In 1996 a series of laws were enacted that adversely affected the immigrant population of the United States. One of the major laws was the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, also known as the 1996 Welfare Reform Act (Source Watch). The benefits a legal immigrant could receive were drastically cut and nearly eliminated for their first five years of residence (U.S. HofR). This was especially problematic for the low-skill, low English proficiency class of immigrants who are over represented in the lower class of the United States. The general hope was that without benefits, welfare recipients, immigrant and otherwise, would have a greater motivation to find and maintain work for themselves (Source Watch). The law was put into effect primarily because there was a perception of abuse within the system. Welfare recipients appeared to be receiving a free ride in a society that values hard work and money above all else. In other words, welfare recipients were perceived as being the exact opposite of our ideal workaholic high achiever. This presented a direct challenge to the basis of our society, which is work for money and then work for more money. The general idea was that if it was possible to get money from the government without working then there wasn’t much reason to work. However, the low levels of assistance don’t actually provide that much motivation to not work because the recipients still remain well below the poverty line. As far as immigrants were concerned the ramifications were even more extreme. They were cut out of the welfare system for the first five years of residency and would never receive full benefits without full citizenship despite the fact that they paid taxes like everyone else. Immigrants were viewed as outsiders, not a part of our society. Therefore, their welfare was not the responsibility of the United States. Another reason for driving immigrants even harder into the work force is because the main function of lower class immigrants in the United States is to serve as cheap labor. If they come, legally or illegally, and do not work then they do not serve their function. In which case, the United States economy does not need them or want them. As a strongly capitalist country the morals that define the United States are often defined by its economy. The message sent was that if the immigrants could not support themselves by working the low level jobs for which they were qualified then they should go back to their home country. This part of the argument about reforming welfare for immigrants is similar to the argument for reforms for the non-immigrants. The immigrants were not our responsibility, nor were they welcome, if they did not serve their function as low-wage workers and live up to the expectations of hard work and wage earning set by our society.
