J-1 

 

APPENDIX J-WELFARE BENEFITS FOR NONCITIZENS 

CONTENTS 

Introduction 

Immigration and Naturalization Policy and Trends 

Legal Immigration 

 Naturalization 

Illegal Aliens 

Current Foreign-Born Residents 

Noncitizens’ Eligibility for Benefits Prior to 1996 

“Public Charge” and Development of Eligibility Standards 

State and Local Law Before 1996 

1996-2002 Legislative Revisions 

Alien Eligibility for Federal Assistance 

Program Bars 

Permanent Bar 

State Option 

Other Programs 

Expanded Sponsor-to-Alien Deeming and Affidavits of Support 

Eligibility Standards for Illegal Aliens 

Noncitizens’ Use of Federal Assistance Programs 

Analysis of Program Participation Data 

Analysis of Current Population Survey (CPS) Data 

Verification of Status and Reporting Requirements 

Verification Requirements 

Reporting Requirements 

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 further restricted public benefits for illegal aliens and 

nonimmigrants (aliens temporarily here to visit, attend school, or work). 

Subsequently in the 104th Congress, provisions of the new welfare law were 

amended, supplemented, and further tightened by the Illegal Immigration Reform 

and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, enacted as division C of the Omnibus 

Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997 (Public Law 104-208). 

 The 1996 changes made in the alien eligibility rules proved controversial, 

particularly the termination of benefits for those who were receiving Supplemental 

Security Income (SSI) as of the date the new welfare law was enacted 
J-2 

(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 (BBA) signed into 

law on August 5, 1997. The BBA amended the welfare law to provide that legal 

immigrants 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. In 

addition, qualified aliens who were here by August 22, 1996 and who subsequently 

become disabled will be eligible for SSI. 

 Congress also expanded food stamp eligibility in Public Law 105-185, the 

Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998, to include 

those legal immigrants who were in the U.S. by August 22, 1996, who were 

 65 years old or older, who were disabled or subsequently became disabled, or who 

were under 18 years old. Most recently, the comprehensive legislation that 

reauthorized Agriculture Department programs (P.L. 107-171) opened up food 

stamp eligibility to legal permanent residents (LPRs) who meet a 5-year residence 

test and all LPR children (regardless of date of entry or length of residence). 

 This appendix begins with a brief discussion of U.S. immigration policy and 

trends, including naturalization requirements and statistics. A summary of alien 

eligibility requirements under prior law and a review of the current alien eligibility 

law follow. An analysis of noncitizen use of Federal benefits over the past few 

years reveals usage changes since the enactment of the 1996 alien eligibility rules. 

Provisions relating to verification of status and reporting requirements and concerns 

about illegal aliens and benefits conclude the appendix. 

IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION POLICY AND TRENDS 

LEGAL IMMIGRATION 

 Three major traditions underlie U.S. policy on legal immigration: the 

reunification of families, the admission of immigrants with needed skills, and the 

protection of refugees. These traditions are implemented through the Immigration 

and Nationality Act (INA), the basic law regulating the admission of immigrants 

allowed to reside in the United States permanently. While most foreign nationals, 

such as tourists, foreign students, international business people, or temporary 

workers, enter the United States only temporarily, about 1 million aliens become 

LPRs each year. 

 As Chart J-1 shows, the annual number of immigrants to the United States rose 

gradually after World War II, and approaches immigration levels of the early 20th

Century. Chart J-2 illustrates that, although the percent of the population that is 

foreign born is not as large as during earlier periods, the sheer numberC32.5 million 

in 2001Cis at the highest point in U.S. history (Wasem, 2002). 
J-3 

CHART J-1--ANNUAL IMMIGRANT ADMISSIONS AND STATUS 

ADJUSTMENTS, 1900-2002 

Source: CRS presentation of DHS data. Aliens legalizing through the Immigration 

Reform and Control Act of 1986 are depicted by year of arrival.

1900

1905

1910

1915

1920

1925

1930

1935

1940

1945

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2002

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

Thousands

Legalized Aliens

CHART J-2—FOREIGN-BORN RESIDENTS OF THE UNITED STATES, 

1870-2002 

Source: CRS presentation of data from The Foreign-Born Population: 1994, by K. A. 

Hansen & A. Bachu, U.S. Bureau of Census (1995); The Population of the United 

States, by Donald J. Bogue (1985); and the March 2002 Supplement of the CPS.





     



    

1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2001

0

10

20

30

40 Millions of People

0

10

20

30

40 Percent of Population

Percent People
J-4 

 The growth in immigration after 1980 is partly attributable to the fact that the 

total number of admissions under the basic system, consisting of immigrants 

entering through a preference system as well as immediate relatives of U.S. citizens, 

was augmented considerably by legalized aliens and refugees. These latter two 

categories together accounted for 35 percent of total immigration during the period 

1980-95. The number of refugees admitted increased from 718,000 in the period 

1966-80 to 1.6 million during the period 1981-95, after enactment of the Refugee 

Act of 1980 (Vialet, 1997). In addition, the Immigration Act of 1990 increased the 

ceiling on employment-based preference immigration, with the provision that 

unused employment visas would be made available the following year for family 

preference immigration. 

NATURALIZATION 

 Another tradition of immigration policy is to allow immigrants an 

opportunity to integrate fully into society. 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 now set at $260 

to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services in the Department of Homeland 

Security (DHS) when they file their materials and have the option of taking a 

standardized civics test or of having the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 

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 given to aliens who are over 65 years old 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 

serve in the U.S. military. 

 The number of immigrants petitioning to naturalize has surged in recent 

years, jumping from just over half a million applicants in fiscal year 1994 to more 

than 1 million in fiscal year 1995 (Table J-1). There were an unprecedented 1.6 

million petitions in fiscal year 1997, but the number fell to 460,916 petitions in 

fiscal year 2000. In FY2002, 700,649 LPRs filed naturalization petitions. Estimates 

of the proportion of LPRs who elect to become citizens vary by the methods in 

which the data are collected but traditionally have ranged from 30 to 40 percent 

(Wasem, 1995). 
J-5 

 TABLE J-1--NATURALIZATION CASELOAD, 1990-2002 

Fiscal year Petitions filed Petitions approved Petitions 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 

1997 1,571,797 582,478 130,676 

1998 794,749 473,152 137,395 

1999 720,468 872,485 380,202 

2000 460,916 898,670 399,670 

2001 501,646 613,161 218,326 

2002 700,649 589,728 139,779 

Note: As of September 30, 2002, a total of 623,519 cases were pending. 

Source: Immigration and Naturalization Service, Statistics Division. 

 There are several factors that may account for the increase during the mid1990s, as well as the general declines since then, in naturalization petitions. Most 

notable is the 2.8 million aliens who legalized through the Immigration Reform and 

Control Act of 1986 became eligible to naturalize in the mid-1990s, thus creating a 

one-time-only surge in the number of people seeking to naturalize. In addition to the 

Immigration Reform and Control Act legalized population, there has been a steady 

rise over the past 2 decades in the overall number of legal immigrants to the United 

States. Indeed, immigration during the 15-year period 1981-95 was almost twice 

that of the previous 15 years. This increased level of immigration, in turn, has 

increased the pool of people eligible to naturalize (Vialet, 1997). Finally, some 

noncitizens may have sought to naturalize in recent years in order to avoid the 

benefit eligibility restrictions in place since 1996, as discussed below. 

