Background Material and Data on Programs within the Jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means (Green Book)

[Background Material and Data on Programs within the Jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means (Green Book)]
[Appendices]
[Appendix J. Noncitizens]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

[1996 Green Book] APPENDIX J. NONCITIZENS *
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

* The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation
Act of 1996 changed this program; see appendix L for details.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONTENTS

Introduction
U.S. Immigration Policy and Trends
Alien Eligibility for Federal Assistance
Alien Eligibility for State and Local Benefits
Use of Benefits by Noncitizens
Illegal Aliens and Benefits
Cost Savings from Proposed Legislation

INTRODUCTION

Opposition to the entry of foreign paupers and aliens
``likely at any time to become a public charge''--language
found in the Immigration and Nationality Act today--dates from
Colonial times. The colony of Massachusetts enacted legislation
in 1645 prohibiting the entry of paupers and again in 1700
excluding the infirm unless security was given against their
becoming public charges. A bar against the landing of ``any
person unable to take care of himself or herself without
becoming a public charge'' was included in the first general
Federal immigration law, the Act of August 3, 1882. This
prohibition was carried forward in the Immigration Act of 1917,
and was recodified in the Immigration and Nationality Act both
when it was enacted on June 27, 1952 and again in 1990.
There is no comprehensive rule that restricts direct
Federal assistance or federally funded assistance on the basis
of immigration status. This is true both with respect to legal
permanent residents who enter under the admission system in the
Immigration and Nationality Act and to aliens who enter or
remain in violation of law.
Those restrictions that do exist have been enacted on a
program-by-program basis, beginning in the 1970s--40 years
after Congress first enacted major social programs. Most
existing restrictions deny assistance to aliens who are here
without legal permission. Restrictions affecting legal
permanent residents (i.e., immigrants) were not enacted until
the 1980s. These restrictions apply to three programs only--
AFDC, SSI, and food stamps--and are limited in duration.
Starting in 1993, comprehensive rules on alien eligibility for
benefits were proposed as components of major welfare reform
and immigration bills. Most of the proposals covered both legal
aliens and illegal aliens. The proposals also covered both
Federal programs and State and local programs.

U.S. IMMIGRATION POLICY AND TRENDS

The three major goals underlying U.S. policy on legal
immigration are the reunification of families, the admission of
immigrants with needed skills, and the protection of refugees.
These goals are implemented through the immigration preference
and refugee and asylum provisions of the Immigration and
Nationality Act, the basic law regulating the admission of
immigrants (i.e., aliens allowed to reside in the United States
permanently). Another goal of immigration policy is to allow
immigrants an opportunity to integrate fully into society. Once
aliens have been admitted for lawful permanent residency or
have adjusted to permanent resident status while here, they are
on a track to citizenship.
Immigration has been increasing sharply since 1980. A
recent Census Bureau report indicates that more than 50 percent
of the foreign born currently in the United States entered
between 1980 and 1994, (Hansen & Bachu, 1995, p. 2). An
analysis of the 12.4 million immigrant admissions recorded by
the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) from 1980
through 1994 indicates that much of the increase is
attributable to the admission of approximately 1.6 million
refugees and more than 2.6 million legalized aliens. The latter
were formerly illegal aliens who adjusted their status under
legalization programs for long-term residents and agricultural
workers in the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986
(IRCA). The number of visa preference petitions filed by them
for their relatives since their adjustment has resulted in
large backlogs in certain visa preference categories (see chart
J-1).

CHART J-1. ADMISSION OF LEGAL PERMANENT RESIDENTS AND ALIENS LEGALIZED
UNDER IRCA BY MOST RECENT YEAR OF ENTRY

Source: Congressional Research Service, based on
Immigration and Naturalization Service data.
As indicated in chart J-1, immigration during the 1990s has
been at the highest level since its precipitous fall during
World War I. The foreign born population of the United States
over the period 1870-1994 is shown in chart J-2 in terms of
absolute numbers and as a percentage of total U.S. population.
The year 1910 was the peak in terms of the percent of foreign
born (14.8 percent), but 1994 was the high point in terms of
absolute numbers (22.6 million).

CHART J-2. FOREIGN-BORN POPULATION OF THE UNITED STATES, 1870-1994

Source: Congressional Research Service, based on U.S.
Bureau of the Census, 1995 and Bogue, 1995.

