To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure email@example.com
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
State Medical Aid is a public health insurance program that allows undocumented immigrants with low financial resources to access health care services for free. However, the low take-up rate of this program might threaten its efficiency. The purpose of this study is therefore to provide the determinants of such a low take-up rate. To this end, we rely on the Premier Pas survey. This is an original representative sample of undocumented immigrants attending places of assistance to vulnerable populations in France. Determinants of State Medical Aid take-up are analyzed through probit and Cox modeling. The results show that only 51% of those who are eligible for the State Medical Aid program are actually covered, and this proportion is higher among women than among men. The length of stay in France is the most important determinant of take-up. It is worth noting that State Medical Aid take-up is not associated with chronic diseases or functional limitations and is negatively associated with poor mental health. There is, therefore, mixed evidence of health selection into the program. Informational barriers and vulnerabilities experienced by undocumented immigrants are likely to explain this low take-up.
Chapter 6 examines the effect of group empathy on public reactions to undocumented immigration. Results from a national survey experiment demonstrate that group empathy is significantly linked to attitudes about undocumented immigrants, even after controlling for other predispositions including partisanship, ideology, social dominance orientation (SDO), immigration threat, and more. While the significant effects of group empathy apply to all racial/ethnic groups, we find that minorities display higher levels of group empathy than whites do, which in turn lead to more favorable views of undocumented immigrants. Our experimental findings further reveal substantial intergroup differences in reactions to white versus non-white immigrants. African Americans and Latinos were far more likely to side with immigrant detainees in distress of all races/ethnicities and were also more supportive of pro-civil rights policies and actions compared to whites. African Americans were far more likely to take the side of an immigrant if he/she was nonwhite. Latinos, likely because they view the issue as more relevant to their group, were strongly opposed to punitive actions and policies regardless of the race/ethnicity of the immigrant. Finally, we confirm that differences in group-based empathic reactions help explain these racial/ethnic gaps in political attitudes and behavior concerning undocumented immigration.
takes a deeper examination of the dynamics that produce advancements in progressive state citizenship, with cases from both the historical and contemporary periods: the two-decade push for driver’s licenses in California and New York, the timing and spread of state sanctuary laws on immigration since 2005, and a historical examination of Black state citizenship in the antebellum North. Using the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) of policy change, the authors argue that some of the most notable legislative advancements in progressive state citizenship have occurred because of the intersection of two key factors: state advocacy coalitions that unite strong social movement actors and legislative champions alike, combined with policy openings created by federalism tensions. The chapter concludes by offering thoughts on the future of progressive state citizenship in a politically polarized United States.
Since 1981, there has been a sea change in longstanding policies of jus soli, or birthright citizenship, reinforcing the global divide between affluent spaces of whiteness and impoverished spaces of nonwhiteness. I argue that these moves highlight the global system of citizenship as an increasingly consequential aspect of what Charles Mills terms the Racial Contract: the set of agreements, historically explicit and currently tacit, that divides the earth's peoples into full persons—Whites—and subpersons—nonwhites—such that the latter are constitutive outsiders to the political, moral, and epistemological norms that structure the White social world. Mills posits that the present phase of the Racial Contract disconnects present geographies of inequality from the violent history of the earlier phase that brought them into being, thereby moving them outside the realm of redress. I focus on formal citizenship as a central locus of such erasure, using the figuration of the undocumented mother in the controversy over U.S. birthright citizenship as a case study. I argue that the global regime of citizenship perpetuates White supremacy in two ways: first, through a Westphalian map of citizenship, and second, through gendered and raced neoliberal norms of citizenship. The alchemy between these two rationalities both entrenches and hides the violence of the Racial Contract. Building upon Mills' standpoint epistemology, I analyze arguments from both sides of a 1995 congressional hearing on birthright citizenship. I argue that the arguments opposing birthright citizenship exhibit what can be thought of as a White epistemology of citizenship, which relies upon a profound amnesia about the exclusionary and violent history of the global regime of citizenship.
Over the past four decades, increasingly punitive and enforcement-oriented U.S. immigration policies have been legitimized by a rhetoric of criminality that stigmatizes Latino immigrant workers and intensifies their exploitation. Simultaneously, there has been a sevenfold increase in the prison population in the United States, in which African Americans are eight times more likely to be jailed than Whites (Western 2006, p. 3). In this paper, I draw on scholarship in history and sociology, as well as my own anthropological research, to develop the argument that criminal justice policies and immigration policies together disempower low-wage U.S. labor and maintain categorical racial inequalities in a “postracial” United States. First, I review the historical role of race in U.S. immigration policy, and I consider the evidence for systemic racism in immigration enforcement in the contemporary period. Second, I discuss criminal legislation in the neoliberal era and examine the ways in which criminal legislation and immigration policies together disempower large segments of the U.S. workforce, satisfying employer demands for low cost and pliant labor. Finally, I argue that a political focus on immigrant workers' “illegality” masks the role of the state in (re)defining the legal status of low-wage workers and veils the ways in which punitive policies maintain historical racial and class inequalities.
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.