Framing inclusion: discursive logics of entitlement in immigrant social rights advocacy

This article investigates how civil society organizations (CSOs) advocate for immigrant access to social assistance in politically charged environments. It explores whether the frame choices of CSOs are shaped by their relationships with government bodies and examines the implications of these narratives for representing a highly diverse group of non-citizens. The article introduces a novel two-dimensional framework that categorizes advocacy frames along two axes: “scope of inclusion” (Targeted Inclusion vs. Universal Inclusion) and “justification for entitlement” (Individual Justification vs. Structural Justification). Findings from document analysis reveal a predominant reliance on frames that call for the inclusion of specific groups basing entitlement on individual characteristics independent of CSOs’ relationship to the state. The most radical frame type (Structural Justification for Universal Inclusion), however, is more frequently used by independent CSOs. Analyses of interviews underscore that CSOs navigate a trade-off: aligning with targeted, individualistic frames can achieve incremental policy gains, but potentially reinforces stratified notions of “deservingness”, contributing to internal hierarchies within immigrant communities. Conversely, advancing structural justification for universal inclusion carries the potential to challenge systemic inequalities yet risks limited immediate resonance within the political mainstream. These insights highlight the tension between short-term policy success and long-term systemic change in CSO advocacy strategies. The empirical findings, alongside theoretical discussions, extend beyond this specific policy field, offering broader insights into civil society strategies in adverse contexts.