Immigrant Policy News
The State-Local Report
Volume 3, #3
November 1996
Published by the Immigrant Policy Project
State and Local Coalition on Immigration
On August 22, 1996, sweeping changes to America's 60-year-old
welfare system became law as President Clinton signed the "Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996"
(P.L. 104-193). Included in this act are many changes that will
directly affect U.S. immigrant populations. This issue of The
State-Local Report focuses on these changes and how states,
counties, and immigrant populations will be affected. We lead
this issue with an article from a Minnesota state senator on the
fate of refugees in the wake of welfare reform. Devolution of
the welfare system will certainly reach beyond state government
to county or city service providers; we invited the California
State Association of Counties to consider their changing role.
To help states and localities in the implementation of this reform,
the Immigrant Policy Project provides discussions of the immigrant
provisions of the law, summaries of the new programs, and an overview
of the Medicaid changes. And finally, we include a 'citizenship
update' from the Pacific Northwest on the naturalization of elderly
immigrants.
All opinions expressed are those of the authors and their
respective organizations and do not necessarily represent those
of the Immigrant Policy Project, the State and Local Coalition
on Immigration, or the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation.
"If tolerance of diversity involves
an admitted element of risk to national
unity, intolerance involves a certainty
that unity will be destroyed."
-Alan Barth, 1951
For many years, the states have been asking the federal government
for fewer unfunded mandates and more flexibility in many public
policy areas, but especially regarding welfare. Under the present
administration, Minnesota was granted waivers to experiment with
welfare and health care reform. Reform in both areas has been
piloted and was scheduled to gradually expand throughout the state.
And it was working. Minnesota's 1996 AFDC caseload is significantly
lower than 1994's. Minnesota was given the flexibility we needed
by the current administration. But Minnesota did not expect or
want the federal government to absolve itself from responsibility
for the poor in general and refugees in particular.
Who is the refugee population?
According to the Refugee Services Office of the Minnesota
Department of Human Services, the largest refugee groups in Minnesota
are:
- Hmong 32,000
- Vietnamese 17,000
- Cambodian 7,600
- Laotian 7,200
- Soviet Jews 4,200
- Somali Africans 2,500
- Ethiopian Africans 1,000.
In 1996, the Immigration and Naturalization Service allowed
6,000 more southeast Asian refugees into the U.S. We expect about
1,000 of those to settle in Minnesota. Most Hmong and Soviet Jewish
refugees have settled in St. Paul, which is in Ramsey County.
The Vietnamese, Cambodian, and Laotian refugees are divided between
Minneapolis and St. Paul. Many African refugees have settled in
small cities in Minnesota: Rochester, Marshal, Willmar, and Worthington.
We do not yet know how many of these refugees have become citizens,
but the Council on Asian-American Minnesotans developed the following
estimates regarding the non-citizen proportions of the southeast
Asian populations in Minnesota:
- Hmong 62%
- Laotian 67%
- Cambodian 63%
- Vietnamese 45%.
What we don't know yet is how many of the non-citizens and
refugees receive government assistance.
Impacts in Ramsey County
Since Ramsey County has the majority of refugees, they are
the farthest along in predicting the impact of federal welfare
reform. The immediate impacts will be in the area of SSI (Supplemental
Security Income for the blind, disabled, and elderly) and food
stamps. Refugees will still be eligible for food stamps and SSI
for their first 5 years in the country. However, Ramsey County
estimates that 3,200 legal immigrants will be denied SSI payments
of approximately $500 per month when their annual reviews come
up between now and next July. About 7,000 will lose food stamps.
Many facing SSI cutoffs are southeast Asian refugees who have
been here longer than 5 years. Many fought for the U.S. in Laos
during the Vietnam War but do not have veteran status. They have
war injuries, severe depression or post-traumatic stress disorders.
Unlike other immigrants, refugees have no financial sponsor
and therefore no one legally obligated to provide for their basic
needs once they have exhausted their five-year exception to the
SSI and Food Stamp bar. Refugees are admitted to this country
because they have demonstrated to the satisfaction of the INS
officer that they have either suffered persecution or have a well
founded fear of persecution and as a result cannot return to their
native country. Sometimes, the effects of that persecution render
a person unable to work, particularly when combined with advanced
age.
Local Strategies
Local strategies are traditional, varied, and creative, involving
governmental groups, Mutual Assistance Associations, and other
non-profits. A local coalition of church and legal advocacy groups
and non-profits have developed "Minnesota Principles for
Responsible Welfare Strategies." They support genuine welfare
reform that promotes real economic security for families and communities.
They plan to use the principles to evaluate any proposed welfare
reform plans and to guide their own legislative agenda (see sidebar).
The Mutual Assistance Associations are meeting to educate
themselves and their communities about the welfare reform changes.
They are also working with the counties and other refugee assistance
programs to brainstorm strategies, including: 1) requests to the
state to allow flexibility in implementation, 2) financial assistance
from the state in key areas, and 3) mass citizenship promotion.
Federal welfare reform does allow the state certain flexibility.
Minnesota can retain eligibility for refugees (and legal immigrants)
for the state's general assistance program, which provides $203
per month per adult recipient. The state can also reject implementation
of the post 5-year refugee ban on federal programs such as AFDC,
Medicaid, and Title XX.
A second strategy is to ask the legislature to fully fund
state refugee assistance programs that currently have long waiting
lists, such as Adult Basic Education (literacy) and English as
a Second Language classes. If refugees are expected to work within
two years, they have to be able to speak, read, and write English.
Many people don't realize that the Hmong population until recently
did not have a written language. Many Hmong elderly do not read
and write in their native language, doubling the difficulty of
learning English.
The third major strategy is "Citizenship Promotion."
The Coalition for Citizenship has written a legal education pamphlet
on the benefits of citizenship, how to become a citizen and resources
for assistance (copies can be obtained from my office by calling
612-296-1802). They also plan to hold mass citizenship application
workshops using a model developed by the United Cambodian Association,
which has had a 90% success rate. Potential citizens attending
the workshop learn the benefits of citizenship, walk through the
process, are fingerprinted and photographed, receive a date for
the test, and sign up for classes, if needed. They all take the
test together and are sworn in together. The mass psychology involved
in going through the process together has resulted in an 85% pass
rate.
