California’s current budget crisis has forced several well-established programs to the brink of elimination. Among these, welfare programs for legal immigrants to the state of California have been placed under intense scrutiny. Specifically, Governor Schwarzenegger proposes to completely terminate CAPI, CFAP and CalWORKS. These programs all apply to low-income, disabled, or elderly legal immigrants and provide welfare assistance that allows these immigrants access to basic necessities, such as food and health care. The details of these proposals and their implications are described in more detail in previous entries.
While Schwarzenegger has been successful in pushing these budget cuts on to the government decision agenda, as discussed in Memo 1, he is facing heavy opposition in his attempt to actually pass them into law. His most influential opponents, and the ones explicated in this analysis, are scholars and experts who argue in defense of immigrants’ rights. Specifically, the reports created by analysts at the California Immigrant Policy Center (CPIC) have been of utmost importance in the debate of the proposed immigrant cuts. These reports argue that not only are the cuts unfair and devastating to the immigrant population, they are economically inefficient for the state of California. By appealing to the emotional side of the public, CPIC is able to gain media attention, and has had reports cited in numerous California newspapers. More importantly however, CPIC creates rational economic arguments about the cuts that provide legislators and political elites with solid evidence against their efficacy. Thus far, the attempts of CPIC have been effective in shaping policy outcomes because of their ability to appeal to both of these groups. This analysis will track the efforts of the CPIC as a membership group of experts to change the proposed reforms. It will then describe the effects on the opinion of the public, and subsequently political elites, on these issues.
In January of this year, Governor Schwarzenegger released his plan to balance the annual California budget, including the cuts to immigrant welfare programs. Within days, the experts at CPIC responded with a report entitled Governor Again Proposes Drastic Cuts to Programs for Lawful Immigrants in California, in which they explicated the immediate impact of each of Schwarzenegger’s proposals on immigrants. The report focused on the intrinsic importance of each of the programs, and the dire consequences that their elimination would cause. CPIC purported to generate public sympathy for “California’s most vulnerable residents [who] are being asked to shoulder the burden of balancing the state’s budget.”[1] The language of the report also placed the blame squarely on Schwarzenegger, several times citing the proposals as specifically his, in a negative connotation: “the Governor has proposed to cut off all assistance to a very small number of families who would become destitute without this means of assistance.”[2] The purpose of this report was to generate public sympathy for the populace affected by the proposed cuts, and catalyze public action on the issue.
More recently, the CPIC has followed its initial report with a publicly accessible and informative pamphlet, detailing not only the negative impacts of the cuts on immigrants, but also the cost to the California economy as a whole. Generally, the CPIC argues that “California will not be well-served by budget decisions that increase homelessness, emergency room use and put vulnerable seniors, the disabled and children at risk.” The pamphlet then details the specific economic impacts of the elimination of CAPI, CFAP and CalWORKS individually. The analysts at CPIC conclude that savings from the cuts would be far lower than anticipated. Additionally, health care costs would increase due to a lack of preventative care for low-income immigrants. Finally, overall economic productivity in California would decrease as immigrants, who make up over one-third of California’s workforce[3], are forced to relocate.
In February of 2010, the economic forecasters at CPIC released “Looking Forward: Immigrant Contributions to the Golden State.”[4] This report delves into deeper economic detail regarding the current positive impact that immigrants have on California’s GDP, and how this impact would be partially nullified if low-income immigrant families were forced to move due to welfare cuts. CPIC cites the role of immigrants as entrepreneurs, and their strong presence in the manufacturing, agriculture, and service industries. The analysis also stresses the heavy contribution that immigrants make through spending and tax contributions: Immigrants in California have a combined federal tax contribution of more than $30 billion annually.[5] The logic follows that if immigrants are denied welfare in California, their spending will decrease, and their tax contribution may disappear entirely if they relocate. The report closes by emphasizing: “Immigrants often require the most assistance immediately upon arrival to the United States. As immigrants reside in the state for a longer period of time, they are less likely to use services and more likely to contribute significant amounts.”[6] This is clearly a call to California citizens and political leaders alike to realize not only that these program cuts are unfair, but also that they are economically unsound for California in the long run.
