Dear Remo Siza,

I begin by stating that I am not an expert on the subject. So my small contribution is only intellectual and the result of some social interventions.

What is now referred to as welfare chauvinism in my reading has ancient roots at least in Europe in a documented way 3500 years ago.

The only common thread in the history of Europe over the last 5000-6000 years is the massive migrations from Central Asia and extrem north to central Europe and from there with local people to the South in at least 5 or 6 migratory waves (3000-2000 b.c. Indo-European peoples); 2500-2000 b.c. (first Celtic wave); 800-500 b.c. (second Celtic wave); 350-550 (Huns, Goths, Alans, Suevs, Vandals); 700-900 Turks, Bulgarians and Gypsies and 1100-1300 (Mongolians and other Asians allies).

What was common (within what is known) is that there was always chauvinistic behavior on the part of those who were installed in the territories.

The more aggressive the attitude towards the new peoples was, the worse the consequences for those who were chauvinists and the more imposing the culture of those who arrived. The paradigm is perhaps the relationship between Goths and the Roman Empire of the East that ended with the extinction of Roman culture in its original form.

On the contrary, when there was receptivity, the new peoples settled and developed cultures of fusion (e.g. Turkey, Bulgaria, the Rus people in their migration from present-day Ukraine to present-day Russia, etc.).

In my opinion, (at least that is what I have defended), chauvinist behavior is only a manifestation of cultural fragility before the fall of power.

Those who are strong can welcome other cultures with open arms (eg Portugal, at its civilization peak, had a huge foreign community of almost 20% of the population in the capital and perhaps first Europe's mulatto prime minister (Marquis of Pombal, grandson of black women) in 1750. Portuguese food is today the closest in the European space to Indian and African food.

In short, the restriction of rights to locals to the detriment of those who arrive is for me the announcement of the "fall of the empire", a cultural limitation and a very strong sign of fragility.

The reinforcement of social policies, the reinforcement of citizenship, therefore the strengthening of people as individuals and collectives, could be the vaccine for chauvinism.

The welfare state has played an important role in promoting social integration without discrimination and distinctions. In the last years, welfare has become an area of intervention which is less and less inclusive: "conditional welfare" and "welfare chauvinism" are the two main configurations of this emerging system of social interventions. Welfare is increasingly selective and systematically reduces access to benefits for immigrants, ethnic minorities and traditionally 'undeserving' groups, the homeless and other people whose values and behaviour are considered the primary cause of their condition.

This is a fancy term indeed. Also, it looks to me it is designed to vilify the native population of countries with a high standard of living as opposed to the "good" immigrants. An immigrant is not "good" because is an immigrant. The discussion should go along the lines of: what is the real economic apport of these immigrants to the countries they are comig in as opposed to their benefits and demands; levels of criminality; ability to be integrated rather than create ghettos, even their mentality should be a matter of discussion - whether or not they develop or they come already with an anti-western mentality. Otherwise, this is a shallow ideologized talk designed to push certain globalist agendas under apparently "humanitarian" umbrellas.

Welfare chauvinism recreates those distinct identities between different social groups that the labour market has blurred. Welfare becomes a sphere of life in which many governments and many political parties try to reconstruct the distinctions of middle class and working class compared to more disadvantaged social groups, establishing and legitimising the differences. For many reasons, a large part of the middle class feels the need to follow this distinction strategy, is afraid of a further worsening in terms of income, style of life, quality of work, stability, and access to social and health services.

Isn't this about liberalism / communism here? This can be provided by the state, for more benefits each one is on his own / All should be treated the same, regardless of the contribution each brings to the welfare of others?

In many countries, ‘welfare chauvinism’ emerge while the neo-liberal agenda lose relevance. ‘Welfare chauvinism’ is in favour of the ‘victims of retrenchment policies’ implemented by establishment parties at the expense of the ‘native’ population and to the benefit of the ‘undeserving’ immigrant. In others, this configuration of welfare tries to reinforce the social protection of ‘native globalisation losers’ increasing benefits, placing less emphasis on individual responsibility, and reducing competition with ethnic minorities on access to housing programmes, social assistance, health services.