But, the really hard work is changing public attitudes toward
immigrants. A coalition of churches recently sponsored a seminar
called "Building Hospitable Communities" to begin a
dialogue. All the strategies we can develop to deal with welfare
reform and immigration laws will be ineffective if we don't confront
the intolerance for diversity that is in our communities and promote
tolerance and respect for a rich tapestry of cultures in our country.
The State of Minnesota's Reaction
The Minnesota legislature is only in session from mid-winter
to spring. Last spring, as we were hearing about proposed changes
in welfare rules and cutbacks in federal funding, the common attitude
among legislators was that the State of Minnesota should not pick
up the tab and make up the difference in federal budget cuts.
Minnesota was not going to shield the public from the consequences
of federal action. However, those of us representing the inner
city are in a tough bind. It is our constituents, our schools,
our cities, our counties that will bear the brunt. Will we be
able to turn away hungry families and sick elderly? Only 1997
will tell.
Minnesota Principles for Responsible Welfare Strategies
- Reduce poverty by engaging communities, government, business,
and individuals in advancing economic security;
- Hold public officials, program providers, and welfare
participants accountable for making Minnesota's new system successful;
- Make work pay enough to support families;
- Provide for economic opportunity and advancement by investing
in education and training;
- Acknowledge the fundamental importance of the care and
nurture of children including quality child care;
- Preserve a safety net;
- Provide the same supports for all Minnesotans;
- Allow for consideration of particular family circumstances
without "one-size-fits-all" requirements;
- Treat families and individuals with respect and sensitivity;
and
- Provide families, decision-makers, and the public with
access to accurate information.
This is a historic and challenging time for California's 58
counties. The California State Association of Counties (CSAC)
has long advocated for a wholesale restructuring of the welfare
system, one that is more jobs-based and emphasizes the temporary
nature of the program. Once the President signed the welfare bill,
welfare as we have known it in California for the past 60 years
ceased to exist. Thousands of legal immigrants in California will
no longer be eligible for benefits, and welfare recipients will
be facing time limits within which aid will be cut off. A significant
portion of these people will turn to the counties for assistance.
Never before have the counties faced serving so many with so few
resources.
A quick trip around the state reveals that a number of counties
are already experiencing budget shortfalls. Sacramento County
reports an $11.4 million budget gap that it proposes to close
by instituting furloughs, scaling back park services, reducing
probation officers and instituting a three-month time limit for
General Assistance. These are not good alternatives. Sacramento
has had to cut services equal to about $90 million in the past
five years. In addition, Sacramento expects to face an even larger
deficit of $24 million next year. Alameda County has also had
to face a $74 million deficit. Lace County began its 1996-1997
budget process with a $14 million gap. Los Angeles County began
its budget process facing a $516 million shortfall, and Butte
County faced a $2 million hurdle. These examples are reflective
of the budget crises currently being experienced in each of California's
58 counties.
With that as a backdrop, we turn to welfare reform. Clearly
the greatest impact on the counties will be the legal immigrants
who are permanently barred from federal programs. For the current
legal immigrants, there is a permanent ban on their receipt of
SSI and food stamps. According to the Social Security Administration,
31.5% of the aged, blind, and disabled categories that make up
the SSI recipients in California are non-citizens. Excluding the
exempt categories such as refugees and veterans, approximately
323,486 persons out of 1,025,584 are vulnerable for loss of their
SSI benefits once the welfare bill is in full force. For future
legal immigrants, there is a permanent ban on those same programs.
Legal immigrants losing their SSI eligibility status may also
be barred from In-Home Supportive Services. This means the elderly
and disabled will turn to counties for their financial and health
care. The whole notion of IHSS is to avoid the high costs of hospitalization
or nursing homes. Elimination of that cost-saving service will
mean the cost of care will soar.
To put it in real world terms, Sacramento County could see
up to 13,000 individuals dropped from SSI/SSP, Los Angeles 93,000,
and Alameda 13,000, with 40% of Santa Clara's IHSS population
eliminated from coverage. The costs to county General Assistance
programs and indigent health care would spiral, leaving counties
unable to meet other vital commitments such as administration
of the courts and other important public health and safety programs.
Under a worst-case scenario, based upon results from 35 counties,
the potential annual cost to county general assistance programs
could rise to $1.3 billion annually. Clearly, counties are not
in a position to absorb these costs. One solution to mitigate
these impacts could be passage of a law which relieves counties
of the responsibility of serving this population, and CSAC would
probably support that. But such a law would likely be tied up
in court based upon constitutional precedent that prohibits the
federal government from delegating its responsibility for immigrants
to the state and local governments. Also, we would continue to
serve immigrants in our county hospital emergency rooms at our
expense. A better solution, we think, is to shift responsibility
to the state for the general assistance program. Not only does
it make sense to have one welfare system in the state instead
of two, but we wouldn't continually run up against the tension
between eliminating persons from one program only to see them
migrating to the other program.
The state may also elect to ban current legal immigrants'
eligibility for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
program (formerly AFDC) and non-emergency MediCal services until
naturalization. While welfare reform allows for testing and treatment
of immigrants, it does not allow for Medicaid money to be spent.
It is imperative for counties, and the state, that this coverage
remain in place and federal dollars continue to flow. Not only
are the counties not equipped to financially absorb this influx
of persons onto county general assistance and indigent health
programs, but it also poses dire consequences to the well-being
of the state. The rest of the population will remain vulnerable
as communicable diseases such as tuberculosis are not diagnosed
and treated early. It is interesting to note that one study reports
that 71% of patients interviewed who have TB reported that it
was diagnosed when they sought care for one of TB's symptoms:
coughing, fatigue, fever, swollen glands, or weight loss. If the
state elects to ban current legal immigrants from MediCal, there
will be no opportunity to catch and treat routine infections before
they become emergencies.
These figures do not even include the new legal immigrants
that will be coming into California's counties and are permanently
banned from SSI and food stamps. The federal welfare reform places
a five-year ban on every other federal program including TANF
and non-emergency Medicaid. After the five years, the states must
apply "deeming" which will count the sponsor's income
in determining eligibility until the immigrant is naturalized
or has worked for 10 years. But the state may extend the ban on
TANF and non-emergency Medicaid until naturalization.
