Professor Hagstrom - February 23

In class today, we approached the topic of immigration from a different angle than we have in the past. In previous classes, both with Professor Hagstrom and others, we discussed historical problems and the rudimentary and key issues of how immigration has affected us since our country’s founding. However, this Tuesday we discussed how the United States has approached immigration in light of the August 22, 1996 reforms and current regulations for federal programs.

Several of the facts we learned were expected, for example: since the beginning of federal programs (even with progressive reforms) non-documented immigrants were ineligible for the vast majority of federal programs. Even so, aside from this exclusion, there are also two different classes of immigrants who reside in the United States legally: qualified and not qualified immigrants. These two separate levels of qualification determine whether an immigrant is eligible for federal programs.

Qualified immigrants include lawful permanent residents (LPRs). These residents hold “green cards.” This also includes refugees and persons granted asylum. This group of immigrants is qualified to apply for assistance from federal programs. On the other hand, non-qualified immigrants include the obvious: undocumented and illegal aliens. This also includes non-immigrants with temporary visas and immigrants with legal troubles. These non-qualified immigrants are excluded from all federal programs, such as Medicaid. However, they are entitled to emergency medical care, school breakfast and lunch programs, and homeless centers, among others.

Our class continued by discussing the other changes from the 1996 welfare reforms. Block grants to states and stricter work requirements (30 hours per week) accompanied these reforms. Professor Hagstrom concluded this section of the class by probing the following question: What is the cost of public assistance for undocumented immigrants? We referenced the Tumlin and Zimmermann reading, addressing how California, New York, and Texas all had different responses to immigrant welfare. Finding that working is encouraged or forced by reforms, we questioned what might be the negative effects of mandating work?

Undoubtedly, the solution to these complex problems is challenging. However, alternatives to better approach the problem of financing welfare for immigrants can possibly be addressed through several different alternative solutions, including: goals to increase self sufficiency and finding new ways to assist the neediest while reducing costs (a problem that has plagued the United States Congress for centuries). Finally, we learn many of the basic fiscal costs of undocumented immigrants. According to a 2002 study, costs include Medicaid and food assistance, among many others. However, benefits include income taxes and increases in business tax payments.

Put simply, the finance of immigration is an increasingly complex topic. While immigration certainly forms constraints on different federal programs, it also has proven highly beneficial and has even stimulated the economy at times. The 1996 reforms allowed welfare and other federal programs to become more explicit in their distribution of resources, but it still unclear why certain groups of immigrants gained assistance why others do not. Why do certain immigrants have the ability to prosper, while others suffer in economic disparity? Tumlin and Zimmermann help address these questions through their examination of three separate cities, but it is evident that these challenges are far from solved. The issue of immigration economics will continue to be a crucial component of federal program reform in the future.