How do the goals and activities of civil society organisations (CSOs) that are active in the field of immigrant welfare rights differ between autocracies and democracies? In this paper, we argue that a mechanism of CSO engagement plays out differently in these two political contexts because organisations adapt their goals and activities to the political regime they operate in. In the empirical analyses, we compare democratic Argentina and electoral-authoritarian Malaysia using data from CSOs' public mission statements as well as from interviews with CSO members from both countries. We find that in Argentina, more universalistic constitutional provisions and commitments to international treaties allowed CSOs to reference norms of equal treatment, arguing for immigrant access to a variety of programmes, including non-contributory social assistance benefits. In Malaysia, CSOs relied on moral frames of equality to a lesser extent. Instead, they advocated for inclusion in contributory schemes on the basis of deservingness of migrants given their contributions to society, focusing on minimum standards to guarantee that basic needs are met.

中文翻译：

---

选择你的战斗：民间社会组织如何选择特定于背景的目标和活动来争取马来西亚和阿根廷的移民福利权利

活跃于移民福利权利领域的公民社会组织 (CSO) 的目标和活动在专制国家和民主国家有何不同？在本文中，我们认为公民社会组织参与的机制在这两种政治背景下发挥不同的作用，因为组织根据其运作的政治制度调整其目标和活动。 在实证分析中，我们比较民主的阿根廷和选举专制的马来西亚使用来自公民社会组织的公开使命声明以及对来自两国的公民社会组织成员的采访的数据。我们发现，在阿根廷，更普遍的宪法条款和对国际条约的承诺使公民社会组织能够参考平等待遇规范，主张移民参与各种计划，包括非缴费型社会援助福利。在马来西亚，公民社会组织在较小程度上依赖于平等的道德框架。相反，他们主张在考虑到移民对社会的贡献时应得的基础上纳入缴费计划，重点关注最低标准以保证基本需求得到满足。