This extension is not something that would be in the counties'
and the state's best interest. Not only would this ban continue
the pressure upon the counties for financial and health assistance,
there would be tremendous side-effects upon the communities and
the state as a whole. Homelessness would increase and health care
costs would rise as persons seek emergency care for matters that
should have been handled routinely and communicable diseases would
likely spread.
Cash-strapped counties are also very wary of the time-limited
aid restrictions of the new bill. Persons would be eligible for
TANF only for two years, after which time they must find a job.
Furthermore, there is a five-year, life-time, federal limit for
this program. This means for many counties with high unemployment
that there will not be enough jobs to move persons into the job
market. Glenn County, for example, has about 2,000 households
(assuming 1.6 employable persons per household) receiving public
assistance under AFDC. About 60% of these households would have
to transition off welfare and into the workforce within the first
two years. About another 20% would have to transition into the
workforce within five years. The remaining 20% would continue
to receive some sort of assistance since many of these persons
are disabled or children without parents. A total of 80% would
have to transition into employment within two to five years. For
Glenn County, this translates into the creation of 3,200 jobs
during this period. Failure to accomplish this goal will lead
to widespread poverty and greater strain on local resources such
as General Assistance and indigent health care.
We must involve the private sector and the Employment Development
Department (EDD) in establishing a statewide plan for job creation.
Our economic and tax policies must encourage businesses to provide
employment opportunities and health insurance to welfare recipients.
There must also be a partnership formed between the Department
of Social Services and EDD so that they likewise have a stake
in the welfare-to-work programs. Job creation and economic development
cannot be solely left to the counties.
Sacramento County estimates that with time limits in place,
47,000 heads of households over the next five years will need
to find employment in Sacramento. This population, however, will
be competing with persons who have been displaced as a result
of base closures and businesses downsizing. Sacramento County
is fearful that given the fierce competition for positions, welfare
recipients will only be qualified for low-wage positions. They
caution that 47,000 new low-wage jobs which pay $800 to $900 a
month will not be available. Further, even if available, they
will not provide medical benefits nor a sufficient income and
other essentials for a recipient to afford childcare, housing,
transportation, and food costs. Alameda estimates that these time
limits will result in loss of cash assistance to over 6,000 families
who will turn to county programs for help.
In designing a new program, welfare must be a part of a larger
social contract that a recipient agrees to when he or she walks
in the door of the welfare office. Job search activities must
be mandatory for able-bodied persons as soon as they apply for
assistance. For others who require more in-depth services, counties
must have the flexibility and resources to address the individual
problems of the recipient. If the recipient needs child care or
drug and alcohol treatment, funds must be available to provide
those services. It is only with adequate resources and flexibility
that counties can truly address the fundamental barriers that
many families have to self-sufficiency.
Given the facts and figures stated above, it is clear that
counties, without assistance, cannot climb out of the financial
pit created by federal welfare reform. No one local government
entity in the state should be expected to shoulder the costs of
the entire impact of welfare reform. The solution must be one
of cooperation between all levels of government including the
state, cities, and counties.
Adapted from testimony before the California Assembly Human
Services Committee on August 19, 1996.
Unexpectedly to many, the law ending the 60-year federal guarantee
to poor families also ended immigrants' access to a broad range
of means-tested programs. The new bars, restrictions, and options
will create many challenges for states and localities: cost shifts
from federal programs to state and local safety net programs,
secondary consequences such as the potential loss of Medicaid
benefits for elderly immigrants made ineligible for SSI, and new
verification programs for a host of newly-affected benefit programs,
not to mention the expected litigation as the new welfare law
is tested in the courts.
State and local officials are beginning to understand the
complex intersection between welfare programs and immigrant eligibility
dictated in the new law. Much remains to be determined in federal
regulations, and Congress will certainly be revisiting welfare
reform to provide clarification of Congressional intent and perhaps
to make policy changes. In the meantime, states and localities
are grappling with implementation as best they can. This article
outlines the first steps in implementation and where potential
changes may come in the next year.
TANF
The entitlement to welfare (AFDC) is gone. In its place is
the new Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), a capped
block grant to states. As of January 1, states have the option
to provide or deny TANF to immigrants: Thirty-two states have
submitted state plans to HHS as of October 18. Of these, 28 states
plan to continue assistance to current immigrants (defined as
those residing in the U.S. on or before August 22, 1996). Alabama,
Kentucky, South Carolina and Wyoming plan to discontinue TANF
to current immigrants. Of the 28 that will provide TANF to immigrants,
four states plan to serve new immigrants as well as current immigrants.
Maryland, Nebraska, Utah, and Vermont will treat new immigrants
the same as other state residents and serve them with state-only
funds. Maine intends to deem new applicants (including current
immigrants) as of November 1 until the immigrant becomes a citizen
or works 40 quarters. Current recipients are eligible through
December 31.
The state plan does not have the effect of law and can be
modified at any time. In some states, the governor has consulted
with the legislature before submitting a plan. Any element of
the state plan that requires a change in state law will involve
the legislature. State legislatures also have a role in deciding
how the block grant money will be spent. Many states submitted
fairly short and general plans simply to get the block grant money
started. Many of them will probably make comprehensive statutory
changes to their welfare systems over the next 12 to 24 months.
As of October 18, the following states had submitted welfare
plans: Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Florida, Vermont, Massachusetts,
Maryland, Oregon, Arizona, Kentucky, Maine, Oklahoma, Tennessee,
Utah, Alabama, Connecticut, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi,
Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Texas, California,
New Jersey, South Carolina, Wyoming, New York, Nevada, North Carolina.
SSI and Food Stamps
All immigrants are barred from these two programs until citizenship
or 10 years of work. Refugees, asylees, and those granted withholding
of deportation may receive benefits for their first five years
in the U.S. Veterans, those on active-duty, their spouses and
dependent children may also receive benefits.
New applicants for SSI must meet the new eligibility requirements.
