APPENDIX J. NONCITIZENS
CONTENTS
Introduction
U.S. Immigration Policy and Trends
Naturalization Requirements and Statistics
Alien Eligibility Prior to 1996 Welfare Reform
Federal Law
Prior State and Local Law
Use of Benefits by Noncitizens Under Prior Law
Administrative Data
U.S. Census Bureau Data
Reasons for Change in Alien Eligibility for Benefits
Alien Eligibility for Federal Assistance
Program Bars
Expanded Sponsor-to-Alien Deeming and Affidavits of Support
Alien Eligibility for State and Local Assistance
Verification of Status and Reporting Requirements
Verification Requirements
Reporting Requirements
Illegal Aliens and Benefits
Statistical Background
Eligibility Standards
References
INTRODUCTION
The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-193) changed almost
every aspect of alien eligibility for Federal, State and local
government assistance programs. It established comprehensive
new restrictions on the eligibility of legal aliens for means-
tested public assistance, and also broadened restrictions on
public benefits for illegal aliens and nonimmigrants (aliens
temporarily here, e.g., to visit, attend school, or work).
Subsequently in the 104th Congress, the provisions of the new
welfare law were amended and supplemented by the Illegal
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996,
immigration enforcement legislation enacted as division C of
the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997, and signed
into law on September 30, 1996 (Public Law 104-208).
The changes made in the alien eligibility rules proved
controversial, particularly the termination of benefits for
recipients who were receiving Supplemental Security Income
(SSI) as of the date the new welfare law was enacted, August
22, 1996. The termination date for SSI for these recipients was
extended from August 22 to September 30, 1997 by Public Law
105-18, signed June 12, 1997. More extensive modifications to
the new alienage rules were included in Public Law 105-33, the
1997 Balanced Budget Act signed into law on August 5, 1997. It
amended the welfare law to provide that ``qualified aliens''
who were receiving SSI as of August 22, 1996 will continue to
be eligible, regardless of whether their claim was based on
disability or age. Additionally, qualified aliens who were here
by August 22, 1996 and subsequently become disabled will be
eligible for SSI.
This appendix begins with a brief discussion of U.S.
immigration policy and trends, including naturalization
requirements and statistics. This is followed by a review of
alien eligibility requirements and benefit use under prior law;
some of the reasons for the adoption of restrictions on alien
eligibility for benefits; and a summary of the new alien
eligibility law, including action taken in the 105th Congress.
Provisions relating to verification of status and reporting
requirements and concerns about illegal aliens and benefits are
also reviewed.
U.S. IMMIGRATION POLICY AND TRENDS
The three major goals underlying U.S. policy on legal
immigration are the reunification of families, the admission of
immigrants with needed skills, and the protection of refugees.
These goals are implemented through the Immigration and
Nationality Act (INA), the basic law regulating the admission
of immigrants (i.e., aliens allowed to reside in the United
States permanently). Another goal of immigration policy is to
allow immigrants an opportunity to integrate fully into
society. Once aliens have been admitted for lawful permanent
residence or have adjusted to permanent resident status while
here, they generally become eligible to apply for U.S.
citizenship after residing here for 5 years.
Immigration has been increasing sharply since 1980. A
recent Census Bureau report indicates that more than 60 percent
of the foreign born currently in the United States entered
between 1980 and 1996.\1\ An analysis of the 12.4 million
immigrant admissions recorded by the Immigration and
Naturalization Service (INS) from 1980 through 1994 indicates
that much of the increase is attributable to the admission of
approximately 1.6 million refugees and the adjustment of 2.8
million legalized aliens.\2\ The latter were formerly illegal
aliens who acquired legal status under legalization programs
authorized by the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986
(IRCA) for long-term residents and agricultural workers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Kristin A. Hansen and Carol S. Faber, ``The Foreign-born
Population: 1996,'' Current Population Reports, P20-494. U.S.
Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, March 1997. p. 3.
\2\ CRS Report 97-230, Immigration: Reasons for Growth, 1981-95, by
Joyce C. Vialet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As indicated in chart J-1, immigration during the 1990s
has reached the highest level since its precipitous fall during
World War I. The foreign-born population of the United States
over the period 1870-1996 is shown in chart J-2 in terms of
absolute numbers and as a percentage of total U.S. population.
The year 1910 was the peak in terms of the percent of foreign
born (14.8 percent), but 1996 was the high point in terms of
absolute numbers (24.6 million). By 1996, the percentage of
foreign-born residents of the United States approached 10
percent for the first time since the mid-1930s.
CHART J-1. ADMISSION OF LEGAL PERMANENT RESIDENTS AND ALIENS LEGALIZED
UNDER IRCA BY MOST RECENT YEAR OF ENTRY, 1900-96
Source: Congressional Research Service based on data from
the Immigration and Naturalization Service.
CHART J-2. FOREIGN-BORN POPULATION OF THE UNITED STATES, 1870-1996
Source: Congressional Research Service, based on data from
the U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1995 and Bogue, 1985.
The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) estimated
that there were a total of 10.5 million legal permanent
residents in the United States as of April 1996 (see table J-
1). They were heavily concentrated in four States, led by
California (35.3 percent). The other three were New York (14.2
percent), Texas (7.8 percent), and Florida (7.5 percent).
TABLE J-1.--POPULATION ESTIMATES BY STATE OF RESIDENCE: LEGAL PERMANENT RESIDENTS AND ALIENS ELIGIBLE TO APPLY
FOR NATURALIZATION AS OF APRIL 1996
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Legal permanent residents Eligible to apply for
----------------------------- naturalization
State of residence ----------------------------
Estimate Range (+/-) Estimate Range (+/-)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama............................................... 23,000 1,000 12,900 600
Alaska................................................ 10,900 400 4,800 300
Arizona............................................... 144,000 5,000 84,000 5,000
Arkansas.............................................. 12,300 400 7,100 400
California............................................ 3,717,000 130,000 2,265,000 118,000
Colorado.............................................. 71,000 2,000 38,000 2,000
Connecticut........................................... 126,000 4,000 73,000 4,000
Delaware.............................................. 10,000 300 4,700 300
District of Columbia.................................. 42,000 1,000 23,000 1,000
Florida............................................... 790,000 28,000 405,000 26,000
Georgia............................................... 102,000 3,000 51,000 3,000
Hawaii................................................ 66,000 2,000 23,000 2,000
Idaho................................................. 16,000 1,000 9,800 500
Illinois.............................................. 457,000 16,000 194,000 14,000
Indiana............................................... 46,000 2,000 28,000 1,000
Iowa.................................................. 27,000 1,000 15,000 1,000
Kansas................................................ 36,000 1,000 22,000 1,000
Kentucky.............................................. 21,000 1,000 11,500 500
Louisiana............................................. 47,000 2,000 27,000 2,000
Maine................................................. 14,700 400 10,000 400
Maryland.............................................. 178,000 6,000 97,000 6,000
Massachusetts......................................... 310,000 9,000 177,000 9,000
Michigan.............................................. 164,000 5,000 94,000 5,000
Minnesota............................................. 77,000 2,000 40,000 2,000
Mississippi........................................... 10,800 300 6,500 300
Missouri.............................................. 44,000 2,000 23,000 1,000
Montana............................................... 5,900 200 3,400 200
Nebraska.............................................. 13,700 400 5,900 400
Nevada................................................ 53,000 2,000 33,000 2,000
New Hampshire......................................... 19,000 1,000 12,400 500
New Jersey............................................ 462,000 16,000 231,000 13,000
New Mexico............................................ 43,000 2,000 30,000 1,000
New York.............................................. 1,498,000 46,000 669,000 43,000
North Carolina........................................ 64,000 2,000 35,000 2,000
North Dakota.......................................... 4,900 100 2,200 100
Ohio.................................................. 113,000 3,000 65,000 3,000
Oklahoma.............................................. 32,000 1,000 18,000 1,000
Oregon................................................ 78,000 2,000 47,000 2,000
Pennsylvania.......................................... 160,000 5,000 72,000 5,000
Rhode Island.......................................... 47,000 2,000 31,000 2,000
South Carolina........................................ 24,000 1,000 13,400 700
South Dakota.......................................... 4,400 100 1,900 100
Tennessee............................................. 37,000 1,000 20,000 1,000
Texas................................................. 825,000 29,000 483,000 27,000
Utah.................................................. 33,000 1,000 19,000 1,000
Vermont............................................... 7,400 200 4,000 200
Virginia.............................................. 183,000 5,000 97,000 5,000
Washington............................................ 174,000 6,000 84,000 5,000
West Virginia......................................... 7,000 200 3,800 200
Wisconsin............................................. 70,000 2,000 46,000 2,000
Wyoming............................................... 3,600 100 2,300 100
---------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................. 10,525,000 350,000 5,776,000 325,000
=========================================================
Under age 18--Not eligible for naturalization but may be able to derive
citizenship through a parent's naturalization..................................... 687,000 26,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Totals may not add due to rounding.
Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service.
Naturalization Requirements and Statistics
Under U.S. immigration law, all legal permanent resident
aliens are potential citizens. To naturalize, aliens must have
continuously resided in the United States for 5 years as
permanent residents (3 years in the case of spouses of U.S.
citizens), show that they have good moral character,
demonstrate the ability to read, write, speak, and understand
English, and pass an examination on U.S. Government and
history. Applicants pay a fee of $95 when they file their
materials and have the option of taking a standardized civics
test or of having the INS examiner test them on civics as part
of their interview.
The language requirement is waived for those who are at
least 50 years old and have lived in the United States at least
20 years or who are at least 55 years old and have lived in the
United States at least 15 years. Special consideration on the
civics requirement is to be given to aliens who are over 65
years and have lived in the United States for at least 20
years. Both the language and civics requirements are waived for
those who are unable to comply due to physical or developmental
disabilities or mental impairment. Certain requirements are
waived for those who served in the U.S. military.
