38
of food insecurity were still not likely to be accessing food stamps. While various states
have used options under the welfare reform law to extend food stamps and Medicaid to
selected groups of immigrants, the elderly in particular, poor immigrant families with
remain ineligible for federally funded TANF and in some cases other benefits as well.
Capps, et al. also found that large number of immigrant families had limited
English proficiency (over two-thirds depending how it is measured). Limited English
proficiency compounded immigrants’ lack of access to needed benefits, reducing
participation in cases where families were eligible. Confusion about program rules
regarding eligibility for assistance added slightly to lower levels of participation.
Agencies often did not provide translation services even when a significant proportion of
their clientele were people who were not proficient in English. Treating both English and
non-English speakers the same way by not providing either of them with translating
services was perhaps yet another way that “equal” treatment reinforced disparities in
accessing services, leaving welfare and becoming “self-sufficient” (also see Shelton and
Owen 2003).
These findings suggest that welfare reform has significantly curtailed immigrants’
access to needed assistance in ways that has dramatically increased hardship. These
families remain in a distinctive situation of categorical exclusion from welfare benefits
and services. Unfortunately, the changing shape of international relations post 9/11 has
decreased what support there was for rectifying this disparity, which now is likely to
persist beyond welfare reauthorization. How should we interpret the systematic exclusion
of immigrants, who are disproportionately nonwhite? Is this a sign of how welfare policy
Convention