Unless the immigrant meets one of the exempted categories, the
bar is in effect. For immigrants currently receiving SSI, the
Social Security Administration (SSA) will send out letters in
February and March of 1997 explaining the changes in the law and
what is needed to prove eligibility under the new categories.
If the recipient is no longer eligible, SSA will send a second
letter with the date the SSI benefits will stop. SSA will also
send additional information about Medicaid to those who lose SSI
benefits. For more information, call SSA at 1-800-772-1213.
As of September 22, new applicants for food stamps must meet
the new eligibility requirements. Unless an immigrant applicant
meets one of the exempted categories, the bar is in effect. Current
immigrant recipients may continue to receive food stamps until
April 1, 1997 and must be recertified against the new eligibility
rules by August 22, 1997. States are sending out notices to all
current recipients about welfare reform changes. Food stamps have
a set benefit period and when the period is up, recipients must
be redetermined for eligibility. If determined eligible, the recipient
receives a new benefit period and benefit level. If the recipient
is no longer eligible, benefits are discontinued. Due process
rules apply - for example, recipients may request a hearing if
benefits are ended. States are subject to penalties if error rates
are too high, that is, if individuals are receiving benefits when
they are no longer eligible.
5-year Bar
Most immigrants arriving after 8/22/96 are barred from federal
means-tested public benefits for five years. HHS must issue a
definition of "means-tested public benefit"; until then,
states are advised to "proceed with caution" before
denying benefits. States have been directed to use their current
eligibility verification processes.
[See "Summary of Changes in Immigrants'Access to Benefits"
for exemptions.]
40 Qualifying Work Quarters
Immigrants achieve parity with citizens after working 40 qualifying
quarters in the U.S. Minor children may be credited with qualifying
quarters and spouses may be credited (unless the marriage ends
in divorce). In October, Congressman Shaw sent a letter to the
Commissioner of Social Security providing guidance on the intent
of Congress regarding 40 qualifying quarters of coverage: "Any
earnings of a noncitizen for work legally performed in the United
States - not just covered earnings - should be used in the quarters
of coverage calculation." Work quarters are based on the
total yearly amount of earnings. To earn a qualifying work quarter
in 1996, for example, an immigrant must earn a minimum of $640/quarter.
Beginning in 1997, the immigrant must also not receive any federal
means-tested public benefit during that quarter.
Immigrants may have difficulty proving employment, particularly
migrant workers and domestic workers. SSA is developing an automated
system (expected to be up and running in January) to provide overnight
verification to states. Until then, if an immigrant has lived
in the country for more than 10 years, his or her attestation
of 40 quarters is sufficient and no further documentation at application
is required. However, within 3 months after SSA's automated system
is in place, the state agency must submit the required information
to SSA for verification. If there is a discrepancy between SSA
records and the applicant's records, SSA will work with the applicant
to determine whether additional quarters can be established. Pending
this determination, the individual will be allowed to participate
for 6 more months. If SSA cannot establish qualifying quarters,
states shall establish an inadvertent household error claim for
the overissuance. Regulations on 40 quarter verification are forthcoming.
Verification
The law requires INS to issue regulations within 18 months
requiring verification that an applicant for a means-tested program
is a qualified alien and eligible for the benefit. States administering
public benefits must comply with the verification system within
24 months of the regulations.
INS currently runs a verification system called SAVE that
states can use to check immigrants' eligibility for six federal
programs (AFDC, Medicaid, food stamps, housing assistance, education,
and unemployment insurance). Agencies can get a waiver from participating
in SAVE if they have an equally effective way of verifying immigrants'
status or if the costs of SAVE would exceed the amount of savings
derived from using it. The system currently provides an "authorized/not
authorized" response regarding immigration status. It does
not determine program eligibility. Some issues to be resolved
are the potential for disparate impact as 50 states set up verification
systems and the likelihood of logjams at INS to enroll agencies
in SAVE and to process verification. For example, there are only
137 status verifiers at INS nationwide.
To implement the new eligibility requirements, states will
need to revise application forms and train intake workers, and
may need to purchase new equipment or information systems. New
questions for applicants will include: citizen or noncitizen;
immigration status (for exempted groups such as refugees); length
of time in the U.S. (for time-limited exemptions); proof of military
service (for military exemption); and proof of work history (for
40 qualifying quarters exemption). States must also take steps
to avoid discrimination in determining eligibility.
Citizenship
According to Robert Bach of the INS Office of Policy and Planning,
one million naturalization applications are projected in each
of the next three years. This increase, double that of previous
years, is due primarily to three factors: immigrants who were
granted amnesty in 1986 are now becoming eligible for citizenship;
eligible immigrants with green cards that must be replaced are
seeking citizenship instead; and the recent increase in anti-immigrant
sentiment. The main reasons people don't naturalize, he says,
are due to lower education levels, lack of English proficiency,
and low-income. For states and localities who want to assist with
naturalization, he recommends: 1) providing a site for naturalization
ceremonies; 2) providing education, such as English classes at
community colleges; and, 3) supporting outreach, particularly
to elderly and disabled populations. For additional information
on naturalization and citizenship, call Citizenship USA at 202-305-4922.
Legal Issues
Josh Bernstein of the National Immigration Law Center notes
that the legislation shifts responsibility for some portion of
services from the federal to state and local levels and to nonprofits.
The degree of the cost shift is an open question, to be decided
by the courts, the federal government, and the decisions that
states make. The following are some of the issues likely to be
reviewed in court.
Equal protection. In Graham v. Richardson, 1971,
the Supreme Court struck down state laws denying legal immigrants'
access to state welfare programs because they violated the 14th
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (the equal protection clause)
and because they infringed on the federal government's plenary
power over immigration policy. States may not classify persons
for government benefits based on a "suspect" classification
(such as alienage, race, or ethnicity) absent a compelling government
interest. The Court held that a state's interest in reducing welfare
spending was not sufficient to justify the classification. In
Mathews v. Diaz, 1976, the Court ruled that federal power
over immigration law is broad enough to permit the federal government
to make distinctions between citizens and aliens and among various
groups of aliens. But, the Court said that states do not have
a legitimate basis for treating citizens and legal immigrants
differently. It is unclear whether the present Court would extend
this rationale to permit the federal government to delegate its
immigration authority to the states. Even if permitted, it is
questionable whether the delegated authority would allow states
to violate the equal protection clause.