As shown in table J-1, the Immigration and Naturalization
Service (INS) estimates that about 6 million permanent resident
aliens currently are eligible to apply for naturalization.
Estimates of the number of immigrants who ultimately become
citizens vary by the methods in which the data are collected,
but have typically ranged from 30 percent to 40 percent.
Recently the number of immigrants petitioning to naturalize has
surged, reaching 1.3 million in fiscal year 1996.\3\ This trend
is continuing. INS reported that in fiscal year 1997, through
July 31, 1997, it had received 1.4 million naturalization
applications, a 51 percent increase over the same period in
fiscal year 1996 and a 33 percent increase over all of fiscal
year 1995 (table J-2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ CRS Report 95-279 EPW, Naturalization of Immigrants: Facts and
Issues, by Ruth Ellen Wasem.
TABLE J-2.--NATURALIZATION CASELOAD, FISCAL YEARS 1990-96
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petitions Petitions Petitions
Fiscal year filed approved denied
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1990............................................................ 233,843 270,101 6,516
1991............................................................ 206,668 308,058 6,268
1992............................................................ 342,269 240,252 19,293
1993............................................................ 522,298 314,681 39,931
1994............................................................ 558,139 417,847 42,574
1995............................................................ 1,012,538 500,892 49,117
1996............................................................ 1,347,474 1,148,574 244,001
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: INS Statistics Division.
ALIEN ELIGIBILITY PRIOR TO 1996 WELFARE REFORM
Federal Law
Prior to 1996, there was no uniform rule governing which
categories of noncitizens were eligible for benefits, and no
single statute where the rules were described. Summarizing
briefly, lawful permanent residents (i.e., immigrants) and
other noncitizens who were legally present on a permanent basis
(e.g., refugees) were generally eligible for Federal benefits
on the same basis as citizens. With the single exception of
emergency Medicaid, illegal aliens were statutorily barred by
law from participation in all the major Federal assistance
programs, as were tourists and most other aliens here legally
in a temporary status (i.e., nonimmigrants). Prior law relating
to five key programs is shown in table J-3.
Prior to the 1996 reforms, alien eligibility requirements,
if any, were set forth in the laws and regulations governing
the individual Federal assistance programs. Because many
income, health, education, and social service programs did not
include specific provisions regarding alien eligibility, even
illegal aliens were potentially participants. These programs
included, for example, the Special Supplemental Nutrition
Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), earned income
tax credits (EITC), migrant health centers, and the Social
Services Block Grant (SSBG) Program.
TABLE J-3.--ALIEN ELIGIBILITY FOR SELECTED FEDERAL PROGRAMS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TANF \1\ and
Alien category SSI Food stamps Medicaid title XX social
services (SSBG)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Immigrants \2\
Eligibility under prior law.. Yes, with deeming Yes, with deeming Yes................... Yes, with deeming
\3\. \3\. for AFDC \3\
Eligibility under current law
a) Here before 8/22/96 Yes, if on rolls No............... Yes, for SSI- State option
(Public Law 104-193 8/22/96 or derivative benefits
enactment). disabled or emergency
subsequently. services; otherwise,
State option.
b) New entrants--1st 5 No............... No............... Emergency only........ No
years after arrival.
c) New entrants--after 5 No............... No............... Yes, for emergency State option,
years. services; otherwise, with deeming
State option, with
deeming.
Refugees and asylees \4\
Eligibility under prior law.. Yes.............. Yes.............. Yes................... Yes
Eligibility under current law
a) 1st 5 years after entry Yes.............. Yes.............. Yes................... Yes
or asylum.
b) after 5 years........... Yes, until 7 No............... Yes, for 2 more years State option
years after and emergency
entry. services; otherwise,
State option.
Nonimmigrants \5\ and illegal
aliens \6\
Eligibility under prior law.. No............... No............... Emergency only........ SSBG only
Eligibility under current law No............... No............... Emergency only........ No
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Previously AFDC. \2\ Also known as permanent residents and green card holders. May live here indefinitely
unless they commit a deportable act. Parolees admitted temporarily for at least 1 year under the Attorney
General's immigration parole power may receive same benefits. \3\ Deeming refers to the attribution of the
sponsor's income to the immigrant in determining financial eligibility, and formerly applied to only SSI, food
stamps, and AFDC (replaced by TANF) for 3 years after entry (5 years for SSI as of January 1, 1996). \4\
Status based on individualized persecution abroad. May eventually adjust to permanent residency. Includes
Cuban/Haitian entrants and Amerasians. \5\ Admitted temporarily for a limited purpose. Includes, e.g.,
students, visitors, and temporary workers. \6\ Also known as undocumented aliens. Includes aliens here in
violation of immigration law for whom no legal relief or recognition has been extended.
Source: Congressional Research Service.
The ``public charge'' provision and development of eligibility
standards
Opposition to the entry of foreign paupers and aliens
``likely at any time to become a public charge''--language
found in the Immigration and Nationality Act today--dates from
colonial times. The colony of Massachusetts enacted legislation
in 1645 prohibiting the entry of paupers, and in 1700 excluding
the infirm unless security was given against their becoming
public charges. New York adopted a similar practice. A bar
against the admission of ``any person unable to take care of
himself or herself without becoming a public charge'' was
included in the act of August 3, 1882, the first general
Federal immigration law.
Prior to the 1996 legislation, applicants for immigrant
status could meet the public charge requirement based on their
own funds, prearranged or prospective employment, or an
affidavit of support. Affidavits of support were submitted by
one or more residents of the United States in order to provide
assurance that the applicant for entry would be supported in
this country. Starting in the 1930s and continuing until the
1980s, affidavits of support were administratively required by
INS but had no specific basis in statute or regulation. Court
decisions beginning in the 1950s generally held that affidavits
of support were not legally binding on the U.S. resident
sponsors.\4\ The unenforceability of affidavits of support led
to the adoption of legislation in the 1980s intended to make
them more effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Department of Mental Hygiene v. Renal, 6 N.Y. 2d 791 (1959);
State v. Binder, 356 Mich. 73 (1959).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite immigration policy to exclude potential public
charges, Federal assistance laws contained no eligibility
restrictions based on immigration status until the early 1970s.
In the absence of Federal law State governments enacted
restrictions, usually durational residency requirements, or the
eligibility of legal aliens for assistance under State or joint
Federal-State programs. However, in 1971 in a landmark
decision, Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365, the U.S. Supreme
Court declared these State restrictions to be unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court found that they violated the equal protection
clause of the 14th amendment and they encroached upon the
exclusive Federal power to regulate immigration.
Beginning with the new SSI Program in 1972, Federal
statutory and regulatory alien eligibility criteria were
established for the major Federal assistance programs. In
addition to meeting the financial need and family structure
criteria applicable to U.S. citizens, noncitizens were required
either to be lawfully admitted for permanent residence, or
otherwise ``permanently residing in the United States under
color of law'' (PRUCOL) in order to be eligible for SSI, AFDC,
Medicaid, or food stamps.\5\ These criteria were adopted with
the intent of barring participation by temporary nonimmigrants
and particularly by illegal aliens.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ In part because of the vagueness of the PRUCOL standard, the
food stamp legislation was amended in 1977 to specify categories of
eligible aliens.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to concerns about the unenforceability of
affidavits of support and the perceived abuse of the welfare
system by some newly arrived immigrants, legislation was
enacted in the early 1980s limiting the availability to
sponsored immigrants of SSI, AFDC, and food stamps. The
enabling legislation for the three programs was amended to
provide that for the purpose of determining financial
eligibility, immigrants who had used an affidavit of support to
meet the public charge requirement would be deemed to have
available for their support some portion of the income and
resources of their immigration sponsors. The sponsor-to-alien
deeming period was set at 3 years for the three programs. This
period was temporarily increased from 3 to 5 years for SSI,
effective January 1, 1994 to October 1, 1996. For those
immigrants still covered under the pre-1996 rules, the duration
of SSI deeming has reverted back to 3 years.
The 1996 welfare law significantly expanded the use of
sponsor-to-alien deeming as a means of restricting the
participation of new immigrants in Federal means-tested
programs. It also established new, legally enforceable
responsibilities for sponsors who pledge support through
affidavits of support. Both deeming and the affidavits of
support upon which deeming is based are intended to implement
the provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) that
excludes aliens who appear ``likely at any time to become a
public charge.''
Prior State and Local Law
In 1971, the Supreme Court held in Graham v. Richardson
that the equal protection clause and the exclusive authority of
Congress to regulate immigration barred States from
distinguishing between citizens and legal aliens in providing
State-funded or joint Federal-State benefits. More recently,
the Supreme Court has recognized that the States do have some
authority to enact laws that adversely affect illegal aliens,
at least where these laws mirror Federal immigration policy.
However, this authority is circumscribed. In 1982, the Supreme
Court held in Plyler v. Doe \6\ that the States could not deny
illegal alien children a free public education, in part because
of the absence of Federal guidance on the issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 457 U.S. 202 (1982).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
State regulation of alien access to State and local
assistance programs continued to be governed by the Graham and
Plyler decisions. For example, several State supreme courts
cited Graham to overturn State laws that imposed sponsor-to-
alien deeming under State cash assistance programs. In a later
example, a U.S. district court judge overturned large parts of
California's proposition 187, a ballot initiative that denied
illegal aliens education and other State-provided services.\7\
Though the judge ruled that the State did have leeway to deny
illegal aliens many services (not including elementary and
secondary education), she also held that the State could not
make its own determinations of the legality of individuals'
immigration status nor impose its own alienage standards on
services funded at least in part with Federal funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ League of United Latin American Citizens v. Wilson, 908 F.
