The Welfare Chauvinism Project of Arizona
"Migration is not merchandise. It is not a bargaining chip or a rag to wipe the negotiating table clean."
These words from Bert Engelaar of ABVV [an employees trade union] reflect a profound critique of current migration policies – particularly targeting Vooruit, the social-democratic party seemingly willing to trade migrant rights for minimal socio-economic gains.
Engelaar references "welfare chauvinism," a term first used in 1990 by researchers Andersen and Bjorklund to critique policies in Norway and Denmark. The concept describes how social benefits – unemployment support, public housing, education, and healthcare – should be exclusive to a country's native population, systematically excluding migrants, refugees, and ethnic minorities.
While welfare chauvinism is often associated with far-right ideologies, it has permeated centrist politics, including parties like Vooruit. Today, this approach is commonly referred to as "the Danish model." Denmark, unique within the EU, holds an opt-out clause regarding asylum and migration, freeing it from certain European agreements while still bound by international conventions like the Geneva Convention.
This Danish model, coupled with far-right influences from the Netherlands and other European nations, is the guiding compass for Arizona's policies.
Asylum and migration in Arizona
Arizona aspires to implement the strictest asylum and migration policies ever, aiming to save €1.58 billion. These federal plans align with the Flemish government’s strategies, which restrict access to social housing, education, and childcare based on language proficiency, raising requirements to a B1 level.
Moreover, social rights are limited to individuals with at least five years of legal residence, and integration programs are (largely) relocated abroad for those “migrants” that can be obliged in order to obtain visa.
Most of the projected savings come from reducing the number of asylum seekers. About €150 million are expected from more efficient deportations and reduced inflow, with an additional €469 million saved through the new European migration pact. Although the final coalition agreement omits explicit references to this pact, the underlying assumption remains: Belgium will only handle its "fair share" of asylum applications—around 11,400 annually, down from approximately 40,000.
Asylum seekers wait outside the offices of the Immigration Services. Credit: Belga/ Eric Lalmand
Not only is this a problematic reading of the EU Migration Pact, Arizona also plans to strictly enforce the Dublin Regulation, returning asylum seekers to the first EU country they entered. These individuals will be housed in "Dublin centres," offering minimal collective accommodation. Repeated asylum applicants will face harsher restrictions, which will disproportionately affect vulnerable individuals such as LGBTQI refugees or women survivors of sexual violence used as a weapon of war.
As these plans reach the goals of reduced “influx”, and thus end the current “crisis”, Arizona aims to dismantle local reception initiatives (LOIs), restrict asylum seekers to collective centres, monitor personal devices for fraud, and eliminate pocket money for asylum seekers. When reception capacity is overwhelmed, Belgium can opt to pay €20,000 per unaccommodated asylum seeker, reducing its obligations.
Externalising asylum
If the plan to reduce “the influx” fails, even when combining the harsher policies with the EU Migration Pact, Arizona will initiate “Plan B”: externalising asylum processing to bypass sections of the EU Migration Pact. In exceptional circumstances, temporary border controls could be reinstated, effectively suspending the Schengen Agreement—a move seen as more political theatre than practical necessity.
Arizona asserts the primacy of politics over legal and administrative bodies. For instance, labour court rulings related to asylum rights will be transferred to the Council for Alien Law Litigation (RVV), allegedly due to a lack of expertise in migration law. However, labour courts under the previous government (Vivaldi) issued numerous strong judgments protecting asylum seeker rights. Additionally, judges at the RVV will face term limits of five years, undermining judicial independence.
The General Commissariat for Refugees and Stateless Persons (CGVS) will lose its autonomy, becoming part of a unified asylum service. Legal aid for asylum seekers will also be restricted, with free assistance "re-evaluated" and limited to a select pool of recognized lawyers, further reducing access to justice.
Evacuation of the tents with asylum seekers sleeping rough in front of the Petit Chateau - Klein Kasteeltje Fedasil Arrival Centre, in Brussels, Tuesday 07 March 2023. Credit: Belga / Laurie Dieffembacq
Residence rights are becoming increasingly precarious, especially for those under subsidiary protection. Family reunification policies will be tightened, with higher income requirements and longer waiting periods of two years for those who flee war. Furthermore, it increases the risk that refugees who have obtained international protection under the Geneva Convention – previously exempt from certain conditions during their first year will now face stricter deadlines of six months – are separated from families, leading to associated psychological and social costs.
Other forms of residence rights are also under scrutiny. The nationality process for Belgian-born children of stateless parents will be "evaluated and rationalized," potentially raising new barriers. Naturalization fees will be raised to €1000 – a significant financial obstacle to citizenship.
Undocumented individuals face heightened risks, including home raids and increased deportation efforts. Programs aimed at supporting voluntary return will be reassessed, with political priorities favouring repatriation over integration.
Access to Social Welfare
The Danish model's welfare chauvinism is most evident in restricting social rights for individuals with international protection. While earlier proposals suggested delaying social assistance for recognised refugees, legal constraints from the European Court of Justice prevent such discrimination. However, subsidiary protection holders will face reduced benefits and increased conditions, creating systemic inequality within the asylum framework.
Despite political rhetoric, the financial burden of social assistance for refugees is minimal. Studies show that only a small fraction of recognised refugees rely on welfare, and restrictive policies often lead to negative long-term effects, such as increased poverty and social exclusion. These measures not only violate human rights but also undermine social cohesion and economic integration.
The new Federal Government, February 2025. Credit: Belga/Benoit Doppagne
Arizona's policies represent a coalition of the willing to entrench welfare chauvinism. Residence rights, except for labour migration, are becoming more conditional and precarious. Access to social services is increasingly restricted, particularly for those under subsidiary protection. The goal is not to provide protection or foster social mobility but to use legal and administrative barriers to deter and marginalize newcomers.
This approach normalizes a hierarchy of citizenship, where "A," "B," and "C" categories of residents face unequal rights and opportunities. Whether such policies can sustain a robust welfare state remains an open question, but the social and ethical costs are already evident.
