The Japanese Journal of American Studies, No. 26 (2015)
Copyright © 2015 Chitose Sato. All rights reserved. This work may be used, with thisnotice included, for noncommercial purposes. No copies of this work may be distributed,
electronically or otherwise, in whole or in part, without permission from the author.

“Mixed-Status Families” in the Age of
Welfare Reform

Chitose Sato*

IntroductionMore than a century ago, the United States Immigration Commission,
also known as the Dillingham Commission after its chairman William Paul
Dillingham published a forty-one-volume report and devoted two of thevolumes to the problem of “immigrants as charity seekers.”1 The commission,
which was formed in response to growing public concern over a dramaticincrease in the number of “new immigrants,” went to great lengths tocriticize immigrants from eastern and southern European countries who
purportedly came to the United States only to receive handouts and therefore
posed a serious moral threat to the American people. For many decades,
immigrants’ eligibility for social welfare benefits has been a controversial
issue, and the debate over the relationship between citizenship and the rightto welfare benefits continues to this day.
Anti-immigration discourse has traditionally criticized immigrants fortaking jobs away from US workers and lowering wages in unskilledoccupations. In addition to these claims, contemporary nativists also lament
the fiscal burden that immigrants place on governments and taxpayers.
Among other things, they claim that the cost of public assistance for*Professor, University of Tsukuba

145

146

Chitose Satoimmigrants is skyrocketing in states where a large number of immigrants
reside, causing serious fiscal deficits. Many anti-immigration groups further
argue that welfare benefits serve as a “magnet” attracting people to cross theborder.
In this context, when welfare reform began with the enactment of the
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act(PRWORA) in 1996, noncitizen access to most federally funded meanstested public assistance programs was drastically curtailed. Immigrants,
even documented immigrants, were prohibited from applying for mostwelfare benefits for at least the first five years after their arrival in the UnitedStates. The category of “noncitizen” under this law included only authorized
immigrants, and unauthorized immigrants were completely excluded frompublic assistance except for emergency Medicaid services and the Special
Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC)that serves prenatal and nursing mothers.2
However, welfare reform did not solve all the problems. In the UnitedStates, many families consist of immigrant parents (both documented andundocumented) and children who are US-born citizens. These families arecalled mixed-status families, and their number has rapidly increased overthe last decade. In particular, the number of US-born children living with
undocumented parents is on the rise, and it is estimated that in 2008 aboutfour million citizen children were living in mixed-status families headed byat least one parent who resided in the United States without authorization.3
Because of birthright citizenship, even if the parents are undocumented
immigrants, children who are born after their parents arrive in the UnitedStates are US citizens and eligible for all public assistance if their families
fall below certain income levels.
Mixed-status families create a complicated and paradoxical category of
welfare recipients, often referred to as child-only cases. Under the PRWORA
of 1996, which replaced Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC)
with Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), the number ofchild-only cases with undocumented immigrant parents has continued toincrease, and anti-immigration forces regard this phenomenon as a serious
threat to white middle-class taxpayers. Since most TANF recipients are
single mothers with small children, contemporary anti-immigration rhetoric
problematizes the sexuality and reproductive role of Latinas who migrate to
the United States without authorization and have citizen children. These
children are often disdainfully called “anchor babies.” Some nativists gofurther and propose amending the US Constitution to nullify birthright“Mixed-Status Families” in the Age of Welfare Reform

147

citizenship so that children of undocumented immigrants would not be able
to receive welfare benefits.
The purpose of this article is to examine the question of whether
undocumented immigrants are abusing welfare benefits through their citizen
children by focusing on child-only cases of mixed-status families. The firstsection of this article demonstrates recent increases in the number of mixedstatus families and trends in their changing economic conditions. The
second section discusses how recent anti-immigration discourse is gendered
and racialized, which produces a negative perspective of immigrant women
as abusers of welfare. The third section explores child-only cases of the
California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs:
state-funded TANF of California) program in which most of the child-only
cases are households composed of undocumented Latino immigrant parents
and their citizen children. The final section details various obstacles that
undocumented immigrants face when they apply for welfare on behalf of
their citizen children and argues that the claim that undocumented immigrantparents are abusing public assistance through their citizen children isinconsistent with reality.

Mixed-Status Families and Their Economic Conditions
According to an estimate from the Pew Research Center, 11.9 million
unauthorized immigrants were living in the United States in 2008, and theyaccounted for 4 percent of the nation’s population and 30 percent of theforeign-born population.4 Contrary to the conventional notion thatunauthorized immigrants are single young men who seek better work
opportunities in the United States, these unauthorized immigrants are more
likely to live with their spouses and children than documented immigrants
and US citizens in general. In fact, nearly half of them have a family withminor children and, according to the Pew Research Center, 37 percent of all
adult unauthorized immigrants in 2009 were parents of children who are US
citizens.5
The number of mixed-status families, which are composed of
undocumented immigrant parent(s) and at least one US-born child, hasgrown alongside an increase in the unauthorized immigrant population.6
Mixed-status families can consist of any combination of authorized
immigrants, unauthorized immigrants, naturalized citizens, and US-born
citizens (fig.1). Their composition changes frequently because undocumented
family members can legalize their immigration status and documented

148

Chitose Sato

5.7

4.6
Unauthorized immigrant
adults43.7

US-born children
Unauthorized immigrantchildren46

Other adults

Figure 1 People in mixed-status unauthorized immigrant families, 2008
Source: Jeffrey S. Passel and D’Vera Cohn, “A Portrait of Unauthorized Immigrants
in the United States,” Pew Hispanic Center report, April 14, 2009, 8.

immigrants can also naturalize and become US citizens. The complexityand fluidity of these families has significantly affected the outcomes of
welfare reform, which has attempted to reduce the size of immigrantcaseloads since the late 1990s.
Mixed-status families are particularly prevalent in the states where alarge number of unauthorized immigrants are concentrated. Almost 27
percent of California families with children are mixed-status families. In
New York, the proportion is approximately 14 percent.7 Statistics about thenational origins of mixed-status families are not available. However, it isestimated that more than 60 percent of unauthorized immigrants are from
Mexico and that unauthorized immigrants of Mexican origin have morechildren than immigrants from other countries. The Pew Research Center
estimates that about 80 percent of mixed-status families are headed bypeople of Mexican origin.8
Although the socioeconomic conditions of mixed-status families havenot been fully researched, if we look at employment patterns and income
levels of undocumented immigrants, we can get an overview of their lives.
Unauthorized immigrants are considerably undereducated in their countriesof origin. Among adult unauthorized immigrants ages twenty-five to sixtyfour, only 27 percent have finished high school. In addition, a majority ofthem have a low level of English proficiency. Because of these disadvantages,

