Plans to Cut Safety Net Leave Legal Immigrants Dangling

For a dozen years after moving from Peru, Heidi was employed full time, first at a cannery and then at a fast-food restaurant. But her precarious hold on economic solvency slipped three years ago when her newborn’s father left to join the fighting in the former Yugoslavia and never returned.

She began receiving Aid to Families With Dependent Children, food stamps and Medicaid--benefits accorded for decades to legal immigrants and citizens alike.

But a proposal by the Republican leadership in Congress would reserve such benefits only for citizens, denying any form of welfare to non-citizens living legally in this country. The estimated $22 billion in savings over five years would be used to help offset tax cuts and other initiatives proposed in the Republicans’ “contract with America.”

House Republicans contend that the midterm elections demonstrated, in these uncertain economic times, that Americans have tired of offering cash assistance, health care, job training, school lunches, food stamps and scores of other benefits to the 10.5 million non-citizens living legally in the United States.

“Our welfare benefits are an attraction to people to come to this country, and they should be cut off,” said Rep. E. Clay Shaw Jr. (R-Fla.), who is in line to become chairman of the House Ways and Means subcommittee on human resources, which would have jurisdiction over the proposal. “We should take care of our own with the resources we have.”

Furthermore, advocates of the plan say, many of the people receiving such aid are parents of U.S. citizens who can well afford to support them.

Although there is likely to be heated debate on the subject when the 104th Congress convenes in January, both Democrats and Republicans predict that such a proposal could be approved. If so, it would mark a dramatic shift in the nation’s view of its social contract with immigrants.

The proposed change would do no less than “redefine membership in this society for legal immigrants and change the climate of cultural acceptance for legal residents,” said Michael Fix, a senior analyst at the Urban Institute, an independent research group, who specializes in immigration issues.

Not surprisingly, the Clinton Administration opposes the Republican plan, arguing that it would adversely affect public health, shift costs to state and local governments and leave an estimated 1.5 million people without financial support. Approximately 40% of those people live in California.

Heidi helps drive home their point.

“I came here 15 years ago and always paid taxes and always worked,” said Heidi, 41, who asked that her last name not be used. “I’ve only gotten help for three years. If I get a little more help so I can establish myself a little, then I will get another job and start paying taxes again,” she said in an interview from a homeless shelter, where she lives with her 3-year-old child.

Among those affected by the proposal would be parents of U.S. citizens who immigrated to join their families and, after a three- to five-year moratorium, turned to public assistance for a pension and health benefits; refugees from persecution who were granted sanctuary in the United States and fell on hard times, and families who, because of divorce, job loss, disability or other difficulties, found themselves in need of a safety net.

In addition, the proposal would deny immigrant children free federally funded school lunches and immunizations. The only people who would still be eligible for some income support would be immigrants older than 75 who had been in the country for at least five years.

Although people applying to enter this country must demonstrate that they have sufficient financial means to support themselves--either through their own income or with help from a sponsor--they have since the 1960s become eligible for the same aid as U.S. citizens if their finances fail them.

Most of those who immigrate for the purpose of reuniting families--and thus have sponsors to help support them initially--can qualify for food stamps, AFDC or Medicaid after three years. Congress last year temporarily extended the waiting period to five years for Supplemental Security Income, the cash assistance available to the elderly, blind and disabled.

Immigrants like Heidi, who are granted permanent residency for reasons of employment or as refugees, need not undergo a waiting period before receiving benefits.

Former Rep. Barbara Jordan (D-Tex.), who chairs the bipartisan U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, said the Republican proposal contradicts the underlying philosophy behind U.S. immigration policy: that legal immigration is a “strength of this country” and should be encouraged.

“Legal permanent residents should continue to be eligible for needs-tested assistance programs,” she told a congressional committee considering welfare reform this summer.

“The safety net provided by welfare programs should be for those members of our social community who are in most need . . .” regardless of their citizenship, she added.

Jordan and others expressed concern that by denying benefits to non-citizens, the GOP proposal would encourage immigrants to see citizenship solely as a ticket to welfare.

“I don’t want immigrants to seek citizenship because it is the only route to our safety nets,” Jordan said. “To me, that would be a debasement of our notions of citizenship.”

Other advocates for immigrants argue that because legal immigrants are treated like citizens when it comes to paying taxes and serving in the armed forces, they should be rewarded with equal treatment when it comes to qualifying for financial aid.

“All we’re asking for is equal rights,” said Nam Loc Nguyen, who heads immigrant legal services for Catholic Charities in Los Angeles.

These advocates also note that non-citizens cannot vote, making them a convenient target for politicians. In fact, the overwhelming approval of California’s Proposition 187, which denies all but emergency medical aid to illegal immigrants, was seen as proof that voters are likely to reward political office-seekers who advocate ending benefits for immigrants, said analysts and members of Congress.

“They see a short-term gain from capitalizing on anti-immigrant sentiment,” said Charles Wheeler of the National Center on Immigrant Rights. “It’s welfare elimination for a group of people who are currently out of favor and don’t vote. We have a history in the United States of praising prior waves of immigrants but doubting the current batch of arrivals.”

Rep. Robert T. Matsui (D-Sacramento), who opposes the GOP plan, contends that it simply shifts responsibility from the federal government to the states. That is an argument that resonates among local officials, who maintain that immigrants needing aid would simply turn to them. County general relief and medical costs in Orange County, for instance, would soar, according to Angelo Doti, director of financial assistance for the Orange County Social Services Agency.

Doti said that to avoid a tremendous cost shift, any change in the law must specify that state and local governments similarly can prohibit non-citizens from receiving benefits.

His agency is already feeling the effect of the federal government’s decision to change the waiting period for SSI benefits from three to five years. So far, he said, his office has tracked 250 cases in which immigrants who became ineligible for SSI turned to the county for assistance. Most, he said, were elderly parents of citizens.

“We consider a lot of this to be abuse,” he said, because many of those immigrants could be supported by their children.

He and others expressed dismay that current law enables children to bring their parents to the United States, support them for a few years and then expect the federal government to provide cash assistance, food stamps and health insurance.

“These people are not going to be on the streets if the government cuts them off,” he said.

But advocates for immigrants stressed that many of the people affected by the law would be refugees or other immigrants who are without family members to rely on or whose families are too poor to support them for a long time.

“We’re just going to end up increasing poverty overall, and then we all suffer,” said Sonia Perez, a poverty policy analyst for the National Council of La Raza. “It’s very easy to say just cut them off, but it has a lot implications for all of us and not just for that group of people.”