The Immigration and Nationality Act provides that in order
to be eligible for admission as an immigrant, aliens must
establish that they are not ``likely at any time to become a
public charge.'' Under current law, either a consular officer
in the State Department or an immigration inspector in the
Immigration and Naturalization Service may exclude an alien on
public charge grounds, unless the public charge ground is
waived, as is the case with refugees. Congress has purposely
stated the public charge ground in general terms. Broad
discretion is given to consular officers and immigration
inspectors to assess individual applicants. As stated in the
1950 report of the Senate Judiciary Special Subcommittee to
Investigate Immigration and Naturalization: ``Since the
elements constituting likelihood of becoming a public charge
are varied, there should be no attempt to define the term in
law, but rather to establish the specific qualification that
the determination of whether an alien falls into that category
rests within the discretion of the consular officers or the
Commissioner [of Immigration].''
Administrative guidelines continue to emphasize
flexibility. According to the U.S. State Department's Foreign
Affairs Manual (1993), any number of factors may be considered.
Essentially, how-
ever, an alien must show adequate personal resources, a
permanent job, assurances from relatives or friends in the
United States that they will provide support, or a combination
of the foregoing to overcome a public charge exclusion. Support
from relatives or friends requires the submission of an
``affidavit of support'' from a resident of the United States
providing assurance that the applicant for entry will be
supported in this country. Neither statute nor regulation
expressly authorizes use of these affidavits, but the practice
of requiring them as a device for implementing the public
charge exclusion has been followed since 1930.
There is no authoritative data on the number of aliens who
have had affidavits of support filed for them. Neither the
State Department nor INS compiles statistics on the number of
immigrants who demonstrate that they are unlikely to become a
public charge by means of the affidavit of support. The U.S.
Department of State (1995) estimated on the basis of ``the
collective experience of consular officers,'' that ``85 percent
of family immigrant visa applicants and 10 percent of
employment preference immigrant visa applicants possess an
affidavit of support when they apply for the visa and when they
enter the U.S.'' Based on these estimates, it appears that
approximately one-half of permanent residents had affidavits of
support executed for them in fiscal year 1994. This estimate is
based on total immigrant admissions and adjustments, including
refugees for whom the public charge requirement is waived
(Vialet & Eig, 1995).
In practice, there appears to be considerable flexibility
in the use of affidavits, so long as State Department and INS
officials are convinced that a prospective immigrant will be
backed by adequate resources. Under guidelines in the State
Department's Foreign Affairs Manual, apparently any individual
in the United States may execute an affidavit for a prospective
immigrant. Having a close family relationship with the
immigrant, or even a close personal friendship, is not
required, but it is a factor that is considered in assessing
whether adequate support is likely to be provided. Also, a
sponsor need not show a particular level of income or means.
Rather, the general standard is that the sponsor have
sufficient means to assure that the alien will not fall below
Federal poverty guidelines, but even this standard is not
binding. Additionally, more than one individual may submit an
affidavit on behalf of an alien.
With regard to the pledges made in affidavits of support
(INS Form I-134), the sponsor attests that the beneficiary will
not become a public charge and that the sponsor is ready,
willing, and able to post bond, if necessary, to that end. The
sponsor further acknowledges that ``this affidavit will be
binding upon me for a period of three (3) years,'' a period
chosen to reflect the so-called ``deeming'' requirement of
three public assistance programs discussed below. Despite these
pledges, many State appellate courts have held that affidavits
of support, as currently constituted, cannot be used as a legal
basis for obtaining funds from sponsors by public agencies that
assist sponsored aliens or by sponsored aliens themselves.
The State court decisions have emphasized that
administrative authorities developed affidavits of support only
as a form of evidence that an alien is unlikely to depend on
public resources. The leading California case, San Diego v.
Viloria, explains that affidavits cannot be construed as legal
contracts because they do not set the basis of a sponsor's
obligations. They are not sufficiently precise, in the court's
opinion, to constitute a contract of guarantee or a contract of
warranty, nor are they clear as to what unforeseen causes of
dependency are covered. Reaching the same conclusion, appellate
courts in New York (Department of Mental Hygiene v. Renel) and
Michigan (State v. Binder) cite the lack of statutory authority
for enforceable affidavits and longstanding Federal recognition
of the limited weight of affidavits.

ALIEN ELIGIBILITY FOR FEDERAL ASSISTANCE

Congress first restricted alien access to assistance after
the Supreme Court held in 1971 that States lacked authority to
do so under either State or joint Federal-State programs. Since
then, Congress has imposed alienage restrictions under the
enabling statutes of many, but not all, Federal assistance
programs. The restricted programs include both programs that
assist individuals directly under Federal authority (e.g., food
stamps and Supplemental Security Income) and programs that
provide Federal funds for State programs that comply with
Federal guidelines (e.g., Aid to Families with Dependent
Children and Medicaid).
There is no uniform rule governing which categories of
aliens are eligible for benefits under restricted programs, and
no single statute where they are described. Summarizing
briefly, aliens who are lawful permanent residents or are
otherwise legally present on a permanent basis (e.g., refugees)
are generally eligible for Federal benefits on the same basis
as are citizens. With the single exception of emergency
Medicaid, illegal aliens are specifically barred by law from
participation in all the major Federal assistance programs, as
are tourists and most other aliens here legally in a temporary
status (i.e., nonimmigrants).
Prior to 1971, a number of States denied assistance under
joint Federal-State programs to aliens who did not reside
within their jurisdictions for extended periods (Eig & Vialet,
1993). However, in Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365 (1971),
the Supreme Court overturned State-imposed residency
requirements for aliens both because they violated the equal
protection clause of the Fourteenth amendment and because they
encroached on Federal authority to regulate immigration.
Responding to the Graham decision, the Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare (HEW; the predecessor to the Department
of Health and Human Services) proposed regulations in June 1972
that would have made immigration status irrelevant in
determining eligibility for AFDC and Medicaid. Comments on the
regulations were received from 59 persons, 50 of whom opposed
granting assistance to aliens who had not been lawfully
admitted (Federal Register, 1973). Reasons for the objections
included beliefs that the Graham decision did not apply to
illegal aliens, that caseloads would burgeon beyond the fiscal
ability of the States, and that the Federal Government should
bear the full cost of providing assistance to aliens here in
violation of Federal law.
While the AFDC and Medicaid regulations were still pending,
Congress included a statutory alien eligibility requirement in
the original Supplemental Security Income (SSI) statute in
1972. The standard adopted limited assistance to those aliens
who either were legal permanent residents (immigrants) or
permanently residing in the United States under color of law
(PRUCOL). \1\ The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
subsequently followed the congressional lead by adopting the
PRUCOL standard for Aid to Families with Dependent Children and
Medicaid. Congress enacted a PRUCOL standard for Aid to
Families with Dependent Children in 1982. Meanwhile, the PRUCOL
standard for Medicaid continued to be imposed under
administrative regulations only. In 1986, a U.S. district court
held that alien access to Medicaid benefits could not be
restricted absent a statutory basis, thereby potentially
opening access to full Medicaid benefits to all aliens,
including illegal aliens. Congressional action followed, and a
compromise was struck between Members advocating a PRUCOL
standard, and Members who believed that the Federal Government
should be fully responsible for the health costs of illegal
aliens. The result was a statutory PRUCOL standard for
nonemergency services and universal alien eligibility for
emergency services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ PRUCOL (permanently residing under color of law) is not an
immigration status like those defined in the Immigration and
Nationality Act. Instead, it designates categories of aliens who are
here indefinitely with the permission of INS and, because of that, may
be eligible for certain Federal benefits if they meet the other program
qualifications. See Vialet, 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The flexibility afforded by the PRUCOL standard to adapt to
changes in immigration law began to be criticized as being too
elastic and difficult to enforce. In 1977, the House
Agriculture Committee chose to limit eligibility for food
stamps to aliens in one of five specific categories rather than
to follow the PRUCOL standard, which leaves a certain degree of
discretion with administrative authorities. The Committee
feared that a possible Presidential amnesty of illegal aliens
could have added millions of potential new food stamp
applicants under a PRUCOL test (H.R. Rept. 95-113, p. 148). The
model of an exclusive statutory list, as opposed to a more
open-ended PRUCOL test, has since been adopted for several
other Federal programs.
Through the 1970s, Congress focused its alienage
restrictions for means-tested programs on nonimmigrants (i.e.,
aliens admitted temporarily for a specific purpose, such as
tourists, students, and temporary workers) and illegal aliens.
By the late 1970s, however, some newly arrived permanent
resident aliens were beginning to be viewed as abusing the
benefits system, especially SSI. In a 1978 report, ``Number of
Newly Arrived Aliens Who Receive Supplemental Security Income
Needs To Be Reduced,'' the General Accounting Office stated
that ``[t]he public charge provisions of the Immigration and
Nationality Act are ineffective in screening out aged (age 65
or older) aliens who may need SSI assistance soon after arrival
in the United States. We estimate that 34 percent of the aged
aliens who entered the United States during fiscal years 1973-
75 were receiving SSI at the end of December 1976'' (U.S.
General Accounting Office, 1978, p. 7). GAO followed its
findings with a recommendation that a residency requirement for
SSI benefits be imposed for newly arriving legal residents
whose age or physical condition made them likely SSI recipients
(U.S. General Accounting Office, 1978, p. 21).
Citing the GAO recommendation (S. Rept. 96-408), Congress
enacted sponsor-to-alien deeming restrictions for the SSI
Program in 1980 and subsequently added similar restrictions for
AFDC and food stamps. Under these provisions, a portion of a
sponsor's income and resources (and those of the sponsor's
spouse) is ``deemed'' to be available to a sponsored immigrant
who is seeking assistance during the applicable ``deeming
period'' in determining whether the immigrant meets the needs-
based standard for benefits. The so-called ``deeming period''
for AFDC and food stamps is the first 3 years after a sponsored
alien obtains legal status on the basis of an affidavit of
support. Until September 30, 1996, the deeming period for SSI
has been extended from 3 years from obtaining legal status to 5
years.
Table J-1 below summarizes eligible, ineligible, and
restricted categories of aliens for 10 Federal assistance
programs (Vialet & Eig, 1994). Unless otherwise noted, alien
eligibility restrictions are part of the enabling legislation
of the individual programs. In addition to alien status, aliens
must also meet all the eligibility criteria which apply to U.S.
citizens (e.g., financial need).

