieswithhopesofadvancingtheircareers,butsubsequentlyexperiencedperiodsofunemploymentandworkedunderprecariousarrangements.Ouranalysisshowshowthemultifariousconditionalityregulations,enforcedatvariousgovernancelevelsandsitesinparallel,hinderthemfromachievingfinancialindependenceandproduceinsteadcomplexdependenceontheirparents,theirpartnersand/ortheirfurtherinvolvementinprecariouswork.The study contrasts the situation of EU migrants from Nordic countries that have invested indefamilializing formsofsocialprotection,commonly identifiedwithwelfareregimesthatenableyoung people’s financial independence, with that of young migrants from Southern Europeancountrieswherefamilysupportbasedapproachestosocialprotectionprevail.Bysheddinglightontheroleofwelfarestatearrangementsinbothyoungmigrants’countriesoforiginanddestination,thearticlehighlightsintra-andintergenerationalinequalitiesinyoungpeople’swelfarecitizenshipinthecontextofEUmigration.IbrahimSOYSÜREN(UniversityofNeuchâtel)Welfare,socialprotectionandthedeportationofforeigners:theSwisscaseIntheliteratureandpublicdebates,socialprotectionismuchdiscussedinrelationwithmigrants’access to benefits and rights related to social welfare. Yet, nature of the relationship betweenmigrationandwelfarestatespendingisnotclear(Sorokaetal,2016).Regardingdeportation,ithasnot been taken into consideration, even though they have been abundantly accused of takingadvantageofsocialbenefits.Someauthors,suchasWalters(2002)andCeastecker(1998),relatethedeportationofforeignerstothedevelopmentofwelfarestates.MeasuresstrengtheningsocialprotectionofnationalshavepushedEuropeanstatestoexcludeforeignersanddeportthem.Eventhoughotherscholarsarguedthatnationalcitizenshipwassupplantedby‘post-nationalmembership’,pointingoutacquisitionbyforeignersofprivilegesandrightsexclusivelyreservedfornationals(Soysal,1994),beingindigenousoronthebenefitforalongtimecanstillconstituteagroundfordeportation.Ontheotherhand,scholars such as De Genova (2002) have argued that the possibility of being deported, calleddeportability,hasbeeninstrumental inthecreationofadisposablelaborforcewhichwouldnothaveeasyaccesstosocialprotectionorsocialbenefits.In this paper, I will firstly explore the relationship between welfare, social protection and thedeportationofforeignersonthebasisofsocialsciences literature.Then, IwillshowhowandtowhatextentforeignerscanbedeportedfromSwitzerlandongroundsrelatedtosocialprotectionandwelfare.Inthelastpart,wewillconceptualisetheirdeportabilityanddeportationaspotential

13

illegitimacycomingintoforce.Thepresenceofforeignersinacountryisasovereignactoftolerance.Theystaydeportableandcanbedeportedwhenbreaktheir“dutyofpoliteness” (Sayad,1999).Fromthispointofview,misuseofthesocialwelfaresystemorbenefitsshowsthataforeignerdoesnotdeservetobetoleratedinthecountry.Panel2:ObstaclesindealingwithEuropeanwelfarestates

YasmineSIBILOT(UniversityParis8,INED)Portuguesemigrants inFranceandpublic institutions:anethnographicapproachofcomparisonwithinEuropeanworkingclassesThis presentation is based on an on-going research dealing with the relations of PortuguesemigrantsandtheirrelationshiptopublicinstitutionsinFranceandPortugal.Thiswork,conductedpartlyincollaborationwithPortuguesecolleagues,isintendingtodevelopnewtoolsforcomparingsocial classes in Europe, focusing on intra-EU migrations, on the one hand, and analysing therelationsofEUmigrantstopublicinstitutionsandsocialprotectionindepartureandhostcountries,ontheotherhand.Thisprojectwillincludestatisticalcomparisonsatvariousscales(onprofessionssuchasconstructionworkersorcleaners,andonlocalareasofemigrationandimmigration).Thepresentationwill be basedmore specifically on an on going fieldwork situated in the Parisiansuburbs, based on in depth interviews and observations with Portuguese women working ascleanersinvarioussituations(inprivatehomes,inofficesorshops,andmoreparticularlyinpublicschoolsinonespecificmunicipality).Itwillputinrelationtheirmigratoryandsocialtrajectorieswiththeirpracticalandsymbolicalrelationshiptopublicinstitutions(socialhousing,socialprotection,schools, fiscal administration, city council, health system…). The comparisons made by thesemigrantswomen between institutions in Portugal in Francewill also be studied, aswell as thestrengthoftheirwillofdistancingthemselvesfromthestigmaofthemigranttakingadvantageofthewelfaresystem,incomparisonwithothermigrants.Ute KLAMMER (University of Duisburg-Essen) paper co-authored with MatthiasKNUTHandAlexandraGRAEVSKAIAOffers, use and effects of academic post- and further qualification for immigrantacademicsinGermanyManymigrantscomingtoGermanyhaveobtainedacademicdegreesintheircountryoforigin,butare unable tomake adequate use of them on the German labourmarket. Very often they areunemployedorworkinjobsfarbelowtheirqualificationlevel.WhilemigrationishighlydebatedinGermany, in particular with respect to migrants with low qualifications, the system of highereducationaswellassocietyingeneralseemnottobeadequatelyawareoftheresources,butalsotheneedsofhighlyqualifiedmigrants.Basedonarecentlyfinishedqualitativeresearchproject,thispaperprovidesananalysisofthe(few)existingprogrammesforthepost-andfurtherqualificationofhighlyqualifiedimmigrantsinGermany.Itexaminesthecharacteristicsandconditionsofexistingqualification programmes, especially the serious structural problems the participants have infinancingtheirlivelihoodduringtheirparticipationinqualificationmeasures.Basedonthemethod

