(1361)

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

The ‘‘Public Charge’’ Provision and Development of Eligibility Standards

State and Local Law Before 1996

1996–98 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

up 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 recipients

1362

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 (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 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 here 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.

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, who enter the United States are coming

temporarily, over 600,000 aliens become legal permanent residents

each year.

As chart J–1 shows, the annual number of immigrants to the

United States rose gradually after World War II. 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 number—

26 million in 1998—is at the highest point in U.S. history.

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 durVerDate 20-JUL-2000 13:14 Sep 29, 2000 Jkt 061710 PO 00000 Frm 01362 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 J:\SKAYNE\GB96\61710.025 WAYS3 PsN: WAYS3
1363

CHART J–1. NUMBER OF LEGAL PERMANENT RESIDENTS ADMITTED TO THE UNITED

STATES AND NUMBER OF ALIENS LEGALIZED UNDER THE IMMIGRATION REFORM AND

CONTROL ACT BY MOST RECENT YEAR OF ENTRY

Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service based on data from the Immigration and Naturalization Service.

CHART J–2. FOREIGN-BORN POPULATION OF THE UNITED STATES, 1870–1998

Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service based on data from the March 1999 Supplement

of the Current Population Survey, Hansen and Bachu (1994), U.S. Census Bureau (1995), and Bogue (1985).

ing 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

1364

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 $225 when they file their

materials and have the option of taking a standardized civics test

or of having the Immigration and Naturalization Service (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 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 served 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 720,468 petitions in fiscal year

1999. The INS estimates that about 6 million permanent resident

aliens are eligible to apply for naturalization. Estimates of the proportion of immigrants who ultimately become citizens vary by the

methods in which the data are collected but traditionally have

ranged from 30 to 40 percent (Wasem, 1995).

There are several factors that may account for the increase, as

well as the leveling off in 1998–99, in naturalization petitions, most

notably the fact that the 2.8 million aliens who legalized through

the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 became eligible

to naturalize, 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).

1365

TABLE J–1.—NATURALIZATION CASELOAD, 1990–99

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

Note.—As of September 30, 1999, a total of 1,359,135 cases were pending.

Source: Immigration and Naturalization Service, Statistics Division.

ILLEGAL ALIENS

Illegal aliens are those noncitizens who either enter the United

States surreptitiously; i.e., enter without inspection by INS, or

overstay the term of their nonimmigrant visas (tourist or student

visas). According to the most recently available INS data, the estimated resident illegal alien population was 5 million as of October

1996 (U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 1997). Those

entering without inspection 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.

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).

CURRENT FOREIGN-BORN RESIDENTS

Currently, 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, illegal).

The 1999 CPS found that about 10 percent of U.S. residents were

foreign born (6.1 percent noncitizens and 3.6 percent naturalized

citizens; chart J–3). There were 26.4 million foreign-born persons

living in the United States, of which 37 percent or 9.9 million had

1366

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.

CHART J–3. CITIZENSHIP STATUS OF U.S. RESIDENTS, 1998

Source: Congressional Research Service analysis of March Supplement of Current Population Survey, 1999.

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 (58.8 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 (20.8 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).

1367

CHART J–4. PERCENTAGE OF FOREIGN BORN BY WORLD REGION OF ORIGIN, 1998

Source: Congressional Research Service analysis of March 1999 Supplement of Current Population Survey.

Region and State of residence

The western part of the United States is home to the largest proportion (41.5 percent) of noncitizens (table J–2). Just over a quarter

(26.6 percent) of noncitizens live in the South, and just under a

quarter (22.2 percent) live in the Northeast. About 10 percent of

noncitizens reside in the Midwest. By State of residence, almost

one-third (31.9 percent) of all noncitizens live in the State of California. The State with the next largest portion of noncitizens is

New York (12.5 percent). Texas is home to about 10 percent, and

Florida the home of 7.9 percent of all noncitizens. The only other

States with noteworthy shares of noncitizens are New Jersey and

Illinois.

