Bid to Exclude Illegals From Census Hit : Officials Say Move Would Hurt State in Congress, Cut Federal Aid

Public officials throughout California have condemned a U.S. Senate vote Thursday to exclude illegal aliens from the 1990 census, saying the action will shortchange California in Congress and possibly deprive the state of millions of dollars of federal aid for medical emergency services and other programs for poor people.

“I think it’s an outrageous piece of legislation and probably unconstitutional,” Assemblyman Peter Chacon said Friday. Chacon, a San Diego Democrat, is e chairman of the Assembly’s Elections, Reapportionment and Constitutional Amendments Committee.

At the same time, the Senate’s action has created great confusion and stirred hopes, especially among urban Democrats, that it will be overturned by the House of Representatives.

Major Impact

If it became law, the Senate’s action could have a major impact on California and other states where the influx of illegal aliens significantly boosts the population and, thus, can affect the size of congressional delegations and the amount of federal aid that is doled out. With an estimated population of about 28 million people, California is thought to have at least 50% of the nation’s 3 million to 8 million illegal aliens.

Authorities on reapportionment have widely predicted that California would gain five to seven congressional seats as a result of population gains made during the last decade. But if illegal aliens are not counted, the experts say the state would not get one of the anticipated seats.

“It’s hard to tell exactly how many congressional seats California will lose. But we could have gotten six or seven additional seats and this could cost us one or two. It’s possible,” said state Sen. Milton Marks, a San Francisco Democrat who chairs the Senate’s Elections and Reapportionment Committee.

Loss of Funds Feared

Jesse Huff, the state’s financial director, said the state could lose as much as $300 million in federal aid that is allocated on the basis of population as determined by census counts.

In San Diego County, officials fear that the provision excluding illegal aliens could reduce the county’s share of federal grants, which often are tied to population levels.

However, because of uncertainty over how many illegal aliens live in the county, the financial impact is difficult to estimate. Many officials, however, said the county, now operating under a $1.45-billion annual budget, conceivably could lose millions of dollars if the measure passed by the Senate is adopted by the House.

“About all you can say is that this could be used against us,” said county Supervisor George Bailey. “How much it might hurt us is anybody’s guess.”

No Ballpark Figures

Administrators in local governmental agencies said Friday that, to their knowledge, even ballpark estimates of the number of illegal aliens in San Diego are lacking.

“By its very nature, the number of undocumented residents is very hard to calculate,” said Bill Dominguez of the county’s Transborder Affairs Department. The upcoming census, officials hoped, would provide the first legitimate measure of that important statistic.

To date, the Board of Supervisors has not taken a position on the philosophical question of whether illegal aliens should be included in calculations affecting the disbursement of federal funds, according to David Janssen, the county’s assistant chief administrative officer.

Several supervisors, however, argued that, as long as illegal aliens require county or local government services, they should be included in the population totals on which funding for social-welfare programs is based.

“If they require local services, it’s only fair that they be counted and included in the funding formulas,” Supervisor Susan Golding said. “Even though they may be undocumented, many of these people work and pay taxes that go to Washington. The problem is, we don’t get our fair share back now, and this would only make that worse. I think it’s an outrageous proposal.”

Los Angeles County officials said the measure could cut off federal funds for emergency medical services for illegal aliens. In the past, about $80 million annually in such services for illegal aliens has been paid out, with about half of that amount paid in Los Angeles County, according to Mark Tajima, a legislative analyst employed by the county’s chief administrative officer.

Los Angeles City Atty. James K. Hahn described the Senate’s vote as an attempt by “callous, self-serving interests in Washington, D.C., to deny representation and financial resources to minorities and underprivileged in our cities.” Hahn’s office said the city could lose at least $20 million in federal aid over the next 10 years--money that goes for child care, housing rehabilitation, drug counseling and services for homeless people.

Immigration Law Overhaul

The measure passed by the Senate was part of a larger overhaul of the nation’s immigration laws that, if it becomes law, would place an annual cap of 630,000 immigrants for each of the next three years and make room for more residents of Western Europe.

The Senate bill is expected to face tough opposition in the House, where states such as California, New York and Illinois with large alien populations have many votes. Moreover, a federal court in Pittsburgh ruled earlier this year that excluding illegal aliens from the census would be unconstitutional.

But even if the Senate’s action were to become law, it is not clear how much impact it would have on federal aid.

“I think the effect is going to be minimal,” said Michael Myers, counsel to the House subcommittee on immigration and refugee affairs. Myers said the measure would prohibit aliens from receiving direct federal benefits, such as Social Security payments. But he maintained that such ineligibility is already written into a number of federal programs. Myers said that most of the assistance that states and cities now receive comes in the form of bloc grants that do not qualify as direct financial aid and, therefore, would not be affected.

Still, many local officials remain puzzled by the Senate’s action.

Tajima said he was not sure whether programs such as foster care for abused and neglected children or Supplemental Security Income for aged, blind or disabled people would be vulnerable. “They all involve direct payments by the county of federal money,” he said.

Times staff writers Barry M. Horstman, Jerry Gillam and Marcida Dodson contributed to this article.