Supp. 755 (C.D. Cal. 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because Graham left little leeway for State regulation of
legal permanent residents, the States were required to provide
needy permanent residents with the same assistance they
provided needy citizens. This was true under joint Federal-
State programs, such as AFDC and Medicaid, which were governed
by broad Federal alien eligibility rules even though the
Federal Government funded only a portion of assistance. Broad
alien eligibility rules set by Congress also indirectly
resulted in significant outlays for State supplements to SSI.
Also, States could not differentiate between legal aliens
and citizens under State-funded general assistance (GA)
programs. According to an October 1996 report by the Urban
Institute, cash or in-kind assistance was provided to the needy
under GA programs in all or part of 41 States; 9 States had no
GA programs operating within them. Of the States with GA
programs in at least some localities, 32 had statewide programs
(though in some of these, including California, benefits varied
by county). In nine States (including Texas and Florida),
general assistance is not required statewide but some
localities, especially large urban jurisdictions, have chosen
to operate GA programs on their own.
Exercising their broader authority with regard to illegal
aliens, the GA laws of 36 States limited eligibility to
citizens and legal residents. Nevertheless, even though many
States had thus attempted to limit expenditures for illegal
aliens, some of the largest State outlays for illegal aliens--
elementary and secondary education, for example--remained
beyond State control.
USE OF BENEFITS BY NONCITIZENS UNDER PRIOR LAW
Administrative Data
Much of the current concern with the use of public
assistance by noncitizens began in 1993 in response to a study
by the Social Security Administration (SSA). The subject was
the use of SSI by legal aliens entering either as lawfully
admitted immigrants or ``under color of law.'' SSA found that
permanent legal aliens made up more than 25 percent of SSI
recipients receiving benefits based on age.
More recent data presented by SSA \8\ indicated a steady
increase from 1982 through 1995 in the number and percentage of
lawfully admitted aliens receiving SSI, and an increased
percentage of total beneficiaries who are legal aliens (see
table J-4). Significant numbers of refugees were being admitted
during this period. Legal aliens entering under color of law,
most of whom were refugees, accounted for 26 percent of the
total number of legal alien SSI recipients in December 1995
(see table J-5). The figures were even greater among aged
recipients. In 1995, legal aliens accounted for about 32
percent of all aged SSI recipients, who receive more than 50
percent of all SSI funds for the aged; legal aliens accounted
for 6.5 percent of disabled (or blind) recipients.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Elsa Ponce, Lawfully Resident Aliens Who Receive SSI Payments,
December 1995. U.S. Social Security Administration, February 1996.
\9\ The number of new alien applicants for SSI, which had been
increasing during each of the 12 previous years, actually decreased by
nearly 15,000 in fiscal year 1994 and almost 11,000 in fiscal year
1995. SSA stated that one possible factor for this drop was the
temporary extension of the sponsor-to-alien deeming period from 3 to 5
years beginning in January 1994 (Ponce, 1996, p. 2). As the deeming
period is extended, the number of sponsored aliens who may be denied
assistance because of deeming potentially increases.
TABLE J-4.--NUMBER OF ALIENS RECEIVING SSI PAYMENTS AND ALIEN RECIPIENTS AS A PERCENTAGE OF ALL SSI RECIPIENTS
BY ELIGIBILITY CATEGORY, 1982-95
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Aged Disabled
-----------------------------------------------------------
Year Percent Percent Percent
All of total Aliens of SSI Aliens of SSI
aliens SSI aged disabled
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1982................................................ 127,906 3.3 91,900 5.9 36,000 1.6
1983................................................ 151,207 3.9 106,600 7.0 44,600 1.9
1984................................................ 181,108 4.5 127,600 8.3 53,500 2.1
1985................................................ 210,810 5.1 146,500 9.7 64,300 2.4
1986................................................ 244,311 5.7 165,300 11.2 79,000 2.8
1987................................................ 282,513 6.4 188,000 12.9 94,500 3.2
1988................................................ 320,315 7.2 213,900 14.9 106,400 3.5
1989................................................ 370,317 8.1 245,700 17.1 124,600 4.0
1990................................................ 435,619 9.0 282,400 19.4 153,200 4.6
1991................................................ 519,683 10.2 329,690 22.5 189,970 5.2
1992................................................ 601,455 10.8 372,930 25.4 228,500 5.6
1993................................................ 683,178 11.5 416,420 28.2 266,730 5.9
1994................................................ 738,140 11.8 440,000 30.2 298,140 6.2
1995................................................ 785,410 12.2 459,220 32.1 326,190 6.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: SSI 10-percent sample files.
The most recent SSA data indicated that 724,990
noncitizens were receiving SSI in December 1996, shown by State
in table J-6. Of this number, 417,360 (or 57.6 percent)
qualified because of age, and 307,630 (or 42.4 percent) because
of disability. The noncitizen caseload was 11 percent of the
total SSI caseload, and the noncitizen aged caseload was 30
percent of the total SSI aged caseload. According to an SSA
spokesman, about 490,000 of total noncitizen recipients were
over 65, which means that 73,000 of the disabled recipients
were also elderly. (Recipients admitted to the rolls on the
basis of disability remain in this category regardless of their
age.)
Diagnostic data for disabled noncitizen SSI recipients
available for December 1995 are shown in table J-7. More than
half (55 percent) of disabled noncitizens were in the 50-64 age
category. This age group accounted for 27 percent of disabled
recipients in general. (The table is limited to the disabled
under 65.) The diseases of this older group of alien
recipients, of course, heavily weighted the overall picture of
diagnoses of disability. This data is of interest because, as
amended in 1997, the welfare law provides for continued SSI
eligibility of qualified aliens who were in the United States
before August 22, 1996 and subsequently become disabled.
TABLE J-5.--NUMBER OF ALIENS RECEIVING FEDERALLY ADMINISTERED SSI
PAYMENTS BY LEGAL STATUS AND COUNTRY OF ORIGIN, DECEMBER 1995
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Color of Lawfully Increase
Country of origin Total law admitted 1989-95
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Africa.......................... 7,660 1,330 6,330 4,970
North America:
Canada...................... 2,890 140 2,750 900
Other....................... (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\)
Latin America:
Cuba........................ 58,270 15,740 42,530 24,360
Dominican Republic.......... 31,730 160 31,570 20,650
El Salvador................. 11,020 580 10,440 7,680
Haiti....................... 10,070 490 9,580 6,140
Jamaica..................... 10,130 120 10,010 5,550
Mexico...................... 131,650 5,740 125,910 78,640
Columbia.................... 8,390 170 8,220 4,020
Ecuador..................... 6,230 110 6,120 3,330
Guyana...................... 4,910 (\1\) (\1\) 2,700
Other....................... 31,670 1,360 30,310 17,890
East Asia:
China....................... 41,820 2,120 39,700 20,700
South Korea................. 26,380 140 26,240 10,850
Other....................... 3,680 (\1\) (\1\) 1,210
South Asia:
Afghanistan................. 4,620 2,650 1,970 2,420
Cambodia.................... 22,460 12,170 10,290 10,070
India....................... 18,420 210 18,210 10,160
Iran........................ 20,710 6,320 14,390 13,290
Laos........................ 27,830 16,420 11,410 14,390
Philippines................. 38,780 390 38,390 13,510
Taiwan...................... 5,600 100 5,500 2,450
Vietnam..................... 53,220 26,650 26,570 33,520
Other....................... 24,740 3,200 21,540 14,110
Europe:
Italy....................... 3,200 (\1\) (\1\) 600
Portugal.................... 6,190 (\1\) (\1\) 1,480
Romania..................... 4,060 1,410 2,650 1,830
United Kingdom.............. 2,730 540 2,190 1,160
Other....................... 14,810 1,370 13,440 6,220
Former Soviet Republics......... 74,230 60,060 14,170 57,090
Oceania......................... 2,460 (\1\) (\1\) 1,390
Unidentified.................... 74,760 43,830 30,930 12,020
---------------------------------------
Total..................... 785,410 203,840 581,570 405,370
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Relative sampling error too large for presentation of estimates.
Source: SSI 10-percent sample.
TABLE J-6.--NUMBER OF ALIENS RECEIVING SSI PAYMENTS BY ELIGIBILITY CATEGORY AND STATE, DECEMBER 1996
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Total Aged Disabled
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama......................................................... 480 370 110
Alaska.......................................................... 750 390 360
Arizona......................................................... 7,650 3,900 3,750
Arkansas........................................................ 340 190 150
California...................................................... 293,180 163,900 129,280
Colorado........................................................ 5,140 2,740 2,400
Connecticut..................................................... 4,370 2,700 1,670
Delaware........................................................ 330 200 130
District of Columbia............................................ 860 530 330
Florida......................................................... 69,710 44,310 25,400
Georgia......................................................... 4,570 2,930 1,640
Hawaii.......................................................... 3,770 2,850 920
Idaho........................................................... 410 220 190
Illinois........................................................ 22,980 13,360 9,620
Indiana......................................................... 1,080 730 350
Iowa............................................................ 1,170 600 570
Kansas.......................................................... 1,500 700 800
Kentucky........................................................ 720 380 340
Louisiana....................................................... 2,500 1,430 1,070
Maine........................................................... 540 200 340
Maryland........................................................ 7,800 5,970 1,830
Massachusetts................................................... 23,980 13,410 10,570
Michigan........................................................ 7,350 4,060 3,290
Minnesota....................................................... 6,640 2,340 4,300
Mississippi..................................................... 440 220 220
Missouri........................................................ 1,800 1,030 770
Montana......................................................... 150 (\1\) (\1\)
Nebraska........................................................ 720 340 380
Nevada.......................................................... 2,370 1,590 780
New Hampshire................................................... 350 200 150
New Jersey...................................................... 22,140 14,580 7,560
New Mexico...................................................... 3,350 1,530 1,820
New York........................................................ 113,900 65,340 48,560
North Carolina.................................................. 2,600 1,590 1,010
North Dakota.................................................... 180 (\1\) (\1\)
Ohio............................................................ 5,340 3,380 1,960
Oklahoma........................................................ 1,340 880 460
Oregon.......................................................... 4,260 2,200 2,060
Pennsylvania.................................................... 11,340 6,470 4,870
Rhode Island.................................................... 3,440 1,700 1,740
South Carolina.................................................. 580 420 160
South Dakota.................................................... 200 (\1\) (\1\)
Tennessee....................................................... 1,380 850 530
Texas........................................................... 54,760 32,640 22,120
Utah............................................................ 1,420 700 720
Vermont......................................................... 150 (\1\) (\1\)
Virginia........................................................ 6,780 5,150 1,630
Washington...................................................... 13,160 5,920 7,240
West Virginia................................................... 190 (\1\) (\1\)
Wisconsin....................................................... 4,790 1,800 2,990
Wyoming......................................................... (\1\) (\1\) (\1\)
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 724,990 417,360 307,630
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Relative sampling error too large for presentation of estimates.