14

of “user research”, the focus is on a qualitative empirical study – interviews with programmeparticipants as well as directors of the respective programmes - on themodes of use and thebenefitsoftheprogrammesfromtheparticipants'pointofview.Barriersarepointedout,butalsoconditionsforsuccessinacademiccontinuingeducation.Theanalysesareusedtodevelopsolutionsandrecommendationsforthefurtherdevelopmentofqualificationoptionsforacademicsmigratingto Europe and in particular to Germany. The paper therefore contributes in particular to thefollowingaspectshighlightedintheCfP:1)ItidentifieschallengestoEuropeanWelfaresystems(inparticulareducationalsystems)derivingfrombothincreasedEUmobilityandtheraisingnumberofasylumseekerswhohavereachedEuropesince2015.2)Itanalysesaspectsoftheportabilityandexportabilityofeducationaldegreesandtheirimpactonthemigrants’abilitytoaccesspaidworkinthereceivingcountry.María BRUQUETAS CALLEJO (Radboud University) and RobertaPERNA(InternationalandEuropeanForumofResearchonMigration)Re-delimitinghealthcareformigrantswithirregularstatusintimesofcrisis.Spanishreform and counter-reform between symbolic politics, converging outputs andoppositionfrombelowFollowingthe2008financialcrisis,theentitlementofmigrantstoEUcountries’welfareandhealthcare systems has become an increasingly controversial and conflictive issue in the politicalbattlefield. The Spanish case is paradigmatic in this respect. Often praised for having themostinclusive health care system towards migrants in Europe, Spain’s welfare state expansion wassuddenlyreversedin2012.BytheRD16/2012,thePP’sconservativegovernmentexcludedmigrantswithirregularstatusfromuniversalhealthcarecoverage,legitimatingthisturnwiththeneedtocuthealthexpenditureandstop‘medicaltourism’intimesofcrisis.Soundlyopposingthismeasureandpromising to restitute universalism, one of the first measures of the new PSOE’s center-leftgovernment in 2018 has been to undo the policy reform of its predecessor. Nevertheless,universalismcannotbesaidtobeback.Basedontheanalysisoflegislativetexts,policydocumentsandpressarticlesintheperiod2012-2018,weexplorethechangesinpartypositioningandpolicymeasures vis-à-vis access to health care for migrants with irregular status (i.e. undocumentedmigrantsanduninsuredEUcitizens).Ourfindingssuggestthatideologicaldifferencesconcerninghealthcare,migrationandintegrationissueswereoverstressedtoplaysymbolicpolitics.However,theydidnotmatterforthepolicyoutputs.Rather,theyseemtobeconverginginpracticalterms.On the contrary, path-dependent practices and opposition frommultiple veto-players played acentralroleinthepolicymakingprocess,shaping‘frombelow’thecoursesofactionestablishedatthelevelofthestate.

15

Panel3:DiasporapoliciesasresponsestothesocialprotectionneedsofmobileEUcitizens

Eva JANSKA (Charles University Prague) paper co-authored with KristýnaJANUROVADiasporapoliciesandsocialprotectioninCzechiaThe Czech diaspora counts approximately 2.5 million people with Czech origins, including theoffspringofpeoplewhomigratedinthepreviouscenturies,aswellassome960000Czechcitizens.ThismakesCzechiaminorinimportanceasamigrant-sendingcountrycomparedtootherEuropeanstates.AlthoughthediasporahasnotbeenofcrucialconcerntotheCzechauthoritiesandpoliticalpartiesinthepastdecades,agreaterinterestoftheauthoritiesinissuessucheducation,culture,andevenpoliticalparticipationwithregardtonationalsabroadcanbeseen.ResearchontheCzechdiaspora israther limited.Theexistingstudiesaremostlyqualitativeandfocus on questions of ethnic identification, migration and return migration or integration andtransnationalism. This paper thus represents a unique endeavour by presenting a consolidatedoverviewofthegeneralinstitutionalandpolicystructuretowardsCzechdiasporainvariousareas,especiallyconsularprotection,education,nationalelectionsandculture.Resultspresentedinthispaperhavebeenobtainedintheframeworkoftheproject“Migrationandtransnationalsocialprotectionin(post)crisisEurope”(MiTSoPro).Amanda KLEKOWSKI VON KOPPENFELS (University of Kent at Brussels/ BrusselsSchoolofInternationalStudies)Germany:Areluctantlandofemigration?Germanywasoncecalleda“reluctantlandofimmigration,”astatuswhichhasclearlychangedinthelast20years inGermany,yetthereversemightnowbetrue.AlthoughGermanyhasshiftedtowardinclusionwithrespecttonon-nationalslivinginGermany,whenwelookatGermanslivingabroad,weseethatGermanydoesnotexplicitly includeitscitizens livingabroadinmanyareas.Germany has recently expanded voting rights for those living abroad, but access to socialprotections,suchashealthinsurance,pensionsandwelfare,remainconsiderablylimited.Forsomesendingcountries,socialprotectionsforemigrantsorforcitizenstemporarilylivingabroadmaybecarefullyelaborated,yet, inothercases,suchasGermany,theyarenotexplicitlystated.Indeed, in thecaseofGermany,someprotectionsareavailabledespite residenceabroad,whileothersareonlyavailableiftheyarenotprovidedbythecountryofresidence.Thistension–whichmightbesummedupasatensionofresponsibility–willbeexaminedthroughthecaseofGermanyandtheprovisionofsocialprotectionstoGermancitizenslivingabroad.Therearecompeting logicsofcitizenshipvs social inclusion throughresidenceandparticipation in thelocallabormarket,andtheseplayoutinindividuals’accesstosocialprotectionpolicies.