Furthermore, a question will be raised whether Congress can
institute a permanent bar to an entitlement program (food stamps
and SSI). The rationale in the Mathews case allowed Congress
to limit immigrants' ability to buy-in to Medicare Part B by requiring
five years of residence. The Court ruled that Congress could make
distinctions between short-term permanent residents and those
who had lived in the U.S. long enough to satisfy naturalization
residency requirements. In the welfare law, unlike the durational
bar for Medicare, legal immigrants may never qualify for the SSI
and Food Stamps entitlement.
State constitutions and obligations to serve the poor.
As many as 22 states may have a constitutional provision imposing
some degree of obligation on the states to provide for their residents'
well-being by addressing issues of poverty, education, housing,
shelter and nutrition, according to the American Public Welfare
Association.
Right to due process and fair hearing. Constitutional
requirements for due process prohibit states from "depriving
any person of life, liberty or property without due process of
law" (e.g., public notices and hearings).
Regulations
Congress authorized an exemption for which both "qualified"
and "not qualified" aliens will continue to be eligible:
programs specified by the Attorney General that a) are in-kind,
community level services; b) do not condition the provision of
assistance, the amount of assistance provided, or the cost of
assistance provided on the individual's income or resources; and
c) are necessary for the protection of life or safety. On August
23, the Attorney General issued a provisional definition of these
programs to include crisis counseling and intervention programs
related to child protection, adult protective services, domestic
violence, mental illness and substance abuse; short-term shelter
or housing assistance for homeless, victims of domestic violence,
or runaway, abused, or abandoned children; assistance related
to heat, cold, or other adverse weather conditions; soup kitchens,
community food banks, meals on wheels; and medical and public
health services necessary to protect life or safety.
The INS has issued an interim rule defining lawfully present
in the United States for purposes of Title II Social Security
benefits (retirement, disability and Medicare Part B). The INS
has also issued a proposed rule on exceptions to educational requirements
for naturalization applicants with physical or developmental disability
or mental impairment.
Regulations still to come:
- INS will issue regulations on the new legally-enforceable
affidavit of support on December 29; the new affidavits will be
effective within 60-90 days thereafter.
- HHS is working on the definition of "means-tested
public benefit", and a definition of "federal public
benefit".
- States must define "state public benefit", consistent
with the forthcoming federal definition.
- INS must issue regulations on verification within 18 months
(no later than February 22, 1998).
Congress
The 105th Congress convenes January 7, and in the words of
Congressman Shaw, "welfare reform has just begun." A
welfare reform technical corrections bill is anticipated to clarify
Congressional intent, and substantive policy changes may be considered.
President Clinton, before signing the bill, promised to address
certain food stamp provisions and treatment of legal immigrants.
He has also expressed his intention to promote training and job
opportunities for welfare to work. However, any attempts to protect
particularly vulnerable populations such as children and the elderly
must be reconciled with continued budget deficit realities.
Contributors: Carl Tubbesing, Sheri Steisel, Joy Johnson
Wilson, Jon Dunlap, and Lynda Flowers of NCSL's staff.
- SSI and Food Stamps. Most noncitizens lose SSI
and Food Stamp benefits by 8/22/97 unless they become citizens,
can demonstrate 10 years of work, or meet the 5-year or military
exemptions below.
- Five-Year Bar. Most new immigrants (arriving
after 8/22/96) are barred from federal means-tested benefits for
5 years. (See exemptions below.)
- Deeming. After the 5-year bar, new immigrants
that have sponsors must include their sponsors' income when applying
for federal means-tested benefits until the immigrant attains
citizenship or 10 years of work.
- TANF, Medicaid and SSBG. States have the option
to determine current immigrants' eligibility for TANF,
Medicaid and SSBG after January 1, 1997 and new immigrants'
eligibility after the 5-year bar. (See exemptions below.)
- State and Local Programs. States have the option
to provide or bar state funded programs for current and
new immigrants. State and local programs may deem for new
immigrants with enforceable affidavits of support, effective March
1997. (See exemptions below.)
- "Qualified" and "Not Qualified Aliens."
Only "qualified" aliens are eligible for federal public
benefits. Only "qualified" aliens, nonimmigrants, or
those paroled into the U.S. for less than one year are eligible
for state or local public benefits. (See below.)
Five-year exemption: Refugees, asylees, and those granted
withholding of deportation are exempt from the food stamps and
SSI bar for their first five years in the U.S., and from the five-year
bar for new immigrants. They are eligible for TANF, Medicaid ,
SSBG, and state and local programs for their first five years.
Military exemption: Veterans, active duty military,
and their spouses and unmarried dependent children are exempt
from the food stamps and SSI bar and the five-year bar for new
immigrants. They are eligible for TANF, Medicaid, SSBG, and state
and local programs. They are subject to the new deeming.
Programs exempted from the 5-year bar: The following
11 benefits are exempt: emergency medical assistance; emergency
disaster relief; national school lunch benefits; child nutrition
act benefits (including WIC); public health assistance (not including
Medicaid) for immunizations, testing and treatment of symptoms
of communicable diseases; foster care and adoption assistance
(foster/adoptive parent must be qualified alien); programs determined
by the Attorney General to be necessary for the protection of
life or safety (such as soup kitchens, child protection, and short-term
shelter); higher education; means-tested programs under Elementary
and Secondary Education Act; Head Start; and the Job Training
Partnership Act. All refugee program activities for Cuban and
Haitian Entrants are also exempted.
Programs exempted from state and local deeming option:
The following seven benefits are exempt: emergency medical assistance;
emergency disaster relief; national school lunch benefits; child
nutrition act benefits; immunizations, testing and treatment of
symptoms of communicable diseases; foster care and adoption assistance;
and programs determined by the state Attorney General to be necessary
for the protection of life or safety.
Individuals exempt from deeming: An immigrant may be
exempted from deeming for up to 12 months if he or she would go
hungry or homeless without the assistance. Battered spouses and
children may be exempt from deeming for 12 months if there is
a "substantial" connection between the abuse and the
need for benefits and the immigrant no longer resides with the
batterer. After 12 months, assistance may be continued if the
battery is recognized by a court order or the INS.