Source: SSI 10-percent sample file, December 1996.
High use of SSI by aliens has resulted in large outlays of
Federal funds for SSI benefits, large outlays of State funds
under State supplementation of SSI, and large Federal-State
outlays for Medicaid benefits that generally accompany SSI.
Table J-8 shows that, beyond high rates of use, the average
benefit amount for alien recipients exceeds the average benefit
paid to citizens. This difference is largely attributable to
the fact that alien recipients of SSI are less likely than
citizens to qualify for retirement and disability benefits
under the Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance Program
(OASDI), frequently because they have not been here long enough
to work 10 years. Receipt of OASDI benefits reduces the amount
of SSI benefits to which a recipient is entitled.
Administrative data for the AFDC and Food Stamp Programs,
while more limited than those available for SSI, show lower
usage rates than have been found for SSI. Health and Human
Services data on characteristics of AFDC recipients indicate
that, as a percentage of total adult AFDC recipients,
noncitizens legally in the United States have increased from
6.3 percent in fiscal year 1986 to 12.2 percent in fiscal year
1995 (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1996). This
compares with the increase in noncitizen aged SSI recipients
from 11.2 percent of the total in fiscal year 1986 to 32.1
percent of the total in fiscal year 1995 (Ponce, 1996).
Department of Agriculture Food Stamp Program data on the
citizenship of the heads of households receiving food stamps in
fiscal year 1995 indicated that 7.7 percent were headed by
permanent resident aliens and 1.8 percent were headed by other
aliens, for a total of 9.5 percent (U.S. Department of
Agriculture, 1997).
U.S. Census Bureau Data
The most comprehensive source of information on
participation by the foreign born in public assistance programs
is the Census Bureau's March Current Population Survey (CPS).
The Census Bureau conducts the CPS each month to collect labor
force data about the civilian noninstitutionalized population.
The March Supplement of the CPS gathers additional data about
income, education, household characteristics, and geographic
mobility. The March 1994 Supplement was the first CPS to ask
participants about their citizenship status.
TABLE J-7.--BLIND AND DISABLED PERSONS UNDER AGE 65 RECEIVING FEDERALLY ADMINISTERED SSI PAYMENTS AND BLIND AND DISABLED ALIENS UNDER AGE 65 RECEIVING
FEDERALLY ADMINISTERED SSI PAYMENTS BY AGE AND DIAGNOSTIC GROUP, DECEMBER 1995
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blind and disabled SSI recipients Blind and disabled aliens receiving SSI
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Diagnostic group Age Age
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Under 18 18-24 25-49 50-64 Total Under 18 18-24 25-49 50-64
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Infective and parasitic............... 1.7 0.4 0.5 2.8 1.4 2.4 1.0 2.0 4.4 1.2
Neoplasms............................. 1.5 1.6 1.2 1.1 2.2 2.2 3.0 1.6 1.8 2.5
Endocrine and metabolic............... 4.1 1.1 1.4 4.0 7.5 3.9 0.4 0.5 2.2 5.5
Mental disorders:
Retardation....................... 28.2 40.6 50.2 28.1 11.3 10.0 40.9 42.1 13.7 2.7
Psychiatric illness............... 31.2 24.8 22.0 38.6 27.6 35.3 11.7 19.1 47.0 30.4
Schizophrenia................. 8.9 0.5 4.8 14.3 8.2 8.9 0.7 7.8 16.9 4.2
Other psychiatric............. 22.3 24.3 17.2 24.3 19.4 26.3 11.0 11.2 30.1 26.1
Diseases of systems:
Nervous and sense organ........... 10.1 12.2 14.0 9.8 7.9 10.3 26.0 21.7 10.8 8.1
Circulatory....................... 5.0 0.7 0.9 2.6 13.3 10.7 1.3 1.4 3.6 16.8
Respiratory....................... 2.6 2.9 0.8 1.2 5.3 2.5 1.3 0.5 1.3 3.6
Digestive......................... 0.7 0.1 0.2 0.7 1.0 0.8 0.2 0.0 0.6 1.0
Musculoskeletal................... 7.1 1.1 1.6 5.0 17.1 14.7 2.9 2.8 6.7 21.9
Congenital anomalies.................. 1.6 4.9 2.1 0.8 0.3 0.4 4.3 0.5 0.4 0.2
Injury and poisoning.................. 2.8 0.6 2.4 3.4 3.6 4.2 1.1 3.7 4.5 4.3
Other............................. 3.4 8.8 2.7 2.0 1.6 2.7 6.0 4.1 3.2 2.0
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent....................... 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
=================================================================================================================
Total......................... 4,345,820 911,910 390,450 1,868,160 1,175,300 249,050 8,380 12,370 90,970 137,330
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Social Security Administration, unpublished data, 1996.
TABLE J-8.--AVERAGE MONTHLY FEDERALLY ADMINISTERED PAYMENT (FEDERAL SSI AND STATE SUPPLEMENTATION) RECEIVED BY NONALIENS AND ALIENS BY STATE, DECEMBER
1995
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nonalien Alien
State -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Aged Disabled Total Aged Disabled
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama................................................. $293.57 $159.54 $331.94 $369.22 $358.96 $402.93
Alaska.................................................. 323.65 225.81 333.79 284.86 242.13 348.97
Arizona................................................. 324.09 187.03 347.47 314.57 299.92 330.11
Arkansas................................................ 281.82 138.85 320.61 343.91 354.86 327.50
California.............................................. 402.48 265.12 439.47 492.10 475.66 513.89
Colorado................................................ 305.06 157.15 329.03 367.05 364.78 369.78
Connecticut............................................. 318.95 193.18 336.54 353.56 352.30 355.85
Delaware................................................ 306.82 133.42 331.83 312.51 318.65 304.67
District of Columbia.................................... 334.14 179.24 361.33 342.83 321.49 376.45
Florida................................................. 310.82 182.67 342.10 342.57 331.79 361.89
Georgia................................................. 283.33 148.66 318.32 356.85 354.08 362.47
Hawaii.................................................. 361.64 290.60 390.88 354.16 336.28 413.13
Idaho................................................... 309.97 109.97 335.29 317.42 297.35 335.37
Illinois................................................ 354.88 179.08 370.78 367.62 358.96 380.19
Indiana................................................. 319.20 148.79 337.53 357.15 358.89 353.43
Iowa.................................................... 289.03 138.62 313.90 371.88 355.51 388.53
Kansas.................................................. 304.86 152.59 323.05 399.94 394.51 404.90
Kentucky................................................ 314.15 156.16 342.36 376.85 384.44 368.78
Louisiana............................................... 315.74 164.61 347.66 335.84 322.55 357.20
Maine................................................... 263.90 107.64 297.17 301.42 274.19 319.56
Maryland................................................ 326.38 159.08 352.51 354.64 350.50 368.02
Massachusetts........................................... 336.76 210.79 377.87 421.52 414.59 429.79
Michigan................................................ 347.46 167.62 366.16 376.00 362.66 391.52
Minnesota............................................... 301.12 144.11 327.78 410.54 386.04 425.24
Mississippi............................................. 392.71 156.52 331.55 362.79 354.79 372.46
Missouri................................................ 310.45 143.20 338.24 385.99 389.69 379.93
Montana................................................. 331.78 330.82 314.10 354.71 (\1\) (\1\)
Nebraska................................................ 286.41 122.10 315.17 352.22 364.88 339.56
Nevada.................................................. 306.82 190.17 339.54 367.46 372.52 357.57
New Hampshire........................................... 301.41 126.24 318.95 306.37 306.05 306.80
New Jersey.............................................. 334.93 200.36 360.46 378.07 374.73 384.79
New Mexico.............................................. 305.29 165.21 340.64 301.36 281.09 319.80
New York................................................ 375.36 224.61 403.92 419.13 405.38 438.08
North Carolina.......................................... 277.54 150.40 314.79 363.25 354.12 379.31
North Dakota............................................ 272.90 142.42 302.96 377.07 403.40 362.44
Ohio.................................................... 347.82 163.77 362.52 365.92 360.27 376.16
Oklahoma................................................ 291.65 150.54 326.85 357.57 352.38 367.52
Oregon.................................................. 309.57 141.34 332.04 373.03 365.65 381.07
Pennsylvania............................................ 351.55 185.46 378.39 408.82 397.39 424.96
Rhode Island............................................ 336.65 161.73 367.82 380.45 353.35 408.90
South Carolina.......................................... 287.51 156.29 323.52 350.15 349.28 352.32
South Dakota............................................ 294.51 143.62 326.56 334.32 241.00 402.18
Tennessee............................................... 299.07 149.90 331.39 365.08 362.75 368.74
Texas................................................... 282.12 162.62 324.74 287.91 266.16 320.74
Utah.................................................... 315.08 149.27 331.30 369.07 359.86 378.00
Vermont................................................. 305.23 158.76 330.89 420.63 364.63 476.63
Virginia................................................ 292.16 150.47 324.49 366.36 361.91 379.46
Washington.............................................. 335.03 181.50 350.30 419.44 408.92 428.05
West Virginia........................................... 326.65 151.71 348.83 349.00 320.83 391.25
Wisconsin............................................... 315.27 134.52 337.41 409.25 388.92 421.43
Wyoming................................................. 303.48 98.78 327.27 232.50 153.33 470.00
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................... $329.18 $189.83 $359.32 $421.17 $405.23 $443.61
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Relative sampling error too large for presentation of estimates.