ILLEGAL ALIENS 

 Illegal aliens are those noncitizens who either enter the United States 

surreptitiously; i.e., enter without inspection, or overstay the term of their 

nonimmigrant visas (tourist or student visas). Many of these aliens have some type 

of document B either bogus or expired B and may have cases pending with U.S. 

Citizenship and Immigration Services. The former U.S. Immigration and 

Naturalization Service (INS) estimated that there were 7.0 million unauthorized 

aliens in the United States in 2000. Demographers at the Census Bureau and the 

Urban Institute estimated the unauthorized population in 2000 at 8.7 and 8.5 million 

respectively, but these latter estimates included “quasi-legal” aliens who had LPR 
J-6 

petitions pending or had gotten relief from deportation (Passel, 2001). 

 According to the data analysis of the former INS, ten States accounted for 

80.0 percent of the illegal population, led by California at 31.6 percent. The other 

States, in order, were Texas (14.9 percent), New York (7.0 percent), Illinois (6.2 

percent), Florida (4.8 percent), Arizona (4.0 percent), Georgia (3.3 percent), New 

Jersey (3.2 percent), North Carolina (2.9 percent), and Colorado (2.1 percent). 

Mexico dominated the sending countries at 68.7 percent, followed by El Salvador 

(2.7 percent), Guatemala (2.1 percent), Colombia (2.0 percent), and Honduras (2.0 

percent) (U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service). 

CURRENT FOREIGN-BORN RESIDENTS 

 The most comprehensive source of information on the foreign born is the 

U.S. 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. Because the CPS is a sample of the U.S. population, the results are 

necessarily estimates. While the data 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, or illegal). 

 The 2002 CPS found that about 11.5 percent of U.S. residents were foreign 

born (7.3 percent noncitizens and 4.2 percent naturalized citizens; Chart J-3). There 

were 32.5 million foreign-born persons living in the United States, of which 37 

percent or 12.0 million had become naturalized citizens. This total foreign-born 

population was up from 24.6 million persons in 1996, and the number of naturalized 

persons had increased from 7.9 million in 1996. 

 Based on self-reported data contained in the 1996 and 1998 CPS, the number 

of foreign-born persons naturalized increased 23 percent over this period, in 

comparison to only a 7 percent increase in the number of foreign-born persons and a 

1.8 percent increase in the U.S. population. The rate of naturalization increases 

proportionately with the length of residence. Of persons arriving since 1990, 9.2 

percent have naturalized. This rate increases to 32.4 percent for those who arrived 

during the 1980s, and 55.2 percent among those who arrived during the 1970s 

(Teran & Wasem, 1999). 

Region of Origin

 Estimates from the latest CPS indicate that of the total noncitizen population, 

the largest percentage (60.3 percent) arrived from Latin America, which includes 

Mexico and Central America, South America, and the Caribbean region. The 

second largest group of noncitizens immigrated from Asia (19.4 percent). Those 

immigrants who naturalized likewise came in a similar rank order from those 

regions of the world, but the proportions are not as sharply skewed toward Latin 

America and Asia (Chart J-4). 
J-7 

CHART J-3—CITIZENSHIP STATUS OF U.S. RESIDENTS, 

2001

Source: CRS analysis of March Supplement of Current Population Survey, 2002

Native born 88.5%

Naturalized 4.2%

Noncitizens 7.3%

CHART J-4--PERCENTAGE OF FOREIGN-BORN BY WORLD REGION OF 

ORIGIN, 2001 

Source: CRS analysis of March Supplement of Current Population Survey, 2002.

2.0%

29.5%

16.4%

4.1%

38.4%

9.6%

2.7%

19.4% 7.8%

2.7%

60.3%

7.1%

Western Asia Asia

Europe

Western Europe

former 

Soviet 

Union

former 

Soviet 

Union

Africa

Africa

Latin America Latin America

other

other

Naturalized 

12.0 million 20.5 million

Noncitizens
J-8 

Region and State of Residence

 The western part of the United States is home to the largest proportion 

(39.2 percent) of noncitizens (Table J-2). Over a quarter (29.4 percent) of 

noncitizens live in the South, and just under a quarter (21.4 percent) live in the 

Northeast. About 10 percent of noncitizens reside in the Midwest. By State of 

residence, over one-fourth (28.5 percent) of all noncitizens live in the State of 

California. The State with the next largest portion of noncitizens is New York (11.0 

percent). Texas is home to 10.5 percent, and Florida is the home of 8.7 percent of 

all noncitizens. The only other States with noteworthy shares of noncitizens are 

New Jersey (4.7 percent) and Illinois (4.0 percent). 

TABLE J-2--PERCENTAGE OF ALL NATIVE AND FOREIGN-BORN 

RESIDENTS LIVING IN SIX STATES AND FOUR REGIONS, 1998 

Citizen status 

State/region

Native Naturalized Noncitizen 

State: 

California 10.2 27.5 28.5 

New York 6.0 14.3 11.0 

Texas 7.4 7.1 10.5 

Florida 5.3 10.3 8.7 

New Jersey 2.8 5.0 4.7 

Illinois 4.0 4.3 4.0 

 

Region: 

Northeast 18.4 26.1 21.4 

Midwest 24.2 11.4 10.1 

South 36.7 26.2 29.4 

West 20.8 36.4 39.2 

Total population 

(millions) 249.6 12.0 20.5 

Source: CRS analysis of the 2002 CPS March Supplement. 

Poverty Levels

 CitizensCwhether native born or naturalizedCdiffer sharply from noncitizens 

in terms of poverty levels. As Chart J-5 illustrates, just under half of noncitizens 

sampled in the CPS were below 200 percent of the poverty level in 2001 and 

19.8 percent were below 100 percent of the poverty level. By contrast, only about 

29 percent of native and naturalized citizens are below 200 percent of the poverty 

level, and only 11.3 percent of natives and 9.9 percent of naturalized citizens are 

below 100 percent of the poverty level. There are a variety of factors that contribute 

to this variation, not the least of which are education levels and length of time in the 

United States. 
J-9 

NONCITIZENS’ ELIGIBILITY FOR BENEFITS PRIOR TO 1996

 Except for the general prohibition on aliens becoming public charges, to be 

discussed below, 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. Alien eligibility requirements, if any, were set forth in the 

laws and regulations governing the individual Federal assistance programs. 

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 barred from participation in 

all the major Federal assistance programs that had statutory provisions for 

noncitizens, as were tourists and most other aliens here legally in a temporary status 

(nonimmigrants). 

CHART J-5--POVERTY LEVELS BY CITIZENSHIP STATUS, 2001 

11.3%

17.6%

71.1%

9.9%

19.5%

70.6%

19.8%

28.8%

51.4%

Less than 100% of poverty 100%-199% of poverty 200% plus of poverty

Native Naturalized Noncitizen

Source: CRS analysis of March Supplement of Current Population Survey, 2002.