TABLE J-1.--SUMMARY OF ALIEN ELIGIBILITY FOR SELECTED PROGRAMS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Restricted/
Federal programs Eligible \1\ Ineligible limited
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aid to Families with Immigrants, Illegal Restricted for
Dependent Children (AFDC). refugees/ aliens, 3 years:
asylees, nonimmigr sponsored
parolees, ants. \3\ immigrants \4\
other .
PRUCOL. \2\
Supplemental Security Income Same as Illegal Restricted for
(SSI) for the aged, blind, AFDC. aliens, 5 years: \4\
and disabled. nonimmigr sponsored
ants. immigrants \5\
.
Medicaid..................... Same as Illegal NA.
AFDC. aliens,
other
noneligib
le aliens
(except
for
emergency
condition
s).
Food stamps.................. Immigrants, Other Restricted for
refugees/ PRUCOL, 3 years:
asylees, illegal sponsored
parolees, aliens, immigrants \5\
aliens with nonimmigr .
deportation ants.
withheld \6
\, SAW
legalized
aliens.
Legal services............... Immigrants, Illegal Limited:
certain aliens, temporary H-2A
close parolees, agricultural
relatives other workers \7\.
of U.S. PRUCOL,
citizens, most
refugees/ nonimmigr
asylees, ants.
aliens with
deportation
withheld. \
6\
Job training (JTPA).......... Immigrants, Illegal NA.
refugees/ aliens,
asylees, other
parolees, aliens
other not
aliens authorize
authorized d to
to work. work.
Medicare \8\................. Individuals All other NA.
who paid aliens. \
Medicare 10\
taxes in
covered
employment;
\9\
immigrants
after 5
years
residence
may buy in.
Unemployment compensation.... Immigrants, Illegal NA.
refugees/ aliens,
asylees, other
parolees, aliens
other not
PRUCOL, authorize
other d to
aliens work,
authorized certain
to work. nonimmigr
ants. \11
\
Old Age, Survivors, and Individuals All other Other
Disability Insurance (Social who paid aliens, nonresident
Security) \8\. OASDI taxes including aliens.
in covered nonreside
employment nt
\9\ for the dependent
minimum s and
period and survivors
their who fail
dependents to meet
and residency
survivors requireme
in the U.S. nts.
Student aid.................. Immigrants, Illegal NA.
refugees/ aliens,
asylees, aliens
citizens of present
former for
trust temporary
territories purpose.
, certain
family
unity
aliens.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Aliens must also meet all eligibility requirements that apply to
U.S. citizens.
\2\ PRUCOL is an acronym for ``permanently residing under color of law''
which includes refugees, asylees, parolees, and aliens whose
deportation has been withheld or suspended.
\3\ Nonimmigrants are admitted temporarily for specific purposes (e.g.,
tourists, students).
\4\ The restricted period for sponsored immigrants under SSI was
extended from 3 to 5 years until October 1996 in Public Law 103-152.
\5\ ``Sponsored immigrants'' entered with affidavits of support from
U.S. residents, indicating they were not likely to become public
charges. For the purpose of determining financial eligibility, some
portion of their sponsors' income is deemed available to them for 3
years after entry for AFDC and food stamps, and for 5 years for SSI.
\6\ Refers to withholding of deportation because of threat of
persecution, a PRUCOL category for programs using the PRUCOL standard.
\7\ Legal services limited to wages, housing, transportation, and
certain other employment rights.
\8\ Individuals who previously worked in covered employment are covered
by virtue of prior mandatory withholding.
\9\ Individuals working in covered employment need Social Security
account numbers to be covered. Illegal aliens have been barred from
obtaining Social Security account numbers since 1972.
\10\ Aliens in other categories (e.g., refugees, asylees) would become
eligible to buy coverage after they adjust to immigrant status and
satisfy the 5-year residence requirement.
\11\ Nonimmigrants not subject to unemployment (FUTA) taxes or eligible
for benefits include students and exchange visitors (F, J, M visa
holders) and H-2A agricultural workers.