“Mixed-Status Families” in the Age of Welfare Reform

149

along with their legal status, even though this group has a very highproportion of labor force participation, most are engaged in low-skilled jobs
and earn low incomes. They are concentrated in certain occupations such as
agriculture, construction, food preparation, material transport, and building
maintenance.9
It is also important to note that there is a clear gender gap in their labor
force participation. While 94 percent of working-age male undocumented
immigrants are gainfully employed, only 58 percent of their female
counterparts are engaged in wage work. This is well below the average forwomen who are US-born (73%) or legal immigrants (66%). The major
reason for this gap is that a higher percentage of female unauthorized
immigrants do not work because they prefer to stay at home to raise theirchildren.10 This trend can be attributed to the patriarchal cultural norm thatwomen should remain at home to take care of the children while men shouldbe the breadwinners. This then contributes to the creation of a genderedanti-immigration discourse, in which Latina immigrants are believed to be
unwilling to work and thus they and their children become dependent on
welfare.
Many mixed-status families live on very low incomes. In 2007, themedian annual household income of unauthorized immigrants was $36,000,
compared to $50,000 for households with US-born breadwinners. Thisdifference in household income is significant because mixed-status families
have more children than families made up only of those born in the UnitedStates. It is also interesting to note that the median income of mixed-statusfamilies rarely rises, even after the immigrants have been in the UnitedStates for more than a decade.11
As a result, the poverty rate is very high for mixed-status families. Amongchildren whose parents are unauthorized immigrants, more than 30 percent
are poor. Since these families make up nearly 10 percent of all families withchildren in the United States, this has become one of the reasons for an
increased number of children living in poverty. The problem of poverty
among mixed-status families is particularly serious in states where
undocumented immigrants are concentrated. Mixed-status families
represent 40 percent of low-income families with children in California.
Nearly three-fifths of all low-income children in Los Angeles County livein mixed-status families.12
There is nothing new about mixed-status families, but legal and politicalchanges have led to a rapid increase in their number. The most serious
problem is the flawed family reunification program, which has been an

150

Chitose Sato

important part of US immigration policy since 1965. Family reunification is
the largest channel of immigration to the United States. However, the family
reunification program has faced a serious backlog of applications since the1990s. The backlog has resulted in long waiting periods between the timethat a petition is approved and the time that a visa is issued. For somecategories of applicants, the waiting period may be decades long. Under thecircumstances, quite a few potential applicants try to avoid such a timeconsuming process and come to the United States to live with their spouses(usually husbands) by obtaining tourist or short-stay visas. They thenoverstay after their visa expires and become undocumented residents. Manyof these immigrants, living with their spouses without a proper visa, are in
their twenties and thirties and have children after they are reunited in the
United States. Thus, the administrative problems of the US immigration
policy have partly contributed to an increase in the number of mixed-statusfamilies.13
Because of their undocumented status, mixed-status families always face
the danger of deportation and family separation; families can be separated
if the parents are caught by immigration officers. A report from the
Department of Homeland Security revealed that during the period fromJanuary 1, 2011 to June 30, 2011, 46,486 undocumented immigrants who
were removed from the country by US Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE) claimed that they were parents of at least one US citizen
child. This number was a record high. In January 2012, it was reported that
more than 5,100 children of undocumented immigrants ended up in foster
care after their parents were detained or deported, and nearly a quarter ofthese children lived in California.14

Anti-Immigration Discourse and Welfare
A rapid increase in the number of mixed-status families has aroused
public discussion about the welfare benefits for which citizen children of
undocumented immigrants are eligible. The most prominent critical voicein this movement coined the term “anchor baby” to describe a child born in
the United States to undocumented immigrant parents. This term conveys
the idea that through the child’s birth unauthorized immigrant parents can“anchor” themselves to the United States and reap the benefits of US
citizenship. Those who are unhappy with the current status of undocumented
immigrants and seek to restrict their migration to the United States frequently
use the term with disdain.15

“Mixed-Status Families” in the Age of Welfare Reform

151

Under the PRWORA of 1996, unauthorized immigrants can obtainwelfare benefits such as TANF, Medicaid, and food stamps on behalf of
their US-born children. As a result, the government’s efforts to bar
undocumented immigrant households from federal welfare programs do notsignificantly reduce costs for immigrants because their citizen children canaccess the benefits. Nationwide, it is estimated that 40 percent of household
headed by unauthorized immigrants receive some type of welfare benefits,
while only 19 percent of households headed by native-born citizens makeuse of them. In some states, such as New York, California, and Texas, which
are home to many undocumented immigrants, the rate is higher than thenational average.16
The anti-immigration movement has attacked birthright citizenship as a
primary reason for having “anchor babies” that allow female undocumented
immigrants to abuse welfare benefits. In fact, some nativists are actively
working toward legislation to nullify the Fourteenth Amendment’s birthrightprovision. Such beliefs are fueled by a gendered and racialized stereotype
of pregnant Mexican women crossing the border to give birth in order togain their child birthright citizenship and therefore access to public
assistance. These activists firmly believe that undocumented immigrantparents should be deported because their offspring are current and futureburdens on taxpayers.17
The Federation of Americans for Immigration Reform (FAIR) is one of
the most outspoken organizations that problematize this issue. FAIR was
founded by John Tanton in 1979 to advocate for strict immigration control
and drastic cuts in legal immigration to bring it back to the 1956 level aftera ten-year moratorium on any immigration.18 FAIR has actively conductedcampaigns to deport undocumented aliens and their children. They havepublished numerous reports that stress the danger of unauthorized
immigrants abusing public assistance through their citizen children. One of
their reports, “The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United States
Taxpayers,” claims that TANF federal funding to the states for the childrenof undocumented immigrants reached over $1 billion, about 6 percent of
total TANF disbursements in 2010. This report and other FAIR publications
have been widely quoted by nativists.19
FAIR argues that the situation in California, which is home to the largest
number of undocumented immigrants in the United States, is very serious.
According to their latest report, “The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration
on California Taxpayers,” the number of “illegal aliens” in California rose
to 2.9 million in 2011 and this group raises 1.1 million US-born children.