 However, many income, health, education, nutrition, and social service 

programs did not include specific provisions regarding alien eligibility; even illegal 

aliens were potential participants. These programs included, for example, the 

Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), 

child nutrition programs, earned income credits, migrant health centers, and the 

Social Services Block Grant (SSBG). 
J-10 

“PUBLIC CHARGE” AND DEVELOPMENT OF ELIGIBILITY STANDARDS 

 

 Opposition to the entry of foreign paupers and aliens “likely at any time to 

become a public charge”Clanguage found in the INA todayCdates 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. 

 Preceding 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 (Department of Mental Hygiene v. Renal, 6 N.Y. 2d 791 

(1959); State v. Binder, 356 Mich. 73 (1959)). The unenforceability of affidavits of 

support led to the adoption of legislation in the late 1970s and early 1980s intended 

to make them more effective. 

 Despite immigration policy explicitly designed to exclude potential public 

charges, Federal assistance laws for specific programs 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, on the eligibility of legal aliens for assistance under State or joint 

Federal-State programs. However, in the landmark 1971 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 that 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,” in order to be eligible for SSI, Aid to Families with Dependent 

Children (AFDC), Medicaid, or food stamps. These criteria were adopted with the 

intent of barring participation by temporary nonimmigrants and particularly by 

illegal 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 of SSI, AFDC, 

and food stamps to sponsored immigrants. The authorizing legislation for the three 
J-11 

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 some portion of their immigration 

sponsors' income and resources available to them. The sponsor-to-alien deeming 

period was set at 3 years for the three programs. To help finance legislation 

providing extended unemployment benefits, this period was temporarily increased 

from 3 years to 5 years for SSI, effective January 1, 1994-October 1, 1996. For 

those immigrants still covered under the pre-1996 rules, the duration of SSI 

deeming has reverted to 3 years.

 The 1996 welfare and immigration reform laws 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 INA that excludes aliens who appear 

“likely at any time to become a public charge.” 

STATE AND LOCAL LAW BEFORE 1996 

 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 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 (457 U.S. 202) that States could not deny illegal alien children a free public 

education, in part because of the absence of Federal guidance on the issue.

 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 (League of United Latin American Citizens v. Wilson, 908 F. Supp. 755 

(C.D. Cal. 1995)). 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. 

 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 practice also 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 
J-12 

only a portion of assistance. Broad alien eligibility rules set by Congress also 

indirectly triggered entitlement to significant State SSI supplements. 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 (Uccello et al., 1996).

 Exercising their broader authority with regard to illegal aliens, the GA laws of 

36 States limited eligibility to citizens and legal residents. Though many States had 

thus attempted to limit expenditures for illegal aliens, some of the largest State 

outlays for illegal aliensCelementary and secondary education, for 

exampleCremained beyond State control. 

1996-2002 LEGISLATIVE REVISIONS 

 In the 1996 welfare reform law (Public Law 104-193), Congress drew a 

sharp distinction between citizens and noncitizens in determining eligibility for 

welfare programs. Congress also concluded that the primary responsibility for 

assisting needy immigrants should be borne by the immigrants' sponsors rather than 

the government. To their authors, the new restrictions were a logical extension of 

the policies historically embodied by the public charge provision. Thus, most 

noncitizens were made ineligible for federally financed welfare benefits, effective 

during the summer and fall of 1997. Only a few categories of legal immigrants were 

left eligible (see below). 

 Public Law 105-33, BBA 1997, modified the 1996 legislation's policy of 

restricting alien eligibility for Federal benefits; however, these modifications were 

limited in scope. Only two programs, SSI, which provides cash assistance for needy 

persons who are aged, blind, or disabled, and, to a lesser degree, Medicaid, were 

substantially affected by the changes to noncitizens' benefits in the BBA. Similarly, 

Congress expanded food stamp provisions in Public Law 105-185, the Agricultural 

Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998 to include legal 

immigrants who were here by August 22, 1996, and who were 65 years old or older, 

who were disabled or subsequently became disabled, or who were under 18 years 

old. Generally, only noncitizens here before August 22, 1996, the enactment date of 

the 1996 welfare law, were affected by the 1997-98 modifications (except for new 

entries who benefit from a 2-year extension of refugee eligibility). The 

comprehensive legislation that reauthorized Agriculture Department programs (P.L. 

107-171) opened up food stamp eligibility to legal permanent residents (LPRs) who 

meet a 5-year residence test and all LPR children (regardless of date of entry or 

length of residence), comparable to the State-exercised options for Temporary 

Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) discussed below. The basic policy laid out 

by the 1996 welfare law remains essentially unchanged for noncitizens entering 

after its enactment. 
J-13 

ALIEN ELIGIBILITY FOR FEDERAL ASSISTANCE

 As revised in 1997, 1998, and 2002, the 1996 welfare law and, to a lesser 

extent, the 1996 immigration law, restricted alien eligibility for Federal benefits in 

three basic ways: 

1. They barred access to programs conditioned on alien status; 

2. They required legally binding affidavits of support from immigrants' 

sponsors; and 

3. They required that sponsors' income be deemed available to immigrants in 

determining eligibility for most means-tested programs. 

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. The 1996 welfare law, however, 

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 

BBA 1997 added Cuban/Haitian entrants (the terms "qualified alien" and "legal 

immigrant" are used interchangeably in this appendix). The laws made several 

exceptions to their 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 a 40 

qualifying quarters test. As defined by the 1996 welfare reform law, 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-tested 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, 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, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), 

and SSBG is summarized in Table J-3, together with the change from the law prior 

to 1996. 
TABLE J-3—ALIEN ELIGIBILITY FOR SELECTED FEDERAL PROGRAMS 

Alien category Supplemental Security Income Food Stamps Medicaid TANF (formerly AFDC) and Title XX Social Services Block Grant 

Immigrants:1 

Eligibility under prior law.... Yes, with deeming.2 Yes, with deeming.2 Yes ................................. Yes, with deeming for AFDC.2

Eligibility under current 

law. 

a) Here before 8/22/96 

(Public law 104-193 enactment) 

Yes, if on rolls 8/22/96 or disabled subsequently. 

Yes, if on rolls 8/22/96 and if 65 or older at that time, disabled or disabled subsequently; if resided 5 years in U.S. or under 18. 

Yes, for SSIderivative benefits or emergency services. Otherwise State option. 

State option with Federal money. 

b) New entrants – 1st 5 

years after arrival 

No3 .......................... No ............................ Emergency only........ Not with Federal money; States may 

use State money. 

c) New after 5 years No3 .......................... Yes..................... Yes, for emergency 

services. Otherwise State option, with deeming. 

State option with Federal money and deeming. 

Refugees and Asylees:4 

Eligibility under prior law.... Yes........................... Yes........................... Yes ................................. Yes.

Eligibility under current 

law —1st 7 years after 

entry or grant of asylum 

Yes........................... Yes........................... Yes ................................. Yes.

Nonimmigrants5 and undocumented aliens:6

Eligibility under prior law... No............................ No ............................ Emergency only............. SSBG only. 

Eligibility under current law. 

No............................ No ............................ Emergency only............. No. 
1 “Immigrants” – 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 the same benefits. 2 “Deeming” – refers to the attribution of the sponsor’s income to the immigrant in determining financial eligibility, and is applied to SSI, food 

stamps, and AFDC (replaced by TANF) for 3 years after entry (5 years for the period 1/1/94-10/1/96). 