NA--Not applicable.

Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS).

Among the programs included in table J-1 are the four major
programs of income support and medical assistance for persons
with limited income and resources: AFDC, SSI, Medicaid, and
food stamps. AFDC and Medicaid are Federal/State matching
programs. AFDC provides Federal funds for State programs
furnishing cash welfare payments for the families of needy
dependent children. Medicaid provides medical assistance for
low-income persons who are aged, blind, or disabled or members
of families with dependent children. SSI is a Federal program
providing cash assistance for needy persons who are aged,
blind, or disabled. These three programs are authorized by the
Social Security Act, and AFDC and Medicaid are administered by
the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). SSI is
administered by the Social Security Administration. The fourth
program, food stamps, is authorized by the Food Stamp Act of
1977 and administered by the Department of Agriculture. Food
stamps, like SSI, is a Federal program. It provides low-income
households with monthly benefits, generally in the form of food
stamp coupons, to enable them to purchase more adequate diets.
Of the other programs in table J-1, two are major Federal
social insurance programs, as opposed to assistance programs,
and are financed by payroll contributions. These are Social
Security (Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance) and
Medicare (part A, Hospital Insurance). They provide benefits as
an earned right without regard to need, and do not have
citizenship or alien status requirements.
The five remaining programs for which alien eligibility
criteria are summarized in table J-1 are: Legal Services, which
provides legal assistance to the poor; Job Training under the
Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA), which authorizes
employment training for economically disadvantaged adults and
youth and dislocated workers; Medicare Part B, the
Supplementary Insurance Program, a voluntary health insurance
program for people over age 65 financed jointly by enrollees
and the Federal Government; Unemployment Compensation, a
Federal/State program providing income for involuntarily
unemployed workers; and student financial aid for postsecondary
education and training under title IV of the Higher Education
Act.

ALIEN ELIGIBILITY FOR STATE AND LOCAL BENEFITS

To a significant extent, the level of a State's
expenditures for noncitizens is driven by the size of its alien
population and the range of services it provides its residents
generally. This is so because States have limited legal
authority to discriminate against or among aliens in their
statutes. Federal immigration policy is preemptive, and the
States may not deny aliens access to State programs and
services when doing so would undermine their ability to become
as full a part of the community as Congress intended.
Preemption aside, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
amendment may prevent the States from discriminating against or
among aliens, even where Congress has placed restrictions on
the ability of aliens to receive similar Federal benefits (Eig,
1995).
Legal considerations aside, a large amount of State
spending on aliens results from participation in joint Federal-
State assistance programs. Under joint programs, such as AFDC
and Medicaid, Congress sets alien eligibility requirements, but
the Federal Government pays for only part of the assistance.
Additionally, States often provide some type of assistance
to needy individuals apart from what is provided under Federal
or joint Federal-State programs. Among State cash assistance
programs are general assistance programs and State supplements
to SSI.
Because State supplements generally are limited to SSI
recipients or those individuals who would qualify for SSI but
for income limits, alien eligibility appears generally to
follow those for SSI benefits themselves. Alien eligibility
under SSI is restricted to permanent residents, refugees,
asylees, and other aliens permanently residing in the United
States under color of law. This standard excludes illegal
aliens, but it may be possible that there are some aliens among
groups targeted under some State programs who may not qualify
for SSI.
General assistance programs provide State- and locally-
funded benefits to low-income individuals who are not eligible
for federally-funded cash assistance programs. According to a
1992 survey by the National Conference of State Legislatures,
42 States have general relief programs operating in at least
one county (National Conference of State Legislatures, 1992).
Twenty-two States have statewide programs with uniform
eligibility standards.
Of States with high alien populations, Arizona, New Jersey,
and New York have statewide general assistance programs.
Arizona's general relief statute limits alien eligibility to
permanent residents, \2\ while New York's home relief statute
bars illegal aliens. \3\ Illinois and California are among the
States with general assistance programs that are not uniform
statewide. Illinois operates programs in some but not all
counties. California requires counties to have general
assistance programs, but standards and administration are
handled exclusively at the county level. Apparently, county
programs exclude illegal aliens. Texas and Florida are among
the States that neither have a statewide program nor require
counties to have them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Arizona Rev. Stat. Ann. Sec. 46-233(A)(6).
\3\ New York Social Services Law Sec. 131-k.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similar to cash assistance provided under general
assistance programs, States often provide medical assistance to
indigent persons who do not qualify for assistance under
Federal or joint Federal-State programs. Also like general
assistance programs, this assistance varies widely both among
the States and, often, within individual States.

USE OF BENEFITS BY NONCITIZENS

Administrative Data

Much of the current concern with the use of public
assistance by legal immigrants began in 1993 in response to a
study by the Social Security Administration. 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 that 25 percent of aged SSI
recipients.
More recent data presented by SSA (Ponce & Scott, 1995)
indicated a steady increase from 1982 through 1994 in the
number and percentage of lawfully admitted aliens receiving
SSI, and an increased percentage of total beneficiaries who are
legal aliens (see table J-2). Significant numbers of refugees
were being admitted during this period. Legal aliens entering
``under color of law,'' most of whom were refugees, accounted
for more than 25 percent of the total number of legal alien SSI
recipients in December 1994 (see table J-3).
In 1994, legal aliens accounted for about 30 percent of all
aged SSI recipients and 6 percent of disabled (or blind)
recipients. However, the number of new alien applicants for
SSI, which had been increasing during each of the 12 previous
years, actually decreased by nearly 15,000 in fiscal year 1994.
SSA stated that one possible factor for this drop was the
temporary extension of the sponsor-to-alien deeming period from
3 to 5 years beginning in January 1994 (Ponce & Scott, 1995, p.
2) As the deeming period is extended, the number of sponsored
aliens who may be denied assistance because of deeming
potentially increases.

