"Welfare Options, Set #2 (Immigration)"
Welfare Options Sheets, Set #2
May 8, 1997
This set of issues deals with immigration.
ISSUE 1
Should legal immigrants who enter the U.S. after 8/22/96 be eligible for TANF?
OPTION A
Make legal immigrants who enter the U.S. after 8/22/96 eligible for TANF
benefits.
ANALYSIS
Federal welfare reform places a five-year ban on federally funded TANF
services for qualified immigrants who enter the U.S. after 8/22/96. States,
however, are authorized to continue providing state funded TANF services to
these immigrants, and may be able to obtain Maintenance-of-Effort (MOE) credit
for these expenditures. California s TANF block grant amount is based on its
expenditures in federal fiscal year 1995 and includes funding for legal
immigrants. Therefore, sufficient funding remains available to the state to
continue providing these services to immigrants if the state is allowed to
include funding for legal immigrants in its MOE credit. If MOE credit is not
available, 50 percent of the costs would be a new state/local cost.
In addition, this program is likely to have few recipients for several
reasons. First, the state funded program would only be apply for at most a
five year period for legal immigrants. After five years, immigrants would be
eligible for federally funded TANF benefits. Further immigration to the U.S.
is likely to decrease based on new requirements that sponsors earn 125% of
poverty level for a family including the sponsored immigrant. Sponsors will
also be required to sign newly binding affidavits of support. One study
indicate half of the legal permanent residents and three in ten of the
citizens who sponsored their wives in 1994 would not have met the new income
standard and could not immigrate under the new rule.
This measure would result in a loss of savings in out years by continuing
eligibility for legal immigrants who would not otherwise be eligible for TANF
benefits.
OTHER WORK GROUPS IMPLICATED
Work Group I
BILLS THAT PROPOSE THIS OPTION
SB 1232 (Watson)
ISSUE 1
Should legal immigrants who enter the U.S. after 8/22/96 be eligible for TANF?
OPTION B
Preclude legal immigrants who enter the U.S. after 8/22/96 from eligibility
for TANF benefits for five years.
ANALYSIS
Federal welfare reform excludes from eligibility for TANF. However, a change
in state law is required to exclude legal immigrants from public assistance.
Current law does not distinguish eligibility based on legal immigration status
or date of immigration. If legal immigrants are made ineligible for TANF,
there will be an impact on General Assistance/ General Relief which is a state
required county funded program.
OTHER WORK GROUPS IMPLICATED
Work Group I
BILLS THAT PROPOSE THIS OPTION
SB 1149 (Brulte)
ISSUE 1
Should legal immigrants who enter the U.S. after 8/22/96 be eligible for TANF?
OPTION C
Make legal immigrants who enter the U.S. after August 22,1996 eligible for
TANF benefits subject to deeming of their sponsors income, with some
reasonable hardship exceptions.
ANALYSIS
This option would make immigrants entering the U.S. after August 22, 1996
eligible for TANF as a state-only program. However, when determining
eligibility based on income, a reasonable portion of their sponsor s income
would be deemed to be available to the applicant. Exceptions to the deeming
provisions would be established to allow for flexibility when hardships exist.
OTHER WORK GROUPS IMPLICATED
Work Group I
BILLS THAT PROPOSE THIS OPTION
ISSUE 2
Should the state require people not receiving assistance (where only the
children are receiving TANF) to participate in a work activity despite the
fact that federal law does not require such activity?
OPTION A
The state will require non-aided parents to participate in a work activity.
ANALYSIS
Federal law does not impose work participation requirements on non-aided
persons. If the state attempts to do so, it will create an additional burden
to develop community service jobs for non-aided adults. The state will
already be under enormous pressure to create jobs and work opportunities for
person receiving assistance. Resources spent to pursue this option could
hamper efforts to secure opportunities for assisted persons.
Costs to provide community service options for non-aided adults is unknown
OTHER WORK GROUPS IMPLICATED
Work Group II(a)
BILLS THAT PROPOSE THIS OPTION
ISSUE 2
Should the state require people not receiving assistance (where only the
children are receiving TANF) to participate in a work activity despite the
fact that federal law does not require such activity?
OPTION B
The state will not require non-aided parents to participate in a work
activity.
