Postwar states granted privileged welfare only to ethnically defined ‘national migrants’

Evidence

In none of the cases did the measures taken in the case of the expellees and repatriates function as a blueprint for other types of migrants or people in need. In West Germany, foreign ‘guest workers’ were not included in the official system of social benefits and services but were bound to a distinct (and less comprehensive) welfare system. In France, diverging migration regimes also took shape in the wake of decolonization. While the state was socially conscious, interventionist, and protective with regard to those recognized as ‘repatriates’, it did not show similar commitment to non-French European or Muslim immigrants from Algeria, including the harkis. — Manuel Borutta and Jan C. Jansen, Vertriebene and Pieds-Noirs in Postwar…, 75

Categorization

• SEED: Article angle: the nationwide burden-sharing entitlements for expellees/repatriates were explicitly NOT extended to the harkis or guest workers — a striking boundary between ‘returnees’ and other migrants that exposes how national solidarity is drawn along ethno-political lines.
• XREF: Contradicts the humanitarian-universalist framing of postwar welfare — ethnicized notion of who counts as inside the nation fits the reader’s manufactured-solidarity research. — connects to: Rising national consciousness forced the state to recognize only nationals as citizens; Reintegration for interwar migrants hinged on their nationality, which stateless people entirely lacked. — Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 2533

Broader Connections

• Rising national consciousness forced the state to recognize only nationals as citizens #expands (0.78)
• Reintegration for interwar migrants hinged on their nationality, which stateless people entirely lacked. #corroborates (0.75) — Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 2533