PERSPECTIVE ON IMMIGRATION : Who’s on the Dole? It’s Not Illegal Immigrants : Talks of immigrants on ‘welfare’is politics; refugees and the elderly are the biggest users of public assistance.

Few areas of public policy provoke such charged responses as welfare and immigration. Not surprisingly, when the two are joined--as they have been by proposals to curb both illegal and legal immigrants’ access to public benefits--the public debate is driven by stereotypes and emotions and not hard facts.

Each of the major welfare-reform plans includes a proposal to limit immigrant access to public benefits, though they differ dramatically in their reach and severity. The Clinton Administration’s plan, for example, would limit some legal immigrants’ eligibility for food stamps, Aid to Families with Dependent Children and Supplemental Security Income for five years after arrival. Immigrants whose sponsors (typically family members) earn more than the national average would not be eligible until they become naturalized citizens (at the earliest, five years after arrival). Immigrant eligibility for Medicaid would be largely unchanged. A proposed Republican alternative is more far-reaching, barring all non-citizens’ access to 61 federal programs, ranging from immunizations to school lunches and AFDC, until they become citizens.

One thing that all of these welfare proposals have in common is that they represent a departure from a major thrust of immigration policy over the past decade. That is, they go beyond seeking to restrict the rights and privileges of illegal immigrants to changing the rules for legal immigrants.

This would be a significant change in public policy, one that needs to be thought through and not simply enacted as a back-door way to fund welfare reform or as an expression of frustration with immigration policy. Why? Because these policies blur the sharp and legitimate distinction that has been drawn over the past 15 years between illegal and legal immigrants. If legal immigrants’ rights are restricted in a wholesale manner, the changes would reduce this large population to second-class status, taxing immigrants without allowing them access to benefits for which they have paid and putting out of reach public benefits and services (immunizations, job training) that would contribute to the integration that immigrants have achieved in the past.

Support for these proposals reflects a range of concerns: a straightforward interest in finding the money to finance welfare reform; reducing the supposed “welfare lure” for illegal immigration; frustration over the scale of immigration and the purportedly declining quality and values of immigrants (who, it is argued, now both need and are willing to accept welfare), and anxiety about the cultural shifts to which high levels of immigration give rise.

These proposals also spring from a broadly held assumption that immigrants are heavy users of welfare and are far more likely to be dependent on public assistance than natives. How sound is this assumption?

Viewed generally, immigrants do appear to use more welfare than natives. The 1990 Census reveals that 4.7% of immigrants receive welfare (cash transfers defined as AFDC, SSI or state general assistance) versus 4.2% of natives. But go beneath these numbers and examine different immigrant groups and it becomes clear that poor immigrants are less likely to use welfare than poor natives. Further, welfare use is concentrated among two immigrant subpopulations: refugees and the elderly.

Refugees are the only immigrant group broadly entitled to benefits upon their arrival. This entitlement acknowledges that refugees are fleeing persecution and are likely arrive without jobs or family networks. Over time, their use of welfare diminishes.

For elderly immigrants who recently arrived, SSI in effect represents retirement income; for many, it also is their only bridge to health insurance--Medicaid.

Roughly one-third of elderly immigrants receiving SSI applied for benefits shortly after they became eligible (three years after entering the United States). The heavy use of benefits among recently arrived elderly immigrants has raised concerns that their children are not assuming financial responsibility for the parents with whom they have been reunited.

Once refugees and elderly immigrants on SSI are excluded, the data indicate that welfare use among working-age legal immigrants (16 to 65) is low in absolute terms (2.7% of such immigrants receive welfare). Although they are substantially more likely to be poor, these immigrants are 27% less likely to be receiving welfare than natives.

As for illegal immigrants, there is no solid evidence that they use welfare. They are barred from virtually all public benefits (except for emergency medical care under Medicaid and some nutrition assistance for pregnant women).

Given these facts, then, what are some of the considerations that should be at the center of current policy debates over the curbing of legal immigrants’ eligibility for public assistance? These include:

Fairness. The impact of these curbs would be harshest on the most vulnerable immigrant populations--most notably, the elderly poor. Then there is the question: If legal immigrants pay taxes, why shouldn’t they be entitled to public benefits, as citizens are? On the other hand, the nation’s ability to admit large numbers of immigrants is premised on a practical assumption that the families of legal immigrants--not the government--will take responsibility for them.

Cost-shifting to states. If needy immigrants are cut off from federal benefits, it is likely that some will be displaced onto state assistance programs. The impact of this shift would be forcefully felt in states with generous assistance programs, such as California and New York.

Cost-saving. Linking eligibility for assistance to citizenship provides a strong incentive to naturalize. If large numbers do so, the ultimate savings may be substantially reduced.

There is room for reform, to be sure--reform of the refugee program to ensure that refugees escape welfare dependency, and reform of the sponsorship requirements imposed on family members of immigrants so that the rules are fair to the newcomers, their families and the communities in which they settle. But these are complex issues that raise a host of critical questions about immigrant policy and about who is and is not a member of this society. Their resolution should represent a careful balance of interests and not be a fund-driven sideshow in the debate over welfare reform.

Immigrants and Others on Welfare Percentage of population reciving public assistance, by age, 1989: 15-64 years Natives: Non-refugee countries 1980-1990: Pre-1980 entrants: Refugee countries 1980-1990: *65 years and over Natives: Non-refugee countries 1980-1990: Pre-1980 entrants: Refugee countries 1980-1990: 49.6% Source: Urban institute

Did You Know That. . . 700,000 legal permanent residents arrive each year, 75% of them on family-based admissions. 6 out of 10 illegal residents entered the United States legally as temporary visitors. Among sending countries, the Philippines accounts for almost 1 million foreign-born U.S. residents, second only to Mexico; Vietnam ranks third, Korea fifth. The U.S. population is projected to grow from 249 million in 1990 to 355 million by 2040; immigrants arriving since 1990 and their children will account for two- thirds of the growth. 7.2% of immigrants are self-employed; the figure for natives is 7%. Supplemental Security Income (SSI) is the only source of income for 77% of the elderly immigrants receiving this assistance. 8% of the U.S. population in 1990 was foreign-born; in the 1870-1920 “open door” era, 15% (about 1 in 7) was foreign-born. Almost half of the population of Los Angeles speaks a language other than English in the home. Sources: Michael Fix and Jeffrey S. Passel