Poverty and Program Participation among Immigrant Children

Researchers have long known that poverty in childhood is linked with a range of negative adult socioeconomic outcomes, from lower educational achievement and behavioral problems to lower earnings in the labor market. But few researchers have explored whether exposure to a disadvantaged background affects immigrant children and native children differently. George Borjas uses Current Population Survey (CPS) data on two specific indicators of poverty—the poverty rate and the rate of participation in public assistance programs—to begin answering that question. He finds that immigrant children have significantly higher rates both of poverty and of program participation than do native children

Welfare Reform and Immigrant Participation in the Supplemental Security Income Program

We examine the effect of the 1996 welfare reform legislation on participation in the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program by immigrants. Although none of the immigrants on the SSI rolls before welfare reform lost eligibility, the potential exists for future impacts on the SSI caseload and the well-being of recent immigrants. We use microdata files from the Social Security Administration’s Continuous Work History Sample matched to administrative data on SSI participation for the period 1993 to 1999. We estimate simple models of SSI participation and compare our results to the existing literature. We then estimate a series of difference-in-differences models of SSI participation. These models compare SSI participation by immigrants relative to nativeborn individuals, and among affected immigrants relative to unaffected immigrants and native-born individuals, before and after welfare reform. Descriptive results indicate that the percentage of immigrants and natives receiving SSI decreased after welfare reform, but by a larger percentage for natives than for immigrants. The probability of SSI participation decreased after welfare reform for immigrants who were affected by the legislation relative to immigrants who were unaffected. The difference-in-differences estimate is positive for immigrants relative to otherwise similar natives, but the estimated effect among affected immigrants is about half as large as the effect for unaffected immigrants. When the sample is limited to low earners as a proxy for the SSI means test, the results are qualitatively unchanged but quantitatively much stronger. Authors’ Acknowledgements We are grateful to Ulyses Balderas for assisting with the collection of some data used here. A previous version of this paper was presented at the 2004 Western Regional Science Association Annual Meeting, February 25-28, 2004, Maui, HI.

Sécurité nationale vs. immigration: une violation du principe de non-discrimination

"L'intersection entre la sécurité de l'État et corollairement celle de ses ressortissants d’un côté, et la protection des droits des personnes qui se trouvent sur son territoire de l’autre, génère une situation antagonique : les prérogatives régaliennes et wébériennes d'utilisation de la force au nom de la sécurité nationale entrent en collision avec le respect des dispositions juridiques, telles que prescrites dans de nombreux instruments du droit international. Terre d’immigration, les États-Unis sont le reflet de ce paradoxe qui existe entre une vision qui place l’individu et ses libertés au centre de ses préoccupations, versus une conceptualisation étato-centrique de la sécurité. Mais le renvoi de l’immigration dans le registre sécuritaire ne relève pas forcément d’une réalité objective. L’analyse critique des manifestations d’(in)sécurité considère en effet ce concept comme n’étant plus exclusivement stato-centrée, élargissement conceptuel auquel s'associe une autre mutation conceptuelle : la securitization, qui postule que la menace n'est pas uniquement objective mais également subjective. Considérant cette ""évolution"" théorique, l’auteur analyse dans cet article l’immigration aux États-Unis au travers d’un processus de périodisation ­des mythes fondateurs aux mesures prises dans la foulée du 11 septembre 2001- pour démontrer que la gestion des flux migratoires en direction des États-Unis a toujours été considérée comme une question de sécurité nationale. Retenant à titre illustratif trois groupes de personnes, les Périls Jaune, puis Rouge et aujourd’hui Vert, vont permettre d’illustrer que les mesures restrictives règlementant l’immigration ­prisent au nom de la sacro-sainte sécurité nationale- constituent de facto, si ce n’est de jure, des atteintes au principe de non-discrimination. Mais tout en soulignant la pérennité du lien qui est effectué entre immigration et sécurité nationale, l’instrumentalisation de ce lien contribue à un renforcement des pratiques régulatrices et à la criminalisation accrue des mouvements transfrontaliers, qui risquent bien d’être contreproductifs par rapport à l’objectif de sécurité recherché !"The intersection between, on one hand, the security of a state, and therefore of its nationals, and, on the other hand, protection of the rights of individuals on its territory creates an antagonistic situation: sovereign and Weberian prerogatives to use force in the name of national security collide with compliance with legal provisions, such as those set out in many instruments of international law. A country of immigrants, the United States is a reflection of the paradox arising out of the conflict between a vision that focuses on persons and individual freedoms, and a vision of security that centres on the state. However, saying that immigration is a security concern may not necessarily be an objective description of reality. Indeed, critical analysis of manifestations of (in)security consider the concept no longer centred exclusively on the state. This conceptual expansion is linked with another conceptual change: the securitization postulated by the threat is not only objective but also subjective. Using this theoretical shift as a lens, the author performs a periodized analysis of immigration to the United States, from the founding myths to the actions taken in the wake of September 11, 2001. The analysis shows that management of migratory flows to the United States has always been considered a national security issue. Three groups of people, namely the “Yellow Peril,” the “Red Menace” and today the “Green Peril,” are used to illustrate that restrictive immigration measures, taken in the name of sacrosanct national security, are de facto, if not de jure, violations of the principle of non-discrimination. Yet, the link between immigration and national security is persistent. Moreover, its instrumentalization leads to stronger regulations and increased criminalization of transborder movements, which could well be counterproductive with respect to the objective of security

