Welfare Reform-Impact on Legal Immigrants

Table of Contents

• Introduction
• Public Opinion Data
• Population Projections-Net Immigration
• The Costs of Immigration
• The distribution of welfare:elderly immigrants and refugees
• What is a "Qualified Alien"?
• What are the new restrictions on pubic benefits for "qualified aliens"?
• Supplemental Social Income
• Temporary Needy Assistance for families (TANF) and Medicaid
• How many Legal Immigrants are affected by the new law?
• Is the Welfare Reform Act Constitutional?
• Implications of the Welfare Reform Act
• Conclusion
• References

Introduction

On August 22, 1996, President Clinton signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, P.L. 104-193. On September30, 1996, he signed an omnibus spending bill that incorporates the Illegal Immigration Reform and the Immigration Responsibility Act of 1996, P.L.104-208. The new welfare package is a comprehensive piece of legislation with far reaching implications for both legal and illegal aliens. Each state is now responsible for passing legislation that determines the eligibility of "qualified aliens" in receiving state and federal benefits.

The major goal of the of the act is to attack dependency on welfare, to encourage work while maintaining the use of welfare as only a safety net for families experiencing temporary financial problems. This reflects a shift that has been in the undertaking for more than two decades among social scientists who study the inner city poor, family break up and welfare dependency. One of the topics receiving the most attention of the 1990's has been on redesigning welfare in order to "foster self help." One of President Clinton’s social policy advisors, Dr. William Julius Wilson, a professor of social policy at Harvard University, his research on the impact of welfare dependency is a "devastating chronicle of the loss of purpose among young blacks growing up in Chicago’s ghettos." (The Economist, 1992). This widespread belief that permanent benefits have contributed to welfare dependency had a major influence on President Clinton’s campaign for welfare reform.

Public Opinion Data

Public Opinion and attitudes toward welfare has not changed very much since the 1960's. Several polls reported by the Institute for Research in Social Science at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill show that a majority of the general public tend to oppose welfare. In a 1964 Harris poll, 68.7% believed that welfare and relief payments make people lazy and irresponsible. whereas, 25.7% did not believe it. Only a small minority (5.6%) were not sure. (IRSS study no. S1407, Question Text 23) (To view poll-keywords: welfare, 1960's) click here for IRSS search page

In 1986, the California Poll conducted by the Field Institute revealed that an overwhelming majority of those living in California were concerned about welfare and public assistance. The question asked by the pollster is "I would like you to tell me whether you are extremely concerned, somewhat concerned, not too concerned or not at all concerned about this issue. Items: Welfare and Public Assistance". The results show that 45.5% of this sample had extreme concern and 42.1% were somewhat concerned. Only 9% were not to concerned and 2.7% did not care. (IRSS Study No. NNSP-CA-039. Question Text 10) (To view poll-key words: welfare, California, since 1980) click here for IRSS search page

During more recent years, the results of a 1995 Harris poll showed that a majority continued to oppose welfare. In this poll, 83.9% favor welfare reform while 13.1% opposed welfare reform. Only 3% remained unsure. (IRSS Study No. S951101, Question Text 26) (To view the 1995 poll- keywords: welfare, since 1990 ) click here for IRSS search page

Public sentiment toward welfare use by immigrants were revealed in two polls conducted in different years by the Harris Organization. The results indicate that an increasing amount of Americans feel that immigrants use more than their fair share of government services, such as welfare, medical care, and food stamps. In 1992, 51.5% of the respondents agreed that immigrants use more than their fair share of benefits, while in 1994, 71.3% agreed. The results in the latter study indicate a 19.8% increase in just two years. Please see the table below. (IRSS Study No. S921204. Question Text 15 and IRSS Study No. S941107. Question Text 19) (To view 1992 and 1994 polls- keywords: welfare, Immigration, since 1990) click here for IRSS search page

The new law restricting immigrant access to benefits is premised on the assumption that welfare use by immigrants is widespread, growing rapidly and given to the undeserving. Although not all immigrants receive welfare, every year there is an increase in immigration. The following report prepared by the United States Census Bureau, "Population Projections of the United States by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin: 1995 to 2050." , projects that net immigration is the major component in future population growth. It is estimated that there will be 820,000 net migrants a year. The ethnicity of net migration is comprised of the following:

The Census Bureau estimates that by the year 2000, the population total will be at 5 million. This population figure is about 2% larger as a result of immigration after July 1, 1994.

The Costs of Immigration

Calculating the costs of illegal immigration is not easy as often many illegal immigrants are part of a hidden population. As a result, there is insufficient data available on illegal aliens use of public services. However, in response to a congressional request, the General Accounting Office has attempted to estimate the costs associated with illegal immigrants. They found that illegal aliens increase costs to the local, state and federal goverments. They estimate, with uncertainty, the costs to range from $2billion to $19 billion on a national level.