Poverty levels

Citizens—whether native born or naturalized—differ sharply

from noncitizens in terms of poverty levels. As chart J–5 illustrates, more than half of noncitizens sampled in the CPS were

below 200 percent of the poverty level in 1998 and 22 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 12 percent of natives and 11 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.

1368

TABLE J–2.—PERCENTAGE OF ALL NATIVE AND FOREIGN-BORN RESIDENTS LIVING IN

SIX STATES AND FOUR REGIONS, 1998

State/region

Citizen status

Native Naturalized

Noncitizens

State:

California .................................................. 10.3 27.6 31.9

New York .................................................... 6.1 14.9 12.5

Texas .......................................................... 7.2 6.8 10.0

Florida ........................................................ 5.0 10.6 7.9

New Jersey .................................................. 2.8 4.7 4.2

Illinois ........................................................ 4.6 4.6 4.1

Region:

Northeast .................................................... 18.6 26.8 22.2

Midwest ...................................................... 24.7 11.2 9.8

South .......................................................... 35.8 26.3 26.6

West ........................................................... 20.9 35.9 41.5

Total population (millions) ............... 244.6 9.9 16.6

Source: Congressional Research Service analysis of the 1999 Current Population Survey March Supplement.

CHART J–5. POVERTY LEVELS BY CITIZENSHIP STATUS, 1998

Source: Congressional Research Service analysis of March 1996 and 1999 Supplement of Current Population Survey.

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 reguVerDate 20-JUL-2000 13:14 Sep 29, 2000 Jkt 061710 PO 00000 Frm 01368 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 J:\SKAYNE\GB96\61710.025 WAYS3 PsN: WAYS3
1369

lations 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).

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).

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 INA

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.

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

1370

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

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 FederalState 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

1371

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 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 aliens—elementary and secondary education, for example—

remained beyond State control.

1996–98 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 disVerDate 20-JUL-2000 13:14 Sep 29, 2000 Jkt 061710 PO 00000 Frm 01371 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 J:\SKAYNE\GB96\61710.025 WAYS3 PsN: WAYS3
1372

abled 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 basic policy laid out by

the 1996 welfare law remains essentially unchanged for noncitizens

entering after its enactment.

ALIEN ELIGIBILITY FOR FEDERAL ASSISTANCE

As revised in 1997 and 1998, 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 AFD

Title XX Social Servi

Grant

Immigrants: 1

Eligibility under prior law ................. Yes, with deeming.2 Yes, with deeming.2 Yes ................................ Yes, with deemin

AFDC.2

Eligibility under current law.

a) Here before 8/22/96

(Public Law 104–193enactment).

Yes, if on rolls 8/

22/96 or disabled subsequently.

Yes, if here by 8/

22/96 and if 65or older at thattime, disabled orsubsequentlydisabled, orunder 18 at thattime.

Yes, for SSI-derivative

benefits or emergency services. Otherwise, State option.

State option with 

eral money.

b) New entrants—1st 5

years after arrival.

No ........................... No ........................... Emergency only ............. Not with Federal 

States may usfunding

c) New—after 5 years .... No ........................... No ........................... Yes, for emergency

services. Otherwise,State option, withdeeming.

State option with 

eral money andeeming.

TABLE J–3.—ALIEN ELIGIBILITY FOR SELECTED FEDERAL PROGRAMS—Continued

Alien category Supplemental Security Income Food stamps Medicaid TANF (formerly AFD

Title XX Social Servi

Grant

Refugees and asylees: 3

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.

Nonimmigrants 4 and undocumented aliens 5

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 tempora

least l 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 (re

TANF) for 3 years after entry (5 years for SSI as of January 1, 1996).

3 ‘‘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 

aliens’’ after 7 years. This category also includes Cuban/Haitian entrants and Amerasians.

4 ‘‘Nonimmigrants.’’ Admitted temporarily for a limited purpose. Includes, e.g., students, visitors, and temporary workers.5 Also known as illegal aliens. Includes aliens here in violation of immigration law for whom no legal relief or recognition has been extended.