16

RomanaCAJERA(UniversityofSouthernDenmark)SocialrightsofDanishdiasporaAmongEUmemberstates,Denmarkboastsaverygenerouswelfarestate:Fundedthoughtaxes,itoffersa largepaletteofbenefitsandservices,coveringallagesandpossiblerisks.Theproposedpaperdocumentsif,andhowtheDanishcitizenswhoresideoutsidethebordersoftheKingdomofDenmarkenjoythesebenefits.Thepaperpresentsevidencewhichcoversfivemajorsupportareas(family,health,unemployment,pensionsandminimumincome)andshowsthattheDanishcitizensresidingabroadareabletoexportonlyasmallpartofthebenefitstheyhaveaccesstowhenresidingintheKingdomofDenmark.Panel 4: Diaspora policies as responses the social protection needs ofthirdcountrynationalsintheEU

LorenzoPICCOLI(EuropeanUniversityInstituteandUniversityofNeuchatel)Alargenetworkwithaguichetunique:thehistoricalstructuringofsocialpoliciesforSwissnationalsabroadSocialpoliciesforSwissnationalsabroadrevolvearoundtheinstitutionalisationofalargenetworkthatincludestheFederalCouncil(mainlytheFederalDepartmentofForeignAffairsand,toalesserextent,theFederalOfficeofCulture),aseriesofnon-profitorganisations(mainlytheOrganisationof Swiss Abroad and, in some specific domains, the Foundation for Young Swiss Abroad andEducationsuisse), and over 750 Swiss associations, clubs, and charities that operate around theworld.Thisconstitutesa“guichetunique”forwhatis,infact,abroadrangeofpoliciesandactors.Thearticleaimsatexplainingthehistoricalstructuringofthisnetwork,whilealsosheddinglightonthecompetitionbetweenitsactors.Itdoessothroughananalysisofovertwenty-fivepolicy-makingdocuments – existing legislation, expired legislation, motions to the Federal Assembly, officialguidelines and regulations – complemented by fifteen interviews with policy-makers andinstitutionalcoordinators.ThemainargumentisthattheFederalCouncilgainedcontroloverthisnetwork of institutionswhen it pushed forward legislation recognising the crucial role of Swissnational abroad in shaping both internal politics – through their right to vote and stand ascandidates in federal elections and in some cantonal elections – and the external image ofSwitzerland–withSwitzerlandnotbeingpartoftheEuropeanUnion,Swissabroadaretreatedasinformalambassadorsofthecountry.Aspartofthisstrategy,theFederalCouncildevelopedmoreencompassing social protection policies, while also safeguarding the existence of cantonalassociationsandbenevolentstructures.

