Behind and beyond closed doors: Understanding civil society strategies in immigrant social rights advocacy

This article investigates the strategies employed by civil society organizations (CSOs) advocating for inclusive policy changes related to immigrant social rights. A prominent hypothesis states that pro-immigrant policy changes are most effectively negotiated "behind closed doors". However, access to these "closed door" venues may vary across democratic systems, and there is little evidence on which strategies CSOs choose in which contexts. Through an interview-based case study of Switzerland and the United Kingdom, this research explores if and how CSO strategies differ between consensual and majoritarian democracies. The findings reveal that behind-the-scenes-lobbying is particularly prevalent in consensual Switzerland, where some CSOs resort to concealed lobbying and participate in various corporatist fora while engaging with multiple parties. Majoritarianism in the UK, especially when coupled with anti-immigrant political majorities, hinders successful collaboration with the national executive and the Conservative Party. This causes CSOs to choose a mix of open and closed parliamentary lobbying and strategic litigation. This complexity adds nuance to the conventional closed door hypothesis and highlights the variegated nature of CSOs' advocacy strategies in the realm of immigrant social rights.