Note.—Hmong immigrants and certain Native Americans living along the Mexican and Canadian borders have special access to programs, according to program statuteSource: Congressional Research Service.

1375

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.

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 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. Several States, including California, offer a full array of public assistance to legal immigrants not

eligible for federally financed benefits.

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. 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. As of June

2000, 13 States were exercising their option under the terms of

Public Law 105–18 to pay for the provision of food stamp benefits

to some or all noncitizens who are ineligible (California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Rhode Island, Washington, and Wisconsin).

More than 100,000 persons were receiving food stamps through

this option in mid-2000, at a total estimated cost of between $5 and

$6 million a month. The overwhelming majority (above 80 percent)

of these recipients were in California. In earlier years (before the

November 1998 liberalization of noncitizen eligibility rules for fedVerDate 20-JUL-2000 13:14 Sep 29, 2000 Jkt 061710 PO 00000 Frm 01375 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 J:\SKAYNE\GB96\61710.025 WAYS3 PsN: WAYS3
1376

erally financed food stamps), the number of those assisted under

this State option approached 200,000 persons at a monthly cost of

over $10 million.

Of the 13 States exercising their choice to provide food stamp

benefits to legal immigrants, all but 5 (Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, and Ohio) have chosen to fund food stamps for all

legal immigrants ineligible for federally financed benefits. Illinois

limits its help to parents of eligible children and 60 to 64-year-olds

who entered by August 22, 1996. Maryland covers children under

18 entering after August 22, 1996. New Jersey limits its aid to parents of eligible children, the elderly (65 or older) arriving after August 22, 1996, and unemployable recipients of GA. New York pays

for benefits to the elderly (60–67 years old) living in the same county since August 22, 1996. Ohio covers only a few SSI recipients who

resided in the State as of August 22, 1996, and is phasing out its

program.

Finally, States have the option to grant or deny any child nutrition benefits (e.g., Summer Feeding Programs, meals in day care

programs, 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 noncash community-level services exempt from the

1377

various prohibitions (Federal Register, 1996). 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 legally binding affidavits of support and sponsor-to-alien deeming rules. Both

are expansions of previously existing law and practice, and both

have their roots in the public charge provision of immigration law,

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 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 all

but 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.

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 familybased immigrants have affidavits of support.

TABLE J–4.—ALIEN ELIGIBILITY PROVISIONS FOR SELECTED FEDERAL BENEFITS UNDER CURRENT WELFARE AND IMMIGRATION LAWS

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

Restricted programs. Food stamps, unless age 65 or older by

8/22/96, subsequently disabled, orunder age 18; SSI, unless on rollsby 8/22/96 or here then and laterdisabled.

At State option: 1 Temporary Assistance

for Needy Families, Social ServicesBlock Grant, and Medicaid (otherthan emergency services and SSI-related).

For 5 years after entry, Federal meanstested public benefits (with exceptions noted below).Thereafter, the restrictions in the left

column apply.

Most Federal public benefits (wi

ceptions noted below).

Programs excepted

from restrictions.

‘‘Qualified aliens’’ here before 8/22/96

not barred by alienage status fromprograms other than those listedabove.

Emergency medical services, disaster

relief, public health assistance,community level services, schoollunch, child nutrition, foster careand adoption assistance, HeadStart, certain job training, elementary, secondary, and higher education, and Public Health ServiceAct education assistance.

Emergency medical services, dis

relief, public health assistanccommunity services, housing ance received at enactment, Security and Medicare benefitlawful aliens, and school lunbreakfast. Other child nutritiofood distribution programs at option. (Does not change law garding public education.)

Individuals excepted

from restrictions

Refugees and asylees—7 years for SSI,

Medicaid, and food stamps and 5years for other programs; immigrants with 40 Social Security workquarters (including quarters workedby 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 (includingquarters worked by spouse/parent); 2and alien veterans, certain activeduty personnel, and families.

Nonimmigrants only for contract

censes related to their authoemployment, and for benefits reciprocal treaty agreements.