152

Chitose Sato

According to this report, “illegal aliens” plus their US-born children accountfor at least 10.7 percent of California’s total population. FAIR insists thatthe most serious problem lies in the number of citizen children of “illegal
aliens” who are enrolled as child-only cases in CalWORKs, a program
whose caseload has risen to three hundred thousand. According to theircalculation, 27 percent of the state’s citizen children of “illegal aliens”
receive CalWORKs benefits and the level of expenditure per child amounts
to $55,000 per year.20
Other than CalWORKs, FAIR estimates that WIC expenditures forprenatal and childbirth services to undocumented female immigrants totals
at least $444 million per year. After their birth, most citizen children of“illegal aliens” are eligible for medical coverage under Medi-Cal (statefunded Medicaid of California) because a majority of mixed-status families
headed by undocumented immigrants meet the income criterion. According
to FAIR, this coverage costs taxpayer as much as $1.8 billion per year.21
The president of FAIR, Dan Stein, has argued that the state of California
and its taxpayers bear an enormous fiscal burden because of welfare
expenditure for children of undocumented immigrants and that the total
amount of taxes collected from them does not come close to offsetting theexpenditure. He has harshly critiqued this situation, arguing that “California’s
addiction to ‘cheap’ illegal alien labor is bankrupting the state and posing an
enormous burden on the state’s shrinking middle class tax base.” Even
though California’s voters overwhelmingly passed Proposition 187 thatprohibited unauthorized immigrants from using health care and public
education in 1994, Stein insisted that “state and local governments haveblatantly ignored the wish of their voters and continued to shell out publicly
financed benefits on illegal aliens.” FAIR has claimed that one of the reasons
the state of California spiraled into a fiscal crisis, which brought it nearbankruptcy, is the generous public assistance provided for citizen childrenof unauthorized immigrants.22
FAIR’s stance has been supported by conservative politicians anddeveloped into an important agenda item for anti-immigration forces in thestate legislature. For instance, Michael D. Antonovich, Los Angeles Country
Fifth District Supervisor, has strongly lamented that as many as one hundred
thousand children of the sixty thousand undocumented parents receive
public assistance in Los Angeles County. He has claimed that children of“illegal aliens” in Los Angeles County cost more than $54 million permonth in 2013. In his accounting, this total accounts for $20 million for
CalWORKs and $35 million for food stamps, representing 20 percent of all

“Mixed-Status Families” in the Age of Welfare Reform

153

CalWORKs and food stamp benefits in the county. Antonovich warns thatunless effective measures are taken immediately, “an alarming increase in
the devastating impact illegal immigration continues to have on Los Angeles
County taxpayers” could become uncontrollable.23
As can be seen in the rhetoric surrounding “anchor babies,” antiimmigration movements are particularly harsh toward female undocumented
immigrants, and the discourse that suggests that unauthorized immigrants
are abusing welfare is completely gendered. Antagonism toward immigrant
women’s reproductive role has intensified with an increase in the number offemale undocumented immigrants. Since 2009, women have accounted fora full 50 percent of immigrants from Latin America, and approximately 4.1
million undocumented women live in the United States. They constitute 42
percent of the unauthorized migrant population.24 Anti-immigration groups
targeting Latinas have portrayed them as hyperfertile breeders who enterthe United States with the explicit intention of giving birth to children inorder to claim citizenship privileges. Nativists have painted a picture of
immigrant mothers as irresponsible breeders eager to exploit the welfare
system.25
One prominent example of these organizations is Mothers Against Illegal
Aliens (MAIA), an Arizona-based women’s anti-immigration organization
founded by Michelle Dallacroce in 2006. They regard female undocumented
immigrants as a threat to the life of white mothers and their children.
Sociologist Mary Romero, who has examined MAIA’s activities, detailed
four reasons why MAIA attacks undocumented Mexican immigrant womenas a serious threat to the American family. First, MAIA claims that they are
not like mothers who are US citizens and are thus incapable of raising good
US citizens. Even though the children of unauthorized women immigrants
are born in the United States and therefore are US citizens under theConstitution, MAIA argues that they are “alien babies” because alienmothers do not have the ability to raise good US citizens. Since immigrantmothers lack the ability to instill morals and values that embrace US
principles, their citizen children pose a danger to US society.26
Second, MAIA believes that undocumented immigrant mothers areopportunists using their children for their own gain. According to this logic,
unauthorized immigrants receive public assistance on behalf of their citizen
children and abuse the welfare system. Since citizen children, when theyreach the age of twenty-one, can sponsor the permanent residency
applications of their parents or immediate relatives, they can cause chain
migration from Mexico. Third, MAIA insists that the immigrants’ children

154

Chitose Satoare taking services away from the children of US citizens. They areparticularly concerned that the quality of public education is deteriorating
because of “alien children.” Fourth, and finally, MAIA argues that thepresence of these US-born children of unauthorized immigrants threatens
the political dominance of “true citizens.” MAIA criticizes Mexican
undocumented immigrant women and their US-born children as invaders
who threaten not only the white middle-class American way of life but also
US institutions and national security.27
In mass media, conservative political commentators such as Ann Coulter
have repeatedly proclaimed the threat to American family values posed by
Latina immigrants’ sexuality. Coulter has argued that “more than half of allbabies born to Latino women [sic] today are illegitimate.” Although
Coulter’s statement is statistically groundless, she claims that the birthrateof Latinas is twice that of the rest of the population and their unwed birthrate
is one and a half times that of African American women. She believes thatthe high birthrate and illegitimacy rate of Latinas is the primary reason thatthey abuse welfare benefits and that the situation is getting worse with anincrease in the number of female undocumented immigrants. Coulter’sargument is in accord with MAIA’s agenda in that she proposes deporting
unauthorized immigrant parents and their children in order to protect theAmerican family.28