TABLE J-2.--NUMBER OF ALIENS RECEIVING SSI PAYMENTS AND ALIEN RECIPIENTS AS A PERCENTAGE OF ALL SSI RECIPIENTS
BY ELIGIBILITY CATEGORY, 1982-94
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aged Disabled Total
Year -----------------------------------------------------------
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1982................................................ 91,900 5.9 36,000 1.6 127,906 3.3
1983................................................ 106,600 7.0 44,600 1.9 151,207 3.9
1984................................................ 127,600 8.3 53,500 2.1 181,108 4.5
1985................................................ 146,500 9.7 64,300 2.4 210,810 5.1
1986................................................ 165,300 11.2 79,000 2.8 244,311 5.7
1987................................................ 188,000 12.9 94,500 3.2 282,513 6.4
1988................................................ 213,900 14.9 106,400 3.5 320,315 7.2
1989................................................ 245,700 17.1 124,600 4.0 370,317 8.1
1990................................................ 282,400 19.4 153,200 4.6 435,619 9.0
1991................................................ 329,690 22.5 189,970 5.2 519,683 10.2
1992................................................ 372,930 25.4 228,500 5.6 601,455 10.8
1993................................................ 416,420 28.2 266,730 5.9 683,178 11.5
1994................................................ 440,000 30.2 298,140 6.2 738,140 11.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Ponce & Scott, 1995, citing SSI 10-percent Sample Files, December 1994.

High use of SSI by aliens has resulted in large outlays of
Federal funds for SSI benefits and large outlays of State funds
under State supplementation of SSI, discussed below. Table J-4
shows that, beyond high rates of use, the average benefit
amount for alien recipients exceeds the average benefit paid to
citizens. This difference is largely attributable to the fact
that alien recipients of SSI are less likely than citizens to
qualify for retirement and disability benefits under the Old
Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance Program (OASDI),
frequently because they have not been here long enough to work
10 years. Receipt of OASDI benefits reduces the amount of SSI
benefits to which a recipient is entitled.
Administrative data for the AFDC and Food Stamp Programs,
while more limited than those available for SSI, show lower
usage rates than have been found for SSI. Health and Human
Services data on characteristics of AFDC recipients indicate
that, as a percentage of total adult AFDC recipients,
noncitizens legally in the United States have increased from
5.5 percent in fiscal year 1983 to 9.3 percent in fiscal year
1993 (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1983,
1993). This compares with the increase in noncitizen aged SSI
recipients from 5.9 percent of the total in fiscal year 1982 to
30.2 percent of the total in fiscal year 1994. Department of
Agriculture Food Stamp Program data on the citizenship of the
heads of households receiving food stamps in fiscal year 1993
indicated that 6.2 percent were headed by permanent resident
aliens and 1.8 percent were headed by other aliens, for a total
of 8 percent (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1993, p. 68).

TABLE J-3.--NUMBER OF ALIENS RECEIVING FEDERALLY ADMINISTERED SSI
PAYMENTS BY LEGAL STATUS AND COUNTRY OF ORIGIN, DECEMBER 1994
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Color of Lawfully Increase
Country of origin Total law admitted 1989-94
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Africa.......................... 6,830 1,080 5,750 4,140
North America:
Canada...................... 2,880 100 2,780 890
Other....................... (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\)
Latin America:
Cuba........................ 53,980 14,580 39,400 20,070
Dominican Republic.......... 28,610 150 28,460 17,530
El Salvador................. 10,200 540 9,660 6,860
Haiti....................... 9,220 440 8,780 5,290
Jamaica..................... 9,680 110 9,570 5,100
Mexico...................... 123,240 5,850 117,390 70,230
Columbia.................... 8,050 180 7,870 3,680
Ecuador..................... 5,830 (\1\) (\1\) 2,930
Guyana...................... 4,680 (\1\) (\1\) 2,470
Other....................... 30,250 1,290 28,960 16,470
East Asia:
China....................... 39,960 2,170 37,790 18,840
South Korea................. 25,850 130 25,720 10,320
Other....................... 3,510 (\1\) (\1\) 1,040
South Asia:
Afghanistan................. 4,370 2,560 1,810 2,170
Cambodia.................... 22,100 12,000 10,100 9,710
India....................... 17,310 210 17,100 9,050
Iran........................ 19,040 6,090 12,950 11,620
Laos........................ 26,790 15,900 10,890 13,350
Philippines................. 39,200 370 38,830 13,930
Taiwan...................... 5,410 110 5,300 2,260
Vietnam..................... 48,290 23,730 24,560 28,590
Other....................... 23,190 2,830 20,360 12,560
Europe:
Italy....................... 3,210 (\1\) (\1\) 610
Portugal.................... 6,280 (\1\) (\1\) 1,570
Romania..................... 3,970 1,440 2,530 1,740
United Kingdom.............. 2,470 350 2,120 900
Other....................... 14,300 1,210 13,090 5,710
Former Soviet Republics......... 70,800 57,570 13,230 53,660
Oceania......................... 2,340 (\1\) (\1\) 1,270
Unidentified.................... 66,210 35,250 30,960 3,470
---------------------------------------
Total..................... 738,140 186,610 551,530 358,100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Relative sampling error too large for presentation of estimates.

Source: SSI 10-percent sample.

