Survey Exposes Myths About Immigrants

In the first comprehensive survey of amnesty applicants, the state Health and Welfare Agency reported Tuesday that the overwhelming majority of California’s newly legalized immigrants hold jobs, rarely utilize government assistance, lack health insurance but claim to be in generally good health.

“The stereotype is that immigrants come in and try to take advantage of government programs,” said Jose Roberto Juarez, regional counsel for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund. “But in fact, there is tremendous under-utilization (of government assistance) by immigrants because often they are fearful of doing anything that would expose them or that would jeopardize their legal status.”

Commissioned by the Legislature in 1988, the statewide sampling of 5,000 amnesty applicants showed that 70% reported that they were employed full time in the month before the survey was conducted, during four months in 1989. And most drew wages that put them just above the national poverty level of $230 a week for a family of four.

According to the Health and Welfare Agency survey, the median weekly income for families of “Pre-82” applicants--those eligible for amnesty because they entered the United States before 1982--was $400 to $499; the median weekly income for families of “special agricultural workers”--those eligible because they had labored at least 90 days in the fields--was $350 to $399.

The national median weekly income for a family of four is $523, according to the Census Bureau.

The survey found that among the “Pre-82” applicants, more than 90% have never collected food stamps; among the agricultural workers, 94% had never done so. The survey’s findings were similar for other government programs.

The state survey, which examined the major health, educational and social service needs of a population that is just emerging from the shadows of illegality, also found that more than half of the amnesty applicants lack health insurance protection, compared to 37% of the state’s general Latino population and 22% of the total population. But about 90% described themselves as being in “excellent” or “good” health--a claim made by only 78% of the general Latino population.

The survey was conducted between February and July of 1989 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 2%.

State Health and Welfare Secretary Clifford L. Allenby said the survey “tells us that these newly legalized persons are working, are in good health, but have greater needs in areas of health access and education than the general population.”

Some immigrant rights advocates criticized the survey because the sampling included only those enrolled in English-language classes required for some amnesty applicants. But other advocates who work with immigrants from San Francisco to San Diego hailed the results as the most thorough documentation to date that amnesty applicants in California are a struggling group that is nevertheless not living off government handouts.

Still others viewed the survey, which cost almost $200,000, as a waste of taxpayers’ money.

“The thing has been studied to death,” said Muriel Watson, a leader of San Diego-based Light up the Border, a group that has called for stricter enforcement of immigration laws.

Watson said the stiff requirements of the amnesty law have assured that the newly legalized immigrants are a stable and for the most part hard-working population. A bigger problem for the country, she said, is continuing illegal immigration, which the state study does not address.

“Legal migration is fine,” Watson said. “I think the whole nation concurs. But illegal immigration is no good for anyone, including immigrants themselves.”

More than half of the 3 million undocumented aliens in the United States who qualified for amnesty under the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act live in California, with about 60% of those in the Los Angeles area and 184,000 in Orange County.

The landmark federal legislation provided a period of amnesty from deportation laws to undocumented immigrants who met certain requirements. To receive permanent residency status, they had to complete classes in English, civics and history, or pass a proficiency test.

Of those applicants surveyed, 82% of the pre-’82 applicants said they were from Mexico, as were 93% of special agricultural workers. The other applicants came from El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua and Colombia.

The study divided those surveyed into two groups, the pre-’82 applicants who qualified for amnesty by proving that they had lived here since 1982, and those special agricultural workers who qualified by proving that they spent at least 90 days laboring in the fields regardless of when they entered the country.

While enrolled in the amnesty program, applicants cannot receive certain public assistance benefits for five years from the date they are granted temporary legal residence.

But the survey indicated that even before amnesty, few applicants obtained public aid from a half dozen of the most well-known federal programs.

Of the pre-’82 applicants, more than 90% said they had never sought General Assistance, food stamps, Aid to Families with Dependent Children, Supplemental Security Income or Social Security benefits.

Few applicants said they received food stamps even now, although it is considered non-cash assistance permissible under the amnesty regulations for special agricultural workers.

According to the survey, about 75% of the respondents said they had less than a functional level of English language proficiency.

The survey was conducted at 82 agencies throughout the state that offer English-language classes for immigrants. Richard Epstein, the Health and Welfare Agency’s study project manager, said his agency decided it would be more practical to go to the schools rather than conduct the survey door-to-door or through a random telephone sampling.