The costs of documented immigrants use of public benefits were also assessed by the (GAO) and they found that between the years of 1992 and 1995, immigrants have received approximately 3.3 billion in SSI benefits and 1.2 billion in AFDC benefits. Between the years, 1983 and 1993, that the number of immigrants receiving Supplementary Social Income has increased from 151,000 to 683,000. This represents a 7% increase, from 4% to 11%. Other increases of welfare use by immigrants are found in what is now called the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) formerly known as (AFDC). Use of the AFDC has grown from 5% to 8%. Most immigrants that have received benefits are lawful permanent residents and refugees.

About half of all immigrants that receive Supplemental Social Income and AFDC (52.4%) live in California. Three other states that have a high concentration of immigrants receiving welfare are New York, Florida and Texas. and they account for a total of 30.5%. Analysts from the Population Studies Center , a research center that is part of the Urban Institute whose purpose is to coordinate and carry out demographic analyses, found that in agricultural regions of California that were affected by an increase in immigration, those families that have income levels below the poverty level range from around 25% to 50% as compared to 11% to 12% for U.S. families as a whole.

The distribution of welfare:elderly immigrants and refugees

The Urban Institute is a non for profit research organization that examines the social and economic problems of the nation as well as government policies. In a report called "The Use of SSI and other Welfare Programs by Immigrants", the Urban Institute points out that welfare use is found mostly among two groups of immigrants: elderly immigrants and refugees. Both refugees and elderly immigrants make up 21 percent of immigrants, but account for 40 percent of all immigrant welfare users. Elderly immigrants represent 28 percent of the SSI recipients aged 65 and older but only 9 percent of the total elderly population. Refugees are also significantly more likely to use welfare than the rest of the immigration population (13.1 percent versus 5.8 percent). In fact, Congress has exempted refugees from the provisions of the act and they remain eligible for benefits. The reason for the exemption is that since refugees are thought to be fleeing persecution, most have few if any family ties in the United States than other immigrants, and often suffer physical and mental impairments.

What is a "Qualified Alien"?

The new legislation creates a new eligibility category for aliens called "qualified aliens". A qualified alien is defined as an alien who is lawfully admitted for permanent residence; an asylee; a refugee; an alien who is paroled into the United States for at least one year; an alien whose deportation is being withheld; or an alien who is granted conditional entry. Also, considered qualified are certain battered aliens and alien parents of battered children under certain conditions.

Other qualified aliens that will continue to be eligible for SSI or food stamps are aliens who are lawfully living in the U.S. and who are veterans with an honorable discharge or are on active duty in the Armed Forces. The last exceptions are lawful permanent residents who have worked forty qualifying quarters and who did not receive any federal means-tested benefits during any of those quarters. Legal residents can be credited with qualifying quarters worked by their parents while the alien was less than eighteen, and by the alien’s spouse during their marriage, provided that the marriage did not end in divorce.

What are the new restrictions on public benefits for "qualified aliens"?

The majority of "qualified aliens" are no longer entitled to most public benefits. The Urban Institute outlines three major restrictions. The first of these is a bar from Supplemental Social Security Income (SSI) and food stamps. The second is a bar of qualified aliens arriving after August 22, 1996, for most means-tested programs for the first five years in the United States. The third restriction applies to both qualified aliens that have arrived in the United States before or after the enactment of the law. The state will have the option of denying assistance under the following federally funded programs: Medicaid, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) formerly (AFDC); Title XX Social Services (a block grant that States use to fund, i.e., child care and services to the elderly). It also requires that the income of an immigrant's sponsor be deemed available to the immigrant for purposes of determining eligibility for all means-tested federal, state, and local programs. The deeming period continues until the immigrant becomes a citizen.

Supplemental Social Income

Supplemental Social Income (SSI) is a needs-based program available to low income individuals who are 65 or older, blind, or disabled. According to the Urban Institute, the composition of the SSI program comprises the following:

Welfare use by the elderly is concentrated in the SSI program. Although, the elderly immigrants make up only 9 percent of the total immigrant population, they make up 28 percent of SSI recipients aged 65 and over. According to the Urban Institute , there are two probable factors that help explain elderly usage. First, many elderly immigrants may not have worked enough qualifying hours in the United States to receive Social Security. Secondly, many the elderly that use SSI as a bridge to Medicaid because it is difficult for elderly immigrants and the elderly in general, to obtain health insurance.

Temporary Assistance for needy families (TANF) and Medicaid

The new welfare reform law eliminates the AFDC cash assistance program and replaces it with a block grant program called Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). The purpose of TANF program is to provide assistance to needy families with children, and to reduce the dependency by promoting job preparation, work and marriage. Under the new law, states are permitted to deny Medicaid benefits to adults and heads of household who lose TANF benefits because of refusal to work. In addition, according to the Health Care Financing Administration, the federal agency that administers the Medicare and Medicaid programs), states have the option to determine the eligibility of current legal immigrants for federal cash assistance under Title IV-A, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF).

