INS Toughens Rules on Sponsoring Immigrants

Moving to ensure that new legal immigrants do not end up on welfare, federal authorities unveiled stringent and unprecedented new guidelines Monday that will make it much more difficult for low-income people to bring in relatives from abroad.

The revisions mark a landmark shift in U.S. immigration policy, experts say, chipping away at the current doctrine of family unification.

The changes, mandated by Congress’ sweeping 1996 overhaul of the nation’s welfare and immigration laws, impose the first-ever financial screening requirement on U.S. residents who petition to bring in spouses, children and other relatives.

Most sponsors will have to show household income at least 25% above the federal poverty level; under that calculation, the minimum income for sponsorship would be $20,062 for a family of four.

In addition, the new Immigration and Naturalization Service regulations for the first time make immigrants’ sponsors, usually close relatives, legally liable for supporting those who come here--an obligation that could last a lifetime. So-called deadbeat sponsors may face lawsuits from government and private aid agencies--or even from the relatives they brought to the United States--if they fail to provide basic levels of support.

Behind the crackdown is the widespread but sometimes disputed perception that disproportionate numbers of immigrants are ending up on the welfare rolls.

“There’s a basic problem with having a generous welfare state at the same time you have an unscreened immigrant flow,” said George Borjas, a public policy professor at Harvard who has argued that impoverished new arrivals are an ever-increasing drain on taxpayer resources. “The new regulations have an implicit contract: If you gain that much by bringing in your relative, you should remain responsible for the cost of the immigrant. I see nothing wrong with it. It’s like a user fee.”

He and other supporters, including California Gov. Pete Wilson, have hailed the revisions as a long overdue antidote to an irresponsible system that abetted the entry of welfare cases, draining government treasuries, especially in California.

“We are heartened that there is now the ability to really enforce the commitment that sponsors make when they bring people to this country,” said Lisa Kalustian, a spokeswoman for Gov. Wilson.

But critics call the new rules an unseemly “affluence test” that will keep poor and working-class families divided.

“Congress has used a backdoor means to restrict legal immigration and weed out low-income people,” said Charles Wheeler, an attorney with the Catholic Legal Immigration Network in San Francisco.

Paul Virtue, the INS’ acting executive associate commissioner, said: “We do not believe that family unification should be limited only to the wealthy.”

Under the law, U.S. petitioners who lack sufficient income to bring in relatives do have an option: They may seek co-sponsors willing to put their financial assets on the line.

But it is unclear how many people would be inclined to take such a risk. And there is already fear that “sponsor shopping” could spur unscrupulous operators to offer their services for high fees.

“We may end up creating greater levels of fear and abuse than we had before,” said Juan Jose Gutierrez, executive director of One Stop Immigration, an East Los Angeles social service agency opposed to the changes.

Another possible unintended outcome, say critics, would be to spur the illegal immigration of relatives newly unable to attain U.S. residency because their loved ones here don’t earn enough. They argue that close relatives probably make their way here anyway, rather than face permanent separation.

Previous law imposed no requirement for a financial sponsor, only an obligation that the immigrants themselves demonstrate that they would not become “public charges,” dependent on public relief.

Prospective immigrants must still persuade U.S. authorities of their ability to make a living, showing proof of savings, skills, job guarantees or other means of support. But most legal immigrants now will be required to find sponsors willing to sign “affidavits of support,” legally binding commitments to provide for them.

Authorities anticipate that at least 565,000 U.S. residents will take on the broad new financial obligations next year in seeking to reunite with relatives. If the new immigrants are caught living on public aid, they could face deportation, INS officials said.

The new requirements are expected to have the greatest impact among Mexican and Central American immigrants--the largest immigrant groups in Southern California. According to a study by the Urban Institute, a Washington-based think tank, more than 40% of all immigrant-headed U.S. families--and well over half of all families headed by settlers from Mexico and Central America--would no longer qualify to bring in loved ones.

The guidelines released Monday take effect Dec. 19.

Regulators have labored for months to devise an immigrant sponsorship contract that will withstand expected legal challenges. Courts have ruled that existing sponsorship agreements are not legally enforceable, meaning that relatives who bring in loved ones have assumed no more than a moral obligation--one that is frequently ignored.

*

Under the new law, sponsors will not be free of financial responsibility until the sponsored immigrants become U.S. citizens, a process that takes at least five years, or until the settlers have worked and paid taxes for 10 years. Otherwise, the support obligation remains in place until the sponsored immigrants die or depart permanently from the United States. Even divorce does not nullify petitioners’ legal responsibility to support sponsored spouses.

The new rules apply primarily to those who draw on family ties to come to the United States, though some seeking entry via employers will have to find sponsors. Family-based immigrants totaled almost 600,000 in fiscal 1996, accounting for almost 65% of all legal admissions, according to INS figures.

Among the miscellaneous groups exempt from the sponsorship requirements are refugees and political asylum-seekers, who now total about 100,000 a year. Most are by definition fleeing persecution and do not have relatives here to sponsor them. Refugees, mostly from Southeast Asia and the nations of the former Soviet Union, also rank as the immigrants most likely to use welfare benefits.

The scope of immigrant use of benefits is hotly contested, but studies generally show that immigrants--who are almost twice as likely to be living in poverty as U.S. natives--tend to utilize public aid more than the U.S.-born. A recent U.S. Census study found that 5.8% of immigrants receive cash income from public assistance programs, compared with 4.5% of U.S. natives.

Congress last year made immigrants ineligible for most big-ticket federal “means-tested” benefit programs--including food stamps, cash welfare and nonemergency Medicaid, the joint federal-state insurance plan for the poor--during their first five years in the United States. The new rules ensure that noncitizens will remain ineligible beyond that because their sponsors’ incomes will be counted when determining eligibility for public aid.

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Who They Bring

Immigrants admitted to the United States as immediate relatives of U.S. citizens:

(please see newspaper for chart information)

Note: U.S. citizens may also bring in brothers and sisters. Legal permanent residents who are not U.S. citizens may also bring in spouses and children.

Source: Immigration and Naturalization Service