Immigrant Inclusion in the Safety Net: A Framework for Analysis and Effects on Educational Attainment

Across states, there is substantial variation in the degree to which immigrants and their children are offered public assistance. We present a theoretical framework for analyzing the effects of policy decisions about immigrant inclusion. We apply the framework to investigate the effect of the state safety net on educational attainment. We focus on the years following welfare reform in 1996, when states gained considerable autonomy over welfare policy, including decisions about the eligibility of immigrant residents. Leveraging state-level data from before and after reform, we estimate a difference-in-difference model to identify the effect of variation in immigrant inclusivity on educational attainment. We find that when states broaden the inclusivity of the social safety net to immigrants, young Latinos are more likely to graduate from high school. This effect is present beyond the group of Latino residents who receive additional benefits, suggesting that policy decisions about immigrants spill over to broader communities and communicate broader messages about social inclusion to racial and ethnic groups. We find similar patterns among Asian youth, but not among black and non-Hispanic white youth. We conclude that immigrant inclusion has consequences for the life prospects of the growing population of youth in high-immigrant ethnic groups

Challenge in Camden's Social Service Delivery System

Assesses individual services in Camden, New Jersey, including child care, child welfare, mental health, and workforce development. Examines funding, planning, and delivery of services; resident and neighborhood group involvement; and community needs

The Health and Well-Being of Young Children of Immigrants

Provides an overview of immigration trends and their effects on the composition of the young child population. Looks at poverty, family structure, parental work patterns, immigrant parents' education, health status, and health insurance coverage

Do States’ Immigrant-Friendly Policies Improve the Health of Children of Immigrants? The Impact of Driver’s License Policies for Undocumented Immigrants and “Sanctuary” Policies on Access and Use of Health Care

If 10.5 million undocumented immigrants are unable or afraid to access health care, medical needs will go unmet and, in the face of COVID-19, lives may be lost. This report explores how immigrant-friendly policies increase the chances that children of immigrants receive preventative health care, thus reducing the likelihood of having unmet medical needs and potentially reducing the chances of disease outbreaks.https://educate.bankstreet.edu/gse/1004/thumbnail.jp

Discretion and Disobedience in the Chinese Exclusion Era

It has long been understood that limited government resources are a key reason for why the Executive Branch uses prosecutorial discretion to refrain from arresting, detaining, or deporting a noncitizen or groups of noncitizens. A second theory driving prosecutorial discretion is humanitarian. Noncitizens with specific equities that include economic contributions to the United States, long term residence in the United States, service as a primary breadwinner or caregiver to an American family, or presence in the United States as a survivor of sexual assault are among the reasons the government have used to apply prosecutorial discretion to protect individuals or groups of people. A final reason prosecutorial discretion might persist is as a stop gap to anticipated future legislation. These rationales for prosecutorial discretion are well documented in domestic immigration history, but this article is the first to trace these rationales to the Chinese Exclusion era and reveal what may be the greatest untold story about prosecutorial discretion in immigration law.This article examines the use of prosecutorial discretion to protect Chinese nationals subject to deportation following a foundational nineteenth century Supreme Court immigration law case known as Fong Yue Ting. This article provides a historical precedent for the protection of a category of people as well as deeper history of prosecutorial discretion in immigration. This article also sharpens the policy argument to protect political activists through prosecutorial discretion and forces consideration for how modern immigration policy should respond to historical exclusions and racialized laws. Finally, this article provides a foundation for policymakers and government to consider a prosecutorial discretion policy for those engaged in civil disobedience; and to study how changes in how racial disparities in immigration enforcement and non-enforcement are measure