Source: SSI 10-percent sample file, December 1996.
Because CPS is a sample of the U.S. population, the
results are necessarily estimates. Additionally, while the data
collected in this survey distinguish between the foreign born
who have naturalized and those who have not, it does not
distinguish between types of noncitizens (e.g., permanent,
temporary, illegal). Most noncitizens counted by the census are
thought to be here legally, with probably the majority being
legal permanent residents.
The Congressional Research Service analyzed data from the
March 1994 CPS Survey.\10\ The findings are summarized in
tables J-9 and J-10 (O'Grady, 1995, p. 28).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ O'Grady, M.J. (1995).
TABLE J-9.--PERCENT OF CITIZENS BY BIRTH, NATURALIZED CITIZENS, AND
NONCITIZENS RECEIVING VARIOUS WELFARE BENEFITS IN 1994
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Welfare program Citizens Naturalized
by birth citizens Noncitizens
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SSI................................. 2 3 3
Under age 65.................... 2 2 2
Age 65 and older................ 4 7 23
AFDC................................ 5 2 6
State assistance.................... 1 (\1\) 2
Food stamps......................... 12 7 16
Medicaid............................ 8 3 11
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Sample too small for reliable estimates.
Note.--Twenty-nine percent of noncitizen households live below the
Federal poverty level as compared with 15 percent of citizens by birth
and 10 percent of naturalized citizens.
Source: O'Grady, M.J. (1995).
Generally speaking, the CRS analysis corroborated
administrative data that showed that the foreign born were
significantly more likely to use SSI, but were not
significantly more likely than citizens by birth to use AFDC or
food stamps. Table J-9 shows that in the AFDC, Food Stamp and
Medicaid Programs, noncitizens had higher participation rates
than the native born, but that naturalized citizens had lower
participation rates than the native born. However, in the SSI
Program both noncitizens and naturalized citizens had higher
participation rates than native born citizens. This was
especially true among the aged population.
In addition to the elderly, the other major subgroup of
the foreign born using welfare appears to be refugees (and
their relatives). While the CRS study did not desegregate
refugees, Urban Institute analysts did in Senate testimony.
Based also on the March 1994 CPS, they found that 13.1 percent
of the foreign born from the major refugee sending countries
used AFDC, SSI, or GA, compared to 5.8 percent of the foreign
born from other countries.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Fix, M., Passel, J.S., & Zimmermann, W. (1996). The use of SSI
and other welfare programs by immigrants. Testimony before the U.S.
Senate [Judiciary] Subcommittee on Immigration, Feb. 6, 1996.
Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
TABLE J-10.--PERCENTAGE OF PEOPLE RECEIVING VARIOUS WELFARE BENEFITS AND
PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL RECIPIENTS BY CITIZENSHIP STATUS, MARCH 1994
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Citizenship status
-----------------------------------
Program Citizens Naturalized
by birth citizens Noncitizens
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Food stamps
Percentage receiving............ 12 7 16
Percentage of all food stamp
recipients..................... 90 1 8
AFDC
Percentage receiving............ 5 2 6
Percentage of all AFDC
recipients..................... 92 1 7
State assistance
Percentage receiving............ 1 (\1\) 2
Percentage of all State
assistance recipients \2\...... 85 (\1\) 12
Total population
Number (thousands).............. 237,184 6,975 15,593
Percentage...................... 91 3 6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Sample too small for reliable estimates.
\2\ Percentages do not add to 100 due to sample sizes too small for
reliable results.
Source: O'Grady, M.J. (1995).
With regard to use of food stamps, O'Grady (1995, pp. 17-
18) found the following (see table J-10):
--Overall 31 million people or 12 percent of the population
lived in food stamp households.
--Naturalized citizens were less likely to live in food stamp
households than citizens born in the United States.
Only 7 percent of naturalized citizens lived in
households that received food stamps compared with 12
percent of the population born in the United States.
--Noncitizens were more likely than citizens born in the
United States to live in households that receive food
stamps. Among noncitizens 3 million or 16 percent lived
in households that receive food stamps.
As with food stamps, O'Grady also found that noncitizens
were more likely to report Medicaid coverage than the native
born (p. 20), but that naturalized citizens were less likely to
report Medicaid coverage. Other findings include:
--There were about 2 million noncitizens reporting Medicaid
coverage. These noncitizens represented 8 percent of
the population reporting Medicaid coverage but less
than 1 percent of the total U.S. population.
--Eleven percent of noncitizens reported that they were
covered by Medicaid as compared with 8 percent of
citizens born in the United States, and 3 percent of
naturalized citizens.
Seven percent of the people living in AFDC families were
noncitizens. Further, of the noncitizen population, 6 percent
lived in families receiving AFDC compared to 5 percent of the
native born population and only 2 percent of the naturalized
population. Table J-10 summarizes the findings on use of AFDC
and State cash assistance.
REASONS FOR CHANGE IN ALIEN ELIGIBILITY FOR BENEFITS
High immigration levels in the 1990s came at a time of
increasing concern about both welfare dependence and the
budget. There was growing public concern about immigrants'
disproportionately high use of SSI. As noted above, in May
1993, the Social Security Administration issued a report
entitled ``SSI Payments to Lawfully Resident Aliens.''
According to the report, over 600,000 legal aliens were
receiving SSI payments in December 1992, the annual application
rate of legal immigrants for SSI had tripled between 1982 and
1992, and immigrants made up more than 25 percent of total age-
based recipients.
In the opinion of many, this high use of SSI indicated, at
best, an abuse of the spirit of the law. There was widespread
public concern that naturalized U.S. citizens were bringing in
their parents as immigrants with the intention of supporting
them only as long as they were required to do so under the SSI
sponsor-to-alien deeming rule--at which point, the parents
could start collecting SSI benefits.
This concern coincided with a broader effort to reform
welfare. During the 1992 election campaign, President Clinton
had promised to end welfare as we know it, and the House
Republicans sponsored a comprehensive welfare proposal during
the 103d Congress that included new alienage restrictions.
Another factor driving changes in benefits for noncitizens
involved the budget. The money spent on public assistance for
noncitizens was viewed as a budget resource to help reduce
Federal spending and thus balance the budget.
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that the
alien eligibility changes in the welfare law would save almost
$23.7 billion over 6 years, 56 percent of which would result
from changing the eligibility rules for SSI.\12\ The $23.7
billion savings accounted for almost half of the $54.1 billion
savings estimated for the act. These savings were subsequently
reduced by the immigration-related provisions of the 1997
Balanced Budget Act. CBO estimated their cost at $11.5 billion
over the 5-year period 1998-2002. Thus, estimated net
reductions in Federal spending on welfare benefits for
noncitizens resulting from the 1996 welfare reform law and
subsequent changes is $12.2 billion over 5 years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Federal Budgetary Implications of the Personal Responsibility
and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, CBO Memorandum.
Congressional Budget Office, December 1996. p. 27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In summary, Congress decided that citizens should take
priority over noncitizens in allocating limited budget
resources and that the primary responsibility for assisting
needy immigrants should be borne by the immigrants' sponsors
rather than the government. In the view of the authors of this
legislation, the new restrictions were a logical extension of
the policies historically embodied by the public charge
provision.
Public Law 105-33, the Balanced Budget Act of 1997,
modified in several ways the basic policy adopted in the 104th
Congress of restricting alien eligibility for Federal benefits.
However, while expensive, these modifications were limited in
scope. Only two programs, Supplemental Security Income (SSI),
which provides cash assistance for needy persons who are aged,
blind, or disabled, and, to a lesser degree, Medicaid, are
substantially affected by the changes to noncitizens' benefits
in the Balanced Budget Act. Similarly, only noncitizens here
before August 22, 1996, the enactment date of the 1996 welfare
law, are affected (except for new entries who benefit from a 2-
year extension of refugee eligibility). The basic policy laid
out by the 1996 welfare law remains essentially unchanged for
noncitizens entering after its enactment.
ALIEN ELIGIBILITY FOR FEDERAL ASSISTANCE
The 1996 welfare law and, to a lesser extent, the 1996
immigration law restricted alien eligibility for Federal
benefits in three basic ways:
--They barred access to programs based on alien status;
--They required legally binding affidavits of support from
immigrants' sponsors; and
--They required that sponsors' income be deemed available to
immigrants in determining eligibility for most means-
tested programs.
These three types of restrictions on Federal benefits, and
the change they represent from prior law, are reviewed below.
Program Bars
Until 1996, aliens who were lawful permanent residents or
who were otherwise legally present on a permanent basis (e.g.,
refugees) were generally eligible for Federal benefits on the
same basis as citizens. That is, they were only required to
meet the eligibility criteria (such as family income and size)
that applied to citizens. In contrast, undocumented aliens were
specifically barred by law from participation in all the major
Federal assistance programs (except emergency Medicaid), as
were tourists and most other aliens here legally in a temporary
status.