Child-Only Cases in Calworks
In response to mounting concerns about the “magnetic” effect of welfare
on immigrants, the PRWORA of 1996 severely curtailed noncitizen accessto most federally funded means-tested public assistance programs, making
large numbers of noncitizen parents ineligible for public assistance. In
particular, the PRWORA barred documented immigrants from receiving
federal TANF benefits during the first five years after their arrival in the
United States. As a result of these exclusions, half of the projected welfare
reform savings came from cuts to noncitizen benefits. Since 1996, Congresshas re-extended food stamps, Medicaid, and other benefits to many
noncitizens, but TANF’s immigrant restrictions at the federal level remain
today.29
At the same time, because of concern about the economic hardships ofimmigrants who were denied access to TANF, some measures were taken to
save authorized immigrants at the state level. Twenty-two states have chosen
to provide state-funded benefits for authorized immigrants who have come“Mixed-Status Families” in the Age of Welfare Reform155

to the United States after the enactment of PRWORA during their first five
years of federal ineligibility. California’s version of TANF is CalWORKs,
and the program provides benefits to authorized immigrants during theirfirst five years of US residency.30 While authorized immigrants areguaranteed CalWORKs benefits under these conditions, unauthorized
immigrants were already ineligible for AFDC, and they have been denied
TANF/CalWORKs since the enactment of PRWORA of 1996. Drawing aclear boundary between authorized and unauthorized immigrants, theCalifornia state government has excluded unauthorized immigrants frompublic assistance except for emergency Medicaid services and WIC.31
However, as was discussed, even if parents do not qualify for TANF/
CalWORKs because they are undocumented, their citizen children do
qualify. These cases are called child-only cases of ineligible immigrantparents (IIP). IIP child-only cases constituted 13 percent of the national
TANF caseload in 2009.32 With an increasing number of mixed-statusfamilies, the number of IIP child-only cases has been growing over the last
decade. Anti-immigration activists widely criticize IIP child-only cases as aloophole through which unauthorized immigrants are reaping welfare
benefits.33
Since the state of California uses state funds for authorized immigrants
who are ineligible for federal TANF, IIP child-only cases in CalWORKs
consist almost entirely of US citizen children of unauthorized immigrantparents. In fact, California has the largest number of IIP child-only cases in
the United States. In 2008 about one in five families with citizen children ofunauthorized parents received CalWORKs cash assistance in California(table 1).34
Three major studies have been conducted on the subject of undocumented
immigrant parents of citizen children who either currently or formerly
received assistance in IIP child-only CalWORKs cases.35 They revealed
Table 1

IIP child-only cases in California and the United States, 2008

IIP cases per 100
unauthorizedfamilies with
US-born children
California
461,000
91,576
19.9
United States
1,815,000
217,000
12.0
Source: Jane Mauldon, Richard Speiglman, Christina Sogar, and Matt Stagner,“TANF Child-Only Cases: Who Are They? What Policies Affect Them? What Is
Being Done?,” report, Chapin Hall, University of Chicago, December 11, 2012, 107.
Unauthorizedfamilies with
US-born children

IIP cases

156

Chitose Satoseveral characteristics of IIP child-only households. First, the average ageof the adults in these cases was early thirties, and many households included
two parents and a combination of noncitizen and citizen children. The older
children were often unauthorized immigrants who migrated alongside theirparents. These households had more children than other households on
welfare, and the average age of the children was eight. In addition, a majority
of IIP child-only households did not feature a nuclear family; 27 percent ofthese were extended families in which other adult relatives lived together,and 36 percent were multifamily households in which the family resided
with another unrelated or only distantly related family.36 Since most TANF/
CalWORKs recipients who are US citizens are single mothers with smallchildren, the family structure of IIP child-only cases is very different fromother households on welfare.
Second, even though their members’ employment rate was very high,most IIP child-only households in the study faced severe economic
Table 2

Wages of IIP child-only cases in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties

Respondent’s hourly wage
Spouse’s hourly wage
Mean wage ($)
7.47
9.48
Percent of earning
35
17
below minimum wage
Source: Charles J. Lieberman, Vanessa Lindler, and Margaret O’Brien-Strain, “Assessing
the Family Circumstances of Current and Former TANF Child-Only Cases in San Mateoand Santa Clara Counties,” SPHERE Institute, California Policy Review 2, no. 1, July 31,
2002,18.
Table 3 A
 verage monthly income by source of IIP child-only cases in San Mateo andSanta Clara Counties
Average income by source($) Share of income by source (%)
Earnings
757
57
CalWORKs
345
26
Food Stamps and WIC
158
12
Non–means-tested312
benefits
Other income
42
3
Total
1,333
100
Source: Charles J. Lieberman, Vanessa Lindler, and Margaret O’Brien-Strain, “Assessing
the Family Circumstances of Current and Former TANF Child-Only Cases in San Mateoand Santa Clara Counties,” SPHERE Institute, California Policy Review 2, no. 1, July 31,
2002, 28.

“Mixed-Status Families” in the Age of Welfare Reform

157

hardships. In more than half of the current IIP child-only cases, at least one
parent was working part-time or full-time, but this parent was mostly
engaged in low-skilled jobs such as construction, agriculture, and food
manufacturing. As a case study of San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties
shows, the mean wages for respondents and their spouses ranged from $7.47
per hour to $9.48 per hour, and a number of them worked for below minimum
wage (table 2). The average income was $1,333 a month, including, on
average, $757 in earnings, $345 in CalWORKs cash assistance, and $158 infood stamps and WIC benefits, among other sources (table 3). A majority of
IIP child-only households had more family members than other households
on welfare, and the small amount of CalWORKs benefits that they received
through the citizen children supported the entire family. More than half ofthese households had an income level at least 70 percent below the federal
poverty line.37
Third, just as with CalWORKs, undocumented immigrant parents are noteligible for other forms of public assistance, but their citizen children are
eligible if the family meets the income eligibility criteria. In actuality, evenif citizen children are eligible for public assistance other than CalWORKs,
many of them still do not receive the benefits. According to a survey
conducted by Van Hook and Balistreri, IIP child-only households frequently
encounter food insecurity and use soup kitchens or food pantries because
parents do not apply for food stamps for their children. They also facehousing problems because most of these families live in urban areas where
the rent is very high. The vast majority of IIP child-only households are incrowded, substandard dwellings in unsafe neighborhoods.38
In addition to these insecurities, IIP child-only households tend tounderuse public medical assistance available for children in low-income
families. Undocumented immigrant parents are eligible only for emergency
and pregnancy-related medical treatment, but their citizen children qualify
for a public health insurance program called Medi-Cal. In addition, aprogram called Healthy Families is also available for citizen children infamilies earning less than 250 percent of the federal poverty level income in
California. Researchers have pointed out that even though citizen children
on CalWORKs are eligible for Medi-Cal and Healthy Families, many
parents have not applied for them.39