Having explored the efforts of the CPIC to change public opinion in the context of immigration welfare, it is important to understand the significance of these endeavors in actually shaping policy. According to Frederick M. Hess, policy experts and analysts have a crucial role through their ability shaping public opinion. In When Education Research Matters, Hess postulates that a main role of experts “Is not to dictate outcomes but to ensure that public decision-making is informed by all the facts, insights, and analyses that the tools of science can provide.”[7] There is clear evidence that CPIC fulfills this role effectively, provided mainly by their numerous citations in California newspapers and radio broadcasts. The San Diego Union Tribune, the Fresno Bee, the Orange County Register, the Bay City News Service, and the Associated Press, among others, have all cited one of the three reports mentioned above in making arguments for California support of legal immigrants. For example, in an article entitled Another Inconvenient Truth, the San Diego Union Tribune uses research conducted by the CPIC to refute the commonly held biases against immigrants. Regarding immigrants: “Supposedly, whether they arrive legally or illegally, their chief ambition is to simply collect welfare, milk social services and otherwise sponge off America’s generosity. This is just no so [and] that point was recently driven home again with the release of a new [CPIC] report.”[8] The article goes on to cite CPIC’s February report Looking forward: Immigrant Contributions to the Golden State extensively. Similarly, other newspapers cite CPIC reports to create arguments favorable towards immigrants. Some newspapers also quote CPIC experts opinions, as Bay City News Service does in its article Report: Immigrants Contribute Greatly to California: “As lawmakers consider immigration reform, ‘it’s important to ensure the debate is informed and based on data,’ said CPIC director Reshma Shamasunder.”[9] It is clear that the opinion of CPIC experts is being widely circulated through media sources to much of the California public. This is important to consider as public officials in making their policy decisions increasingly consider public opinion. Although there have been no studies or polls on the effect of CPIC’s research, it is likely that its widespread media attention has made its findings highly influential.
While public opinion is important to consider, policy reform ultimately lies in the hand of legislators themselves. Frederick Hess a
rgues that in addition to shaping opinions, experts have the role of informing political elites. He states: “The cluttered informational environment requires that someone distill, explain, promote, and convey research to public officials if it is to be influential.”[10] The experts at CPIC play exactly this role, and fall into Hess’s definition of experts that are part of membership groups with interests and policy agendas. According to their mission statement: “CIPC will work with legislators and advocates in Sacramento to support policies that promote pro-immigrant budget and fiscal planning, and address the needs of immigrants and their families through legislative efforts.”[11] CIPC experts work to convey their research to policymakers in the most direct manner possible. In the past, CIPC has had success in its endeavors – in 2006 CIPC sponsored two bills that Governor Schwarzenegger signed into law.[12] Today, CIPC is still working to remove the welfare cuts from Governor Schwarzenegger’s budget proposal. Already CIPC has seen some success – at the end of March senate subcommittee #3 voted down Schwarzenegger’s trigger proposal to eliminate all funding to CalWORKS, if necessary to balance the budget[13]. This was a victory, and a step in the right direction for proponents of immigrants’ rights across California. However, the final outcomes of the efforts of the analysts at CPIC are not yet known, and will only be completely settled when California’s annual budget has been finalized.
[1] Cajina, Vanessa. Governor Again Proposes Drastic Cuts to Program for Lawful Immigrant in California. Rep. Sacramento: California Immigrant Policy Center, 2010. Print.
[2] Governor Again Proposes Drastic Cuts to Program for Lawful Immigrant in California.
[3] The Cost of Cutting Immigrant Programs: Illness, Hunger and Homelessness. Sacramento: California Immigrant Policy Center, 2010. Print.
[4] Reshma, Shamasunder, and Isabel Alegria, eds. Looking Forward: Immigrant Contributions to the Golden State. Rep. Sacramento: California Immigrant Policy Center, 2010. Print.
[5] Looking Forward: Immigrant Contributions to the Golden State.
[6] Looking Forward: Immigrant Contributions to the Golden State.
[7] Hess, Frederick M. “When Education Research Matters.” When Education Research Matters: How Scholarship Influences Education Policy (2008). Web. 21 Apr. 2010.
[8] “Another Inconvenient Truth.” San Diego News, Local, California and National News – SignOnSanDiego.com. Web. 30 Apr. 2010. <http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/jan/29/another-inconvenient-truth/>.
[9] “Report: Immigrants Contribute Greatly To California – News Story – KRXI Reno.” Reno – Lake Tahoe News, Weather, Sports & Entertainment – FOXReno. Web. 30 Apr. 2010. <http://www.foxreno.com/news/22346175/detail.html>.
[10] Hess, Frederick M. “When Education Research Matters.” When Education Research Matters: How Scholarship Influences Education Policy (2008). Web. 21 Apr. 2010.
[11] “Policy Center – CIPC.” Welcome to the California Immigrant Policy Center – CIPC. Web. 24 Apr. 2010. <https://caimmigrant.org/policy_center.html>.
[12] “Policy Center – CIPC.” Welcome to the California Immigrant Policy Center – CIPC. Web. 24 Apr. 2010. <https://caimmigrant.org/policy_center.html>.
[13] Omoto, Marty. “Senate Committee Rejects Governor’s Budget Pro.” CALegalAdvocates.org. Web. 26 Apr. 2010. <http://www.calegaladvocates.org/news/article.305036-Senate_committee_rejects_Governors_budget_proposals_to_cut_human_services>
Pingback: California’s Budget Crisis and Immigrant Welfare: The Proposed Cuts to Crucial Programs for Legal Immigrants « Alexalvarado1990's Blog