How to overcome language barriers? An analysis of policy rhetoric on immigrants and English-learning programs of the US social welfare policies

• In Event: Language, Mobility, and Transnationalism

Proposal

Protest needs power of language. In other words, the better language proficiency people have, the more powerful the protest will be. However, for new immigrants in the United States, it is hard for them to overcome language barrier and be proficient in English. If so, we can also imagine the new immigrants cannot have access to protests to strive for their rights. Therefore, they cannot help but be the “silent” ones even though they are willing to support the protests. In fact, new immigrants are supposed to learn English with the support of the social welfare policy in the United States.
As for the social welfare policy in the United States, it can be traced back to British Colonial Era in North America. It is also obvious that the welfare system at that time followed or imitated England’s traditional poor laws and practices, such as Elizabeth Poor Law of 1600 and the government played a more and more crucial role in implementing social welfare policy. (Mohl, 1973) To be more specific, Quigley (1996) went into more depth how the Colonial American Poor Laws worked and proposed that the policy goal of it was to “assist” and “regulate” diverse groups of the poor. Most importantly, such laws espouse two key principles: the “Puritan Work Ethics” and the aids only provided for “neighbors” instead of “strangers”.
Firstly, the Puritan Work Ethics refers to the notion that someone would eat if he or she does work. Otherwise, he or she would not deserve to gain the social aids. The laws provided help for the “worthy poor”, meaning that the aids were provided for the neighbors who were unable to work while strangers were not included for any assistance. Secondly, what’s worse in such laws at that time is that “strangers”, the immigrants, would be forced to return to their homelands or be put into jail. If so, we can tell the core value of the social welfare policy system in the United States keep aligning with the two principles. It is also noted that Quigely (1998) showed the welfare reform in 1996, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act (the PRWORA), reflected many themes of the English poor laws. For example, all poor people who can work will be put to work; poverty is regarded as individual moral failure, and the assistance to the poor is limited to “local poor people”.
In fact, immigrant labors have been doubted for their loyalty and contributions for a long time. For example, Voss (2018) focused on the lived experiences of 19th century Chinese immigrant railroad workers. These labors were not only discriminated and undervalued with lower pay by their “inferior race” but also excluded from the social welfare policy system in the United States. They led a precarious life because most of them did tiring jobs with human muscles and hand tools. It is no surprise that they frequently got injured and became ill. Without a solid physical and mental support system, these immigrant labors turned to seek for alcohol drinks and opium, which made their bodies weaker and weaker.
Immigrant labors might have been attracted with a so-called “American Dream” to seek for a better life after leaving their hometown. “American Dream” means that people in America can have access to equal opportunity and success if they work hard. (Knight et al., 2015) However, there are a lot of barriers and obstacles in the process before they succeed. Previous studies have shown that language barriers would be the main obstacles for immigrants who tried to apply for social welfare. To be more specific, if immigrants have relatively poor English proficiency, it would be more challenging for them to gain support in health care and childcare from the social welfare system in the United States. Compared to native-born welfare applicants, immigrant welfare applicants with lower English proficiency leave the welfare rolls at a much slower rate. (Tummin & Zimmerman, 2003; Ku & Matani, 2001; Kretsedemas, 2005)
We know language barriers are the main factor to prevent immigrant welfare applicants from the social welfare system. However, what type of policy rhetoric against immigrants embedded in social welfare policies is implemented, how English-learning programs help immigrants have access to social welfare system, and what we can do help immigrants navigate the tough situation in the language barriers of English-learning are still unknown. In order to figure out the research gaps, I plan to go over studies related to immigrants, English-learning programs and social welfare policies in the United States.
Moreover, to strengthen my argument in this topic, I will also use the qualitative data collected in April, 2022. The data is a semi-structured interview with several high School Chinese American immigrant students in Los Angeles, which helps us figure out how challenging it is when immigrants, adults in particular, try to fit in the life in the United States and learn English. To sum up, my research questions are two as follows.
1. What type of policy rhetoric against immigrants is embedded in social welfare policies in the US-based context? Is there any counter-rhetoric against the main policy rhetoric? If so, does it work or not?
2. How do English-learning programs help immigrants have access to social welfare system in the United States? What else can policy makers or practitioners do to help immigrants navigate the tough situation in the language barriers of English-learning?
This study is important because we need to figure out how English-learning programs embedded in social welfare system of the United States impedes new immigrants to have access to protests. If so, researchers can go more depth about how to effectively and efficiently empower new immigrants through language-learning programs and then they can be shaped as potential protestor and strive for their own rights in the near future!

Author

• Kathy Yi-Hang Li, UCLA