Are Unauthorized Immigrants Really Abusing Welfare?
Are unauthorized immigrant parents, as anti-immigration forces claim,

158

Chitose Satoreally abusing welfare through their citizen children? It is true that someundocumented immigrants who live in serious poverty tend to stay on
welfare longer than other recipients. Speiglman, Bos, and Ortiz havedemonstrated that about 70 percent of IIP child-only cases received cash
assistance for a full year in Santa Clara and Stanislaus Counties.40 Even so,
IIP child-only cases had the shortest duration in the program; 43 percent ofthese cases left CalWORKs within two years.41 Many researchers agree that
there is a stronger correlation, compared to other groups, between IIP childonly cases and general economic conditions. When the unemployment raterose between April 2007 and October 2010, California’s IIP child-only
cases increased by 26 percent. In this time period “Lehman shock” exercised
a great influence on economic conditions, and more mixed-status families
chose to apply for welfare benefits because of unemployment or wage cuts.
Many of these withdrew from CalWORKs after finding jobs, however, even
if the work was temporary or part-time. They then moved back onto welfare
when their jobs ended again. Thus, most IIPs are not prone to long-term
welfare dependency, and, for these individuals, welfare benefits are a lastresort.42
Even though undocumented immigrants can receive public assistancethrough their citizen children, many of them are hesitant to apply for the
benefits. This is largely because quite a few of them misunderstand or know
little about the welfare system. Insufficient communication of crucial
information creates barriers along with the immigrants’ distrust of
government agencies.43 Because the PRWORA of 1996 curtailed noncitizen
access to most federally funded public assistance, even when authorized
immigrants are eligible for state-funded benefits such as CalWORKs, they
are hesitant to utilize them. It can be easily assumed that such a “chilling
effect” would be much more serious for unauthorized immigrants than forauthorized immigrants. Fear and misunderstanding about the system
discourage them from applying for welfare benefits on behalf of their citizen
children.44
In order to understand the problem of the “chilling effect” of PRWORA
on undocumented immigrants, a set of interviews was conducted by
Speiglman, Castaneda, Brown, and Capps in Stanislaus County. Thisevidence reveals various obstacles that undocumented immigrant parents ofcitizen children face when they apply for CalWORKs.
Most of the study participants reported high levels of awareness about
their children’s eligibility for CalWORKs. Most IIPs learned about the
program from family, relatives, colleagues, or friends. This high rate of

“Mixed-Status Families” in the Age of Welfare Reform

159

awareness reflects the strong social networks of immigrant communities.
There were also some participants who learned about the program from
immigration lawyers or social workers. Many of them answered that they
became interested in CalWORKs during times of severe economic recession
and when they or their spouses lost jobs. Welfare offices make significant
efforts in terms of extensive public outreach. Stanislaus County’s Community
Services Agency (CSA) frequently conducts outreach initiatives, including
at Cinco de Mayo celebrations and other community events, throughemergency Medi-Cal services counseling, and the WIC program. State andlocal agencies disseminate information through public service
announcements in Spanish-language media, such as newspapers and local
radio and TV programs. Thanks to these efforts, many members of thecommunity know about CalWORKs; but their knowledge seems to beincomplete, and many of them misunderstand the program. The following
barriers are the most commonly voiced by undocumented immigrantparents.45
First, many of them believe that if they apply for CalWORKs, the CSA
would report them to immigration authorities and this would result in thedeportation of the whole family. One of the most frequently asked questions
by undocumented immigrants is “Will my immigration status be reported to
ICE?” The answer is no, but unauthorized immigrants are still doubtful. In
the application process, their immigration status is confirmed at the welfare
office, but it is only used to check to see whether they are eligible for
CalWORKs. The applicants need only tell officials that they are not eligible
immigrants but their citizen children do have eligibility. Counties haveordinances that prohibit their employees from assisting or cooperating withany federal immigration investigation, detention, or arrest procedures unlessthere is a criminal violation. However, fingerprinting is required when
applying for CalWORKs, and because of this, many feel there is a danger ofbeing reported to immigration authorities or local police.46
Second, quite a few individuals fear that receiving welfare benefits would
have negative effects on citizenship acquisition. Marisa, one of theinterviewees, was concerned that receiving CalWORKs could affect her
application for authorized status in the future. She said, “When you’re in theprocess of getting legal status, immigration services might take it as aburden on the government, having to use cash assistance, so we haven’t
needed it up until now, and that’s why we’ve never applied for that.”47
A third concern among this community is that receiving CalWORKs
assistance would prove detrimental to their children’s careers. For instance,

160

Chitose Sato

Adela said that she had avoided applying for CalWORKs to spare her son
from what she believed would be forced military service.
I don’t know, they say that in the future, I don’t know, I haven’t reallytalked it through well but they say that in the future, all that money has
to be returned to the government and, if not, your children will be sent
to the military or something, so if that’s the case in the future, I wouldn’t
want my children involved in that.48
Laura, another participant, believed that if she received CalWORKs her
kids might be financially affected after they started working. She said,“Because many people say that over time it affects the children, that whenthey’re older and working, they’ll take it out of their paycheck or I don’tknow, like to repay what they gave you or something like that.”49
Another barrier that applicants face when they apply for CalWORKs andother public assistance is the arduous application process. This is because
many of them have low levels of literacy and the pages-long application
forms can be intimidating. To fill out the application forms, they needvarious pieces of information that they either do not have access to or do notwant to give to the caseworkers. As a result, even if they receive application
forms, they often give up and do not submit them to the welfare office. As
well, non-English speakers are supposed to be provided with free interpreter
services at welfare offices, but very few bilingual staff members areavailable to help them with their application forms.50
The study participants also expressed frustration over inconsistent or
arbitrary explanations by the welfare caseworkers. They reported that somecaseworkers threatened to report them to the ICE if they tried to obtainbenefits for their eligible citizen children. Others were told that eligible
household members would be denied benefits if other members of thehousehold did not have social security numbers. According to the interview
data, quite a few caseworkers have prejudice against unauthorized immigrantparents and adopt an uncooperative attitude toward them. These caseworkers
try to discourage them from submitting papers.51
Cultural norms are another important factor that discourages IIPs fromapplying for welfare benefits. Undocumented immigrants tend to regard
welfare participation as stigmatizing. Because they believe that they cameto the United States to work and improve their lives, it is simply unacceptable
for them to depend on welfare. Some of them are particularly concernedthat they might be criticized or laughed at by relatives, friends, or neighbors