Modification of

sponsor-to-aliendeeming

New deeming rules only applicable to

qualified aliens entering after 8/22/96 and with affidavits complyingwith new INA requirements—seenext column.

After 5-year bar, for Federal meanstested programs until alien naturalizes or has 40 Social Security work

quarters (including quarters workedby 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 to program statuteSource: Congressional Research Service.

1380

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 restricted—the earned income credit, SSBG, 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: 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.

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

1381

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.

ANALYSIS OF PROGRAM PARTICIPATION DATA

Supplemental Security Income (SSI)

The percentage of the SSI caseload that is noncitizens has dipped

somewhat in recent years, after rising steadily in the 1980s and

early 1990s (table J–5). It stood at 10.2 percent or 669,630 participants in 1998 after peaking at 12.1 percent or 785,410 participants

in 1995. In 1998, noncitizens accounted for about 27 percent of all

aged SSI recipients, down from a high of 32 percent in 1995. NonVerDate 20-JUL-2000 13:14 Sep 29, 2000 Jkt 061710 PO 00000 Frm 01381 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 J:\SKAYNE\GB96\61710.025 WAYS3 PsN: WAYS3
1382

citizens accounted for 5.8 percent of disabled (or blind) recipients

in 1998, down from 6.5 percent in 1995.

TABLE J–5.—NUMBER OF NONCITIZENS RECEIVING SSI PAYMENTS AND NONCITIZEN

RECIPIENTS AS A PERCENT OF ALL SSI RECIPIENTS BY ELIGIBILITY CATEGORY, 1982–98

December

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

Source: Social Security Administration (1999, p. 303, Table 7.E6).

The largest concentration of noncitizens who received SSI benefits lived in California, 260,770 recipients in 1998. California’s

share of the noncitizen SSI beneficiaries (39 percent) was greater

than its overall proportion of noncitizens (31.9 percent) in the

United States. New York was second with 107,860 noncitizen SSI

recipients. Likewise, New York’s percentage of the noncitizen SSI

caseload (16.1 percent) was greater than its overall proportion (12.5

percent) of the noncitizen population. Florida and Texas followed

with 63,540 and 50,410 noncitizen beneficiaries respectively. Florida’s proportion (9.5 percent) was somewhat higher than its share

of the noncitizen population (7.9 percent), and Texas’ percentage

(7.5 percent) was notably less than its proportion of the noncitizen

population (10.0 percent).

Although noncitizens from Latin America comprised an estimated 58.8 percent of noncitizens in the United States, they accounted for only 42.4 percent of the SSI noncitizens caseload in

1998. Noncitizens from Asia were an estimated 20.8 percent of noncitizen residents, but made up 33.7 percent of noncitizens who receive SSI. Noncitizens from the former Soviet Union were an estimated 2.7 percent of of noncitizens in the United States, yet they

were 12.1 percent of all noncitizens receiving SSI. These data lend

weight to the view that noncitizens from refugee-sending parts of

1383

the world are more likely to rely on SSI. Table J–6 presents the

country of origin for SSI recipients in 1998.

