Queens College & The Graduate Center, The City University of New York, Flushing, New York City, NY 11367, USA.
Soc Sci Med. 2012 Mar;74(6):822-9. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.05.050. Epub 2011 Jun 25.
This article addresses the main scholarly frames that supported the deservingness of unauthorized immigrants to health benefits in the United States (U.S.) following the passage of the Personal Responsibility Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA), known as the Welfare Reform bill, in 1996. Based on a critical literature review, conducted between January 1997 and March 2011, this article begins with an analysis of the public health rhetorics that endorsed immigrants' inclusion into the U.S. health safety net. In this vein, the "cost-saving" and "the effortful immigrant" frames underscore immigrants' contributions to society vis-à-vis their low utilization of health services. These are complemented by a "surveillance" account that claims to protect the American public from communicable diseases. A "maternalistic" frame is also discussed as a tool to safeguard families, and particularly immigrant mothers, in their roles as bearers and caretakers of their American-born children. The analyses of the "chilling" and the "injustice" frames are then introduced to underscore major anthropological contributions to the formulation of counter-mainstream discourses on immigrants' selective inclusion into the U.S. health care system. First, the "chilling effect," defined as the voluntary withdrawal from health benefits, is examined in light of unauthorized immigrants' internalized feelings of undeservingness. Second, an "injustice" narrative highlights both the contributions and the limitations of a social justice paradigm, which advocated for the restoration of government benefits to elderly immigrants and refugees after the passage of PRWORA. By analyzing the contradictions among all these diverse frames, this paper finally reflects on the conceptual challenges faced by medical anthropology, and the social sciences at large, in advancing health equity and human rights paradigms.
本文探讨了 1996 年《个人责任和工作机会协调法案》(PRWORA),即“福利改革法案”通过后,美国在医疗福利方面给予无证移民应得地位的主要学术框架。本研究采用批判性文献回顾法,检索了 1997 年 1 月至 2011 年 3 月间的相关文献,首先分析了支持将移民纳入美国健康保障网的公共卫生修辞。在此基础上,“节省成本”和“努力的移民”框架强调了移民对社会的贡献,因为他们对医疗服务的利用程度较低。此外,还有“监控”这一说法,声称这一框架旨在保护美国公众免受传染病的侵害。本文还讨论了“慈善”框架,将其作为保护家庭,特别是移民母亲作为美籍儿童的抚养者和照顾者的一种手段。接着分析了“寒蝉效应”和“不公正”框架,强调了人类学对移民有选择性地纳入美国医疗保健体系的主流话语的重要贡献。首先,根据无证移民的自感不应得的心理,研究了“寒蝉效应”,即自愿退出医疗福利。其次,“不公正”叙事强调了社会正义范式的贡献和局限性,该范式倡导在 PRWORA 通过后,恢复政府对老年移民和难民的福利。通过分析所有这些不同框架之间的矛盾,本文最终反思了医学人类学以及整个社会科学在推进健康公平和人权范式方面所面临的概念挑战。