Congress passed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) in August 1996. This major welfare reform bill explicitly barred legal immigrant eligibility for most federal means‐tested public benefits. This article applies a Foucauldian method of analysis to congressional discourse surrounding legal immigrant exclusion from welfare. Such an approach examines how political issues are constructed to reveal the use of power and discursive rules in the production of socially and politically acceptable truths. I argue that legislators used specific discursive constructions to frame immigrant exclusion provisions. These discursive approaches, often at odds with empirical data, reinforced existing ideology and governed the employable concepts that held power in the debate. The analysis also demonstrates that political discourse implicitly revolved around the “immigrant bargain.” Elements of this bargain included the ideal type of immigrant desired by the United States and the proper relationship of the nation to such immigrants.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.