3 Lawful permanent residents who have 40 QCs or who in combination with their parents or spouses have a total of 40 QCs may be eligible for SSI 

beginning 5 years after their entry to the United States. 

4 “Refugees and asylees” – status is based on individualized persecution abroad, and they adjust to legal permanent residents after 1 year and are 

treated as other “qualified aliens” after 7 years. This category also includes Cuban/Haitian entrants and Amerasians. 

5 “Nonimmigrants” – admitted temporarily for a limited purpose. Includes e.g., students, visitors, and temporary workers. 6 Also known as illegal aliens. Includes aliens here in violation of immigration law for whom no legal relief has been extended. 

Note- Hmong immigrants and certain Native Americans living along the Mexican and Canadian borders have special access to programs, according 

to the program Statutes. Source: Congressional Research Service. 
J-16 

PERMANENT BAR 

 Congress imposed a permanent bar to access by legal immigrants who entered 

the United States after August 22, 1996, to two federally financed programs. These 

programs are 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 to enable them to afford more adequate diets. P.L. 107-171 lifted 

the food stamp bar for all LPR children, regardless of date of entry (it also ends 

requirements to deem sponsors= income and resources to these children); LPRs 

receiving government disability payments, so long as they pass any noncitizen 

eligibility test established by the disability program (e.g., SSI recipients would have 

to meet SSI noncitizen requirements in order to get food stamps); and all 

individuals who have resided in the U.S. for 5 or more years as “qualified aliens” C

i.e., LPRs, refugees/asylees, and other non-temporary legal residents (such as 

Cuban/Haitian entrants). 

STATE OPTION 

 The second set of restrictions generally applies to three major Federal/State 

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. TANF is a block grant program established 

by the 1996 welfare reform law. TANF provides Federal funds to States for 

temporary cash and other assistance for needy families. SSBG 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. 

 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. Legal immigrants ineligible for TANF, 

however, may receive State-funded benefits if they meet other program 

requirements in over half of the States. After 5 years, the decision as to whether 

legal immigrants may participate in Medicaid, TANF, and SSBG rests with the 

States, subject to a rule deeming sponsors' income and resources to be available to 

the immigrant, as discussed below. Many States, including those with large 

noncitizen populations such as California, offer a full array of public assistance to 

legal immigrants not eligible for federally financed benefits. As of December 2002, 

24 States report using their State Amaintenance of effort@ money to provide public 

assistance to newly arriving LPRs who are barred from Federal TANF for the first 5 

years.

 The 5-year bar discussed previously does not apply to refugees and asylees, nor 

does the State option to restrict Medicaid benefits 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; they are eligible for TANF and SSBG benefits for 5 years. 
J-17 

After these respective periods of time, refugees and asylees are subject to the same 

State option provision that applies to legal immigrants. 

 State options also are available under food stamp law, and as of December 

2002, 13 States report that they provide food assistance to noncitizens who are not 

covered by the Federal food stamps program. The number of States reporting that 

they provide their own food assistance program for noncitizens is down from 16 

States as of December 2000. 

 Finally, States have the option to grant or deny any child nutrition benefits 

(e.g., Summer Feeding Programs, meals in day care programs, and WIC, but not 

school meals), commodity supplemental and emergency food benefits, and 

commodity benefits for Indians on reservations based on alien status. 

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 (Table J-4). These 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. Assistance under the National School Lunch Act and the Child Nutrition 

Act; 

4. Immunizations against diseases and testing for and treatment of 

symptoms of communicable diseases; 

5. 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; 

6. Education assistance under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 

of 1965, specified titles of the Higher Education Act of 1965, or specified 

titles of the Public Health Service Act; 

7. Benefits under the Head Start Act; 

8. Benefits under the Job Training Partnership Act; and 

9. Services or assistance (such as soup kitchens, crisis counseling and 

intervention, and short-term shelters) designated by the Attorney General 

as delivering in-kind services at the community level, providing 

assistance without individual determinations of each recipient's needs, 

and being necessary for the protection of life and safety. 

 Emergency services, school meals, and community-level services are 

available for all aliens; other nutrition programs may be provided to any alien at 

State option. The Attorney General published a list defining non-cash 

community-level services exempt from the various prohibitions (Federal Register, 

1996). Among other services, it includes senior nutrition programs, such as Meals 

on Wheels. 
J-18 

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 legally binding affidavits of support and 

sponsor-to-alien deeming rules. Both are expansions of prior law and practice, and 

both have their roots in the public charge provision, which has been a feature of 

U.S. 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, which provides a statutory basis for affidavits of 

support and greatly extends their scope, as compared with pre-1996 law: 

1. It makes them legally binding documents effective either until the 

sponsored immigrant naturalizes or meets the 40-quarter work requirement; 

2. It requires affidavits of all family-based immigrants and employment-based 

immigrants coming to work for relatives; 

3. 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 with 

resources that would equal at least 125 percent of the poverty level; and 

4. It provides that both government agencies and sponsored immigrants can 

sue sponsors for failure to meet their obligations. 

Expanded Deeming Rules

 A significant difference from pre-1996 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 all 

but bar sponsored 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 as the sponsor promised as a 

condition of the immigrant’s entry in the U.S. 

 The sponsor-to-alien deeming rules also have been expanded in terms of 

duration and the number of programs and immigrants covered. 

1. Deeming remains in effect until the immigrant naturalizes or meets the 

40-quarter work requirement; 

2. Deeming rules apply to all Federal means-tested programs except those 

expressly exempted by law (and to Supplemental Security Income (SSI) 

and food stamps, from which immigrants are barred). The excepted 

programs are the same as those exempted from the 5-year bar (Table J-4); 

3. Deeming applies to all sponsored immigrants, a group expanded by the 

immigration law's requirement that all family-based immigrants have 

affidavits of support. 
J-19 

ELIGIBILITY STANDARDS FOR ILLEGAL ALIENS 

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 grants, contracts, loans, and licenses as well as 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 restrictedCthe 

earned income credit, SSBG, and migrant health centers, for exampleCbecame 

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 delivering in-kind services at the community level, providing assistance 

without individual determinations of each recipient's needs, and being 

necessary for the protection of life and safety (see above); and 

5. To the extent that an alien was receiving assistance on the date of 

enactment, programs administered by the Secretary of the U.S. 

Department 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 (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 a treaty or are paid under applications 

made before August 22, 1996. The act also 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, the Emergency Food Assistance Act, or similar 

food programs. 
TABLE J-4 - ALIEN ELIGIBILITY PROVISIONS FOR SELECTED FEDERAL BENEFITS UNDER CURRENT 

WELFARE AND IMMIGRATION LAWS 

Provision Qualified aliens regardless of entry date Qualified aliens entering after 8/22/96 Nonqualified aliens 

Restricted programs Food stamps for 5 years after 

entry, unless under age 18, or age 65 or older by 8/22/96, or subsequently disabled; SSI, unless on rolls by 8/22/96 or here then and later disabled. 

 At State option:1 Temporary 

Assistance for Needy Families, Social Services Block Grant, and Medicaid (other than emergency services and SSI-related). 