ANALYSIS
Federal law does not impose work participation requirements on non-aided
persons. If the state attempts to do so, it will create an additional burden
to develop community service jobs for non-aided adults, not required by
federal law. The state will already be under enormous pressure to create jobs
and work opportunities for person receiving assistance. This option will
allow efforts and resources to be focused on families where the adult is
included in the grant.
There are no costs associated with this option.
OTHER WORK GROUPS IMPLICATED
Work Group II(a)
BILLS THAT PROPOSE THIS OPTION
SB 505 (Johnston)
SB 934 (Thompson)
SB 1232 (Watson)
ISSUE 3
Should the state provide citizenship assistance to legal immigrants?
OPTION A
The state will provide citizenship assistance to legal immigrants.
ANALYSIS
The 1996 federal welfare law restricts legal immigrants eligibility to some
benefit programs. Citizenship assistance programs are relatively inexpensive
and extremely cost effective. Currently, limited services are available
through privately funded programs. These programs are already overburdened
and will be unable to meet the demands of the increased number of legal
immigrants seeking to naturalize. Citizenship assistance is a sound
investment of state resources. Once otherwise eligible legal immigrants
become citizens they can receive federal assistance thereby reducing costs to
the state and local government.
Costs to provide citizenship assistance are approximately $100 per person. In
addition, by assisting legal immigrants in becoming naturalized citizens will
enable their eligibility for federal funding for various welfare programs.
OTHER WORK GROUPS IMPLICATED
BILLS THAT PROPOSE THIS OPTION
AB 72 (Knox)--only for legal immigrants who are SSI eligible and for the
current year only.
AB 232 (Honda)
AB 1197 (Villaraigosa)
SB 933 (Thompson)
SB 938 (Polanco)
ISSUE 3
Should the state provide citizenship assistance to legal immigrants?
OPTION B
The state will not provide citizenship assistance to legal immigrants.
ANALYSIS
The 1996 federal welfare law restricts legal immigrants eligibility to some
benefit programs. Citizenship assistance programs are relatively inexpensive
and extremely cost effective. Currently, limited services are available
through privately funded programs. These programs are already overburdened
and will be unable to meet the demands of the increased number of legal
immigrants seeking to naturalize. While not providing state funds for
citizenship assistance programs will result in a cost avoidance, legal
immigrants will not become eligible for federal funding and will receive
services through state and/or locally funded programs.
There are indirect costs of not providing citizenship assistance in that, to
the extent individuals are unable to naturalize, who would be able to become
citizens with some assistance. Naturalization will enable legal immigrants to
become federally eligible for programs which would relieve pressure on state
and local programs.
OTHER WORK GROUPS IMPLICATED
BILLS THAT PROPOSE THIS OPTION
ISSUE 4
Should the state and/or local government provide sponsorship enforcement
services?
OPTION A
The state will provide sponsorship enforcement service to recover form the
sponsor the costs for services provided to a legal immigrant. In addition,
the state will pursue the sponsor s support on behalf of the immigrant.
ANALYSIS
Pursuant to federal welfare reform, states and local government may seek
reimbursement for services provided to legal immigrants from sponsors who
signed newly-binding affidavits of support. The affidavits and the
accompanying regulations have not yet been released. Thus, the scope of a
sponsor s liability has not yet been determined. The decision to pursue this
option should also include an analysis of whether the cost of establishing the
administrative infrastructure to pursue sponsorship enforcement actions will
be cost effective. In addition, the state will pursue the sponsor s support on
behalf of the immigrant.
Sponsorship enforcement will allow pursuit of the support that sponsors agreed
to provide prior to the immigrant entering the U.S. To the extent sponsors
fulfill their responsibilities, federal, state and local savings would result.
OTHER WORK GROUPS IMPLICATED
Work Group V
BILLS THAT PROPOSE THIS OPTION
ISSUE 4
Should the state and/or local government provide sponsorship enforcement
services?
OPTION B
The state will not provide sponsorship enforcement services.
ANALYSIS
Pursuant to federal welfare reform, states and local government may seek
reimbursement for services provided to legal immigrants from sponsors who
signed newly-binding affidavits of support. The affidavits and the
accompanying regulations have not yet been released. Thus, the scope of a
sponsor s liability has not yet been determined. The decision to pursue this
option should also include an analysis of whether the cost of establishing the
administrative infrastructure to pursue sponsorship enforcement actions will
be cost effective.
