Posted on 03/29/2002 4:56:05 PM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection
Congress is set to consider reauthorizing the changes enacted in 1996 to the nation's welfare laws. But critics are questioning the effectiveness of those revisions at keeping immigrants off of public assistance rolls.
The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996 had two major effects on immigrants to the United States.
First, most non-citizens who entered the U.S. before August 22, 1996, were to be removed from Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and food stamp programs within one year. But critics say this provision has never been fully enforced.
And second, immigrants who arrived in the country on or after August 22, 1996, are prohibited from receiving most types of public assistance.
The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) Thursday released "The Impact of Welfare Reform on Immigrant Welfare Use," a study by Harvard public policy professor, Dr. George Borjas.
The study found that immigrants who lost access to welfare benefits as a result of passage of PRWORA were largely able to bypass the intent of the law.
"It seems that immigrants quickly learned that the naturalization certificate held the key to many types of public assistance denied to non-citizens," Borjas wrote.
"The national origin groups most likely to receive public assistance in the pre-PRWORA period experienced the largest increases in naturalization rates after 1996," he said.
Borjas says the decision of some states to supplement the benefits lost by immigrants undid much of the potential impact of the law. The net result, he adds, is that the intended effect of the law - to reduce the number of immigrants receiving public assistance - was neutralized.
The study concludes that - even though participation by immigrants in welfare programs has declined, immigrant use of public assistance continues to be significantly higher than that of native-born Americans.
But Dr. Jeffrey Passel of the Urban Institute's Center for Population Studies argues that is not for the reason many observers might suspect.
"Immigrants are using more welfare because they're poorer than natives, not because they have a greater propensity to use welfare," Passel said.
He rejects the idea that immigration laws should be toughened because the U.S. is some kind of "welfare magnet."
"Welfare is increasingly being seen as a program for enhancing economic opportunity and upward mobility, things that we surely want for immigrants," Passel said. "It doesn't really make sense to restrict their access."
But Robert Rector, a senior research fellow with the Heritage Foundation who played a major role in crafting the 1996 law, says welfare reform, as it related to immigration, was largely "incomplete and porous."
"The welfare reforms that were put in place were intended to be accompanied by immigration reform," he explained. "That immigration reform died in the Senate, so we're really looking at only half the story."
Rector says any industrialized society with "a large and generous welfare system such as the United States" has to carefully consider whether or not it should allow immigrants from two high-risk groups, in terms of potential welfare dependency.
"One is elderly people without a long-term means of support," he said, "and the other is very low-skilled individuals. Both of those groups are likely to end up becoming, essentially, net burdens on the government over time."
Borjas agrees with Rector that problems should be addressed, not through changes to the welfare laws, but changes in immigration policy.
The government already has the power to do that, he says, through existing laws that allow the deportation of immigrants who become "public charges," and denial of entry to potential immigrants with no verifiable financial assets. But he acknowledges the first option has little support.
"If we are concerned about immigrant welfare use it would probably make more sense to select immigrants who don't need welfare in the first place, rather than trying to prevent immigrants from using it after they have already been allowed into the country," Borjas added.
"We could do this by selecting immigrants based more on their education levels rather than the current system, which for the most part, admits immigrants based on whether they have a relative in the United States," he concluded.
This is the single biggest factor in the change in the typical immigrant that we take in today. Years ago, when many of our ancestors came to the U.S. it was the knowledge that with hard work and sacrifice, their children would be better off.
Today, it is the promise of sustenance without work. Is this really the type of person who should be trying to attract??? Is this fair to the earlier Americans who made sacrifices so that their children can be taxed excessively to support the lazy who entered the country most recently?
No welfare for anyone is what I’d support from my heart, but pragmatically, no welfare, EVER for any immigrant.
Owl _ Eagle
“Guns before butter.”
They're poorer because they lack education and language skills and a work ethic, they aren't superior to natives on welfare either ---they have the same propensity to use welfare as the American freeloaders----except those at least are American and these are not.
LOL
The US is a welfare a magnet.
Getting on welfare is better than winning the lottery in most Hispanostans
Either they end up being supported by their sponsors (few do) - or they end up on welfare, stealing, or dealing dope. That's the "math" of letting in aliens who largely are elderly or uneducated in a society where factory jobs and other decent-paying no-skill jobs are disappearing.
IMMIGRATION resource library: public-health facts, court decisions, local INS numbers!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.