TABLE J–6.—NUMBER OF NONCITIZENS RECEIVING FEDERALLY ADMINISTERED SSI

PAYMENTS BY COUNTRY OF ORIGIN, DECEMBER 1998

Country of origin Total Aged Blind and

disabled

North America 3,260 900 2,360

Canada ........................................... 3,250 900 2,350

Central America 153,490 83,770 69,720

Mexico ............................................ 130,290 69,280 61,010

El Salvador ..................................... 9,830 6,570 3,260

Guatemala ...................................... 4,070 2,540 1,530

Other .............................................. 9,300 5,380 3,920

South America 24,610 15,380 9,230

Columbia ........................................ 6,330 3,990 2,340

Ecuador .......................................... 5,400 3,280 2,210

Peru ................................................ 4,370 3,360 1,010

Other .............................................. 8,510 4,750 3,760

Carribbean 106,040 53,000 53,040

Cuba ............................................... 49,340 26,740 22,600

Dominican Republic ....................... 32,210 13,040 19,170

Haiti ............................................... 10,300 6,460 3,840

Other .............................................. 14,190 6,760 7,430

Africa 6,690 2,920 3,770

Somalia .......................................... 1,240 540 700

Cape Verde Island ......................... 1,150 740 410

Ethiopia .......................................... 1,030 360 670

Other .............................................. 3,270 1,280 1,990

Asia 225,600 124,230 101,370

Vietnam .......................................... 51,600 21,370 30,230

China .............................................. 31,600 26,600 5,000

Laos ................................................ 25,160 5,850 19,310

Philippines ..................................... 22,350 18,100 4,250

Cambodia ....................................... 19,860 3,250 16,610

Korea .............................................. 19,200 14,560 4,640

Other .............................................. 55,830 34,500 21,330

Middle East 13,580 7,080 6,500

Lebanon .......................................... 3,330 1,660 1,670

Syria ............................................... 2,460 1,240 1,220

Turkey ............................................. 2,300 1,630 670

Other .............................................. 5,490 2,550 2,940

Former Soviet Republics 81,140 47,740 33,400

Europe 34,280 17,500 16,780

Portugal .......................................... 5,470 3,470 2,000

Italy ................................................ 3,620 1,920 1,700

United Kingdom ............................. 3,590 1,740 1,850

Other .............................................. 21,600 10,370 11,230

Oceania 2,310 1,030 1,280

Unidentified 18,630 11,430 7,200

Total ...................................... 669,630 364,980 304,650

Source: SSI 10-Percent Sample, December 1998.

1384

Family cash assistance

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

characteristics of Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC)

recipients indicate that, as a percentage of total adult AFDC recipients, noncitizens legally in the United States who receive AFDC

(now TANF) increased from 7.0 percent in fiscal year 1989 to 12.3

percent in fiscal year 1996, and then dropped to 11.0 percent in

1998 (U.S. Department, 1990, 1997, 1999). 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. Fully 27 percent of its 611,799 TANF recipients were

noncitizens in 1998 (table J–7). Calculated in terms of percentage

of all adult noncitizens receiving TANF, Californians comprised 57

percent of adult noncitizens in the United States on TANF in 1998.

New York followed California with 15.8 percent of its 321,961 recipients who were adult noncitizens or 18 percent of noncitizens in

the United States on TANF. Texas and Florida were distant third

and fourth places with 4 percent and 3 percent respectively of adult

noncitizens in the United States on TANF.

TABLE J–7.—DISTRIBUTION OF ADULT TANF RECIPIENTS BY STATE AND CITIZENSHIP

STATUS, OCTOBER 1997–SEPTEMBER 1998

[In percent]

State

All adult

TANF recipients

Percent of

citizen recipients

Percent of

noncitizen

recipients

Alabama ............................................................... 0.49 0.52 0.00

Alaska .................................................................... 0.41 0.45 0.15

Arizona .................................................................. 1.12 1.17 0.76

Arkansas ............................................................... 0.33 0.36 0.02

California .............................................................. 23.25 19.24 57.07

Colorado ................................................................ 0.62 0.70 0.03

Connecticut ........................................................... 1.58 1.71 0.68

Delaware ............................................................... 0.20 0.23 0.02

District of Columbia ............................................. 0.72 0.81 0.05

Florida ................................................................... 2.69 2.65 3.26

Georgia ................................................................. 1.87 2.10 0.14

Guam .................................................................... 0.09 0.08 0.13

Hawaii ................................................................... 0.59 0.65 0.13

Idaho ..................................................................... 0.04 0.05 0.03

Illinois ................................................................... 5.83 6.46 1.22

Indiana ................................................................. 1.20 1.35 0.10

Iowa ...................................................................... 0.87 0.98 0.04

Kansas .................................................................. 0.40 0.44 0.12

Kentucky ............................................................... 1.47 1.66 0.09

Louisiana .............................................................. 1.39 1.56 0.08

Maine .................................................................... 0.53 0.59 0.07

Maryland ............................................................... 1.39 1.56 0.10

Massachusetts ...................................................... 2.03 2.01 2.34