"Qualified alien": "Qualified"
aliens are defined as lawful permanent residents, refugees, asylees,
those granted parole for more than one year, those whose deportation
has been withheld, conditional entrants before 1980, and certain
victims of domestic violence.
"Not qualified alien": This term includes
illegal immigrants, family unity, temporary agricultural workers,
asylum applicants, and PRUCOL aliens. PRUCOL includes those granted
indefinite departure, residing in the U.S. under orders of supervision,
who have lived in the U.S. continuously since January 1, 1972,
granted stays or suspension of deportation; and other aliens whose
departure the INS does not contemplate enforcing. These aliens
may receive emergency medical assistance, emergency disaster relief,
public health assistance for immunizations and for testing and
treatment of communicable diseases, and programs specified by
the Attorney General. School lunch and school breakfast are available
to all immigrants regardless of status. To provide benefits to
"not qualified aliens," Congress requires states to
pass a law affirmatively providing such eligibility.
Sources: Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity and
the Illegal Immigration and Immigrant Responsibility Acts of 1996.
TANF. A capped block grant to states, replaces AFDC
(the individual entitlement to cash assistance), emergency assistance,
JOBS and administration costs. TANF funds must be spent on families
with minor children. $82.8 billion in block grants is available
over the next five years.
Time limits. Everyone, citizen or noncitizen, is limited
to a maximum of 60 months of TANF. No federal funds may be used
for parents or children after the 60 months is used up. (After
a parent's five years is complete, minor children may receive
five years of assistance as child-only cases.) States may implement
shorter time limits, or may extend assistance with state-only
funds. States may exempt up to 20% of their caseload from the
five-year limit for hardships. Federal penalties of 5% of the
TANF grant apply if the states fail to enforce a time limit.
Work. Adults in families receiving assistance under
the TANF block grant must find work after 24 months. States define
what counts as employment. Families who do not meet work requirements
will have their assistance reduced or terminated.
Work participation requirements. In the current fiscal
year, 25% of all families on assistance must have a parent working
in a federally-defined work activity. By FY 2002, 50% of families
on assistance must have a parent at work. 75% of all two-parent
families must be working this year; by the year 2002, 90% must
be working. States that fail to meet the work requirements will
be penalized 5% of their TANF block grant in FY97, up to 21% in
later years .
Child care. The law ends the guarantee for subsidized
child care for families on or leaving welfare. AFDC/JOBS, at-risk
and transitional child care are consolidated into a capped block
grant to states of $20 billion over six years. Legislators must
target most of the money for child care for welfare recipients,
people in work programs who are attempting to leave welfare, and
people at-risk of going on welfare.
SSBG. To meet deficit reduction targets, the law reduces
by 15% the social services block grant, another source of child
care funds.
Food stamps. The food stamp program remains an uncapped,
individual entitlement. A new work requirement has been added.
Able-bodied recipients age 18 to 50 may get food stamps for more
than three months in a 36-month period only if they are engaged
in work or a work program. States may establish a simplified food
stamp program, combining food stamps with TANF.
State Maintenance of Effort. States must continue to
spend at least 80% of what they spent for AFDC in 1994 on assistance
for welfare families with minor children.
Administrative Costs. States are allowed 15% of their
TANF money and 5% of their child care block grant money for administrative
costs. Information systems do not qualify as administrative costs;
legislatures may fund them from the rest of the block grants.
The act does not provide money for interstate tracking of welfare
recipients.
While Congress failed to enact Medicaid reform legislation,
it did complete action on welfare reform legislation that will
impact the Medicaid program. Briefly, the Personal Responsibility
and Work Opportunity Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-193):
- repeals AFDC, JOBS, and Emergency Assistance and removes
the
- automatic link between AFDC and Medicaid;
- narrows the definition of disability for purposes of determining
- children's eligibility for Supplemental Security Income
(SSI);
- and restricts the benefits for which legal immigrants
qualify.
The restrictions in Medicaid benefits to immigrants is estimated
to save $5.3 billion in federal expenditures from FY1997 to FY2002.
Under the provisions of the Act, eligibility under TANF does
not entitle beneficiaries to receive Medicaid. The Act also provides
that any individual who would have been eligible for Medicaid
under the AFDC plan in effect in the state on July 16, 1996 would
be eligible for Medicaid. As a result, the Congressional Budget
Office (CBO) estimates that there will be no substantial impact
on Medicaid benefits as a result of the TANF block grant. It is
believed that most former AFDC beneficiaries will retain Medicaid
eligibility due to protections included in the Act.
The Supplemental Security Income provisions related to disabled
children are expected to save $230 million in federal Medicaid
spending between FY1997 and FY2002. Many children who lose SSI
eligibility will qualify for Medicaid on some other basis; however,
there is a significant number of children who will no longer qualify
for Medicaid.
The act establishes a new category of immigrants, "not
qualified aliens," who are legally residing in the United
States but are ineligible for most federal public benefits. "Not
qualified aliens," [who are principally undocumented immigrants
and some PRUCOL aliens,] are barred from assistance under federal
public benefits programs, with the following exceptions:
- Emergency Medicaid services;
- Short term, in-kind disaster relief;
- Public health immunizations and public health testing
and treatment for symptoms of communicable diseases (no
Medicaid funds may be used);
- Housing benefits received by the immigrant on the date
of enactment;
- Social Security benefits under certain limited situations;
and
- Programs authorized by the Attorney General that deliver
in-kind services at the community level, are not conditioned
on individual income or resources, and are necessary
for the protection of life and safety (see "Welfare Reform is Law--Now What?").
Qualified aliens are ineligible to receive benefits under
SSI and, as a result, may lose Medicaid benefits. The act extends
authority to states to determine Medicaid eligibility for qualified
aliens as of January 1, 1997. Immigrants who lose SSI eligibility
may be able to qualify for Medicaid under the state's own medically
needy program.
The five-year ban on benefits does not apply to the following:
1) refugees, asylees, or those granted withholding of deportation;
2) lawful permanent residents with 40 qualifying quarters of work;
and 3) veterans, active duty military, spouses and dependents.