“Mixed-Status Families” in the Age of Welfare Reform161

in the immigrant community or back home. Pride is very important,especially for male heads of households. They are already stigmatized bytheir immigration status and economic hardships, and they want to at least
maintain their dignity as breadwinners for their families.52
There is another barrier that discourages undocumented immigrant
women from applying for welfare on behalf of their children: this is the
problem of domestic violence. Several studies have revealed that these
women are at a high risk for experiencing domestic violence perpetrated bytheir husbands. It is common for a batterer to use control over his wife’s
undocumented status to force her to remain in the relationship. As a result,even if they wish to escape from their husbands and raise their children on
their own while receiving welfare benefits, these women are afraid ofconsulting with someone and then having difficulties with their abusive
husbands.53

Conclusion
The belief that female unauthorized immigrants are abusing welfare on
behalf of their citizen children has led to the movement for eliminating
birthright citizenship. Anti-immigration groups such as MAIA have focused
most of their protests against extending birthright citizenship to the childrenof undocumented immigrant parents. In response to this activism, several
members of Congress have introduced measures to close the “citizen-childloophole.” For instance, Congress member Mark Foley (R-FL) sponsored acitizenship clarification amendment that would grant citizenship to a
newborn only on the condition that at least one parent is an authorized
resident at the time of the child’s birth. Congress members Elton Gallegly(R-CA) and Anthony Beilenson (D-CA) also jumped on the bandwagon byproposing constitutional amendments that would deny citizenship to the
US-born children of unauthorized immigrants. Congress member Brian
Bilbray (R-CA) approached the issue from a different angle. He attempted
to change the category of birthright citizenship, not by proposing a
constitutional amendment but through putting forward the Citizenship
Reform Act, which would have amended the Immigration and Nationality
Act to ensure that the phrase, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” would
only refer to US citizens or authorized immigrants. These proposals wereintroduced in the 1990s, and similar bills have continually been submittedin Congress since then, but none has yet been enacted into law.54
Undoubtedly, acquiring citizenship does play some role in the decisions

162

Chitose Satomade by undocumented immigrants to come to the United States. After all,they have made a decision to migrate to the United States in some way tomake their life better than it would have been had they remained in theirhome country. It is also true that having a citizen child can produce someshort-term welfare benefits, such as getting on the WIC program, which
provides food and nutrition vouchers. However, according to interviews of
undocumented Latino immigrants conducted by sociologists Massey andSanchez, when they were asked about their motivations for coming to theUnited States, no one mentioned in order to have children in the UnitedStates.55
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who alleges that “half the children bornin hospitals on our borders are the children of illegal immigrants,” andproposes amending the flaws on birthright citizenship, has criticized thepractices of unauthorized Latina immigrants with the phrase “drop andleave.”56 Graham’s criticism might be applicable to the so-called birth
tourists, such as affluent mothers from China, Korea, and Turkey who cometo the United States to have their babies to give them future citizenshipbenefits, but not to Latinas crossing the Rio Grande or the Sonoran Desert.57
Graham obscures the distinction between the two and intentionally
exaggerates the “anchor babies” phenomenon.
As discussed, most IIP child-only cases do not involve dependence on
welfare through citizen children for an extended period of time. In mostcases, at least one of the parents is engaged in wage work, and the families
rely on welfare benefits only as a last resort when facing severe economic
hardships. Furthermore, IIP child-only families receive a smaller amount ofwelfare benefits than other welfare recipients because only the citizen
children are eligible for assistance. In addition, it is important to note that
there are quite a few undocumented immigrants who refrain from applying
for welfare benefits even when their citizen children are eligible because
they fear that their immigration status might be used against them or theirchildren might be disadvantaged in the future. The most serious problem isthe “chilling effect” that discourages them from applying for welfare
benefits on behalf of their citizen children. Citizen children of mixed-statusfamilies are thus not benefiting from welfare on an equal footing with otherchildren of poor families because of their parents’ undocumented status. As
a result, many of these mixed-status families frequently lack food and sufferfrom hunger and reside in substandard housing in unsafe neighborhoods
even if they are on welfare.
The IIP child-only case is the only category of welfare benefits that

“Mixed-Status Families” in the Age of Welfare Reform

163

citizen children in mixed-status families can rely on. Anti-immigration
forces demand that these children be denied access to their minimal amountof welfare benefits in order to reduce the fiscal burden on taxpayers.
However, excluding IIP child-only cases from public assistance would
further impoverish citizen children of mixed-status families and have asignificant impact not only on their future but also on American society.
Providing benefits for young citizens is an essential social investment for
securing the well-being of these children.