 For 5 years after entry, Federal means 

tested public benefits (with exceptions 

below). Thereafter the restrictions in the 

left column apply. 

 Most Federal public benefits 

exceptions noted below). 

Programs excepted from restrictions 

 "Qualified aliens" here before 

8/22/96 not barred by alienage status from programs other than those listed above. 

 Emergency medical services, disaster 

relief, public health assistance, community services, school lunch, child nutrition, foster care and adoption assistance, Head Start, certain job training, elementary, secondary, and higher education, and Public Health Service Act education assistance. 

 Emergency medical services, dis

relief, public health assistcommunity services, housing assisreceived at enactment, Social SecuritMedicare benefits for lawful aliensschool lunch and breakfast. Other nutrition and food distribution progat State option. (Does not change regarding public education.) 
Individuals excepted 

from restrictions 

Refugees and asylees - 7 years for SSI, Medicaid, and food stamps and 5 years for other programs; immigrants with 40 

Social Security work quarters (including quarters worked by a spouse/parent);2 and alien veterans, 

certain active duty personnel, and families. 

 Refugees and asylees (as in left 

column); immigrants with 40 Social Security work quarters worked by spouse/parent; 2and alien veterans, 

certain active duty personnel, and families. 

 Nonimmigrants only for contracts o

licenses related to their authorized employment, and for benefits under reciprocal treaty agreements. 

Modification of sponsor-to-alien deeming 

Now deeming rules only applicable to qualified aliens entering after 8/22/96 and with affidavits complying with new INA requirements - see next column. 

 After 5-year bar, for Federal means 

tested programs until alien naturalizes or has 40 Social Security work quarters (including quarters worked by a spouse/parent);2 with exceptions similar 

to 5-year bar. 

 Not applicable. 

1 State option begins 5 years after entry for qualified aliens entering after August 22, 1996. 2 For quarters worked after 1996, no quarter during which the alien received public assistance may be counted toward the 40-quarter exception. 

Note: Hmong immigrants and certain Native Americans living along the Mexican and Canadian borders have special access to programs, according program statutes. Source: Congressional Research Service. 
J-22 

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 generally are 

barred from State and local government contracts, licenses, grants, loans, and 

assistance. Exceptions also are similar to those for Federal means-tested programs. 

 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, 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, result from 

the continued presence of illegal aliens. 

NONCITIZENS' USE OF FEDERAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS

 Some of the concern with the use of public assistance by legal immigrants 

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 aged SSI recipients. Subsequent data presented by SSA 

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 were legal aliens. 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 (Ponce, 1996). 

In the ensuing years, the question of whether legal immigrants disproportionately 

relied on public assistance arose frequently, and empirical research, such as the 

SSA study discussed above, yielded qualified responses of "sometimes" and "under 

certain circumstances." Following the substantial revisions of welfare law in 

1996-98, the question of whether public assistance usage by legal immigrants has 

changed as a result of the new eligibility rules has come to the fore. This section 

draws on analysis of administrative program participation data and the CPS to 

explore this question. 
J-23 

ANALYSIS OF PROGRAM PARTICIPATION DATA 

Supplemental Security Income (SSI)

 The percentage of the SSI caseload represented by noncitizens has held 

steady in recent years, after rising sharply in the 1980s and early 1990s (Table J-5). 

It stood at 10.4 percent or 703,515 participants in 2002 after peaking at 12.1 percent 

or 785,410 participants in 1995. In 2002, noncitizens accounted for about 29.1 

percent of all aged SSI recipients, down from a high of 32.0 percent in 1995. 

Noncitizens accounted for 6.1 percent of disabled (or blind) recipients in 2002. As 

Table J-5 shows, even after the implementation of reforms in the mid-1990s, more 

noncitizens currently receive SSI benefits than in any year prior to 1994. 

 

 TABLE J-5--NUMBER OF NONCITIZENS RECEIVING SSI 

PAYMENTS AND NONCITIZEN RECIPIENTS AS A PERCENT OF ALL 

SSI RECIPIENTS BY ELIGIBILITY CATEGORY, 1982-2002 

 Total Aged Blind and Disabled 

 Noncitizens Percent of 

Total SSI Noncitizens Percent of Total SSI Noncitizens Percent of Total SSI 

1982 127,900 3.3 91,900 5.9 36,000 1.6 

1983 151,200 3.9 106,600 7.0 44,600 1.9 

1984 181,100 4.5 127,600 8.3 53,500 2.1 

1985 210,800 5.1 146,500 9.7 64,300 2.4 

1986 244,300 5.7 165,300 11.2 79,000 2.8 

1987 282,500 6.4 188,000 12.9 94,500 3.2 

1988 320,300 7.2 213,900 14.9 106,400 3.5 

1989 370,300 8.1 245,700 17.1 124,600 4.0 

1990 435,600 9.0 282,400 19.4 153,200 4.6 

1991 519,660 10.2 329,690 22.5 189,970 5.2 

1992 601,430 10.8 372,930 25.4 228,500 5.6 

1993 683,150 11.4 416,420 28.2 266,730 5.9 

1994 738,140 11.7 440,000 30.0 298,140 6.2 

1995 785,410 12.1 459,220 31.8 326,190 6.3 

1996 724,990 11.0 417,360 29.5 307,630 5.9 

1997 650,830 10.0 367,200 27.0 283,630 5.5 

1998 669,630 10.2 364,980 27.4 304,650 5.8 

2000 692,650 10.4 364,470 28.3 328,120 6.2 

2001 695,650 10.5 364,550 28.9 331,100 6.1 

2002 703,515 10.4 364,827 29.1 338,688 6.1 

Note-Data as of December for each year. 

Source: Social Security Administration 

 

 The largest concentration of noncitizens who received SSI benefits lived in 

California (260,520) in 2001. New York was second with 110,340 noncitizen SSI 
J-24 

recipients. Florida and Texas followed with 65,400 and 54,800 noncitizen recipients 

respectively. 

 Although noncitizens from Latin America comprised an estimated 

60.3 percent of noncitizens in the United States, they accounted for only 

44.2 percent of the SSI noncitizen caseload in 2001. Noncitizens from Asia were an 

estimated 19.4 percent of noncitizen residents, but made up 33.4 percent of 

noncitizens who receive SSI. Noncitizens from the former Soviet Union were an 

estimated 2.7 percent of noncitizens in the United States, yet they were 10.9 percent 

of all noncitizens receiving SSI. These data lend weight to the view that noncitizens 

from refugee-sending parts of the world are more likely to rely on SSI. Table J-6 

presents the country of origin for SSI recipients in 2001. 