TABLE J-4.--AVERAGE MONTHLY SSI PAYMENT RECEIVED BY CITIZENS AND ALIENS BY STATE AND ELIGIBILITY CATEGORY,
DECEMBER 1994
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Citizen Alien
State -----------------------------------------------------------
Total Aged Disabled Total Aged Disabled
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama............................................. $282.01 $157.55 $321.96 $355.87 $350.72 $375.69
Alaska.............................................. 314.04 239.64 322.64 280.09 233.40 367.63
Arizona............................................. 313.15 179.88 338.05 308.44 294.78 322.97
Arkansas............................................ 271.92 136.95 312.85 359.15 375.62 330.33
California.......................................... 389.91 255.94 427.58 486.86 472.82 506.01
Colorado............................................ 297.25 154.88 321.91 354.80 349.42 361.45
Connecticut......................................... 304.75 181.21 323.43 342.02 337.48 350.63
Delaware............................................ 288.42 138.13 314.02 305.89 297.50 320.08
District of Columbia................................ 326.37 182.36 353.86 329.71 303.37 374.86
Florida............................................. 299.01 181.00 330.57 331.72 320.91 351.35
Georgia............................................. 271.67 145.31 307.93 350.70 347.36 358.43
Hawaii.............................................. 349.55 278.35 379.42 346.18 329.59 409.90
Idaho............................................... 300.24 108.62 326.18 314.93 304.50 324.67
Illinois............................................ 346.53 175.83 362.07 358.41 349.15 373.34
Indiana............................................. 309.22 146.31 329.46 352.83 353.91 350.24
Iowa................................................ 279.47 132.16 306.21 374.47 365.80 381.85
Kansas.............................................. 292.54 148.52 311.52 388.28 382.65 394.82
Kentucky............................................ 302.66 153.55 332.52 352.81 339.38 368.55
Louisiana........................................... 304.42 162.51 337.11 343.70 325.43 374.04
Maine............................................... 251.22 106.86 286.69 302.36 254.72 337.38
Maryland............................................ 315.15 152.09 342.41 344.44 340.59 357.56
Massachusetts....................................... 325.45 205.25 368.69 410.25 403.80 418.10
Michigan............................................ 336.22 165.08 355.50 364.82 354.12 377.68
Minnesota........................................... 290.09 141.82 317.58 404.91 378.11 421.15
Mississippi......................................... 282.35 153.54 322.95 329.23 327.57 331.50
Missouri............................................ 298.28 140.47 327.41 374.86 393.71 341.48
Montana............................................. 296.13 139.00 322.06 348.69 (\1\) (\1\)
Nebraska............................................ 277.36 120.06 306.80 342.16 365.61 314.19
Nevada.............................................. 297.50 181.86 331.49 358.71 360.83 353.97
New Hampshire....................................... 294.16 127.52 312.87 304.42 292.42 323.42
New Jersey.......................................... 324.63 195.25 350.25 368.89 366.00 375.02
New Mexico.......................................... 296.46 162.81 332.47 285.23 266.79 305.30
New York............................................ 364.21 221.28 393.32 408.18 396.19 426.09
North Carolina...................................... 269.26 150.58 306.90 350.56 346.91 357.61
North Dakota........................................ 254.37 139.42 282.41 311.45 (\1\) (\1\)
Ohio................................................ 333.82 157.06 349.72 355.35 347.09 369.83
Oklahoma............................................ 280.58 147.94 317.60 346.95 347.19 346.50
Oregon.............................................. 298.83 139.54 321.85 364.95 364.12 365.91
Pennsylvania........................................ 342.46 183.27 370.60 402.48 393.33 416.88
Rhode Island........................................ 323.58 157.18 356.11 371.59 343.89 405.18
South Carolina...................................... 276.86 153.28 314.48 347.27 346.60 348.94
South Dakota........................................ 280.36 142.58 312.38 326.88 (\1\) (\1\)
Tennessee........................................... 286.62 148.45 320.41 341.76 324.17 375.11
Texas............................................... 271.36 160.01 314.19 278.76 260.28 309.25
Utah................................................ 305.30 140.91 322.36 362.41 371.03 352.78
Vermont............................................. 311.66 166.38 338.76 388.13 (\1\) (\1\)
Virginia............................................ 281.46 146.85 315.20 357.33 352.50 371.61
Washington.......................................... 328.55 176.11 344.73 408.84 394.68 420.92
West Virginia....................................... 315.13 153.49 338.02 368.90 351.82 (\1\)
Wisconsin........................................... 346.60 161.42 380.03 478.93 451.21 496.35
Wyoming............................................. 291.38 101.06 316.21 (\1\) (\1\) (\1\)
-----------------------------------------------------------
U.S. average.................................... 319.11 179.89 350.56 414.12 399.77 437.04
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Relative sampling error too large for presentation of estimates.

Source: Ponce & Scott, 1995, citing SSI 10-Percent Sample File, December 1994.

U.S. Census Bureau Data

The most comprehensive source of information on
participation by the foreign born in public assistance programs
is the Census Bureau's March 1994 Current Population Survey
(CPS). \4\ The Congressional Research Service analyzed the CPS
data; the findings are summarized in tables J-5, J-6, and J-7
(O'Grady, 1995, p. 28).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The Census Bureau conducts the Current Population Survey (CPS)
each month to collect labor force data about the civilian
noninstitutionalized population. The March Supplement of the CPS
gathers additional data about income, education, household
characteristics, and geographic mobility. The March 1994 Supplement was
the first CPS to ask participants about their citizenship status.
Because CPS is a sample of the U.S. population, the results presented
here are estimates.

TABLE J-5.--PERCENT OF CITIZENS BY BIRTH, NATURALIZED CITIZENS, AND
NONCITIZENS RECEIVING VARIOUS WELFARE BENEFITS IN 1994
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Citizens Naturalized
Welfare program by birth citizens Noncitizens
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SSI................................. 2 3 3
Under age 65.................... 2 2 2
Age 65 and older................ 4 7 23
AFDC................................ 5 2 6
State assistance.................... 1 (\1\) 2
Food stamps......................... 12 7 16
Medicaid............................ 8 3 11
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Sample too small for reliable estimates.

Note.--Twenty nine percent of noncitizen households live below the
Federal poverty level as compared with 15 percent of citizens by birth
and 10 percent of noncitizens.

Source: O'Grady, M.J. (1995). Native and Naturalized Citizens and Non-
Citizens: An Analysis of Poverty Status, Welfare Benefits, and Other
Factors (95-276 EPW, pp. 1-34). Washington, DC: Congressional Research
Service.

Generally speaking, the CRS analysis corroborated
administrative data that showed that the foreign born were
significantly more likely to use SSI, but were not
significantly more likely to use AFDC or food stamps. Table J-5
shows that in the AFDC, Food Stamp and Medicaid Programs,
noncitizens had higher participation rates than the native
born, but that naturalized citizens had lower participation
rates than the native born. However, in the SSI Program both
noncitizens and naturalized citizens had higher participation
rates than native born citizens. This is especially true among
the aged population.

