Conditional Citizens: On Belonging in America

With a continuing focus on intersectionality, Lalami combines her own experiences with a historical trend of disenfranchising the impoverished. Her apartment has fleas, and the tenants are all poor. Many of them receive some form of government assistance. Political and cultural rhetoric makes an association between parasites and poor people, which emphasizes the American perception that the impoverished are poor by choice. In Morocco, however, poverty and wealth are both seen as a matter of chance. This contrast reveals that the presumption of choice is at the heart of many discussions regarding how best to help poor Americans. If the cultural starting point in this discussion frames poor Americans as lazy or dishonest, then most Americans will reject social welfare programs as a kind of theft that takes tax dollars from hardworking Americans and gives them to Americans who don’t work hard. As with issues of immigration and race, prejudice against the poor impacts the ways in which society treats poor Americans, but it also removes or infringes on the rights of poor Americans, further reducing their efficacy, or their ability to enact change.

Two political developments are outlined in this essay: increasing requirements placed on welfare recipients and shifting requirements for voting, both of which are shown to specifically disadvantage poor Americans, people of color, women, and immigrants. Lalami notes that Governor Pete Wilson of California supported Proposition 187, which denied undocumented immigrants access to education and healthcare, even though they made up a large portion of the pool of laborers in the state. This decision to deny rights to those who contribute most to the economic stability of the state reflects the broader process of denying access to assistance and voting rights to many groups of Americans. Lalami details the ways in which California has made welfare increasingly difficult to receive, including prosecuting suspected welfare fraud as a criminal—rather than administrative—offense. At the same time, as more groups gained suffrage, or the right to vote, the government took measures to restrict the voting rights of people of color and women, usually by targeting their poverty. Poll taxes and certifications make voting an expense that many households cannot afford, and setting election dates as single weekdays prevents many people from voting, as they are unable to take time off from work to make it to a polling place.

Dominant groups, including white, wealthy, and even middle-class Americans, perceive themselves as the main contributors in society, meaning that their tax dollars should go to serve their interests. As such, they view those who rely on assistance from the government much like Lalami’s fleas, as parasites that appropriate funds that could otherwise be used to improve their lives. This view relies on the perception that impoverished people choose to be poor, when the reality is that non-white workers and women make objectively less money, even in the same positions, than white male workers. Additionally, the shifting conditions of welfare and voting rights prevent these groups from exerting the political pressure needed to enact change. Race plays a deeper role in attempting to resolve these issues, as “white support for social welfare programs drops when they believe these programs advance nonwhites” (133). This is rooted in another misconception, as most welfare recipients are white. By noting that presidential candidates as diverse as Clinton and Trump vowed to end welfare, Lalami highlights the racist underpinnings of this political stance: In reality, the desire is to end welfare programs for poor non-white people but maintain social support systems for white recipients.

As in prior essays, Lalami explores an intersectional issue in which race, gender, and class all cross each other in determining one’s standing in society. A trend emerges in which disadvantaged groups are characterized as lazy or dishonest, which, in turn, prevents the white majority from advocating for programs that might help these groups attain self-sufficiency. In proposing a new language for discussing class, Lalami attempts to overcome some elements of this complex social structure. For example, she notes that poor white people are in an “ambiguous” position, lacking many of the rights of wealthier white Americans but retaining more rights than similarly impoverished people of color. A language or set of terminology that applied specifically and exclusively to class and poverty would allow for conversations across gendered and racial lines, removing the association of terms like “welfare” with non-white people and allowing for progress across all poor populations. This argument returns to the need for advocacy and voting rights, as poor Americans, people of color, and women are still less likely to be able to vote than people who do not fit at least one of these categories.