[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.                                                     
                                                                        
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.                                                              

    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.