17

AnnaPROKHOROVA(EuropeanUniversitySt.Petersburg)Russia'spolicytowardsitsdiasporaAsahomecountry,Russiahasdevelopedaspecificframeworkofpolicyprovidingforthesupportandprotectionofrightsofthecompatriotsabroad.However,nationalsresidingabroadisjustoneofthecategoriesofcompatriotsdefinedinthelawoncompatriots(1999).NospecificframeworkforpolicyinrelationtonationalsresidingabroadexistsinRussia.Theinstitutionalinfrastructuretosupportcompatriotsabroad isoutdated: it isbasedontheSoviet legacyofpoliticalandculturalpropagandaandismeanttoserveprimarilytheinterestsofcompatriotsinthenearabroad,i.e.CIS.Therefore,Russiansofthe‘farabroad’aremostlybeyondtheoutreachoftheRussianauthorities.Beingincludedinthecategoryof‘compatriotsabroad’,Russiannationalsabroadgetautomaticallycoveredby thehomecountryworkprogramwithcompatriots.However, theprogram ismostlyaimed at providing cultural support to compatriots by means of organising cultural events toconsolidatediaspora.SocialprotectionschemesdevelopedbythehomecountrytoserveRussiannationalsabroadarebasedonmultilateralandbilateralagreementsbetweenRussiaandformerSoviet republics. As a general rule, Russian nationals abroad are entitled to two types of socialbenefits–pensionand‘maternitycapital’familybenefit.Applicationproceduretothesebenefitsisbasedon the documents exchangebetween theRussian consulate in the host country and thePensionFundoftheRussianFederationinthehomecountry.ThelownumberofpoliciestargetingRussiannationalsabroadisexplainedbythelowinterestofRussianauthoritiesintheprovisionofsocialprotectionspecificallytothiscategoryofpopulation.InciÖyküYENER-RODERBURG(UniversityofStrasbourg&UniversityofDuisburg-Essen)paperco-authoredwithJean-MichelLAFLEURSendingstates’privateactorsassocialprotectionprovidersfordiasporas.ThecaseofTurkishclinicsinGermanyHealth services geared towards immigrants is a research topic traditionally studied from theperspective of receiving societies. Existing literature focuses on examining the role of health inmigration decision; the impact of migration on health; and the barriers and opportunities toaccessinghealthindestinationcountries.Inthiscontext,theroleofsendingsocietiesisrarelytakenintoconsiderationand,whenitis,itismostlyseenasanactorengagingindifferentformsofbilateralandmultilateralagreementswithreceivingcountryactorstorespondtospecificneedsofitscitizensabroad.Inthispaper,weexaminehowthediasporahasbecomeamarketopportunityforsendingstates’privateactors.LookingatthespecificcaseofaTurkishclinicchainDünyaGöz,orWorldEyeinGermany,weshowhowthediaspora’sdifficultieswiththeGermanhealthsystemandthedevelopmentofahealthtourismpolicy inTurkeytriggersprivate investments indestinationcountries.Indoingso,thispaperalsohighlightshowdiasporas’socialprotectionneedsbecomesapoliticizedissuesbetweensendingandreceivingstates.ThispaperreliesondatacollectedthroughqualitativefieldworkconductedinGermanyandTurkeywithprivatehealthproviders,civilservantsactiveinthefieldofhealthanddiasporapolicies,andimmigrants.

18

Panel5:Socialprotectionandmigrationdecisions:beyondthewelfaremagnethypothesis

Petra DE JONG and Helga DE VALK (Netherlands Interdisciplinary DemographicInstitute)Welfareandmigrationaspirations:attracting,discouragingorfacilitating?EmpiricalevidencefromafactorialsurveyInthisstudy,weinvestigatedtheroleofthewelfarestateinmigrationdecision-makingprocessesusing experimental data from a factorial survey among 300 Dutch master students. First, weaddressed how and to what extent welfare state characteristics of hypothetical destinationcountriesaffectindividuals’migrationaspirations.Second,wetestedwhethertheimpactofwelfarestatecharacteristicsonmigrationaspirationsvarieswitheconomiccircumstancesandpersonalitytraits.Highercostsofhealthcareinthedestinationcountryandlongerwaitingtimesappearedtolowermigrationaspirations.Higher levelsofunemploymentbenefitsontheotherhandhadthepotential to raise migration aspirations, particularly in combination with better job prospects.Finally,higherunemploymentbenefits increasedmigrationaspirationsof individualswithhigherlevelsof riskaversionandself-efficacy.Thesefindings indicatethatwelfarearrangementsaffectmigrationaspirationsbyreducingrisksandofferingastrategytocopewithunforeseenevents.LutzGSCHWIND(UppsalaUniversity)EndemicformsofmigrantexclusioninEuropeanunemploymentinsurancesystemsThestudyaddressestheso-calledgenerosityhypothesiswhichstatesthatwelfarestateswithhighbenefit coverage and income replacement are by design more inclusive towards foreign-bornimmigrants.Generouswelfarestatesarebuiltonegalitarianismandacollectiveresponsibilityforindividualsocialrisks.Foreignersarethereforeexpectedtoenjoyanoverallhigherlevelofsocialprotection in countrieswithmore extensive benefit systems. It is argued in the study that thishypothesismayhold inregardtocertainelementsof thewelfarestatesuchaschildbenefitsorsocial housing. However, it can be contested for the case of public unemployment insurance.Newcomers-refugeesandlabourmigrantsalike-arelesslikelytofulfilbasicrequirementssuchasaminimumlengthandlevelofpaidcontributions.Unemploymentinsurancesystemsthuscarryanendemic formofmigrantexclusion that leads to larger financial gapsbetween the foreign- andnative-borninmoregenerousbenefitsystems.Empiricalanalyseswithmicro-levelincomedatafor14WesternEuropeancountriesprovidesupportingevidencefortheproposedhypotheses.BothEuropean and non-European immigrants are significantly less likely to receive unemploymentbenefitsthannative-bornindividualswithasimilarrecordofunemployment.Thisgapwidenswiththelevelofbenefitcoverageandincomereplacement,indicatinganegativerelationshipbetweenbenefitgenerosityandmigrants’socialprotection.