The 1996 welfare law added new rules barring qualified
aliens from participation in Federal assistance programs.
Qualified aliens include aliens admitted for legal permanent
residence (also known as immigrants), refugees, aliens paroled
into the United States for at least 1 year, and aliens granted
asylum or related relief. The 1996 immigration law added
certain abused spouses and children as another class of
qualified aliens, and the 1997 Balanced Budget Act added Cuban/
Haitian entrants. (The terms qualified alien and legal
immigrant are used interchangeably in this appendix.)
The laws made several exceptions to eligibility changes,
so that the restrictions discussed below do not apply to
qualified aliens who are veterans or certain active duty
personnel, and their spouses and dependent unmarried children;
or those who meet a 10-year work requirement. In order to
satisfy the work requirement, the immigrant must meet the 40
``qualifying quarters'' test. As defined by Public Law 104-193,
a qualifying quarter is a 3-month work period with sufficient
income to qualify as a Social Security quarter and, with
respect to periods beginning after 1996, during which the
worker did not receive Federal means-based assistance. Work
performed by the alien, the alien's parent while the alien was
under age 18, and the alien's spouse (provided the alien
remains married to the spouse or the spouse is deceased) all
may be counted as qualifying quarters.
The rules barring legal immigrants from benefits fall into
three general categories, and are summarized below. It should
be noted that none of these rules apply to aliens once they
become naturalized citizens. The effect of these rules as they
apply to SSI, food stamps, Medicaid, TANF, and SSBG is
summarized in table J-3 above, together with the change from
the law prior to 1996.
Permanent bar
Congress imposed a bar to access by legal immigrants to
two federally financed programs. These are Supplemental
Security Income (SSI), which provides cash aid for needy
persons who are aged, blind, or disabled; and food stamps,
which provides certain low-income households with monthly
benefits, generally in the form of food stamp coupons, to
enable them to purchase more adequate diets.
The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-193) bars most legal
immigrants from food stamps and, with significant exceptions,
from SSI. Public Law 105-33 amended the welfare law to provide
that qualified aliens who were receiving SSI as of August 22,
1996 will continue to be eligible, regardless of whether their
claim was based on disability or age. Additionally, qualified
aliens who were here by August 22, 1996 and subsequently become
disabled will be eligible for SSI.\13\ Refugees and asylees are
temporarily exempted from the SSI bar for 7 years and the food
stamp bar for 5 years after entering as refugees or being
granted asylum. The 1997 act also made Cuban/Haitian entrants
and Amerasians eligible for benefits on the same basis as
refugees, as they had been prior to 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The 1997 law also includes a limited grandfather clause for
legal aliens who have been identified by SSA as receiving benefits on
August 22, 1996, but who do not appear to fit within one of the
categories of qualified aliens defined by the 1996 legislation. SSA and
CBO estimate their number to be approximately 20,000, but little is
known about their current status. Presumably a determination about
their continuing eligibility will be made by September 30, 1998.
Additionally, members of recognized Indian tribes and certain Canadian-
born Indians are exempt from SSI and Medicaid restrictions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
State option
The second set of restrictions applies to three Federal/
State matching grant programs: Medicaid, TANF, and SSBG.
Medicaid provides medical assistance for low-income persons who
are aged, blind, or disabled or members of needy families with
dependent children. Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
(TANF) is a new block grant program established by the 1996
welfare act; TANF provides Federal funds to States for
temporary cash assistance for needy families, and replaces Aid
to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). The Social Services
Block Grant (SSBG) Program is also a State block grant program,
providing Federal funds to States for social services aimed at
preventing dependency and remedying problems associated with
it.
Beginning January 1, 1997, States may permit or prohibit
participation by legal immigrants who entered the United States
before enactment of the welfare law (August 22, 1996) from
Medicaid, TANF, and SSBG. Legal immigrants entering the United
States after August 22, 1996, are barred for 5 years from all
benefits under these programs except emergency medical
assistance. After 5 years, the decision as to whether legal
immigrants may participate in Medicaid, TANF, and/or SSBG rests
with the States, subject to a rule ``deeming'' sponsors' income
and resources to be available to the immigrant, as discussed
below.
Only Alabama and Guam have indicated that they will not
permit qualified aliens to participate in TANF; all other
States have indicated they will make them eligible. Louisiana
and Wyoming are the only States which have indicated they are
barring qualified aliens from Medicaid.
Note that the 5 year bar does not apply to refugees and
asylees, and the State option to restrict Medicaid benefits
does not apply to them in the same manner that it does to
immigrants. Refugees and asylees who meet the other program
criteria are eligible for full Medicaid benefits for 7 years
after entering as refugees or being granted asylum, and for
TANF and SSBG benefits for 5 years. After that time, refugees
and asylees are subject to the same State option provision that
applies to legal immigrants.
Other programs
Most qualified aliens arriving after August 22, 1996 are
barred from most other Federal means-tested programs for 5
years after their arrival. Their participation after that time
is subject to sponsor-to-alien deeming, as it is for Medicaid,
TANF, and SSBG. However, a number of programs are exempt from
both the 5-year bar and sponsor-to-alien deeming (see table J-
11). These include:
--Treatment under Medicaid for emergency medical conditions
(other than those related to an organ transplant);
--Short-term, in-kind emergency disaster relief;
--Assistance under the National School Lunch Act or the Child
Nutrition Act of 1966;
--Immunizations against diseases and testing for and
treatment of symptoms of communicable diseases;
--Foster care and adoption assistance under title IV of the
Social Security Act, unless the foster parent or
adoptive parent is an alien other than a qualified
alien;
--Education assistance under the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965, specified titles (IV, V, IX, and
X) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, or specified
titles (III, VII, and VIII) of the Public Health
Service Act;
--Benefits under the Head Start Act;
--Benefits under the Job Training Partnership Act; and
--Services or assistance (such as soup kitchens, crisis
counseling and intervention, and short-term shelters)
designated by the Attorney General as: (i) delivering
in-kind services at the community level; (ii) providing
assistance without individual determinations of each
recipient's needs; and (iii) being necessary for the
protection of life and safety.
TABLE J-11.--ALIEN ELIGIBILITY PROVISIONS FOR FEDERAL BENEFITS UNDER NEW WELFARE AND IMMIGRATION LAWS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Qualified aliens regardless Qualified aliens
Provisions of entry date entering after 8/22/96 Nonqualified aliens
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Restricted programs............. Food stamps; SSI, unless on For 5 years after entry, Most Federal public
rolls 8/22/86 or here then Federal means-tested benefits (with
and later disabled. At public benefits (with exceptions noted
State option: \1\ TANF, exceptions noted below).
SSBG, and Medicaid (other below). Thereafter, the
than emergency services restrictions in the
and SSI-related). left column apply.
Programs excepted from Qualified aliens here Emergency medical Emergency medical
restrictions. before 8/22/96 not barred services, disaster services, disaster
by alienage status from relief, public health relief, public health
programs other than those assistance, community- assistance, community
listed above. level services, school services, housing
lunch, child nutrition, assistance received at
Foster Care and enactment, Social
Adoption Assistance, Security and Medicare
Head Start, certain job benefits for lawful
training, elementary, aliens, and school
secondary, & higher lunch and breakfast.
education, and Public Other child nutrition
Health Service Act and food distribution
education assistance. programs at State
option. (Does not
change law regarding
public education.)
Individuals excepted from Refugees & asylees--7 years Refugees and asylees (as Nonimmigrants only for
restrictions. for SSI, Medicaid, 5 years in left column); contracts or licenses
for other programs; immigrants with 40 related to their
immigrants with 40 Social Social Security work authorized employment,
Security work quarters; quarters; \2\ and alien and for benefits under
\2\ and alien veterans, veterans, certain reciprocal treaty
certain active duty active duty personnel, agreements.
personnel, and families. and families.
Modification of sponsor-to-alien New deeming rules After 5-year bar, for Not applicable.
deeming. applicable to qualified Federal means-tested
aliens entering after 8/22/ programs until alien
96 and with affidavits naturalizes or has 40
complying with new INA Social Security work
requirements--see next quarters; \2\ with
column. exceptions similar to 5-
year bar.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ State option begins 5 years after entry for qualified aliens entering after 8/22/96.
\2\ Includes quarters worked by a spouse/parent; for quarters worked after 1996, no quarter during which the
alien received public assistance may be counted toward the 40-quarter exception.
Source: Congressional Research Service.
Emergency services, school lunch, and community-level
services are available for all aliens; other school nutrition
programs may be provided to nonqualified aliens at State
option. The so-called Attorney General's list, defining noncash
community-level services exempt from the various prohibitions,
was published in the Federal Register on August 30, 1996 (p.
45985). Among other services, it includes senior nutrition
programs, such as Meals on Wheels.
Expanded Sponsor-to-Alien Deeming and Affidavits of Support
The other two restrictions on alien access to public
benefits included in the 1996 welfare and immigration laws are:
(1) legally binding affidavits of support; and (2) sponsor-to-
alien deeming rules. As discussed below, both are expansions of
previously existing law and practice. They have their roots in
the public charge provision of immigration law, which has been
a feature of United States immigration law since 1882.
Affidavits of support
The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) was amended in
1996 by the addition of a new section 213A,\14\ which provides
a statutory basis for affidavits of support and greatly extends
their scope in a variety of ways, in part as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ This section was added first by Public Law 104-193, and
subsequently amended by the immigration provisions of Public Law 104-
204, the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--It makes them legally binding documents effective either
until the sponsored immigrant naturalizes or meets the
40-quarter work requirement;
--It requires affidavits of all family-based immigrants and
employment-based immigrants coming to work for
relatives;
--It requires sponsors to have an income of at least 125
percent of the Federal poverty level, and to agree to
support the sponsored immigrant at the same level; and
--It provides that both government agencies and sponsored
immigrants could sue sponsors for failure to meet their
obligations.