Michigan ............................................................... 4.19 4.57 1.48

1385

TABLE J–7.—DISTRIBUTION OF ADULT TANF RECIPIENTS BY STATE AND CITIZENSHIP

STATUS, OCTOBER 1997–SEPTEMBER 1998—Continued

[In percent]

State

All adult

TANF recipients

Percent of

citizen recipients

Percent of

noncitizen

recipients

Minnesota ............................................................. 1.76 1.77 1.88

Mississippi ............................................................ 0.53 0.61 0.00

Missouri ................................................................ 1.78 2.00 0.15

Montana ................................................................ 0.29 0.32 0.03

Nebraska ............................................................... 0.42 0.30 0.17

Nevada .................................................................. 0.30 0.31 0.18

New Hampshire .................................................... 0.19 0.21 0.04

New Jersey ............................................................ 0.23 2.53 0.00

New Mexico ........................................................... 0.80 0.87 0.28

New York ............................................................... 12.24 11.44 17.58

North Carolina ...................................................... 1.95 1.84 0.16

North Dakota ........................................................ 0.10 0.11 0.02

Ohio ...................................................................... 4.28 4.79 0.54

Oklahoma .............................................................. 0.66 0.74 0.04

Oregon 1 ................................................................ 0.63 0.62 0.44

Pennsylvania ......................................................... 4.59 5.00 1.71

Puerto Rico ........................................................... 0.11 0.12 0.03

Rhode Island ........................................................ 0.69 0.67 0.91

South Carolina ...................................................... 0.65 0.74 0.03

South Dakota ........................................................ 0.09 0.10 0.00

Tennessee ............................................................. 1.51 1.70 0.10

Texas ..................................................................... 4.43 4.57 3.62

Utah ...................................................................... 0.43 0.47 0.17

Vermont ................................................................ 0.29 0.33 0.04

Virginia ................................................................. 1.47 1.60 0.51

Virgin Islands ....................................................... 0.01 0.01 0.01

Washington ........................................................... 2.81 2.79 3.25

West Virginia ........................................................ 0.82 0.93 0.01

Wisconsin .............................................................. 0.52 0.59 0.00

Wyoming ............................................................... 0.03 0.03 0.00

Total (in millions) ...................... 2.631 2.318 0.289

1 Oregon’s percentages are imputed, not reported.

Source: Congressional Research Service analysis of U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

data on TANF Program participation, October 1997–September 1998.

Food stamps

The 10-year pattern for noncitizens receiving food stamps resembles that of SSI and AFDC/TANF. Specifically, food stamp participation by noncitizens crept upward 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. The

peak had occurred in 1996 when 1,847,000 noncitizens comprised

7.1 percent of the 25,926,000 food stamp recipients.

1386

California is the State with the largest number of noncitizens receiving food stamps, 210,000 in 1998. Its share of all noncitizens

receiving food stamps was 34 percent. New York, Texas, and Florida followed with 15, 12, and 7 percent respectively of all noncitizens receiving food stamps in 1998. The food stamp quality control

sample also recorded information on naturalized citizens. Based on

these data, New York led with 23 percent of all food stamp recipients who are naturalized. California came in a close second at 21.7

percent, and Florida followed with 15.7 percent.

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, 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, the more recent 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

1387

fell by 48 percent between January 1996 and January 1998 (Zimmerman & Fix, 1998).

CRS analysis of the March 1999 CPS (for 1998) indicated that

public assistance usage was down generally from 1995 to 1998. Although CPS data are self-reported and generally understate the actual number of program beneficiaries, it appears that the March

1999 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–8). 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,

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) or GA) who were

noncitizens held virtually constant between 1995 (11.9 percent) and

1998 (11.8 percent) even though the total caseload fell. A different

perspective on the same data reveals that the percentage decrease

in welfare use from 1995 to 1998 was virtually the same for natives

as for noncitizens, 42 and 43 percent respectively (table J–7). The

estimated proportion of welfare recipients who were naturalized increased from 2.3 percent in 1995 to 3.9 percent 1998, an increase

of 70 percent.

