Immigration Reforms from the Perspective of the Target of the Reform: Immigrant Generation and Latino Policy Preferences on Immigration Reform

2003 ◽  
Vol 37 (2) ◽  
pp. 444-463 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jacqueline Hagan ◽  
Nestor Rodriguez ◽  
Randy Capps ◽  
Nika Kabiri

This study investigates the impact of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, both passed in 1996, on the use of health-care services in immigrant communities in five Texas counties. The study presents findings of interviews with public agency officials, directors of community-based organizations, and members of 500 households during two research phases, 1997–1998 and 1998–1999. In the household sample, 20 percent of U.S. citizens and 30 percent of legal permanent residents who reported having received Medicaid during the five years before they were interviewed also reported losing the coverage during the past year. Some lost coverage because of welfare reform restrictions on noncitizen eligibility or because of changes in income or household size, but many eligible immigrants also withdrew from Medicaid “voluntarily.”


Significance The move follows the Senate's failure again yesterday to agree on spending priorities and immigration, the same policy disagreements which prevented a spending deal being passed by midnight on January 19. This has thrown the federal government into its first shutdown since 2013. Impacts Trump's support for "comprehensive immigration reform" may not hold. If US economic growth continues, this may push up illegal immigration, absent security enhancements. Challenges from the state governments over immigration reforms are possible. If Republicans are seen as anti-immigrant, gaining non-traditional constituencies' votes, including minorities, will be hard.


Significance Democrats and moderate Republicans voted against the Agriculture and Nutrition Act 2018 because it contained measures they oppose to tighten welfare entitlements, specifically food stamps (the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or SNAP) while conservative Republicans in the Freedom Caucus objected to the modest immigration reforms in the bill. Impacts Any final farm bill is likely to be more like Senate’s proposed more moderate version. An immigration reform bill is unlikely to be agreed ahead of the farm bill receiving a second vote. If a farm bill is passed, food production subsidies are likely to see only modest cuts. Republicans could lose votes if Congress does not pass welfare reforms.


The immigration reform and fiscal debates are fused; making progress means hard-fought political battles


Author(s):  
Daniel J. Tichenor

This chapter studies how immigration policy can be deployed as a key instrument of grand strategy, a site where state actors might use the levers of immigrant and refugee admissions to advance both a comprehensive and integrated set of social, economic, and security goals at home. Indeed, a diverse array of US presidents, lawmakers, and activists have had grand strategies in mind as they pursued major immigration reform. The chapter focuses on a particularly significant effort to remake the US immigration system—the 1960s struggle to dismantle national origins quotas and reopen US gates to immigrants and refugees—in order to illustrate the possibilities and limitations of grand strategizing in this policy realm. One can discern these dynamics in immigration reforms and executive actions from the 1920s to the present, but the successful battle for the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 provides an especially illuminating example. Before turning to this case, however, the chapter first considers immigration control and grand strategy in the early American republic and the rise of rival interests and ideals that make significant policy innovation contingent on incongruous coalitions and uneasy compromises.


Author(s):  
Daniel J. Tichenor ◽  
Kathryn Miller

Although the United States is a nation shaped by vast waves of immigration over time, Americans have been fighting over policies governing immigrant admissions and rights since the earliest days of the republic. Rival nativist and pro-immigration movements and traditions have yielded marked shifts across U.S. history among national policies designed to stimulate or discourage immigration. The federal government only gradually took control of regulating immigrant flows over the course of the nineteenth century. Since then, national policy has assumed both restrictive and expansive forms. Whereas the creation of an “Asiatic Barred Zone” and national origins quotas in the 1920s imposed draconian barriers to immigration, immigration reforms after 1965 helped fuel the nation’s fourth major wave of immigration dominated by unprecedented numbers of Latin American and Asian newcomers. As underscored by recent battles over family separation and efforts to build a southern border wall, the politics of immigration reform today, as in the past, remain deeply polarizing, as border hawks on the Right and immigrant rights advocates on the Left clash over unauthorized immigration and the future of millions of undocumented immigrants living in the country. The United States’ immigration policy will continue to reflect these competing interests and ideals.


2016 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 566-604 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin Wallsten ◽  
Tatishe M. Nteta

AbstractRecently, a number of influential clergy leaders have declared their support for liberal immigration reforms. Do the pronouncements of religious leaders influence public opinion on immigration? Using data from a survey experiment embedded in the 2012 Cooperative Congressional Election Study, we find that exposure to the arguments from high profile religious leaders can compel some individuals to reconsider their views on the immigration. To be more precise, we find that Methodists, Southern Baptists, and Evangelical Lutheran Church in America leaders successfully persuaded respondents who identify with these religious denominations to think differently about a path to citizenship and about the plight of undocumented immigrants. Interestingly, we also uncovered that religiosity matters in different ways for how parishioners from different religious faiths react to messages from their leaders. These findings force us to reconsider the impact that an increasingly strident clergy may be having on public opinion in general and on support for immigration reform in particular.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document