Medicaid provides reimbursement for doctor's services, hospital care, and prescription drugs to participating providers who care for low-income individuals. According to the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) there is a mandatory ban on Medicaid eligibility for immigrants who are "qualified aliens" and those that are arrive in the United States on or after August 22, 1996. There is a five year deeming period. During the deeming process, individual sponsors who sign new, legally binding affidavits of support, the states will deem the income and resources of the immigrant sponsor including his/her spouse, to be made available to support the immigrant when determining the immigrant's eligibility for Medicaid. After the five-year deeming period, an immigrant's access to Medicaid is at state option.

How many legal immigrants are affected by the new law?

A report prepared for the National Governor’s Association by the Immigrant Policy Project, estimated that the number of immigrants potentially affected by this bill nationwide are almost 2.1 million. The SSI cuts impact almost 500,000 legal immigrants that receive this benefit. It affects 1,000,000 aliens from receiving food stamps and 600,000 from Medicaid. The immigrant related provisions of the welfare act could save approximately $23.8 billion in the next five years by denying benefits to legal immigrants. However, these federal savings might be potentially absorbed as costs for each state.

Is the Immigration and Welfare Reform Act Constitutional?

A coalition of civil rights groups and Mayor Rudolf Guiliani have filed seperate suits to block a key provision of the new legislation. They charge that it violates the constitutional rights of legal immigrants who lose disability and food stamps because they are not citizens. (Havemann, 1997)

The lead plaintiff in the law suit by civil rights groups in New York, is Juan Tomas Abreau, a 41-year old legal permanent resident from the Dominican Republic, who has suffered from a brain hemorrage and has been camotose for the past five years. He lives on $570 in monthly checks from the SSI program. According to the suit, he is mentally unable to take on the language, history and the steps required for becoming a citizen. They argue that it is totally irrational to deny benefits to legal permanent residents who are mentally unable to become citizens. (Havemann, 1997).

Mayor Giuliani contends that this new legislation severely affects those legal immigrants who have worked in the United States for decades and have honestly paid their dues to Social Security and income taxes. He believes that to deny these legal immigrants from receiving disability and old age assistance and food stamps violate the fifth amendment of the Constitution. In addition, he believes that the government is discriminating against these individuals by allowing them to come into the country and pay taxes, but then to deny them help when they are in need of temporary assistance (Shafroth, 1996).

An amendment that would have allowed states to deny public education to illegal immigrants was deleted from the Immigration and Reform Act. Provisions in the Gallegley amendment that would deny public education to undocumented children is unconstitutional. In the case of Plyler v. Doe, 1982 457 U.S. 202, filed in the United States District Court on behalf of school age children in Texas, that were of Mexican origin and whose legal alien status could not be assessed were denied a public education. The District Court held that a Texas statute which withholds from local school districts any state funds for the education of children who were not legally admitted into the United States, and which authorizes local school districts to deny enrollment to such children, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. (To view case- choose case name- keyword: plyler) USCC+ Online

Implications of the Welfare Reform Act

While, studies that provide information on the new legislation's impact are not readily available there are general concerns about the states' interpretation of the new law. At the present time, there is no federal definition of who is eligible. The original definition was deleted due to the Byrd rule. The American Public Welfare Association, a nonprofit bipartisan organization that educate members of Congress of the latest issues on welfare and publish the quarterly professional journal "Public Welfare" proclaim that "it is the intent of House and Senate Conferees that the ... definition be used by states". This means that there is no requirement in the new law that assistance is to be provided to needy families for state administered federal programs such as TANF, social services block grants, and Medicaid.

Moreover, under the new law, since states will be responsible for designing and administering their own welfare programs. The states will design programs that are worse than neighboring states inorder to avoid an influx of people seeking a more generous program (Edelman, 1997).

Of particular concern are the elderly immigrants as well as the disabled immigrants that make up 34% percent of the Supplemental Social Income progam. Both the elderly and the disabled who have been in the United States for a long time rely on the federal benefits that they receive. In most cases, it is their only source of income. What will become of this group, if the states decide to cut off their benefits? Without SSI, both the elderly and those immigrants who become disabled or blind after entry into the United States may not have sufficient resources to meet even their basic needs.

The new category that the legislation creates, "qualified alien", has created three separate regimes of welfare eligibility-one for natives; one for current immigrants that were present in the United States before the enactment of the law; and one for future immigrants. The Immigration and Naturalization Service is not prepared in identifying the new classification system of aliens under the new law. The INS is notorious for its weak management structure, faulty accounting systems and inacuurate information systems. This will result in additional strain on the already overloaded system. The INS verification system needs to be more efficient before taking on any additional responsibilities. (Fragomen Jr., 1996).