19

SimoneCASTELLANI(UniversityInstituteofLisbon)paperco-authoredwithRoxanaBARBULESCUSituatinghealthneeds inthestudyof intra-Europeanmobility.ExperiencesofyoungSouthernEuropeansinGermanyThegrowingbodyofworkonfreedomofmovementandintra-EUmobilityhasnearlyexclusivelyfocused on the role of life-style choices, employment opportunities and new cosmopolitanexperiences of personal development in a ‘safe’, common European space. Concerns andarrangementsaboutthehealthneedsofyoungEuropeanswhomovetoanotherEuropeancountryremain little understood as well as how can health concerns drive and transform themobilityprojectsofyoungEuropeans.DrawingfromanethnographicstudywithSouthernEuropeansintwoLänderofGermany,thispaperexploresthehealthneedsandexperiencesofyoungEuropeansinaneffort to theories the role of health needs and existing health care arrangements for intra-EUmobility.WebuildontransnationalmethodologicalapproachtoshednewlightonthehealthexperiencesandpracticesofyoungSouthernEuropeanswhomovetoGermanytoworkonlytodiscoverthattheyhavelimitedhealthcoverage.Followingtheeconomiccrisis,therewereamplechangesintheSouthernEuropeanstateshealthinsurancesforcitizenswhoresideabroadaswellasinGermany.FindingshighlighttheagencyofEuropeancitizenstobricolagehealthcareprovisionsatdestination,originand in themarket (Phillimore2018).While thosewithmoregeneroushealth coverage inhomecountriesprefertomeettheirhealthneedsathome(seealsoFavell2008)thosewithlimitedcoverageexperienceasenseofbetrayal,questiontheirdecisiontomoveandspeakofafailureofEuropetoprovidesuchrightstoEuropeancitizens.WealsofindthathealthneedsarefirmlysituatedinwhatBourdieucalledthehabitusoffreemoverswiththeirculturalcapitalhighlystratifyingtheirexperiences.Finally,thisdiscussionseekstocontributetounderstandingtheroleofhealthneedsinmigrationtheoryingeneral.Angelina KUSSY (Autonomous University of Barcelona) paper co-authored withMirandaJessicaLUBBERSandJoséLuísMOLINATransnationalsocialprotectionofRomaniansinSpain:welfareforworkingandlinked-livesPolitical debates on ‘benefit tourism’ or ‘welfare migration’ (Benton 2013) have alarminglysuggestedthatpeoplewhomovefromEast-EuropetoEUcountrieswithstrongersocialprotection,do so to benefit from itswelfare systems. In this paper,we question this idea exploring socialprotectionpracticesofRomanianmigrants inSpain,within the transnational field thatconnectsCastellódelaPlana(Spain)andDâmbovița(Romania).Weuseamixed-methodsapproach,whichcombines survey datawith 150 Romanians in Castelló and 150 of their relatives and friends inDâmbovița,aswellasethnographicinterviewsinSpain.Therelationallink-tracingsamplingdesignhelpsusexplorethenotionof“linkedlives”(Elder1994),i.e.,individuallivesareembeddedin,andinterdependentwiththoseoftheirsocialrelationships(cf.Marcu2018).Ourpreliminaryresultssuggestthatthemainfactorbehindrespondents’migrationdecisionswastogainaccesstowagedworkthatprotectsthemfromtheconditionofin-workpovertyinwhichtheyfoundthemselvesinthecountryoforigin.BycontributingtaxesinSpain,theywouldreceiveabetterretirementwithwhichtheycouldgobacktoRomaniainoldage.Othersobtainedaccesstoinformalwork inSpain tocomplement theirown insufficient statepension inRomania.Thus, in

20

defianceofthepoliticaldebates,migrantsfromthispost-socialistcountrywithstronwork-ethiccametowork,ratherthanto‘takeadvantage’ofwelfaresystem.Moreover,wefoundthatmigrants’socialprotectionstrategiesoftencontemplatedtransnationalfamilymembers.Workpermittedmigrantstosendremittancesthatcouldsupplementthesmallpensions of their families in Romania. Also, familymembers residing in different nation statesprovidedtemporarysupporttoeachothertominimizerisksofexclusionofeachmemberduringaperiodwithoutwork.Thesefindingsunderlinetheutilityofthelinked-livesconceptualizationfortransnationalsocialprotectionpractices.Panel6:AccesstotheLabourmarketandsocialprotection