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

one in which noncitizen usage decreased from 9.9 percent in 1995

to 7.8 percent in 1998, while recipiency among the naturalized increased as a percentage of SSI recipients from 3.9 percent to 6.5

percent over the 3-year period (table J–8). SSI recipiency dropped

slightly among noncitizens, rose substantially among naturalized

citizens, and held 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 modest changes in each of the citizenship

categories. Estimated use by naturalized citizens rose while estimated use by noncitizens declined (table J–8). Among natives,

there was a decline from 1995 to 1998.

CPS estimates of households receiving food stamps indicate a decline from 1995 to 1998 across all three citizenship categories (table

J–8). Noncitizen households that received food stamps went from

13.7 percent to 8.5 percent, experiencing the largest decline (38

percent), but native households followed closely with a 30 percent

decline from 7.6 percent in 1995 to 5.3 percent in 1998.

TABLE J–8.—NATIVES, NATURALIZED AMERICANS, AND NONCITIZENS AS NUMBER OF RECIPIENTS, PERCENTAGE OF RECIPIENTS, AND PERCENT

CITIZENSHIP-STATUS GROUP RECEIVING BENEFITS FROM SELECTED WELFARE PROGRAMS, 1995 AND 1998

Program

Native Naturalized Noncitizen

1995 1998 Percent change 1995 1998 Percent change 1995 1998 

Number on welfare (in millions):

Cash ............................................................... 4.25 2.51

¥41 0.112 0.115 +03 0.583 0.350

SSI .................................................................. 4.15 4.20 +01 0.188 0.316 +68 0.475 0.380Medicaid ......................................................... 26.81 23.62

¥12 .495 0.748 +51 0.242 0.170

Food stamps .................................................. 25.12 18.46

¥27 0.444 0.442 (1) 0.248 0.147

As percentage of all recipients:

Cash ................................................................ 85.8 84.4

¥2 2.3 3.9 +70 11.9 11.8

SSI .................................................................. 86.2 85.8 (1) 3.9 6.5 +67 9.9 7.8Medicaid ......................................................... 90.1 90.6 +1 2.9 2.9 0 6.5 6.5 Food stamps .................................................. 89.6 90.6 +1 1.6 2.2 +38 8.9 7.2

Population (in millions) ............... 239.2 244.6 +2 7.9 9.9 +25 16.6 16.6 

Percentage of citizenship-status group receiving welfare:

Cash ................................................................ 2.4 1.4

¥42 1.5 1.2

¥20 4.0 2.3

SSI .................................................................. 2.3 2.3 0 2.5 3.3

¥32 3.2 2.5

Medicaid ......................................................... 7.2 6.3

¥12 6 7.5

¥25 12.8 9.2

Food stamps .................................................. 7.6 5.3

¥30 5.5 4.5

¥18 13.7 8.5

1 Less than 1 percent.

Note.—Food stamp data are households; all other data are individuals. Cash welfare includes AFDC, TANF and GA. Many of the entries in the table are estimates 

small sample sizes which would produce large sampling errors.

Source: Congressional Research Service analysis of Current Population Survey March Supplement, 1996 and 1999.

1389

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) 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 may

also affect the results because use of SSI by the three citizenship

status categories showed divergent patterns as compared with welfare use over time. In addition to differences between CRS and the

Urban Institute in the data construction, some variation in findings

could result from economic and social traits of the two time periods:

1994–97 versus 1995–98.

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

is now barred to newly arrived ‘‘qualified aliens,’’ whereas in the

past it was not subject to any alienage restrictions. The concept of

‘‘qualified aliens’’ originated with the welfare law and includes noncitizens not covered by the INS database.

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 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.

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.

1390

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 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 INS 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 INS

at least four 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 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 INS 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.

1391

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 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. (1999). Annual statistical supplement to the Social Security Bulletin, 1999. 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. Immigration and Naturalization Service. (1997, January). Estimates of the unauthorized immigrant population residing in

the United States, October 1996. (Backgrounder). 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.

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.