Not all migrants are equal: public support for migrant welfare access by migrant type and social protection scheme

Abstract Research consistently shows that migrants are considered less deserving of welfare than citizens, yet existing studies of this “deservingness gap” rarely account for heterogeneity within migrant populations or variation across social protection schemes. This article provides a more granular analysis of welfare deservingness by examining how migration status and scheme type jointly shape public support for migrant welfare access. Drawing on vignette experiments in Germany and the UK, we asked respondents to evaluate the deservingness of citizens and three migrant categories – those with residence permits, asylum seekers, and undocumented migrants – across four welfare schemes: unemployment benefits, emergency medical care, regular medical check-ups, and care for life-threatening illnesses. Our findings reveal substantial variation in deservingness judgments. While citizens are consistently rated as more deserving than all migrant groups, the deservingness gap varies substantially: undocumented migrants face the largest penalty, followed by asylum seekers, then migrants with residence permits. Crucially, these gaps are most pronounced for unemployment benefits but narrow considerably for healthcare services, particularly emergency and life-threatening care. We characterize these patterns as “segmented welfare chauvinism,” where public support for migrant welfare access is stratified by welfare scheme, contribution history, and legal status. These findings highlight the need for scholarship to move beyond treating “migrants” as a monolithic category and to consider how different dimensions of welfare provision activate distinct deservingness criteria.