TABLE J-6.--PERCENTAGE OF PEOPLE RECEIVING VARIOUS WELFARE BENEFITS AND
PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL RECIPIENTS BY CITIZENSHIP STATUS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Citizenship status
-----------------------------------
Program Citizen Naturalized
by birth citizen Noncitizens
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total population
Number (thousands).............. 237,184 6,975 15,593
Percentage...................... 91 3 6
Food stamps
Percentage receiving............ 12 7 16
Percentage of all food stamp
recipients..................... 90 1 8
AFDC
Percentage receiving............ 5 2 6
Percentage of all AFDC
recipients..................... 92 1 7
State assistance
Percentage receiving............ 1 (\1\) 2
Percentage of all State
assistance recipients\2\....... 85 (\2\) 12
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Sample too small for reliable estimates.
\2\ Percentages do not add to 100 due to sample sizes too small for
reliable results.

In addition to the elderly, the other major subgroup of the
foreign born using welfare appears to be refugees (and their
relatives). While the CRS study did not desegregate refugees,
Urban Institute analysts did in Senate testimony. Based also on
the March 1994 CPS, they found that 13.1 percent of foreign
born from the major refugee sending countries used AFDC, SSI,
or GA, compared to 5.8 percent of foreign born from other
countries (Fix, et al., 1996).
With regard to use of food stamps, O'Grady (1995, pp. 17-
18) found the following (see table J-6):
--Overall 31 million people or 12 percent of the population
lived in food stamp households.
--Naturalized citizens were less likely to live in food stamp
households than citizens born in the United States.
Only 7 percent of naturalized citizens lived in
households that received food stamps compared with 12
percent of the population born in the United States.
--Noncitizens were more likely than citizens born in the
United States to live in households that receive food
stamps. Among noncitizens 3 million or 16 percent lived
in households that receive food stamps.
As with food stamps, O'Grady also found that noncitizens
were more likely to report Medicaid coverage than the native
born (p. 20), but that naturalized citizens were less likely to
report Medicaid coverage. Other findings include:
--There were about 2 million noncitizens reporting Medicaid
coverage. These noncitizens represented 8 percent of
the population reporting Medicaid coverage but less
than 1 percent of the total U.S. population.
--Eleven percent of noncitizens reported that they were
covered by Medicaid as compared with 8 percent of
citizens born in the United States, and 3 percent of
naturalized citizens.
Seven percent of the people living in AFDC families were
noncitizens. Further, of the noncitizen population, 6 percent
lived in families receiving AFDC compared to 5 percent of the
native born population and only 2 percent of the naturalized
population. Table J-6 summarizes the findings on use of AFDC
and State cash assistance.

ILLEGAL ALIENS AND BENEFITS

Two related issues run through the debates over benefits
received by illegal aliens. The first is the scope and
enforceability of standards prohibiting benefits, the continued
availability of which is viewed by some as a migration magnet.
The second is a variation of the ``unfunded mandate'' issue,
reflected in requests by heavily impacted States and localities
that they be reimbursed for costs resulting from the Federal
Government's failure to control illegal immigration.

Verification and Fraud

Detectable illegal use of Federal benefits by illegal
aliens is low, but many still believe that undetected
fraudulent use through false documentation of citizenship is
extensive. The primary means of verifying eligibility for many
major Federal benefits is the Systematic Alien Verification for
Entitlement (SAVE) Program. Under SAVE, applicants who state
that they are not citizens must have their status verified
first through a database of INS files and, if primary
verification is unsuccessful, through a manual secondary
verification by INS district officials.
Most comments by both Federal and State officials have
concerned the time needed to complete secondary verifications,
rather than the accuracy of SAVE. At House hearings during the
103d Congress (Access to public assistance, 1994), Federal and
State witnesses alike remarked on the low number of illegal
alien applicants identified, so much so that a Department of
Agriculture study had found that SAVE was not cost effective
for the Food Stamp Program. Because the SAVE data base is
limited to aliens, it has been criticized as being vulnerable
to circumvention by false citizenship claims.
Much of the current concern about ``fraud'' in fact appears
to be directed toward practices that, while controversial, are
within the letter of the law. Foremost among these practices is
the provision of emergency medical services, including
emergency labor and childbirth services, to illegal aliens and
the payment of AFDC to the children born here of illegal alien
mothers.

Unfunded Federal Mandates and Illegal Immigration

Many States expend a significant amount of State funds on
illegal aliens. In 1994, the Urban Institute (Clark, et al.,
1994) estimated that the seven States with the largest
populations of illegal aliens--California, Florida, Texas, New
York, Illinois, Arizona, and New Jersey--spent the following
amounts in fiscal year 1993 in providing three types of
services to illegal aliens within their borders: $3.1 billion
for public education; $471 million for incarceration; and $445
million for emergency medical care under Medicaid. At the same
time, the Urban Institute estimated that these seven States
collected the following amounts from illegal aliens in fiscal
year 1993 from three types of taxes: $1.1 billion in sales
taxes; $700 million in property taxes; and $100 million in
State income taxes.
While State costs associated with illegal aliens are often
termed ``unfunded Federal mandates,'' these costs do not by and
large arise from express legislative requirements imposed by
Congress. States must provide illegal aliens equal access to
the public school not because of Federal statute, for example,
but rather because of a Supreme Court interpretation in Plyler
v. Doe (457 U.S. 202 (1982)) of constitutional restrictions on
State power. In that case, five of the nine Justices on the
Court overturned education restrictions imposed under a Texas
statute on equal protection grounds, even though these Justices
also stated that illegal status is not ``constitutionally
irrelevant.''
Other State costs for illegal aliens are incurred under
Federal statute. Under the Medicaid statute, the Federal
Government and the States share the cost of providing emergency
medical services to otherwise qualified illegal aliens. The
statute covers emergency services for illegal aliens as a
result of a legislative compromise between Members of Congress
who wished to deny illegal aliens all Medicaid coverage and
Members who advocated full Medicaid coverage as a way of
assuring that the Federal Government would defray some of the
costs of providing indigent illegal aliens health care.
Whatever the basis for the expenditure, the amount spent
for illegal aliens by a State for a particular service depends
both on the number of illegal aliens in the State and on the
general level of State funding. The Urban Institute study of
specified costs associated with illegal aliens found that
California had the highest number of illegal students in its
public schools by far (307,024), but that its overall level of
per student spending for education by State and local
government ($4,199) ranked second lowest among the seven States
with the highest noncitizen populations. \5\ Because of
differences in expenditures per student, the cost per State
resident of educating illegal alien students in New York, for
example, is only about 15 percent less than the cost per
resident of educating illegal alien students in California even
though, according to the Urban Institute, illegal aliens
comprise a far larger percentage of California's population
than that of New York--4.6 percent compared to 2.4 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The cost per student among these States ranged from a low of
$3,626 (Arizona) to a high of $8,949 (New Jersey).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, while Congress sets alien eligibility rules for
Federal-State programs, State expenditures will be influenced
by broader choices a State makes in its implementing
legislation. Thus, expenditure levels for Medicaid, for
example, may be influenced by how high an income an individual
or family may have and still get benefits. Among high
immigration States, the maximum income thresholds for Medicaid
eligibility are two to three times higher in California and New
York than they are in Texas and Florida.
Constitutional and statutory provisions at the Federal
level have not foreclosed all State authority to deny illegal
aliens State funded assistance. Even though the Plyler decision
forbade States from denying illegal alien children a free basic
education, the decision also implied that the States have
broader power with regard to other programs, especially where
the beneficiaries are adults. This broader authority was
further recognized by the U.S. district court judge who, in
League of United Latin American Citizens v. Wilson (908 F. Sup.
755 (C.D. Cal. 1995)), temporarily enjoined most of the
provisions of California's Proposition 187, a ballot initiative
that would deny illegal aliens State services. Except with
respect to primary and secondary education, the basis for the
injunction concerns how the restrictions on benefits are to be
implemented, not the underlying restrictions themselves. The
general assistance laws in many States, including Arizona and
New York, currently deny assistance to illegal aliens.
Meanwhile, provisions for Federal reimbursement of some
part of State and local costs incurred as a result of illegal
immigration have been proposed, but not yet adopted. In
addition to general Federal budgetary constraints, another
difficulty facing advocates of Federal reimbursement for the
cost of illegal immigration is that only a handful of States
and urban areas have been significantly affected by illegal
immigration. From the viewpoint of the relatively unaffected
States, Federal reimbursement looks like impact aid for
problems they do not have.

