Verification Key to Wilson Ban on Aid

Gov. Pete Wilson’s sweeping plan to ban illegal immigrants from a constellation of state programs faces a fundamental challenge: devising a system that determines who is a legal resident and who is not.

“Verification [of immigration status] is going to be very critical,” said Kathleen M. Sullivan, an adjunct professor of immigration law at UC’s Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco. “Having the system take on enormous new burdens is going to be very hard.”

California authorities, unschooled in the intricacies of immigration law, may soon be asked to screen immigrants and visitors covered by a dizzying array of categories--and the state will be forced to rely on the assistance of an already strained federal immigration system. Complicating matters is the proliferation of stolen and counterfeit documents circulating among the about 2 million illegal immigrants in the state.

“We’re the only place that has the immigration data,” said Scott Hastings, who heads verification efforts for the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service and is examining ways to assist in implementation of the new federal welfare reform. “States are not experts in the vast numbers of immigration documents that are presented.”

The new welfare law gives the U.S. attorney general 18 months to devise new regulations for barring illegal immigrants from federal benefit programs. But Wilson has indicated his desire to move more quickly on exclusively state-funded programs, which range from prenatal care to child abuse prevention to post-secondary education.

California officials are looking at various options to identify illegal immigrants--all involving some kind of verification by the INS. Any independent state scheme that does not use INS information would probably run afoul of federal law that grants Washington preeminence in the immigration arena. In fact, much of Proposition 187, which sought to deny publicly funded benefits to illegal immigrants, was enjoined by a judge who ruled that the ballot initiative usurped federal authority.

“To implement the federal [welfare] law, we will be required to come up with a verification system that works, and we will work with the INS and our various departments to make this as smooth and efficient as possible,” said Sean Walsh, Wilson’s spokesman, who expressed confidence that a verification process could be developed quickly.

One possibility, Walsh said, is development of a single verification form that would be forwarded to the INS through a central state agency.

An option being looked at closely, California officials say, is expanded use of the INS’ Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE), the main program now used to screen immigrant applicants for benefit eligibility.

Last year, the system received almost 4 million inquiries, mostly from state and local officials nationwide seeking to confirm the legal status of benefit applicants.

California authorities now tap into the SAVE system to check the status of applicants for welfare, unemployment insurance and other federal benefits that Congress had already made unavailable to illegal immigrants.

In addition, the state verifies the immigration status of applicants for driver’s licenses and state identification cards through a modified version of SAVE.

These verifications are usually accomplished via computer modem or telephone, although almost 20% of all inquiries to the system must be researched individually by INS personnel, a time-consuming process. The state pays a fee for the verification service.

However, there is considerable doubt about whether the INS, with its many tasks, can meet the expanded need from California and other states.

“We have no idea what the workload implications are at this point,” said John Nahan, director of the SAVE program in Washington, who is among those combing through the welfare law trying to ascertain the agency’s new responsibilities.

Hastings added: “We will have to modify and maybe reinvent the system to fit this.” The cost of complying with state requests for any additional immigration information is unknown, he said.

The hope, Hastings said, is to work with the 50 states and use them as hubs rather than responding to requests from thousands of counties, cities and other jurisdictions. He said that California is the only state known to be taking formal action to cull illegal immigrants from state-financed programs.

In an executive order signed Wednesday, Wilson directed state agencies to comply with the new welfare law by banning state-funded services for illegal immigrants. The governor directed agencies and commissions to identify health, welfare and other programs used by illegal immigrants. Exempted from the order were primary and secondary school education, and emergency health care.

The welfare law signed by President Clinton last week creates vast new immigration verification requirements for federal, state and local officials, mandates that are still not fully understood.

The law states that any noncitizen deemed “not qualified”--a broad new category that lumps illegal immigrants together with tens of thousands of immigrants who are residing here legally under temporary INS status--”is not eligible for any state or local public benefit.”

There are exceptions for matters such as emergency medical care, short-term disaster relief, immunizations and treatment of communicable diseases.

Immigrant advocates question whether Washington can exercise such control over the use of exclusively state funds, and this could be an issue in future legal challenges.

Under the new welfare law, states or local governments may only provide services to illegal immigrants if the state passes a new statute providing for such eligibility.

The welfare overhaul--echoing Proposition 187--mandates that states, at least four times annually, furnish the INS with the name, address and “other identifying information” about anyone “who the state knows is unlawfully in the United States.” Walsh, the governor’s spokesman, said California authorities expect that those reported would be quickly expelled.

The SAVE program has itself drawn criticism, in part because of its reliance on the INS’ notoriously inaccurate database. In one lawsuit, a top INS official in California acknowledged that various applications for political asylum were lost.

But INS officials say the database has been updated and improved, though they acknowledge continuing problems. For instance, while in most cases SAVE can electronically confirm the identities of benefit applicants who are legal permanent residents--those who have green cards--officials must often hand-check the files of many who have temporary legal statuses, such as applicants for political asylum.