Notes
William Paul Dillingham, “Immigrants as Charity Seekers,” Reports of the
Immigration Commission, vols. 34, 35 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office,1911).
2 About the PRWORA of 1996 and immigrants, see Audrey Singer, “Welfare Reformand Immigrants: A Policy Review,” in Immigrants, Welfare Reform, and the Poverty of
Policy, ed. Philip Kretsedemas and Ana Aparicio (Westport, CT: Praeger, 2004); MichaelFix and Wendy Zimmermann, “The Legacy of Welfare Reform for US Immigrants,” inInternational Migration: Prospects and Policies in a Global Market, ed. Douglas S.
Massey and J. Edward Taylor (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004); George J. Borjas,“Welfare Reform and Immigration,” in The New World of Welfare, ed. Rebecca M. Blank
and Ron Haskins (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2001); Wendy
Zimmerman and Karen C. Tumlin, “Patchwork Policies: State Assistance for Immigrants
under Welfare Reform,” Urban Institute occasional paper no. 24 (May, 1999); andMichael E. Fix and Jeffrey S. Passel, “Lessons of Welfare Reform for Immigrant
Integration,” Urban Institute presentation summary (March 8, 2002), http://www.urban.
org/publications/900497.html, accessed July 14, 2014.
3 Jeffrey S. Passel and D’Vera Cohn, “A Portrait of Unauthorized Immigrants in the
United States,” Pew Research Center report, April 14, 2009, 8, http://www.pewhispanic.
org/files/reports/107.pdf, accessed July 13, 2014.
4 Ibid., 1–3, 6.
5 Jeffrey S. Passel and Paul Taylor, “Unauthorized Immigrants and Their US-Born
Children,” Pew Research Center report, August 11, 2010, 1, table 2.
6 Passel and Taylor, “Unauthorized Immigrants,” 4; David Gonzalez, “A Family
Divided by 2 Words, Legal and Illegal,” New York Times, April 25, 2009.
7 Michael E. Fix and Wendy Zimmerman, “All under One Roof: Mixed-Status
Families in an Era of Reform,” Urban Institute research report, October 6, 1999, figure
1. About unauthorized immigrants in California, see also, Karina Fortuny, Randy Capps,
and Jeffrey S. Passel, “The Characteristics of Unauthorized Immigrants in California,
Los Angeles County, and the United States,” Urban Institute report, March 2007.
1

164

Chitose Sato

Passel and Cohn, “Portrait of Unauthorized Immigrants,” 21.
Ibid., 11, 14, 15, 16.
10 Ibid., 13.
11 Ibid., 16, 17.
12 Ibid., 17; Fix and Zimmerman, 2.
13 Fix and Zimmerman, 3; Ramah McKay, “Family Reunification,” Migration Policy
Institute spotlight, May 1, 2003.
14 “Immigration and Mixed-Status Families: ‘Sin País’ in Context,” PBS, POV:
Documentaries with a Point of View, August 9, 2012, http://www.pbs.org/pov/sinpais/
photo_gallery_background.php?photo=3D2#.VAWBibkcRBQ, accessed July 7, 2014;
Seth Freed Wessler, “Shattered Families: The Perilous Intersection of Immigration
Enforcement and the Child Welfare System,” Applied Research Center report, November
2011, 22.
15 Mariana E. Ormonde, “Debunking the Myth of the Anchor Baby,” Roger Williams
University Law Review 17, no. 3 (Summer 2012), 863–65.
16 Jon Feere, “Birthright Citizenship in the United States: A Global Comparison,”Center for Immigration Studies backgrounder, August 2010, 2–3.
17 Leo R. Chavez, The Latino Threat: Constructing Immigrants, Citizens, and the
Nation (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2013), 192–97.
18 Federation for American Immigration Reform, “About FAIR,” http://www.fairus.
org/about, accessed June 25, 2014.
19 Jack Martin and Eric A. Ruark, “The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on UnitedStates Taxpayers,” FAIR report, July 2010, 28.
20 Jack Martin, “The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on California Taxpayers,”
FAIR report, June 2014, 2, 3, 8.
21 Ibid., 6.
22 Quoted by Robert Longley in “Illegal Immigration Costs California over Ten Billion
Annually,” Your Guide to US Government Information/Resources, December 2004,
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/immigrationnaturalizatio/a/caillegals.htm, accessed July23, 2014.
23 Michael D. Antonovich, “Children of Illegal Aliens in Los Angeles County Cost
More Than $54 Million per Month,” June 14, 2013, http://michaeldantonovich.
com/2013/06/15/children-of-illegal-aliens-in-los-angeles-county-cost-more-than-54million-per-month, accessed July 12, 2014.
24 Ivette Sanchez, “Of Anchor Babies and Welfare Queens,” Columbia Political
Review, May 4, 2011. See also, Katrina Bloch and Tiffany Taylor, “Welfare Queens andAnchor Babies: A Comparative Study of Stigmatized Mothers in the United States” inMothering in the Age of Neoliberalism, ed. Melinda Vandenbeld Giles (Toronto: Demeter
Press, 2014).
8
9

“Mixed-Status Families” in the Age of Welfare Reform

165

Chavez, Latino Threat, 73–76; Mary Romero, “‘Go After the Women’: Mothers
Against Illegal Aliens’ Campaign against Mexican Immigrant Women and Their
Children,” Indiana Law Journal 83, no. 4 (Fall 2008), 1361.
26 Mary Romero, “Constructing Mexican Immigrant Women as a Threat to American
Families,” International Journal of Sociology of the Family 37, no. 1 (Spring 2011),
58–59.
27 Ibid., 59–62.
28 Ann Coulter, “America Nears El Tipping Pointo,” Ann Coulter, December 5, 2012,
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2012-12-05.html, accessed July 22, 2014.
29 Michael E. Fix and Ron Haskins, “Welfare Benefits for Non-Citizens,” policy brief
no. 15, Brookings Institution, February 2002.
30 Olivia Golden and Amelia Hawkins, “TANF Child-Only Cases,” Urban Institutebrief no. 3, November 2011, 4, 5, 6; Gretchen Rowe, Mary Murphy, and Ei Yin Mon,
“Welfare Rules Databook: State TANF Policies as of July 2009,” Urban Institute, 2010.
All qualified immigrants are covered in sixteen states including California, while in six
states only certain immigrants, such as victims of domestic violence and their children,
are covered by state-funded TANF. “Overview of Immigrants’ Eligibility for SNAP,TANF, Medicaid, and CHIP,” ASPE issue brief, US Department of Health and Human
Services, March 2012, 4.
31 Hana E. Brown, “Race, Legality, and the Social Policy Consequences of AntiImmigration Mobilization,” American Sociological Review 78, no. 2 (2013), 301–3.
32 In addition to IIP, there are four other kinds of child-only cases. They are nonparental
caregiver cases, safety net cases, sanctioned cases, and SSI (Supplemental Security
Income) cases. Golden and Hawkins, “TANF Child-Only Cases,” 1–4; Richard
Speiglman, Hans Bos, and Lorena Ortiz, “When Adults Are Left Out: CalWORKs ChildOnly Cases in Seven Counties,” CalWORKs Child-Only Study report no. 1, Speiglman
Norris Associates and Berkeley Policy Associates (May 2007), 2–3.
33 Jane Mauldon, Richard Speiglman, Christina Sogar, and Matt Stagner, “TANF
Child-Only Cases: Who Are They? What Policies Affect Them? What Is Being Done?,”report, Chapin Hall, University of Chicago, December 11, 2012, 99; Richard Speiglman,
Rosa-Maria Castaneda, Hana Brown, and Randy Capps, “Welfare Reform’s Ineligible
Immigrant Parents: Program Reach and Enrollment Barriers,” Journal of Children andPoverty 19, no. 2 (October 2013), 2.
34 Mauldon, Speiglman, Sogar, and Stagner, “TANF Child-Only Cases,” 104, 105,
106.
35 They are: Speiglman, Bos, and Ortiz, “When Adults Are Left Out”; Mauldon,
Speiglman, Sogar, and Stagner, “TANF Child-Only Cases”; and Charles J. Lieberman,
Vanessa Lindler, and Margaret O’Brien-Strain, “Assessing the Family Circumstances ofCurrent and Former TANF Child-Only Cases in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties,”
25