Expanded deeming rules
A significant difference from previous law is that all the
sponsor's income and resources and that of the sponsor's spouse
is deemed to be available to the immigrant in determining
financial eligibility. Coupled with the fact that government
agencies providing benefits to sponsored immigrants are legally
entitled to sue the sponsors, the clear intent of the new
deeming provisions is to bar immigrants from participation in
means-tested programs. The sponsor, rather than the Federal
Government, is expected to be financially responsible for
immigrants who need assistance.
The sponsor-to-alien deeming rules have also been expanded
in terms of duration, and the number of programs and immigrants
covered.
--Deeming remains in effect until the immigrant naturalizes
or meets the 40-quarter work requirement.
--The new deeming rules apply to all Federal means-tested
programs except those expressly exempted by law (and to
SSI and food stamps, from which immigrants are barred).
The excepted programs are the same as those exempted
from the 5-year bar (see table J-11).
--Deeming applies to all sponsored immigrants, a group
expanded by the immigration law's requirement that all
family-based immigrants have affidavits of support.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ The new deeming rules apply only to aliens who enter after
enactment with affidavits of support that comply with the new statutory
requirements. Sponsored aliens are not covered by them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALIEN ELIGIBILITY FOR STATE AND LOCAL ASSISTANCE
Historically, the level of a State's expenditures for
noncitizens has been driven primarily by the size of its alien
population and the range of services it provides its residents
generally. However, two sets of provisions of the 1996 welfare
reforms have led the States to reexamine benefits for aliens.
One set directly addresses alien eligibility for State benefits
and potentially can reduce State expenditures. The second set
restricts Federal benefits for aliens and indirectly may lead
to new State funding.
As part of restricting the access of aliens to benefits,
the 1996 act expressly denies illegal aliens most State and
local public benefits (elementary and secondary education is
not among programs specifically denied) and authorizes the
States to restrict the access of many legal aliens to these
activities. States now are authorized to regulate the
eligibility of legal aliens (including immigrants,
nonimmigrants and parolees) for State and local benefits in the
same manner (and subject to similar limitations) that Congress
has regulated the eligibility of legal aliens for Federal
benefits, and this State regulation may include imposing
sponsor-to-alien deeming requirements. The constitutionality of
these provisions--especially the ability of Congress to enhance
State authority over legal aliens--doubtless will be litigated
for some time. Still, unless overturned, the act has provided
States new legal means for controlling expenditures.
Nevertheless, the unprecedented restrictions on Federal
benefits in the 1996 act, though eased in part by the Balanced
Budget Act of 1997, have led many States to consider
substituting State programs. Several factors have pushed the
States to look at funding alien benefits. Among these factors
are State constitutional limits on denying benefits to
noncitizens and concern about vulnerable noncitizen
populations.
New perceived needs have combined with new legal
flexibility to result in an outburst of recent legislative
activity. Most States have long provided some type of cash
assistance to needy individuals--under general assistance
programs or State supplements to SSI, for example--apart from
that provided under Federal or joint Federal-State programs.
Provisions in the 1996 act to bar SSI for most legal aliens--a
restriction since limited under the 1997 Balanced Budget Act--
led many States to reexamine coverage of aliens under their
cash programs, coverage that before the 1996 act was considered
legally mandatory. Restrictions in the 1996 act on food stamps
for aliens, a restriction not addressed in the Balanced Budget
Act, also has prompted State action.
The Immigration Policy Project at the National Conference
of State Legislatures has summarized State legislative activity
in these areas through October 21, 1997 as follows:
State-funded cash benefits
Prior to the Federal reprieve in the 1997 Balanced Budget
Act, States considered and often put in place one of three
options in providing an SSI replacement cash benefit for
immigrants: access to or expansion of the State's general
assistance program, access to or expansion of the State's SSI
supplement or disability benefit program, and creation of a new
program. For example, Rhode Island legislation considered a new
cash assistance program for disabled and elderly legal
immigrant residents who were receiving State supplementary
assistance on July 1, 1997, but would have lost eligibility for
Federal benefits due to the Federal welfare reform law. Most
States, however, are considering the first two methods.
Washington has enacted legislation permitting immigrants who
lose their SSI to apply for the State's general assistance-
unemployable program. Enacted Colorado legislation makes legal
immigrants, regardless of date of entry, eligible for the
State's Old Age Pension, Aid to the Blind, and Aid to the Needy
Disabled Programs; sponsor deeming may apply. Nebraska allows
qualified immigrants to receive aid to the aged, blind and
disabled, regardless of their date of entry, though deeming
applies. California would permit immigrants who lose SSI to
continue receiving the State supplement for SSI. Illinois
legislation allocates $10 million for an SSI replacement
program, separate from the State's general assistance program,
which is not administered statewide. With the restoration of
Federal SSI benefits for a significant portion of the affected
immigrant populations, States face new decisions regarding the
use of the money and programs intended to replace SSI.
Deeming
In general, most States are expecting the new, enforceable
affidavits of support to be reliable tools and to deem in
accordance with the welfare reform law. This means that the
immigrant's sponsor's income, and that of the sponsor's spouse,
will be attributed to the immigrant in determining eligibility
until the immigrant has achieved citizenship or 40 qualifying
work quarters. Newly enacted laws in Arizona, California,
Colorado, Florida, Maryland, Nebraska, Rhode Island and
Washington include deeming provisions.
Nutrition
To date, eleven States have chosen to provide State-funded
food assistance to some or all legal immigrants who will lose
Federal food stamp eligibility due to the welfare reform law,
either by purchasing Federal food stamps or developing State
food benefits: California, Florida, Maryland, Massachusetts,
Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Texas,
and Washington. Many States also appropriated additional funds
for emergency food assistance.
Most States are providing food assistance either at a
lower benefit level to current residents of the State or to
selected groups of immigrants, such as children and the
elderly. Washington, with a State history of supporting food
programs, appropriated $65 million to purchase Federal food
stamps for all legal immigrants made ineligible by Federal law
at the Federal benefit level. Florida will provide about $12
million in food stamps for immigrants 65 and older who were
residents as of February 1, 1997. California allocated $35.6
million to replace food stamps for some 40,000 children and
elderly immigrants who were residing in the United States as of
August 22, 1996. Maryland plans to spend $2.15 million on
State-run food stamp benefits for legal immigrant children. New
York permits counties and New York City to provide food
assistance for individuals under 18 or over 65 years of age,
resident as of August 22, 1996, who apply for naturalization
within 30 days. Nebraska will provide State funded benefits to
approximately 2,240 immigrants. Rhode Island will provide food
stamps to immigrants resident as of August 22, 1996. The
Governor of New Jersey approved $15 million for legal immigrant
children, elderly and disabled who were resident as of August
22, 1996. Minnesota is providing ``Minnesota-grown'' coupons at
35 percent of the Federal benefit level, for those residing in
Minnesota as of July 1, 1997; recipients must work toward
citizenship. Massachusetts appropriated $5 million for food
stamps to legal immigrants, with benefits expected to be
between $15 and $24 per person per month. Benefits will
eventually be provided via electronic benefit transfer. The
Governor of Texas has announced a plan to provide up to $18
million to approximately 28,000 aged and disabled immigrants.
The average benefit will be $53 per month, and distributed via
the State's electronic benefit transfer system.
Cash and nutrition assistance have not been the only areas
to receive State attention. While the restoration of SSI
benefits under the Balanced Budget Act concomitantly restored
Medicaid benefits for long-term residents, most newly arriving
aliens are disqualified from Medicaid for 5 years after entry
(after which time States have the option to make Medicaid
available). Several States have acted to provide some medical
benefits for these new arrivals. These States include New York;
Connecticut; Minnesota; Nebraska; Maryland (children and
pregnant women); Rhode Island (children and pregnant women);
and Virginia (children).
Also, the States clearly are aware that restrictions on
Federal benefits for aliens terminate once the aliens become
U.S. citizens. For example, New Jersey has allocated
approximately $2 million, to be matched by private funds, for
naturalization outreach programs. Florida appropriated a like
amount for similar purposes. In California, a $5 million
appropriation for naturalization services was line-item vetoed.
VERIFICATION OF STATUS AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
The increase in the number of programs and classes of
aliens affected by the new welfare reform law has necessitated
an expansion of previous procedures used for verifying alien
eligibility for benefits. For example, the SSBG Program is now
barred to newly arrived qualified aliens, whereas in the past
it was not subject to any alienage restrictions. Similarly, the
concept of qualified aliens originated with the welfare law,
and includes noncitizens not covered by the INS database used
by the SAVE system.
The Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlement (SAVE)
Program authorized by the Immigration Reform and Control Act
(IRCA) of 1986 has been the primary means of verifying
eligibility for many major Federal benefits. Under SAVE,
applicants who stated that they were not citizens were required
to have their status verified through a database of INS files.
If this primary verification was unsuccessful, manual secondary
verification by INS officials was conducted. Both Federal and
State governments were critical of the time needed to complete
secondary verifications. Because the SAVE data base was limited
to aliens, it was also criticized as being vulnerable to
circumvention by false citizenship claims. Reportedly, INS
plans to have an enhanced SAVE-like system in place by February
1998.
The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-193) and subsequent
amendments in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-
33) included new verification and reporting requirements. These
are supplemented by provisions in the Illegal Immigration
Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) of 1996,
immigration enforcement legislation enacted as part of the
Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997 (Public Law
104-208).