REFERENCES

Access to public assistance benefits by illegal aliens: Hearing
before the Subcommittee on International Law,
Immigration, and Refugees of the Committee on the
Judiciary, House of Representatives, 103d Congress, 2d
Sess. (103-41) p. 223 (1994).
Bogue, D.J. (1985). The population of the United States:
Historical trends and future projections. New York: The
Free Press.
Clark, R.L., Passel, J.S., Zimmermann, W.N., & Fix, M.E.
(1994). Fiscal impacts of undocumented aliens: Selected
estimates for seven States (p. 89). Washington, DC: The
Urban Institute.
Department of Mental Hygiene v. Renel, 6 N.Y. 2d 791 (1959).
Eig, L.M. (1995). Denying aliens benefits: May Congress enhance
State power? [CRS Memorandum, pp. 1-10]. Washington DC:
Congressional Research Service.
Eig, L.M., & Vialet, J.C. (1993). Alien eligibility
requirements for major Federal assistance programs (93-
1046 A, pp. 4-5). Washington, DC: Congressional
Research Service.
Federal Register. (1973, June 27). 38(123), p. 16911.
Fix, M., Passel, J.S., & Zimmermann, W. (1996). The use of SSI
and other welfare programs by immigrants. Testimony
before the U.S. Senate [Judiciary] Subcommittee on
Immigration, Feb. 6, 1996. Washington, DC: The Urban
Institute.
Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365 (1971).
Hansen, K.A., & Bachu, A. (1995). The foreign born population.
Current Population Reports (Series P20-186).
Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of the Census.
Impact of immigration on welfare programs: Hearing before the
Subcommittee on Human Resources of the Committee on
Ways and Means, House of Representatives, 103d
Congress, 1st Sess. (103-58) p. 189 (1993).
National Conference of State Legislatures. (1992). National
general assistance survey. Washington, DC: Center on
Budget and Policy Priorities.
O'Grady, M.J. (1995). Native and naturalized citizens and
noncitizens: An analysis of poverty status, welfare
benefits, and other factors (95-276 EPW, pp. 1-34).
Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.
Plyler v. Doe 457 U.S. 202 (1982).
Ponce, E., & Scott, C. (1995). Aliens who receive SSI payments.
Washington, DC: Social Security Administration.
San Diego v. Viloria, 276 Cal. App. 2d 350, 80 Cal. Rptr. 869
(1969).
State v. Binder, 356 Mich. 73 (1959).
The immigration and naturalization systems of the United
States: Hearing before the Special Subcommittee to
Investigate Immigration and Naturalization of the
Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, 81st
Congress, 2d Sess. p. 349 (1950).
U.S. Department of Agriculture. (1992). Cost effectiveness of
food stamp program use of immigration and
naturalization service systematic alien verification of
entitlements system (Audit Report No. 27013-47-Te).
Washington, DC: Food and Nutrition Service.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. (1993). Characteristics of food
stamp households. Washington, DC: Food and Consumer
Service.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1983). Recipient
characteristics and financial circumstances of AFDC
recipients (p. 60). Washington, DC: Family Support
Administration.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1993).
Characteristics and financial circumstances of AFDC
recipients, fiscal year 1993 (p. 53). Washington, DC:
Administration for Children and Families.
U.S. Department of State. (1993). Foreign Affairs Manual (Vol.
9, section 40.41 and accompanying notes). Washington,
DC: Author.
U.S. General Accounting Office. (1978, February 22). Number of
newly arrived aliens who receive Supplemental Security
Income needs to be reduced (HRD 78-50). Washington, DC:
Author.
Vialet, J.C. (1994). Immigration: What is PRUCOL? (94-710 EPW).
Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.
Vialet, J.C., & Eig, L.M. (1994). Alien eligibility for Federal
assistance (94-73 EPW). Washington, DC: Congressional
Research Service.
Vialet, J.C., & Eig, L.M. (1995). Number of immigrants with
affidavits of support (CRS Memorandum). Washington, DC:
Congressional Research Service.
Vialet, J.C., & Eig, L.M. (1996). Immigration and Federal
assistance: Issues and legislation (IB94037).
Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.