Not pursuing sponsors to provide the support agreed to prior to the immigrant
entering the U.S., will likely result in increased federal, state and local
costs.
OTHER WORK GROUPS IMPLICATED
BILLS THAT PROPOSE THIS OPTION
N/A -- no bill is needed to NOT seek sponsorship enforcement.
ISSUE 4
Should the state and/or local government provide sponsorship enforcement
services?
OPTION C
The state will provide sponsorship enforcement service to recover from the
sponsor the costs for services provided to a legal immigrant.
ANALYSIS
Pursuant to federal welfare reform, states and local government may seek
reimbursement for services provided to legal immigrants from sponsors who
signed newly-binding affidavits of support. The affidavits and the
accompanying regulations have not yet been released. Thus, the scope of a
sponsor s liability has not yet been determined. The decision to pursue this
option should also include an analysis of whether the cost of establishing the
administrative infrastructure to pursue sponsorship enforcement actions will
be cost effective. To the extent payments are recovered from sponsors there
will be savings to the state and local government.
To the extent sponsors provide the support they agreed to provide before the
immigrant entered the U.S. for services provided to the immigrant, there would
be state and local savings.
OTHER WORK GROUPS IMPLICATED
Work Group V
BILLS THAT PROPOSE THIS OPTION
ISSUE 5
Should In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) be provided to immigrants who would
be eligible for SSI/SSP but for their immigration status?
OPTION A
The state will make IHSS benefits available to immigrants who would otherwise
be eligible for SSI/SSP but for their immigration status.
ANALYSIS
Under federal welfare reform, many elderly, blind and disabled legal
immigrants will lose their SSI benefits. While federal law does not prohibit
legal immigrants form receiving IHSS, many will be rendered ineligible because
state law links IHSS eligibility to SSI eligibility. Loss of IHSS will force
people into costly institutions. IHSS is relatively inexpensive when compared
to institutionalization, potentially paid for by Medi-Cal. This option is
would be cost beneficial to California over time.
Federal financial participation is available through Medi-Cal to provide IHSS
to most legal immigrants in need of these services. Federal funds are not
available to legal immigrants who enter the U.S. after August 22, 1996 during
their first five years in the country. However, most legal immigrants do not
enter the country in need of IHSS, rather, the need for these services occurs
after they become severely disabled.
There would be a loss of savings resulting from making aged, blind and
disabled immigrants eligible for IHSS. However, there would likely be
unknown, potentially significant savings resulting from avoiding the need for
residential care for these immigrants.
OTHER WORK GROUPS IMPLICATED
BILLS THAT PROPOSE THIS OPTION
AB 67 (Escutia)
AB 501 (Migden)
AB 1197 (Villaraigosa)
SB 933 (Thompson)
ISSUE 5
Should In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) be provided to immigrants who would
be eligible for SSI/SSP but for their immigration status?
OPTION B
The state will make IHSS benefits available to immigrants who would otherwise
be eligible for SSI/SSP but for their immigration status.
ANALYSIS
Under federal welfare reform, many elderly, blind and disabled legal
immigrants will lose their SSI benefits. While federal law does not prohibit
legal immigrants form receiving IHSS, many will be rendered ineligible because
state law links IHSS eligibility to SSI eligibility. Loss of IHSS will force
people into costly institutions. IHSS is relatively inexpensive when compared
to institutionalization, potentially paid for by Medi-Cal. Failing to provide
IHSS and forcing the elderly, blind and disabled into residential and
institutional care will result in significant local government and state costs
over time.
Federal financial participation is available through Medi-Cal to provide IHSS
to most legal immigrants in need of these services. Federal funds are not
available to legal immigrants who enter the U.S. after August 22, 1996 during
their first five years in the country. However, most legal immigrants do not
enter the country in need of IHSS, rather, the need for these services occurs
after they become severely disabled.
The state will realize savings as a result of curtailing IHSS services to
immigrants. However, unknown, but potentially significant costs would result
from forcing these immigrants into residential care.
OTHER WORK GROUPS IMPLICATED
BILLS THAT PROPOSE THIS OPTION
N/A Legislation is not needed to pursue this option.