TABLE J-6 -- NONCITIZENS BY REGION AND COUNTRY OF ORIGIN, 

DECEMBER 2001 

Region and country of origin Total Aged Blind and disabled 

All noncitizen recipients 695,850 364,550 331,300 

North America 3,030 910 2,120 

Canada 3,030 910 2,120 

Central America 168,910 89,980 78,930 

Mexico 142,470 74,380 68,090 

El Salvador 11,390 7,220 4,170 

Guatemala 4,610 2,780 1,830 

Other 10,440 5,600 4,840 

South America 22,130 14,240 7,890 

Colombia 6,720 4,090 2,630 

Ecuador 5,650 3,370 2,280 

Peru 4,930 3,850 1,080 

Other 4,830 2,930 1,900 

Caribbean 116,570 54,850 61,720 

Cuba 48,630 24,410 24,220 

Dominican Republic 38,640 15,120 23,520 

Haiti 12,380 7,500 4,880 

Other 16,920 7,820 9,100 

Africa 10,050 4,540 5,510 

Somalia 2,770 1,250 1,520 

Cape Verde Islands 1,120 760 360 

Ethiopia 1,520 550 970 

Other 4,640 1,980 2,660 

Asia 232,380 124,960 107,420 

Vietnam 51,690 21,260 30,430 

China 32,350 27,060 5,290 

Laos 25,140 5,280 19,860 

Philippines 21,000 16,280 4,720 
J-25 

TABLE J-6 -- NONCITIZENS BY REGION AND COUNTRY OF ORIGIN, 

DECEMBER 2001-continued

Region and country of origin Total Aged Blind and disabled 

Cambodia 19,530 3,100 16,430 

Korea 18,990 13,850 5,140 

Iran 22,020 13,460 8,560 

Other 41,660 27,670 16,990 

Middle East 14,340 7,440 6,900 

Lebanon 3,750 1,940 1,810 

Syria 2,740 1,390 1,350 

Turkey 1,910 1,400 510 

Other 5,940 2,710 3,230 

Former Soviet Republics 75,890 41,620 34,270 

Europe 37,380 18,090 19,290 

Portugal 4,950 2,990 1,960 

Bosnia 5,110 1,690 3,420 

Italy 3,400 1,700 1,700 

United Kingdom 3,700 1,800 1,900 

Yugoslavia 3,030 1,530 1,500 

Other 17,190 8,380 8,810 

Oceania 2,590 1,150 1,440 

Unknown 12,380 6,770 5,610 

Source: SSI 10-Percent Sample. 

Family Cash Assistance 

 The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services data on characteristics 

of TANF/AFDC recipients indicate that, as a percentage of total adult TANF/AFDC 

recipients, noncitizens legally in the United States who receive TANF/AFDC 

increased from 7.0 percent in fiscal year 1989 to 12.3 percent in fiscal year 1996. 

The percentage of noncitizens then dropped to 11.0 percent in 1998 and ultimately 

fell to 8.0 percent in 2001. (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1990, 

1997, 1999, 2003). Since the AFDC/TANF recipient data are more limited than SSI 

recipient data, tables detailing characteristics and components of noncitizen usage 

are not available. 

 Once again, California tops the list of States with high welfare participation 

by noncitizens. Fully 16.9 percent of its 278,069 TANF recipients were noncitizens 

in 2001 (Table J-7). Calculated in terms of percentage of all adult noncitizens 

receiving TANF, Californians comprised 41.8 percent of adult noncitizens in the 

United States on TANF in 2001. New York followed California with 12.3 percent 

of its 189,299 recipients who were adult noncitizens or 20.7 percent of noncitizens 

in the United States on TANF. Texas and Minnesota were a distant third and fourth 

with 7.4 percent and 5.2 percent respectively of adult noncitizens in the United 

States on TANF, with 8.9 percent and 16.8 percent of their States= caseload 

respectively who were noncitizens. 
J-26 

Food Stamps

 The 10-year pattern for noncitizens receiving food stamps resembles that of SSI 

and AFDC/TANF. Specifically, food stamp participation by noncitizens rose during 

the early 1990s, then dropped off by 1998, at which time there were approximately 

616,000 noncitizens receiving food stamps. After enactment of welfare reform in 

1996, the percentage of food stamp recipients who were noncitizens fell to a 10 year 

low of 3.1 percent in 1998. It stood at 3.7 percent in 2001. The peak occurred in 

1996 when 1,847,000 noncitizens comprised 7.1 percent of the 25,926,000 food 

stamp recipients (Table J-8). 

TABLE J-7--TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE FOR NEEDY FAMILIES - 

ACTIVE CASES PERCENT DISTRIBUTION OF TANF ADULT 

RECIPIENTS BY CITIZENSHIP STATUS 

OCTOBER 2000 - SEPTEMBER 2001 

State Total Adults U.S. Citizen Qualified Alien Unknown 

U.S. Total 1,408,752 91.5 8.0 0.5 

Alabama 8,972 100.0 0.0 0.0 

Alaska 5,462 93.9 6.1 0.0 

Arizona 18,952 92.4 7.5 0.0 

Arkansas 6,957 99.7 0.3 0.0 

California 278,069 83.0 16.9 0.1 

Colorado 6,619 99.7 0.3 0.0 

Connecticut 16,907 95.7 4.3 0.0 

Delaware 3,245 98.9 1.1 0.0 

District of Columbia 12,144 99.1 0.9 0.0 

Florida 24,823 87.8 12.2 0.0 

Georgia 25,608 99.3 0.6 0.1 

Hawaii 11,067 98.8 1.2 0.0 

Idaho 361 98.0 2.0 0.0 

Illinois 38,483 99.1 0.8 0.1 

Indiana 32,539 99.4 0.6 0.0 

Iowa 17,584 100.0 0.0 0.0 

Kansas 9,496 97.8 2.2 0.0 

Kentucky 22,448 98.9 1.1 0.0 

Louisiana 13,756 99.6 0.4 0.0 

Maine 7,864 96.3 3.7 0.0 

Maryland 17,000 99.0 1.0 0.0 

Massachusetts 27,202 87.2 12.8 0.0 

Michigan 48,989 96.8 3.2 0.0 

Minnesota 34,851 83.2 16.8 0.0 

Mississippi 7,920 100.0 0.0 0.0 

Missouri 34,635 97.3 2.7 0.0 

Montana 4,782 99.4 0.4 0.2 

Nebraska 6,265 96.5 3.5 0.0 

Nevada 4,282 94.9 4.9 0.2 

New Hampshire 4,274 96.5 3.5 0.0 

New Jersey 27,915 95.8 4.2 0.0 

New Mexico 17,136 92.1 7.9 0.0 
J-27 

TABLE J-7--TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE FOR NEEDY FAMILIES - 

ACTIVE CASES PERCENT DISTRIBUTION OF TANF ADULT 

RECIPIENTS BY CITIZENSHIP STATUS 

OCTOBER 2000 - SEPTEMBER 2001-continued 

State Total Adults U.S. Citizen Qualified Alien Unknown 

New York 189,299 84.8 12.3 2.9 

North Carolina 21,414 96.4 1.4 2.2 

North Dakota 2,216 97.9 2.1 0.0 

Ohio 50,982 97.7 2.3 0.0 

Oklahoma 8,067 99.6 0.2 0.2 

Oregon 8,869 94.0 4.9 1.0 

Pennsylvania 58,471 96.9 3.1 0.0 

Puerto Rico 23,266 99.0 1.0 0.0 

Rhode Island 12,808 85.1 14.9 0.0 

South Carolina 9,655 99.9 0.1 0.0 

South Dakota 1,209 100.0 0.0 0.0 

Tennessee 42,456 99.7 0.3 0.0 

Texas 93,313 91.1 8.9 0.0 

Utah 5,269 95.5 4.4 0.1 

Vermont 5,183 98.6 1.4 0.0 

Virgin Islands 677 88.9 9.7 1.3 

Virginia 16,788 98.3 1.7 0.0 

Washington 43,282 87.0 11.0 2.0 

West Virginia 12,612 99.9 0.1 0.0 

Wisconsin 6,149 100.0 0.0 0.0 

Wyoming 162 99.8 0.2 0.0 

 Source: National TANF data file as of May 15, 2002. 