Moreover, the INS already has to deal with the 9 month backlog of applications for citizenship as a result of the new legislation and there continues to be a rise in the number of immigrants applying for citizenship. In fiscal year 1996, the INS naturalized approximately 1.1 million people and received more than 1.2 million new applications. The INS estimates that over the next three years, applications for naturalization will increase by more than one million additional applications and they expect to receive up to 1.8 million applications in fiscal year 1997.

Conclusion

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 puts an end to the 61-year old federal guarantee of providing public benefits. It shifts the responsibility to the states. Each state will receive a block grant to tailor their own welfare plans as they seem fit. The government estimates that by restricting public benefits to legal aliens that $20 billion dollars will be saved over the next six years. The impact of the new legislation are not yet apparent and can only be quantified over time. The only present day evidence in response to the new law is the surge in recent naturalizations and the pending backlog of applications for citizenship.

REFERENCES

Edelman, Peter. The worst thing Bill Clinton had done. The Atlantic Monthly, March 1997, v279 n3 p43(11).

Fix, Michael; Passel, Jeffrey S.; and Zimmermann, Wendy. The Use of SSI and Other Welfare Programs by Immigrants. The Urban Institute. http://www.urban.org/TESTIMON/fix.htm. Testimony before the House of Representatives Ways and Means Committee, May 23, 1996.

Fragomen, Austing T. Jr.. Welfare Bill Severely Curtails Public Assistance to Non Citizens. International Migration Review. Winter 1996 v30 n4 p1087(9).

Havemann, Judith. Civil Rights Groups, N.Y. Mayor Challenge Welfare Cutoff for Legal Immigrants. Washington Post. March 27, 1997: pA23.

Immigration and Naturalization Service.Alien Eligibility for and Access to Public Benefits FACT SHEET.http://www.ins.usdoj.gov/hqopp/factsfin/htm.

Immigration and Naturalization Service. Questions and Answers on Welfare Reform- Alien Eligibility for and Access to Public Benefits Revised January 31,1997. http://www.ins.usdoj.gov/hqopp/qsandas.htm.

The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Institute for Research in Social Science. IRSS Study Number: S1407. Question No. 23. September 1964.-- IRSS Study Number NNSP-CA-039. Question No. 45N. August 1986.-- IRSS Study Number: 921204. Question No. BW5. June1992.-- IRSS Study Number: S941107. Question No. G1. December 1994.-- IRSS Study Number S951101. Question No. B1. February 1995.-- http://www.irss.unc.edu/data_archive/pollsearch.html

Pub. L. 104-193, The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c104:H.R.3734.ENR:

Pub. L. 104-828, Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d104:HR03610

Plyler v. Doe, 1982, 457 U.S. 202 http://www.usscplus.com/online/frames.htm

Edited by Sawhill, Isabel V. Welfare Reform: An Analysis of the Issues. http://www.urban.org/welfare/overview.htm#chap15.

Shafroth, Frank. New York Mayor Challenges New Welfare Law. (Rudolph W. Giuliani). Nation's Cities Weekly. Oct 21, 1996, v19 n42 p11(1).

The American Public Welfare Association. Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grants (Title I). http://www.apwa.org/reform/tanf.htm

The American Public Welfare Association. Immigrant Provisions in Welfare Reform. http://www.apwa.org/reform/immigrants.htm.

The General Accounting Office.Welfare Reform: Implications of Proposals on Legal Immigrants' Benefits. Letter Report, 02/02/95,GAO/HEHS-95-58. http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/useftp.cgi?IPaddress=wais.access.gpo.gov &filename=he95058.txt&directory=/diskb/wais/data/gao

The General Accounting Office. Illegal Aliens:National Net Cost Estimates Vary Widely (Letter Report, 07/25/95, GAO/HEHS-95-133). http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/useftp.cgi?IPaddress=wais.access.gpo.gov&filename=he95133.txt&directory=/diskb/wais/data/gao

The Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA). Fact Sheet #3. The Link between medicaid and the immigration provisions of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996. http://www.hcfa.gov/medicaid/wrfs3.htm

The Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA). Fact Sheet # 1 The Link between Medicaid and Temporary Assistance for needy families (TANF). http://www.hcfa.gov/medicaid/wrfs1.htm

The Economist, Absent men: The Underclass. Social Theories on the Morality of the Poor. , August 22, 1992, v324 n7773 p22.

The Immigrant Policy Project at the National Conference of State Legislatures. 1996. Impact of Immigrant Provisions in Welfare Reform. http://www.nga.org/Welfare/WelfareDocs/WelfareJBImpactOfImmig.htm.

The Urban Institute, 1996. Population Studies Center Annual Report 1995. http://www.urban.org/ar95/populate.htm.