The Commissioner of the Social Security Administration will send
out notices to affected individuals in February or March. There
is a 90-day appeal process, but all current recipients must be
redetermined by August 22.
"Qualified aliens" entering the U.S. on or after
the date of enactment are barred from receiving assistance under
Medicaid and other federal means-tested public benefit programs
for a five-year period, but retain eligibility for emergency Medicaid
services and public health services authorized under the Act.
After a five-year period, eligibility for Medicaid is to be determined
based on the income of the immigrant's sponsor (deeming) or, if
they become citizens, on their own income.
Under previous law, the income and resources of an individual
who sponsors an immigrant's entry into the U.S. have been counted,
or deemed, available to the immigrant in the process of determining
eligibility for AFDC, food stamps, and SSI. The act expands deeming
to include all federally-funded, needs-based programs, including
Medicaid, and applies deeming requirements until the immigrant:
1) becomes a U.S. citizen or 2) earns forty qualifying quarters
of work. The act requires that all income and resources of the
sponsor and the sponsor's family be considered available to the
sponsored individual, with no allowance for the needs of the family,
as in the current law. Deeming requirements do not apply to emergency
medical services under Medicaid or the public health services
authorized under the Act. States are authorized to deem in determining
eligibility for state public assistance programs.
For new immigrants, affidavits of support signed by sponsors
become legally enforceable. Federal, state, and local officials
must request reimbursement from sponsors to recover the costs
of benefits paid to sponsored immigrants. In addition, sponsored
immigrants, localities, states, and the federal government may
sue sponsors in state or federal court to enforce affidavits of
support.
To help clarify the Medicaid provisions in the welfare reform
act and their impact on immigrants, the Immigrant Policy Project
has prepared a four-page Q&A. This document has been posted
to NCSL's web page (www.ncsl.org).
Adapted from NCSL's Health Committee Bill Summary of H.R.3734
dated September 16, 1996.
Citizenship Update: Elderly Naturalization Programs
in Seattle
by Joan Ebernal, Washington Department of Housing and Human
Services
It became very apparent early this year that the welfare reform
legislation would pose a threat to legal immigrants who were receiving
publicly funded benefits. Since many of the clients served by
the Seattle-King County Division on Aging fall into this category,
we made the decision to fund a Naturalization Project through
the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project. We also knew that in addition
to preserving access to public assistance for many of these clients,
naturalization would secure other important rights, such as the
right to vote, freedom from the threat of deportation, and the
ability to help other family members immigrate more quickly.
The purpose of the Naturalization Project is to provide education
about naturalization as well as coordinate and expand existing
citizenship services among the many agencies serving the area's
vulnerable immigrant population. Many elderly and disabled clients
are unable to negotiate the sometimes complex naturalization process.
They need assistance to overcome the challenges they face while
pursuing citizenship. The Naturalization Project helps by training
case managers and information and assistance (I&A) staff to
identify clients who are legal immigrants and to determine who
is eligible for naturalization. The training also includes a discussion
of the advantages and disadvantages of citizenship, barriers to
citizenship some clients may face, exemptions for which clients
may qualify, and information about appropriate resources in the
community for supportive services, such as English classes or
citizenship classes and materials. In addition to this general
staff training, technical assistance on immigration and naturalization
law is available to case management and I&A agencies on an
ongoing basis.
The Naturalization Project also offers a range of support
services. In addition to maintaining a directory of citizenship-related
resources, it hosts a clearinghouse for citizenship-related materials,
INS regulations, translated educational materials and curricula.
It facilitates collaboration among agencies serving similar populations,
to maximize the resources dedicated to citizenship. It produces
translated materials on changes in eligibility for public assistance
so that I&A and case management staff can provide their clients
with much needed information. Several agencies serving immigrant
seniors are hoping to expand their direct client services and
provide assistance in completing the naturalization application.
The Naturalization Project can support these agencies by offering
application workshops or by having trained volunteers assist with
and review applications. Legal services and assistance for vulnerable
clients are also offered as a support service of the project.
Further, the project includes broader advocacy, as in outreach
to and education among the medical and mental health communities
regarding their potential role in naturalization.
In addition to this project, two agencies funded by the Seattle-King
County Division on Aging that serve the Asian/Pacific Islander
populations in this area have instituted citizenship projects
of their own. The Chinese Information and Service Center (CISC)
and the Asian Counseling and Referral Service (ACRS) have each
implemented a series of naturalization classes and support services
for their clients.
CISC's project is designed to provide step-by-step support
to their elderly clients as they prepare for the naturalization
examination. They do this by sponsoring naturalization classes
which are tailored to older, limited- and non-English speaking
individuals. The classes include group tutorials and mock examinations
and are available at three different levels of English proficiency.
The pre-naturalization class includes basic English and key words
and terms commonly used in the citizenship exam. As the individual
moves through the three classes, the level and difficulty of the
English language and naturalization questions are increased. CISC
plans to conduct two sessions for each class level. In addition,
cassette players and naturalization tapes and materials will be
loaned free of charge to elderly persons preparing for the examination.
ACRS implemented the Citizen Window '97 Project to assist
their clients through the citizenship process. The project recruits
volunteers to teach bilingual citizenship classes and to prepare
for the INS interview. The project teachers also incorporate ESL
skills in the class curriculum. A total of fifteen classes have
been held in the following languages: Vietnamese, Tagalog, Korean,
Chinese, Lao & Mien, and English (low to intermediate level).
ACRS has also solicited cash and in-kind donations for the development
and production of instructional videos in several Asian/Pacific
Islander languages. Five hundred copies of these videos will be
available for use by older persons who are preparing for their
citizenship exam and interview. Since beginning these classes
early this year, 100 people who have taken the classes have gone
on to become citizens.
We hope that through these efforts, the immigrant clients
we serve will be able to successfully apply for citizenship and
retain the publicly-funded services that they need. For more information
on these programs in the Seattle-King County area, please contact
the Seattle-King County Division on Aging at 206-684-0660.
Watching America's Door: The
Immigration Backlash and the New Policy Debate
by Roberto Suro
Policymakers in Washington should stop proposing sweeping
immigration reform that either turns into bad law or no law at
all --and instead adopt a flexible, incremental approach better
suited to the complexities of the issue, according to a Twentieth
Century Fund report.