“We’re obviously leaving out anyone who didn’t enroll” in language classes, he said. “On the other hand, it’s the best possible sampling method that was practicable. Education is the program for which we have expected and found the highest incidence of use among immigrants.”

Indeed, the federal amnesty law required those who could prove that they lived in this country since 1982 to attend 40 hours of English language instruction and civics classes. Those who qualified for amnesty under the state agricultural workers program--and they make up about 41% of the state’s amnesty applicants, Epstein said--are not required to attend English language instruction.

“It seems like it automatically skews it,” complained Emily Goldfarb of the San Francisco-based Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights and Services. “Most of these people enrolled are the people who are the best-informed, the best prepared and the ones with the best access to information.”

But Goldfarb said the survey will at least provide concrete information that could help serve immigrants. “It’s just been historically hard to get anybody to care about services for immigrants,” she said. “To that extent a survey is really helpful, because it will give legitimacy to those in the field.”

Luin Goldring, a visiting scholar in the U.S.-Mexican studies program at UC San Diego, said the survey “tells us a bit more about who had been stable enough to have rent receipts and work receipts” to prove residency and therefore gain legal status.

“It tells us very little about who didn’t manage to get legal status, and how those people would be different from the population as a whole,” she said.

Many of the results were not surprising to those who work in the area of immigration. But they said the information would serve to debunk many myths about immigrants.

“I’m so glad this is coming out now,” said Evelyn Colon Becktell, chairwoman of the Orange County Coalition for Immigrant Rights. “And I hope it gets a lot of publicity because this is such a misconception among the general population that a lot of these folks coming over the line are relying on our welfare system and that is so far from the truth.”

THE SURVEY AT A GLANCE

From “A Survey of Newly Legalized Persons in California.” “Pre-82s” refer to immigrants eligible for amnesty because they entered the U.S. before 1982; SAWs refer to special agricultural workers eligible because they were employed at least 90 days in the fields, even though they may have entered the county more recently than 1982.

80% scored below minimal functional level of English proficiency.

90% reported to be in good or excellent health.

82% of Pre-82s and 93% of SAWs reportedly from Mexico.

70% work full time.

80% intend to apply for citizenship.

Of the 3 million applicants in the nation, 55% live in California.

About half the applicants are expected to be approved for citizenship.

Median net weekly income per family for Pre-82s is $400-$449; for SAWs $350-$399.

Source: California Health and Welfare Agency BENEFITS USED BY AMNESTY APPLICANTS

Never Used Now Receiving **Pre-’82 SAW Pre-’82 SAW Food Stamps 90.5% 94.0% 2.9% 3.2*% Aid/Families w/Dep. Children 95.6 98.8 0.9 0.3 Supplemental Security Income 98.1 99.6 1.0 0.2 General Assistance 95.7 99.1 1.0 0.3 Women, Infants and Children 77.3 89.2 5.0 4.5 Social Security 97.5 99.5 1.3 0.2 Unemployment Insurance 85.1 88.6 1.9 3.4

** The survey was based on interviews with 4,200 immigrants who entered the United States before1982 (Pre-’82) and 800 special agricultural workers (SAW).

* Note: Figures do not total 100% because chart excludes the lesser categories of 1. Those who received aid less than 5 years ago; 2. Those who received aid 5 or more years ago; 3. Those who refused to answer.

Source: California Health and Welfare Agency

AMNESTY SURVEY The survey of amnesty applicants in California indicated that more than two-thirds were working full time. Arrived before 1982: Working full time: 70% Special agricultural worker: Working full time: 75% Arrived before 1982: Working part time: 7% Special agricultural worker: Working part time: 8% Arrived before 1982: Going to school: 21% Special agricultural worker: Going to school: 25% Arrived before 1982: Staying at home: 15% Special agricultural worker: Staying at home: 5% Arrived before 1982: Looking for work: 4% Special agricultural worker: Looking for work: 7% Arrived before 1982: Unable to work: 2% Special agricultural worker: Unable to work: 3% Arrived before 1982: Other: 3% Special agricultural worker: Other: 2% Health Insurance The survey also indicated that fewer than half had any form of health insurance, a much lower rate than the general adult population. Special agricultural worker: 30% Arrived before 1982: 46% General Latino populatin in Calif.: 63% Population as a whole in Calif.: 78% Note: Multiple responses resulted in percentage totals not equaling 100%.

Source: California Health and Welfare Agency