TABLE J-8--NONCITIZENS AS A PERCENT OF ALL FOOD STAMP 

RECIPIENTS, 1989-2001 

Year Percent 

1989 4.4 

1990 4.7 

1991 5.1 

1992 5.0 

1993 5.3 

1994 6.7 

1995 NA 

1996 7.1 

1997 5.5 

1998 3.1 

1999 4.1 

2000 4.4 

2001 3.7 

Source: Fiscal Year 2001 Food Stamp Quality Control sample. 

 California is the State with the largest number of noncitizens receiving food 

stamps, 138,000 in 2001. Its share of all noncitizens nationwide receiving food 

stamps was 21.6 percent. New York, Florida, and Texas followed with 16.7, 12.3, 
J-28 

and 10.6 percent respectively of all noncitizens receiving food stamps in 2001. 

ANALYSIS OF CURRENT POPULATION SURVEY (CPS) DATA 

 In 1995, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) analyzed data from the 

March 1994 CPS (the first CPS to ask participants about their citizenship status) 

that indicated that, as compared with the native born, the foreign born were 

significantly more likely to use SSI, but were not significantly more likely to use 

AFDC or food stamps. In the AFDC, Food Stamp, and Medicaid Programs at that 

time, noncitizens had higher participation rates than the native born, but 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 finding was especially true among the aged 

population (O'Grady, 1995). 

 In addition to the elderly, another major subgroup of the foreign born using 

welfare appears to be noncitizens from refugee-sending countries. While the 1995 

CRS study did not disaggregate refugees, Urban Institute analysts did try to do so in 

1996 Senate testimony. Based also on the March 1994 CPS, they found that 

13.1 percent of foreign born from the major refugee-sending countries used AFDC, 

SSI, or general assistance (GA), compared to 5.8 percent of foreign born from other 

countries (Fix et al., 1996). 

 The Urban Institute has continued to analyze the CPS for noncitizen use of 

welfare and found changes in usage from 1994 to 1997. Based on receipt of 

AFDC/TANF, SSI, and GA, a later Urban Institute Study (Fix & Passel, 1999) 

found that: 

1. Use of public benefits among noncitizen households fell more sharply than 

among citizen households between 1994 and 1997, 34 percent versus 14 

percent; 

2. Those noncitizens imputed to be refugees experienced declines (33 percent) 

that were at least as steep as other noncitizens despite the fact that most 

refugees continued to be eligible for benefits in 1997; 

3. Noncitizen households accounted for a disproportionately large share of the 

overall decline in welfare caseloads that occurred between 1994 and 1997; 

4.Welfare usage among elderly immigrants and naturalized citizens did not 

appear to change between 1994 and 1997; and 

5. Neither naturalization nor rising incomes accounted for a significant share 

of noncitizens’exits from public benefit use. 

 Similarly, CPS data show a decline in Medicaid use by citizen children of 

noncitizen parents. Specifically, between 1995 and 1997, the number of citizen 

children on Medicaid fell 6 percent. Research by the Urban Institute in Los Angeles 

showed that the number of citizen children approved for Medicaid through TANF 

enrollment fell by 48 percent between January 1996 and January 1998 (Zimmerman 

& Fix, 1998). 

 CRS analysis of the March 1999 CPS (for 1998) and the March 2002 CPS (for 

2001) indicated that public assistance usage has declined generally from 1995 to 

2001. Although CPS data are self-reported and generally understate the actual 
J-29 

number of program beneficiaries, it appears that the March Supplement's 

underreporting is quite pronounced when compared to the administrative program 

participation data analyzed above. Nonetheless, the downward trends in usage are 

consistent with those observed previously and are comparable to the general 

findings of the Urban Institute and others. 

 One of the intriguing findings from the latest data is that the general declines 

in welfare use are not consistent across the programs or among the three citizenship 

groupings. The benefit use patterns for naturalized persons in the CPS samples, for 

example, offer exceptions to the general trends (Table J-9). While benefit receipt 

decreased for noncitizens in all four selected programs, and for natives in all but 

SSI, the participation of naturalized citizens went up noticeably in SSI and 

Medicaid. 

 The estimated percent of the cash welfare recipients (AFDC, TANF, or GA) 

who were noncitizens held virtually constant between 1995 (11.8 percent) and 1998 

(11.8 percent), and then rose in 2001 (12.4 percent) (Table J-9). The estimated 

proportion of welfare recipients who were naturalized increased from 2.3 percent in 

1995 to 3.9 percent 1998, then fell slightly to 3.7 percent in 2001. The percentage 

of cash welfare recipients who were native born dropped from 86.0 percent in 1995 

to 83.8 percent in 2001. 

 Estimates of SSI usage from the CPS suggest a different pattern, one in 

which noncitizen usage decreased by 44 percent from 1995 to 2001, but usage by 

naturalized citizens rose by 117 perent over the same period. Recipiency among the 

naturalized increased as a percentage of SSI recipients from 3.9 percent to 

8.1 percent over the 6-year period while noncitizens dropped from 9.9 percent to 

5.3 percent (Table J-9). SSI recipiency held virtually constant among natives. 

 Generally Medicaid usage was down for everyone but naturalized citizens, 

but it is important to note that reporting of Medicaid use in the CPS is plagued with 

problems. Although Medicaid usage offers little overall change in the distribution 

of recipients reported in the CPS, there were noteworthy changes in each of the 

citizenship categories. Estimated use by naturalized citizens rose from 1.7 percent 

in 1995 to 3.5 percent in 2001, while estimated use by noncitizens declined from 

8.0 percent in 1995 to 6.3 percent in 2001 (Table J-9). Among natives, it remained 

at much the same levels over the 6-year period. 

 CPS estimates of households receiving food stamps indicated a decline for 

native born and noncitizens, but rose for naturalized citizens from 1995 to 

2001(Table J-9). Estimated use by naturalized citizens rose from 1.6 percent in 

1995 to 3.1 percent in 2001, while estimated use by noncitizens declined from 

8.9 percent in 1995 to 6.7 percent in 2001 (Table J-9). The percentage of noncitizen 

households that received food stamps went from 14.9 percent to 5.8 percent, 

experiencing the largest decline (61 percent), but native households followed 

closely with a 39 percent decline from 10.5 percent in 1995 to 6.4 percent in 2001. 