In Watching America's Door: The Immigration Backlash and
the New Policy Debate, Roberto Suro says Congress and the
Executive Branch have conducted immigration policy in a manner
that only ensures that a real solution is far off. "The 1996
election is unlikely to change this dynamic, " says Suro,
assistant national editor at the Washington Post and author
of the Fund's 1995 study of Hispanic immigration, Remembering
the American Dream.
Suro points out that crafting immigration policy requires
more than trying to turn a spigot on or off. It involves choices
that affect the nation's future, including: the composition of
the low-wage work force; how government should police work places;
how, or whether, to control access to public services; and to
what extent Americans are willing to give up some of their privacy
in return for tougher enforcement or immigration laws.
As an example of the sort of regular, small-scale adjustments
that would work better than once-in-a-generation overhauls of
the entire system, Suro says visa numbers and selection criteria
should be reassessed on an ongoing basis. This should be done
with an acute awareness of current trends in the flow and how
those trends can be steered to accomplish other aims in areas
touched by immigration policy--like labor needs. Preserving the
family as a central vehicle for legal immigration and limiting
the extent of new "family trees" opening up could also
be assisted by the kind of approach Suro calls for.
While no approach offers simple solutions, Suro says that
a recognition of the nature of the problem and the ways it interrelates
to so many other aspects of American life would at least set policymakers
off in the right direction.
To order call 797-6258 (in Washington, D.C.) or 800-552-5450
(elsewhere); The Twentieth Century Fund Press (ISBN 0-87078-383-1),
$9.95 + S/H.
Family Album is a 15-minute video produced in four Southeast
Asian languages (Cambodian, Lao, Hmong, and Mien) that encourages
the immunization of children before the age of 2. Developed by
the UCLA School of Public Health, this video takes an innovative
approach to immunization education by attempting to integrate
immunization messages with true life stories about the refugee
experience. The video will be available in January 1997 through
the School of Public Health's Technical Assistance Group. Interested
parties may call 310-206-4896 or 310-206-8690 or fax 310-206-3739
to receive a free copy of Family Album.
A joint project of the International Migration Policy Program
of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the Urban
Institute, Research Perspectives on Migration is a new
newsletter intended to provide "a careful appraisal of the
evidence [that] can inform public dialog and guide in the formulation
of policies that effectively promote the national interest"
with regard to immigration policy. The inaugural issue was published
in October 1996 and includes articles summarizing the immigrant
provisions of the welfare reform act, examining the social science
research about immigrant use of public assistance, discussing
the bases for the different conclusions that have been reached
on the subject, considering some general propositions that may
be of use to policymakers, and suggesting resources and conferences
of interest.
For more information on this publication, please contact David
Aronson, Editor; Research Perspectives on Migration; 2400
N Street, N.W.; Suite 682; Washington, D.C. 20037.
"U.S. Citizenship: A Dream Come True" is an Emmy-award
winning instructional program that shows legal permanent residents
how to become U.S. citizens. It is co-produced by the Asian Pacific
American Legal Center (APALC), an affiliate of the National Asian
Pacific American Legal Consortium, and the International Channel,
a cable carrier. It is produced in six languages (Cantonese, English,
Mandarin, Korean, Spanish, and Vietnamese) and includes segments
on how to qualify for citizenship, how to fill out the N-400 application,
and how to prepare for the exams and the interview.
The program was produced in 1995 and aired nationally on the
International Channel in celebration of U.S. Citizenship Day,
September 17, in 1995 and 1996. It is available for purchase on
video through APALC (213-748-2022, ext.47). For information on
how your local cable system can obtain this program, contact Mary
Good of the International Channel at 310-268-2267.
With a 17-year track record, State Health Notes is
the longest-running national newsletter devoted solely to state-level
health policy developments and trends. Every other Monday morning,
Notes delivers a powerful, fact-filled eight-page briefing
on the latest health issues, legislation, policy changes and programs,
with specialized coverage of primary care and behavioral health
care. Notes is nonpartisan and objective and serves to
educate and inform public policymakers and others in the health
field.
A one-year subscription to State Health Notes is priced
at $277.00, with a special rate of $197.00 for government, university,
and nonprofit subscribers. State Health Notes is published
by the Intergovernmental Health Policy Project (IHPP) of the National
Conference of State Legislatures. Notes is supported by
subscription revenues and supplemented by grants from the Robert
Wood Johnson Foundation and the Pew Charitable Trusts. To subscribe,
contact NCSL's Marketing Department at 303-830-2200. For more
information, see IHPP's web page.
In every issue of The State-Local Report, we offer
reviews and information on new publications and materials of interest
to the immigration and immigrant policy community. If you would
like to contribute either a suggestion or a review to our "Resources"
section, please contact Jeremy Meadows
at 202-624-8664.
The State-Local Report is a companion newsletter to
our federal newsletter, Immigrant Policy News . . . Inside the Beltway.
The purpose of this newsletter is to highlight state and local
activities related to immigrants, including innovative policies
and programs that assist with the integration of immigrants and
refugees.
The State-Local Report welcomes your comments
and suggestions for articles. Please contact Ann Morse,
Jeremy Meadows, or
Kirsten Rasmussen
at (202) 624-5400 with any ideas or recommendations.
Immigrant Policy News is published by the Immigrant Policy
Project of the State and Local Coalition on Immigration. Coalition
members are: the National Governors' Association, the National
Conference of State Legislatures, the United States Conference
of Mayors, the National League of Cities, the National Association
of Counties, and the American Public Welfare Association. The
Project is funded by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation. We are located
in the Washington, D.C. office of the National Conference of State
Legislatures.
Contacts:
NGA: Nolan Jones (202)
624-5300
NCSL: Sheri Steisel
(202) 624-5400
USCM: Laura Waxman (202) 293-7330
NLC: Janet Quist (202) 626-3000
NACo: Marilina Sanz
(202) 393-6226
APWA: Elaine Ryan (202)
682-0100
Editor: Ann Morse
Staff Writers: Jeremy Meadows,
Kirsten Rasmussen
|