Verification Requirements
--The welfare reform law requires the Attorney General to
adopt regulations by February 22, 1998, to verify that
individuals who apply for Federal public benefits are
qualified aliens and eligible for assistance. As
amended by IIRIRA, the welfare reform law also requires
the Attorney General to establish fair and
nondiscriminatory procedures by February 22, 1998 on
proving citizenship when applying for a Federal public
benefit.
--States that administer a program which provides a
restricted federally assisted benefit must have a
verification program that complies with the above
regulations within 24 months of their adoption.
--The 1996 immigration law amended the welfare law to allow
nonprofit charitable organizations to provide Federal,
State, and local public benefits without having to
verify the immigration status of the recipients.
--The 1996 immigration law amended the Social Security and
Higher Education Acts to require the transmittal to INS
of copies of documents required to verify eligibility
for Social Security and Higher Education assistance.
--Public Law 105-33 authorized State and local governments to
verify the eligibility of individuals for State and
local public benefits.
--Public Law 105-33 requires the Attorney General, within 90
days of its enactment, to issue interim verification
guidance and to adopt regulations on procedures to be
used by States and local governments for determining
whether applicants are subject to the new federally-
imposed bars on State and local benefits--i.e., for
verifying that alien applicants are qualified aliens,
nonimmigrants, or short-term parolees.
Reporting Requirements
--The welfare law requires the following entities to provide
INS at least 4 times annually and at INS' request the
name, address, and other information they have
regarding each individual whom they know is in the
United States unlawfully: (1) States receiving block
grants for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
(TANF); (2) the Commissioner of Social Security; (3)
States operating under agreements for the payment of
SSI State supplements through the Federal Government;
(4) the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development; and
(5) public housing agencies operating under contracts
for assistance under sections 6 or 8 of the United
States Housing Act of 1937.
--Separately, the welfare reform law states that no State or
local entity may be prohibited or in any way restricted
from sending to or receiving from the INS information
regarding an individual's immigration status.
--The immigration law requires the Attorney General to
notify, not later than 180 days after the end of each
fiscal year, the House and Senate Judiciary Committees
and the Inspector General of the Department of Justice
on: (1) the number of public charge deportations; (2)
the number of sponsors determined to be indigent; and
(3) the number of reimbursement actions brought under
affidavits of support.
ILLEGAL ALIENS AND BENEFITS
Statistical Background
Illegal aliens are those noncitizens who either entered
the United States without having been inspected by INS (i.e.,
entered surreptitiously)--referred to as EWIs--or overstayed
the term of their nonimmigrant visas--e.g, tourist or student
visas. INS has estimated that the resident illegal alien
population was 5 million as of October 1996.\16\ EWIs made up
59 percent (2.9 million) of the total, while visa overstays
made up the remaining 41 percent (2.1 million). The annual
growth in the resident illegal alien population was estimated
at 275,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, Office of Policy
and Planning. Backgrounder: Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant
Population Residing in the United States: October 1996. Washington,
Jan. 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seven States accounted for 83 percent of the illegal
population, led by California at 40 percent. The other States,
in order, were Texas (14 percent), New York (11 percent),
Florida (7 percent), Illinois (6 percent), New Jersey (3
percent), and Arizona (2 percent). Mexico dominated the sending
countries at 54 percent, followed by El Salvador (7 percent),
Guatemala (3 percent), Canada (2.4 percent) and Haiti (2.1
percent).
Eligibility Standards
Federal benefits
The 1996 welfare reform law denies most Federal benefits,
regardless of whether they are means tested, to illegal aliens.
The class of benefits denied is broad and covers (1) grants,
contracts, loans, and licenses and (2) retirement, welfare,
health, disability, housing, food, unemployment, postsecondary
education, and similar benefits. So defined, this bar covers
many programs whose enabling statutes do not individually make
citizenship or immigration status a criterion for
participation. Thus, programs that previously were not
individually restricted--the earned income tax credit, social
services block grants, and migrant health centers, for
example--became unavailable to illegal aliens, unless they fall
within the act's limited exceptions. These programmatic
exceptions include:
1. Treatment under Medicaid for emergency medical conditions
(other than those related to an organ transplant);
2. Short-term, in-kind emergency disaster relief;
3. Immunizations against immunizable diseases and testing for
and treatment of symptoms of communicable diseases;
4. Services or assistance (such as soup kitchens, crisis
counseling and intervention, and short-term shelters)
designated by the Attorney General as: (i) delivering
in-kind services at the community level; (ii) providing
assistance without individual determinations of each
recipient's needs; and (iii) being necessary for the
protection of life and safety; and
5. To the extent that an alien was receiving assistance on the
date of enactment, programs administered by the
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, programs
under title V of the Housing Act of 1949, and
assistance under section 306C of the Consolidated Farm
and Rural Development Act (subtitle E of title V of the
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility
Act (division C of Public Law 104-208) later
facilitated the removal of illegal aliens from housing
assistance).
The 1996 welfare reform law also permits illegal aliens to
receive Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance benefits
under title II of the Social Security Act, if the benefits are
protected by that title or by treaty or are paid under
applications made before August 22, 1996. Separately, the act
states that individuals who are eligible for free public
education benefits under State and local law shall remain
eligible to receive school lunch and school breakfast benefits.
(The act itself does not address a State's obligation to grant
all aliens equal access to education under the Supreme Court's
decision in Plyler v. Doe.) Beyond these nutrition benefits,
the act neither prohibits nor requires a State to provide
illegal aliens other benefits funded under the National School
Lunch Act of the Child Nutrition Act or under the Emergency
Food Assistance Act, section 4 of the Agriculture and Consumer
Protection Act, or the Food Distribution Program on Indian
Reservations under the Food Stamp Act.
State benefits
Unlike earlier Federal law, the 1996 welfare reforms
expressly bar illegal aliens from most State- and locally-
funded benefits. The restrictions on these benefits parallel
the restrictions on Federal benefits. Illegal aliens are
generally barred from State and local government contracts,
licenses, grants, loans, and assistance. Exceptions are made
for:
1. Treatment for emergency conditions (other than those
related to an organ transplant);
2. Short-term, in-kind emergency disaster relief;
3. Immunization against immunizable diseases and testing for
and treatment of symptoms of communicable diseases; and
4. Services or assistance (such as soup kitchens, crisis
counseling and intervention, and short-term shelters)
designated by the Attorney General as: (i) delivering
in-kind services at the community level; (ii) providing
assistance without individual determinations of each
recipient's needs; and (iii) being necessary for the
protection of life and safety.
Also, the restrictions on State and local benefits do not
apply to activities that are funded in part by Federal funds;
these activities are regulated under the 1996 law as Federal
benefits. Furthermore, the law states that nothing in it is to
be construed as addressing eligibility for basic public
education. Finally, the 1996 law allows the States, through
enactment of new State laws, to provide illegal aliens with
State and local benefits that otherwise are restricted.
Despite the federally-imposed bar and the State
flexibility provided by the 1996 law, the States still may be
required to expend a significant amount of State funds for
illegal aliens. Public elementary and secondary education for
illegal aliens remains compelled by judicial decision, and
payment for emergency medical services for illegal aliens
remains compelled by Federal law. Meanwhile, certain other
costs attributable to illegal aliens, such as criminal justice
costs, remain compelled by the continued presence of illegal
aliens.
The degree of required State spending on illegal aliens is
illustrated in a 1994 report by the Urban Institute (Clark, et
al., 1994). There, the authors estimated that seven States with
large populations of illegal aliens--California, Florida,
Texas, New York, Illinois, Arizona, and New Jersey--spent the
following amounts in fiscal year 1993 in providing three types
of services to illegal aliens within their borders: $3.1
billion for public education; $471 million for incarceration;
and $445 million for emergency medical care under Medicaid.
REFERENCES
Bogue, D.J. (1985). The population of the United States:
Historical trends and future projections. New York: The
Free Press.
Clark, R.L., Passel, J.S., Zimmermann, W.N., & Fix, M.E.
(1994). Fiscal impacts of undocumented aliens: Selected
estimates for seven States (p. 89). Washington, DC: The
Urban Institute.
Congressional Budget Office. (1996). Federal Budgetary
Implications of the Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. Washington, DC:
Author.
Department of Mental Hygiene v. Renel, 6 N.Y. 2d 791 (1959).
Fix, M., Passel, J.S., & Zimmermann, W. (1996). The use of SSI
and other welfare programs by immigrants. Testimony
before the U.S. Senate [Judiciary] Subcommittee on
Immigration, Feb. 6, 1996. Washington, DC: The Urban
Institute.
Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365 (1971).
Hansen, K.A., & Faber, C.S. (1997). The foreign born
population: 1996. Current Population Reports (Series
P20-494). Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of the Census.
League of United Latin American Citizens v. Wilson, 908 F.
Supp. 755 (C.D. Cal. 1955).
O'Grady, M.J. (1995). Native and naturalized citizens and
noncitizens: An analysis of poverty status, welfare
benefits, and other factors (95-276 EPW, pp. 1-34).
Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.
Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982).
Ponce, E. (1996). Lawfully Resident Aliens who Receive SSI
Payments, December 1995. Washington, DC: Social
Security Administration.
State v. Binder, 356 Mich. 73 (1959).
U.S. Department of Agriculture. (1997). Characteristics of food
stamp households. Washington, DC: Food and Consumer
Service.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1996).
Characteristics and financial circumstances of AFDC
recipients, fiscal year 1995. Washington, DC:
Administration for Children and Families.
U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service. (1997).
Backgrounder: Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant
Population Residing in the United States: October 1996.
Washington, DC: Author
Vialet, J.C. (1997). Immigration: Reasons for Growth, 1981-95
(97-230 EPW). Washington, DC: Congressional Research
Service.
Wasem, R.E. (1995). Naturalization of Immigrants: Facts and
Issues (95-279 EPW). Washington, DC: Congressional
Research Service.