 As in the 1995 CRS study, this CRS analysis focused on three categories of 

citizenship status: (1) native born citizens; (2) naturalized citizens; and (3) 
TABLE J-9—ESTIMATED BENEFIT USAGE BY CITIZENSHIP CATEGORIES: 1995, 1998, 2001 

Native Naturalized Noncitizens 

1995 1998 2001 1995-2001 change 1995 1998 2001 1995-2001 change 1995 1998 2001 19

Estimated number of recipients (in millions) 

AFDC/TANF 4.25 2.51 1.74 -59% 0.11 0.11 0.08 -27% 0.58 0.35 0.26 SSI 4.15 4.20 4.33 4% 0.19 0.32 0.41 116% 0.47 0.38 0.26 Medicaid 28.53 25.06 28.30 -1% 0.55 0.79 1.09 98% 2.54 1.80 1.99 Food Stamps 25.11 21.85 16.01 -36% 0.44 0.44 0.55 25% 2.48 1.47 1.19 Total population 239.2 244.6 249.1 4.1% 7.9 9.9 12.0 52% 16.6 16.6 16.6 

Percent of total recipients by citizenship category 

AFDC/TANF 86.0 84.4 83.8 -3% 2.3 3.9 3.7 61% 11.8 11.8 12.4 

SSI 86.2 85.8 86.6 0% 3.9 6.5 8.1 108% 9.9 7.8 5.3 

Medicaid 90.2 90.6 90.2 0% 1.7 2.8 3.5 106% 8.0 6.5 6.3 

Food Stamps 89.6 90.6 90.2 1% 1.6 2.2 3.1 94% 8.9 7.2 6.7 

Percent of receipt within citizenship category 

AFDC/TANF 2.3 1.3 0.9 -61% 1.5 1.2 0.7 -53% 3.9 2.3 1.4 

SSI 2.3 2.3 2.3 0% 2.4 3.3 3.5 46% 3.2 2.5 1.4 Medicaid 11.9 10.2 11.4 -4% 6.9 8.0 9.1 32% 15.3 10.9 9.7 

Food stamps 10.5 7.6 6.4 -39% 5.6 4.5 4.6 -18% 14.9 8.9 5.8 

Source: CPS March Supplements, 1996, 1999, 2002 
J-31 

noncitizens. The use of these citizenship categories, in contrast to the Urban 

Institute's groupings of citizens, immigrants, and aliens from refugee-sending 

countries, may account for some of the differences in results. CRS' disaggregation 

of SSI from the other welfare benefits of AFDC, TANF, and GA also may affect the 

results because use of SSI by the three citizenship status categories showed 

divergent patterns as compared with welfare use over time. 

VERIFICATION OF STATUS AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS 

 The increase in the number of programs and classes of aliens affected by the 

1996 welfare reform law has necessitated an expansion of previous procedures for 

verifying alien eligibility for benefits. For example, the Social Services Block Grant 

(SSBG) Program now is barred to newly arrived “qualified aliens,” whereas in the 

past it was not subject to any alienage restrictions. 

 The Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) Program 

authorized by the Immigration Reform and Control Act 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 U.S. Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration 

Services (USBCIS) files. If this primary verification was unsuccessful, manual 

secondary verification by USBCIS officials was conducted. Both Federal and State 

governments were critical of the time needed to complete secondary verifications. 

Because the SAVE database was limited to aliens, it also was criticized as being 

vulnerable to circumvention by false citizenship claims. 

 The 1996 welfare reform law and subsequent amendments in the Balanced 

Budget Act (BBA) 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 of 1996, and by 

immigration enforcement legislation enacted as part of the Omnibus Consolidated 

Appropriations Act of 1997 (Public Law 104-208). 

VERIFICATION REQUIREMENTS 

1. The welfare reform law requires the Attorney General to adopt regulations 

to verify that individuals who apply for Federal public benefits are 

qualified aliens and eligible for assistance. As amended by the Illegal 

Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, the welfare 

reform law also requires the Attorney General to establish fair and 

nondiscriminatory procedures on proving citizenship when applying for a 

Federal public benefit. 

2. 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. 

3. The 1996 immigration law amended the welfare law to allow nonprofit 

charitable organizations to provide Federal, State, and local public benefits 
J-32 

without having to verify the immigration status of the recipients. 

4. The 1996 immigration law amended the Social Security and Higher 

Education Acts to require the transmittal to USBCIS of copies of 

documents required to verify eligibility for Social Security and Higher 

Education assistance. 

5. Public Law 105-33 authorized State and local governments to verify the 

eligibility of individuals for State and local public benefits. 

6. 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 

1. The welfare law requires the following entities to provide USBCIS at least 

four times annually and at USBCIS' 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 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 the U.S. Department of Housing and 

Urban Development; and (5) public housing agencies operating under 

contracts for assistance under sections 6 or 8 of the U.S. Housing Act of 

1937. 

2. 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 USBCIS information regarding an individual's immigration status. 

3. 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 the number of public charge deportations, the number of 

sponsors determined to be indigent, and the number of reimbursement 

actions brought under affidavits of support. 

REFERENCES

Federal Register. (1996, August 30). Specification of community programs 

necessary for protection of life or safety under welfare reform legislation, 61, 

p. 45985. 

Fix, M., & Passel, J.S. (1999). Trends in noncitizens' and citizens' use of public 

benefits following welfare reform, 1994-97. Washington, DC: Urban 

Institute. 

Fix, M., Passel, J.S., & Zimmerman, W. (1996, February 6). The use of SSI and 
J-33 

other welfare programs by immigrants. Testimony before the U.S. Senate 

Judiciary Committee (Subcommittee on Immigration). Washington, DC: 

Urban Institute. 

O'Grady, M.J. (1995). Native and naturalized citizens and noncitizens: An analysis 

of poverty status, welfare benefits, and other factors (95-276 EPW). 

Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service. 

Ponce, E. (1996, February). Lawfully resident aliens who receive SSI payments, 

December 1995. Washington, DC: Social Security Administration. 

Social Security Administration. (2002). Annual statistical supplement to the Social 

Security Bulletin, 2001. Washington, DC: Author. 

Teran, J.C., & Wasem, R.E. (1999). The foreign-born population: A profile (CRS 

Report RL 30338). Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service. 

Uccello, C.E., McCallum, H.R., & Gallagher, L.J. (1996, October). State general 

assistance programs, 1996. Washington, DC: Urban Institute. 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1990). Characteristics and 

financial circumstances of AFDC recipients, fiscal year 1989. Washington, 

DC: Author. 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1997). Characteristics and 

financial circumstances of AFDC recipients, fiscal year 1996. Washington, 

DC: Author. 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1999). Characteristics and 

financial circumstances of TANF recipients, fiscal year 1998. Washington, 

DC: Author. 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2003). Characteristics and 

financial circumstances of TANF recipients, fiscal year 2002. Washington, 

DC: Author. 

U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service. (2003). Estimates of the 

Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States, 1990 to 

2000. Washington, DC: Author. 

Vialet, J. (1997). Immigration: Reasons for growth, 1891-95 (CRS report 87-230). 

Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service. 

Wasem, R.E. (1995). Naturalization of immigrants: Policy, trends, and issues (CRS 

Report 95-298). Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service. 

Wasem, R.E., & Richardson, J.I. (2003). Noncitizen eligibility for major federal 

public assistance programs: policies and legislation. CRS Report RL 31114). 

Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service. 

Zimmerman, W., & Fix, M. (1998, July). Declining immigrant applications for 

Medi-Cal and welfare benefits in Los Angeles County. Washington, DC: 

Urban Institute, Immigration Studies Program.