CONGRESS : GOP Plan Would Deny Social Benefits to Some New Citizens

Many new U.S. citizens would be denied access to federal social programs for years under a little-noticed--and some say unconstitutional--element of the Republican drive to balance the budget.

Advocates argue that the purpose is to discourage foreigners from becoming naturalized citizens for the sole purpose of obtaining federal help, much as some states have kept social service benefits low in hopes of discouraging an influx of welfare recipients.

Supporters also say the measure would force Americans who sponsor immigrants to think harder about serving in that role because they would be financially responsible for the newcomers for a longer time. Any foreign national immigrating to the United States must have a citizen sponsor.

“We want them to naturalize because they want to vote or be part of the body politic--not to get benefits,” said Richard Day, chief counsel of the Senate immigration subcommittee. “What this does is make an immigrant earn his way into the American welfare system.”

Immigrant advocates and some civil rights groups say the proposed change is a clear violation of the equal protection clause of the Constitution because it give naturalized citizens second-class status.

Critics say the GOP proposal reflects growing anti-immigrant sentiment in America. In November, Californians overwhelmingly approved Proposition 187, which denies government benefits to illegal immigrants.

“A lot of the proposals in Congress right now are a result of unthinking hostility to immigration and a desperate desire to reduce federal spending--no matter what the cost to individual human beings or the principle of fairness,” said Lucas Guttentag, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union who specializes in immigration issues.

But the measure’s author, Sen. Alan K. Simpson (R-Wyo.), argues that U.S. policy has long required newcomers to be self-sufficient. He cites an 1884 immigration law forbidding foreign nationals to immigrate if they are likely to become “wards of the state” at any time.

Congress should “avoid anything to encourage immigrants to naturalize for the wrong reason,” Simpson said during a Senate Finance Committee session on the welfare measure.

The provisions are part of welfare and immigration legislation making its way through the Senate. The prospects for approval are uncertain, although there has been little strong opposition in the chamber so far.

The Senate provisions are tougher for new immigrants than those adopted by the House, which would deny most legal immigrants federal assistance until they became citizens but would not cut any benefits to naturalized citizens.

Under the Senate plan, the assets and income of an immigrant’s sponsor would be considered the same as the immigrant’s for purposes of determining eligibility for an array of benefits--from cash assistance to school lunches --until such time as the immigrant had earned enough money to pay income tax for 10 years. Since most immigrants can become naturalized citizens after five years, the provision means many new citizens would face tougher eligibility standards than other citizens.

Also, the 10-year income tax requirement could be tough to meet. For example, for 1995 to count toward fulfilling the 10-year requirement, a family of four would have to earn $16,550. An immigrant with a family could work decades earning the minimum wage, which yields less than $10,000 a year income, and not be eligible for any federal benefits.

Now, a sponsor’s income is deemed the immigrant’s for the first three or five years, depending on the program, for supplemental security income, Aid to Families With Dependent Children and food stamps. But immigrants, naturalized or not, have the same access to other programs, like school meals and student aid, as American-born citizens.

Simpson disagrees with claims that counting a sponsor’s assets as an immigrant’s violates the equal protection clause. He argues that considering a sponsor’s resources when deciding an immigrant’s eligibility for benefits is the same as counting any other applicant’s bank account or trust fund.

Critics disagree.

“What it really comes down to is they’re introducing economic participation as a measure for membership in the society.” said Michael Fix, an immigration policy analyst at the Urban Institute, a Washington-based research center. “It creates what is in fact second-class citizenship.”

“It is completely antithetical to everything the United States and its Constitution stand for,” Guttentag said. “We don’t want to increase the divisiveness in this society by defining which citizens are more citizens. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that naturalized citizens are entitled to the same rights as native-born citizens. There’s no precedent for classifications that discriminate against naturalized citizens.”