At the intersection of immigration and welfare governance in the United States: State, county and frontline levels and clients’ perspectives

Lucia M Lanfranconi,Ayda Basaran,Yu-Ling Chang

doi:10.1515/zsr-2020-0019

Abstract

Abstract The U.S welfare reform of 1996 restricted the eligibility of immigrants and introduced a punitive and devolved workfare system. While previous studies explained state variation in the welfare eligibility rules for immigrants, few studies have examined the intersection of immigration and welfare governance within a state. We choose the Californian welfare-to-work (WTW) program as a case, most likely to be inclusive to immigrants. Analyzing statistics, documents, and interviews at the state, county, and frontline levels, however, we also reveal multiple exclusionary mechanisms at various policy levels, such as complicated processes and insufficient translations. Our analysis of immigrant clients’ interviews helps to understand why many immigrants decide not to apply for welfare and how even WTW participants with an immigration background experience fear and are especially vulnerable to unfair treatments. Thus, the implementation of the punitive workfare regime along with the restrictive immigration regime can contradict the aim of WTW-policy to lead families in poverty to selfsufficiency.

Highlights

The intersection of public benefit regulations and immigration laws is currently a central theme in the U.S politics
To be eligible to CalWORKs, a family needs to meet income limits based on the Minimum Basic Standard of Adequate Care (MBSAC) (CDSS 2019)
KIDS COUNT data in 2017, approximately 1.6 million children in California come from families with below the federal poverty level income and 55% of these children come from immigrant families

Summary

Introduction

The intersection of public benefit regulations and immigration laws is currently a central theme in the U.S politics. The Trump Administration’s attempts to increase restrictions in access to welfare for immigrants is not new in America: a similar discourse around the “public charge” of immigrants shaped two major reforms in 1996: Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) These reforms denied federal public assistance to most non-citizen immigrants for their first five years in the country (Amuedo-Dorantes et al 2016; Kehrberg 2017; Reese 2011). PRWORA and IIRIRA introduced more state discretion, as states were allowed to give LPRs access to welfare benefits in the first five years of their residency as long as states fund were used (Filindra 2013; Hammond 2018; O’Shea/Ramon 2018) This increase in the state discretion for immigration related eligibility requirements resulted in granting immigrants arriving after PRWORA access to TANF in 19 states (Kehrberg 2017; O’Shea/Ramon 2018). Even during the global pandemic on COVID-19, the Supreme Court denied request to suspend rule for immigrants (Vogue 2020)

Objectives

Results

Discussion

Conclusion