ElinENNERBERGandCatarinaECONOMOU(MalmöUniversity)Fast-track to employment? Reflections on newly arrived migrants’ opportunities toentertheSwedishlabourmarketTheSwedishwelfarestatehasalongtraditionofdevelopingsocialprotectionpoliciesfocusingonlabourmarketparticipation.Thesepolicieshavealsobeendevelopedformigrantgroups,andanimportantchallengeforthestatehasbeenthegapinemploymentratesbetweenforeign-bornandnative-born Swedes. Certain new initiatives have been introduced after the increase of asylumseekersin2015,focusingmainlyonso-called“fast-tracks”intotheSwedishlabourmarket,aimingtofacilitateentryintoparticularcareerswherethereisashortageofskilledlabour.Inthispaperweconsideroneofthesefast-trackcoursesaimedatnewlyarrivedteacherswhowishtocontinuetheirteachingcareerinSweden.Basedoninterviews,surveys,andobservationaldatawehavefollowedtwodifferent cohorts throughout their courses.Weargue thatwhile theeducationparticipantsreceive may be useful in order to understand the Swedish educational system, many aredisappointedtofindthatfast-trackcoursesdonotgivethemaclearadvantageintermsoffindinga fasterway into theSwedish labourmarket. Inaddition, thereare tendencies for local teachercommunitiestodevaluethequalificationsandcompetencesofthisgroupofmigrantteachers.Moregenerally,theemphasison“fast-tracks”intothelabourmarketmayignoretheneedofindividualsto complete formal Swedish education and to navigate complex processes of nationally setstandards of professional requirements, which impede, rather than facilitate a fast integrationprocess.Anja BARTEL (University of Strasbourg) and Thorsten SCHLEE (University ofDuisburg-Essen)Does localitymatter?Comparingrefugees’experiences in the fieldof labourmarketinclusioninGermanyandFranceThemigrationmovementsof2015eliciteddifferingresponsesintheEuropeanMulti-LevelAsylumSystem. On the national level you can observe various forms of differential inclusion(Mezzaro/Neilson2013)insocialsystems.AtthesametimeresearchersalloverEuropestressout

21

agrowinginterestinthelocalgovernanceofmigrationandintegrationandrefertoalocalturninintegrationpolicies.In this context our proposal compares how refugees deal with local social services in twomunicipalitiesinGermanyandFrance.Wefirstgiveaninsightintohowmunicipaladministrationsin both countries shape the field of labour market inclusion within the national social states.Secondly,weshow(1)howrefugeesdealwiththelocallandscapeoflanguagecourses,(2)howthey(re)orientatethemselvesprofessionallyinthenewcountryandwhichjobseekingstrategiestheydodevelop (3) how they use labour market measures for their aims and (4) what are their firstexperiencesinthefieldofwork.Usually social policies are evaluated with a standardized set of quantitative methodology. Incontrastweusethecomplementarymethodologiesofbiographicalpolicyevaluation(Apitzschet.al.2008)andpublicserviceuserresearch(Oelerich/Schaarschuch2013).Bothtakeintoaccountthestructure of the local social services and the valuations and strategies of dealing with thesecircumstancesby refugees.Through the reconstructionof these formsof co-productionof localsocialserviceswealsowanttoshowifrefugeesascribethesameimportanceto locality intheirnarrativesthanurban(orrural)researchersandpolicymakersdo.Simone LEIBER (University of Duisburg-Essen) paper co-authored with VerenaROSSOWPrivate brokerage agencies for live-in migrant care work: improving “quality” in aEuropeanisedgreymarketbetweenGermanyandPoland?InseveralEuropeancountries,employing live-inmigrantcareworkers inprivatehouseholdshasbecomeanincreasinglyusedresponsetogrowinglong-termcareneeds.Researchinthisareahasmostlyfocusedonworkingconditionsofmigrantcareworkers,theirfamilies‘left-behind’,ortheimpactofcare,migrationandemploymentregimesforrespectivedevelopments.Lessresearchhasputtheroleof labourmarket intermediaries(LMI)tothecenter.SinceEUEasternenlargement,privatebrokerageagenciesplacingPolishlive-incareworkersinGermanhouseholdshavespreadconsiderably.Ifstudied,the‘agencybusiness’isoftenregardedasaratherhomogenousgreyfield.Weseektohighlighttheevolvingheterogeneityofthissector.Inparticular,wearguethatsomepioneeringcompaniesseemtohaverecognisedtheimportanceofqualityandlegitimacyfortheircompetitive advantage. Associations and political networks of these agencies have emerged,workingontheenhancementoftheratherunethicalimageofthatsector,andbuildingoncorporateself-regulationvia voluntary commitments tominimumquality standards for theirmembers.Bypresenting insights fromqualitative interviewdata on ‘quality approaches’ of intermediaries, interms ofmigrants’ working conditions as well as quality of care, we seek to contribute to theresearch discussion on the role of LMIs in EU labour migration and labour mobility. Inmethodologicalterms,theresultsarebasedonsemi-structuredqualitativeexpertinterviewswithcompany representatives and political stakeholders in Germany and Poland conducted in thecontextoftheEuroAgencyCareprojectfundedbytheGerman-PolishScienceFoundation.

