Catalogue Search | MBRL
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
{{itemTitle}}
38
result(s) for
"Fox, Cybelle"
Sort by:
The Changing Color of Welfare? How Whites’ Attitudes toward Latinos Influence Support for Welfare
This article uses the National Election Study to consider how stereotypes about Latinos influence white support for welfare. It shows that whites' stereotypes about Latino work ethic grow more positive as the size of the Latino population increases, suggesting positive effects of contact. Moreover, the effect of whites' stereotypes about Latino-but not black-work ethic on support for welfare is contingent on ethnic context. In areas with few Latinos, the lazier whites think Latinos are, the less whites want to spend on welfare. However, in areas that are disproportionately Latino the more hard-working whites think Latinos are (controlling for whites' stereotypes about blacks), the less whites want to spend on welfare as well. This last result, this article argues, is the product of a social comparison between black and Latino work ethic. Reprinted by permission of the University of Chicago Press. © All rights reserved
Journal Article
Rethinking Sanctuary: The Origins of Non-Cooperation Policies in Social Welfare Agencies
Too often, scholarship on immigration conflates sanctuary ordinances with the non-cooperation policies, often embedded in these ordinances, which limit cooperation between local officials and federal immigration authorities. In this article, I disentangle the two by tracing the rise of non-cooperation policies in health and welfare agencies since the New Deal. Doing so challenges assumptions about the origins, targets, consequences, and significance of early sanctuary policies. It reveals that non-cooperation was federal policy between 1935 and the early 1970s, when local, state, and federal officials began to experiment with cooperation. When the consequences of such practices became clear, welfare and health officials were forced to reaffirm non-cooperation just before the sanctuary movement burst onto the scene. This research clarifies why scholars see early sanctuary ordinances as largely symbolic: because many local, state, and federal officials had largely abandoned cooperation in practice. It also challenges the widespread assumption that non-cooperation fundamentally represents local resistance to federal power. Instead, I demonstrate the key role played by the federal government in the rise of non-cooperation in health and welfare agencies. Lastly, this research reaffirms the significance of the fragmented nature of federal institutions for promoting immigrant rights.
Journal Article
Unauthorized Welfare: The Origins of Immigrant Status Restrictions in American Social Policy
When the modern welfare state was established in 1935, no federal laws barred non-citizens, even unauthorized immigrants, from social assistance. During the 1970s, however, the federal government abruptly changed course, barring unauthorized immigrants from nearly all federal welfare programs. Fox examines the origins and consequences of this little-known policy shift. Federal restriction exacerbated the consequences of illegality for unauthorized immigrants and threatened the rights of their US-born children and those suspected of entering the country illegally. It also ushered in years of struggle between local, state, and federal officials over who was responsible for the social costs of unauthorized immigration.
Journal Article
Save Our Senior Noncitizens: Extending Old Age Assistance to Immigrants in the United States, 1935–71
When do states grant social rights to noncitizens? I explore this question by examining the extension of Old Age Assistance (OAA) to noncitizens after the passage of the 1935 Social Security Act. While the act contained no alienage-based restrictions, states were permitted to bar noncitizens from means-tested programs. In 1939, 31 states had alienage restrictions for OAA. By 1971, when the Supreme Court declared state-level alienage restrictions unconstitutional, only eight states still did. States with more Mexicans and Asians were slower to repeal restriction, however. Using in-depth case studies of New York, California, and Texas, I demonstrate the importance of federal and state institutional arrangements and immigrant political power for the extension of social rights to noncitizens. I also show that to secure access to OAA, immigrant advocates adapted their strategies to match the institutional and political context.
Journal Article
Beyond “White by Law”: Explaining the Gulf in Citizenship Acquisition between Mexican and European Immigrants, 1930
Between 1790 and 1952, naturalization was reserved primarily for “free white persons.” Asian immigrants were deemed non-white and racially ineligible for citizenship by legislation and the courts. European immigrants and, importantly, Mexican immigrants were considered white by law and eligible for naturalization. Yet, few Mexicans acquired US citizenship. By 1930, only 9 percent of Mexican men had naturalized, compared to 60 percent of southern and eastern Europeans and 80 percent of northern and western Europeans. If Mexicans were legally white, why did they rarely acquire citizenship in the early decades of the 20th century? We go beyond analyses focused on formal law or individual-level determinants to underscore the importance of region and non-white social status in influencing naturalization. Using 1930 US Census microfile data, we find that while individual characteristics (e.g., length of residence and literacy) explain some of the gulf in citizenship, the context of reception mattered nearly as much. Even if Mexicans were “white by law,” they were often judged non-white in practice, which significantly decreased their likelihood of naturalizing. Moreover, the more welcoming political and social climate of the Northeast and Midwest, where most European migrants lived, facilitated their acquisition of American citizenship.
Journal Article
“The Line Must Be Drawn Somewhere”: The Rise of Legal Status Restrictions in State Welfare Policy in the 1970s
In 1971, Governor Ronald Reagan signed into law a measure barring unauthorized immigrants from public assistance. The following year, New York State legislators passed a bill to do the same, although that bill was vetoed by Governor Nelson Rockefeller. This article examines these cases to better understand why states that had long provided welfare to unauthorized immigrants each sought to bar them from public assistance. Common explanations for the curtailment of immigrant social rights often center on partisan politics, popular nativism, demographic context, or issue entrepreneurs. But these studies often wrongly assume that efforts to limit immigrant social rights began in the 1990s. Therefore, they miss how such efforts first emerged in the 1970s, and how these restrictive measures were initially closely bound up in broader debates over race and welfare that followed in the wake of the War on Poverty and the civil rights movement. Where scholars often argue that immigration undermines support for welfare, I show how the turn against welfare helped to undermine immigrant social rights. I also show how differing interpretations of the scope and reach of Supreme Court decisions traditionally seen as victories for welfare and immigrant rights help explain initial variation in policy outcomes in each state.
Journal Article
Three Worlds of Relief: Race, Immigration, and Public and Private Social Welfare Spending in American Cities, 1929
Using a data set of public and private relief spending for 295 cities, this article examines the racial and ethnic patterning of social welfare provision in the United States in 1929. On the eve of the Depression, cities with more blacks or Mexicans spent the least on social assistance and relied more heavily on private money to fund their programs. Cities with more European immigrants spent the most on relief and relied more heavily on public funding. Distinct political systems, labor market relations, and racial ideologies about each group's proclivity to use relief best explain relief spending differences across cities.
Journal Article
Defining America’s Racial Boundaries: Blacks, Mexicans, and European Immigrants, 1890–1945
Contemporary race and immigration scholars often rely on historical analogies to help them analyze America's current and future color lines. If European immigrants became white, they claim, perhaps today's immigrants can as well. But too often these scholars ignore ongoing debates in the historical literature about America's past racial boundaries. Meanwhile, the historical literature is itself needlessly muddled. In order to address these problems, the authors borrow concepts from the social science literature on boundaries to systematically compare the experiences of blacks, Mexicans, and southern and eastern Europeans (SEEs) in the first half of the 20th century. Their findings challenge whiteness historiography; caution against making broad claims about the reinvention, blurring, or shifting of America's color lines; and suggest that the Mexican story might have more to teach us about these current and future lines than the SEE one. Adapted from the source document.
Journal Article