166

Chitose SatoSPHERE Institute, California Policy Review 2, no. 1, July 31, 2002. Individuals in thesestudies were almost exclusively Latino undocumented immigrants living in California,
and Spanish was the predominant language spoken by them.
36 Speiglman, Bos, and Ortiz, “When Adults Are Left Out,” 14; Lieberman, Lindler,
and O’Brien-Strain, “Assessing Family Circumstances,” 11, 12.
37 Lieberman, Lindler, and O’Brien-Strain, “Assessing Family Circumstances,” 18,
19, 28.
38 Ibid., 33, 34. About citizen children of unauthorized immigrant parents and foodstamps, see Jennifer Van Hook and Kelly Stamper Balistreri, “Ineligible Parents, Eligible
Children: Food Stamps Receipt, Allotments, and Food Insecurity among Children of
Immigrants,” Social Science Research, no. 1 (2006), 228–51.
39 Lieberman, Lindler, and O’Brien-Strain, “Assessing Family Circumstances,” 35,
36, 37. About immigrants and Medi-Cal, see Wendy Zimmermann and Michael E. Fix,
“Declining Immigrant Applications for Medi-Cal and Welfare Benefits in Los Angeles
County,” Urban Institute, July 1, 1998.
40 Speiglman, Bos, and Ortiz, “When Adults Are Left Out,” 22, 28.
41 Mauldon, Speiglman, Sogar, and Stagner, “TANF Child-Only Cases,” 112, 113.
42 Mauldon, Speiglman, Sogar, and Stagner, “TANF Child-Only Cases,” 113, 114;
Speiglman, Castaneda, Brown, and Capps, “Welfare Reform’s Ineligible ImmigrantParents,” 12.
43 Randy Capps, Leighton Ku, and Michael Fix, et al., “How Are Immigrants Faring
after Welfare Reform? Preliminary Evidence from Los Angeles and New York City,”
final report, Urban Institute, March 4, 2002, 15–18; Elizabeth K. Anthony, Catherine M.
Vu, and Michael J. Austin, “Children and Caregivers in TANF Child-Only Cases:
Identifying Unique Characteristics, Circumstances, and Needs,” Bay Area Social
Services Consortium, School of Social Welfare, University of California, Berkeley,February 2007, 8, 9, http://cssr.berkeley.edu/research_units/bassc/documents/
BASSCChild-OnlyFULLREPORT02.28.07.pdf, accessed June 2, 2014.
44 George J. Borjas, “The Impact of Welfare Reform on Immigrant Welfare Use,”
Center for Immigration Studies, March 2002.
45 Speiglman, Castaneda, Brown, and Capps, “Welfare Reform’s Ineligible ImmigrantParents,” 6, 7; Community Service Agency, Stanislaus County, “CalWORKs,” http://
www.stanworks.com/community-reports/other-services/content.php?nav=cash-aid/calworks.htm, accessed July 15, 2014.
46 Speiglman, Castaneda, Brown, and Capps, “Welfare Reform’s Ineligible ImmigrantParents,” 7–8.
47 Heather Sandstorm, Sandra Huerta, and Pamela Loprest, “Understanding the
Dynamics of Disconnection from Employment and Assistance,” final report, Urban
Institute, May 2014, 33.

“Mixed-Status Families” in the Age of Welfare Reform

167

Ibid., 33.
Ibid., 33.
50 Speiglman, Castaneda, Brown, and Capps, “Welfare Reform’s Ineligible ImmigrantParents,” 8, 9.
51 Speiglman, Castaneda, Brown, and Capps, “Welfare Reform’s Ineligible ImmigrantParents,” 9, 10; Alejandra Marchevsky and Jeanne Theoharis, “Dropped from the Rolls:
Mexican Immigrants, Race, and Rights in the Era of Welfare Reform,” Journal of
Sociology and Social Welfare 35, no. 3 (September 2008), 76–78.
52 Speiglman, Castaneda, Brown, and Capps, “Welfare Reform’s Ineligible ImmigrantParents,” 9.
53 National Immigration Law Center, “Immigrants and Domestic Violence: California,”
May 7, 2001, http://www.nilc.org/dv_caalworks.html, accessed July 16, 2014. About
domestic violence and immigrant women, see Mary Dutton, Leslye Orloff, and Giselle
Aguilar Hass, “Characteristics of Help-Seeking Behaviors, Resources, and Services
Needs of Battered Immigrant Latinas: Legal and Policy Implications,” Georgetown
Journal on Poverty Law and Policy 7, no. 2 (Summer 2000), 245–305.
54 Wayne Lutton, “Anchor Babies,” Social Contract 6, no. 4 (Summer 1996), 3; Feere,“Birthright Citizenship,” 4, 5.
55 Douglas Massey and Magaly Sánchez, Brokered Boundaries: Creating Immigrant
Identity in Anti-Immigrant Times (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2010), chap. 2.
56 Chavez, Latino Threat, 195, 196.
57 Feere, “Birthright Citizenship,” 3–4. About birth tourism, see, W. D. Reasoner,“Birthright Citizenship for the Children of Visitors: A National Security Problem in the
Making?,” Center for Immigration Studies backgrounder, March 2011.
48
49