22

Panel 7: New concepts and approaches in the study ofmigration andsocialprotection

Anna AMELINA (University of Cottbus) and Karolina BARGLOWSKI (TechnicalUniversityDortmund)Conceptualizingthenexusofmigrationandsocialprotection:assemblinginstitutionaldoingsofmigrationandpoliticsofdeservingnessScrutinizing the current literature on constellations of migrants’ social protection, this articleprovides a prism throughwhich to observe the complex entanglements of diverse institutionalproductionsofmigrationandthestructuresofformalandinformalprotectioninthecontemporaryEuropean Union. Analytically, this article combines the conceptual perspectives of “doingmigration”andof “welfaredeservingness”,whichhave largelybeen separated fromeachotherdespite their shared interest in the cultural logics underlying patterns of social life. Thisconceptualization isused toaddress threekey subjectsof current scholarshiponmigrationandsocial protection. First, critically reflecting the conventional agency–structure divide, the paperproposesamorenuancedunderstandingofmovers’agencywithintheframeworkofinstitutionalpoliticsof“doingmigration”.Second,itelaboratesonaconceptualtooloftheassemblagetheoryof social protection with which to observe the entanglements between formal and informalprotection.Third,conceptualizingthenotionof“welfaredeservingness”,itshowshowdiscursiveimagesofidealmigrants-cum-welfareapplicantsbecomeinscribedinstructuresofbothformalandinformalsocialprotection,thusilluminatingtheculturallogicsbehindmovers’differentiatedaccesstowelfareopportunities.Jean-MichelLAFLEURandDanielaVINTILA(UniversityofLiege)Comparingmigrants’accesstosocialprotectionanddiasporapoliciesintheEUInrecentyears,therehasbeenagrowinginterestamongmigrationscholarsfordiasporainstitutionsandmorebroadlyhomelandpoliciesofengagementwithnationalsresidingabroad.Inthiscontext,severalattemptstoclassifysendingstatesaccordingtotheir levelofengagementwithnationalsabroad(aswellasnon-nationalsconsideredasthepolity)haveemerged.Inthislecture,weintendto present a typology of EUMember States based on the level of development of their socialprotectioninfrastructure,aconceptthatcoversbothdiasporainstitutionsandconsularnetworksandpolicies.Todoso,werelyonourdiasporapolicydatabasecreatedwithintheframeworkoftheERC project Migration, Transnationalism and Social Protection (MiTSoPro) that collected largeamountofdataonthesepoliciesusingastandardizedquestionnairefilledbydiasporapolicyexpertsin40countries(includingEU-28).AdrianFAVELL(UniversityofLeeds)paperco-authoredwithAlbertVARELAEUmigration,varietiesofcapitalismandBrexitTheBrexitvoteintheUKhasusuallybeenseenfromtheLeftasapoliticalrejectionofthehighlymobile, “neoliberal” aspects of European integration arguably best embodied by the British

23

economyinitsboomyearsofthe1990sand2000s—aswellasproofoftheBritishoutlierstatusasapoliticaleconomywithinEurope.Thiswouldbetodiscountthesubstantialdimensionsofnon-discriminationandequalityofsocialrightswhichanchoredtheattractivenessoftheBritishlabourmarketduringthisperiodandmadeitthemosthighlyEuropeanisedeconomyonthisdimension.Others,suchasRuhs,haveacceptedtheexceptionalismofEUcitizenshipinrelationtotheusualliberallabourmarketversusworkerprotectiontradeoff,butargueditwasunsustainable.Clearly,itwaspoliticallyunsustainable intheUK,aswepresent inpartofouranalysis.But ineconomicterms it is far from clear that theBritish “variety of capitalism”wasworse formigrants, nativeworkersorGDPthanitsmainrivalGermany.Wepresentevidencetochallengetheunsustainbilityof theBritishvariantof freedomofmovement.Nor, in termsof thesubsequent rollbackofEUcitizenshipandrejectionofunqualifiedfreedomofmovement,istheUKalone,aswedocumentincomparingthemeasuresboththeUKandGermanyhavetakeninrecentyearstoendrigorousnon-discriminationbynationalityinthewelfarerightsofEUforeignnationals.Panel8:Publicopiniononmigrationandwelfare

Diem-TuTRAN(StMary'sUniversity,London)PublicopinionandmediacoverageonirregularmigrantsintheUnitedKingdom,2015-2018Migrantswithirregularstatusarerepeatedlybeingpoliticisedas‘undeserving’economicmigrantsbypopulistpartiesandportrayedas‘unwantedmigrants’bymediaandpoliticiansacrossEurope.Yet,people’sattitudesonthisgroupofmigrantsandtheircoverageinthemediaarestillpoorlyunderstood.Inthispaper,basedon233articlesintenBritishnewspapersand22,401commentsbysocialmediauserspublishedonFacebook,Iexplorethediscursiveframesthepressandordinarypeopleusetopresentand communicateabout irregularmigrantsover theBrexit referendumperiodbetween2015and2018.Due to their hidden existence, irregularmigrants do not possess formal rights and are sociallyexcluded fromwelfare and social services. Accordingly, I examine the extent towhich issues inrelation to their social vulnerability are discussed. Simultaneously, in the light of the anti-immigrationsentimentssurroundingtheBrexitreferendum,Iask:Isirregularmigrationregardedby the people andmedia as a national social problem from which the host society should beprotected?Iarguethatthestudyofonlinepublicdiscoursesiscrucialastheygiveinsightsintowhatis societally and politically regarded as pressing problems and what are the favoured policysolutions.Byemployingmethodologiesassociatedwithcorpuslinguisticsanddiscourseanalysis,Iinvestigatehowpeople’sopinionshavechangedinthelightofrecentimmigration-relevantpoliticaleventsintheUnitedKingdomandotherEuropeancountries.

24

JolienGALLE(KatholiekeUniversiteitLeuven)Welfarestateaccess fornewcomers?Comparing theopinionsofnativecitizensandestablishedmigrantsDuetobudgetarypressures,socialrightsandbenefitsareincreasinglyperceivedasscarceresourcesplacingtheissueofboundarymakingofthenationalwelfarestateanddeservingnessofrecipientshigh on the political agenda. The growing tensions regarding the boundedness of industrializedwelfarestatesgaverisetotheinvestigationofwelfarechauvinism,orpeoples’opinionthatsocialrightsshouldbeexclusivelyreservedfor fellownationalsandthatmigrantsarenotdeservingof(unlimited)accesstotheirhostcountry’swelfarestate.Inthisregardithasoftenbeenconsidered‘self-evident’thatpeoplewithamigrationbackgroundthemselvesareinfavorofoutsiders’accesstosocialrights,yetitremainstobeinvestigatedwhetherthisassumptionholdsinacontextevolvingto super-diversity and in situations wheremigrants become the established themselves.Whilescholars mostly focused on the opinions of majority groupmembers, this study compares thepreferencesofnativeandnon-nativecitizenswithregardtonewcomers’accesstowelfarestatebenefits.Morespecific,itwillbeinvestigatedtowhatextenttheiropinionsdiffer,whetherthesedifferencescanbeexplainedbysocio-economiccharacteristics,andwhethertheiropinionssharethe same antecedents. For this purpose, multiple group structural equation modeling will beperformedonthecombinedsurveydataof twopost-electoralstudiesamongBelgiancitizensofnative(N=1902),Turkish(N=447)andMoroccan(N=434)descent.PreviousanalysisofthisdatahasrevealedtheimportanceofgrouppositionandnationalidentityforthewelfareattitudesofTurkishandMoroccanBelgians.Bycomparingtheiropinionsdirectlywithnativecitizens,thispaperwilltestwhetherpeoples’solidaritytowardnewcomersisdeterminedbypureself-interest,incorporationin the nation state or feelings of relative deprivation. In doing so,we aim to contribute to theunderstandingofwelfaresolidarityaswellasthegeneralliteratureoninterminorityattitudes.

25

Venues and Contacts Liège(fromBrusselsandCharleroiairports)

FromBrusselsairport:LiègeGuilleminsstationcanbereachedfromtheairports’trainstationwithaconnectioneitherinLeuvenorBrusslesNorth.https://www.belgiantrain.be/enFromCharleroiairportTakeabustoCharleroiSudtrainstationthenatraintoLiège.https://www.belgiantrain.be/enYoucanalsobookashuttleservicedirectlyfromtheaiporttoLiège:https://www.charli.world/en/

26

PanelsandIMISCOEEditorialCommitteemeeting

VALDORHospitalRueBasse-Wez145,4020LiègeTo reach VALDOR Hospital fromGuilleminstrainstation,takeBus4from platform B (d’Harscamp -Bavière-StLambert-Guillemins).Drop off at Rue d’Harscamp(terminal),thenwalk500mttothehospital.

27

Opening,keynoteandIMISCOEBoardofDirectorsmeeting

LiègeUniversityPlaceduXXAoût7,4000LiègeTo reach Liège University fromGuilleminstrainstation,takeBus1,4or48fromplatformA.DropoffatPontd’Avroy,thenwalk500mttowardstheA1buildingmainentrance.SalledesProfesseursislocatedonthefirstfloor(takethemainstaircasefacingtheentranceandyouwillfindtheroomrightinfrontofyou).SalleAcadémiqueislocatedonthegroundfloor(rightinfrontofthemainentrance).

28

Restaurants

LeBalcondel’ÉmulationThéâtredeLiègePlaceduXXAoût16,4000Liège

L’AquiloneasblBoulevardSaucy25,4020Liège

29

ImportantNumbers

CaroleWenger(ConferenceAssistant)ca.wenger@uliege.be+32485503458FéliciendeHeusch(ConferenceAssistant)fdeheusch@uliege.be+32485289097Fire,medicalemergencyorambulance:112Police:101WIFI(UniversityCampus):Login:f019729Password:lLjj7338

30

Aknowledgements

This conference ismade possible thanks to the funding received for the “Migration,TransnationalismandSocialProtection”ERCProject (MiTSoPro) that received fundingfrom the EuropeanUnion’sHorizon 2020 research and innovation programmeundergrant agreement No 680014. Additional support for this conference came from theIMISCOE Network. Also, organizers are very grateful to Valdor Hospital and ISoSLrepresentativesDrChristiandeLandsheereandCarlJadotforprovidingaccesstotheirfacilitiesfortheconference.TheorganizingteamofthiseventcomprisesJean-MichelLafleur,CaroleWenger,FéliciendeHeusch,LarisaLaraandStefanLipan. Additionaly, theorganizerswhishtowarmlythank the following colleagues for their support: Angeliki Konstantinidou, AlessandroMazzola,MarcoMartiniello,ChristineGoffinet,DanielaVintila,AmandadaSilva,AlissiaRaziano,MéganeDethier,JérémyMandinandAxelGossiaux.

31