Unauthorized Aliens' Access to Federal Benefits: Policy and Issues







Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress



Federal law bars aliens residing without authorization in the United States from most federal
benefits; however, there is a widely held perception that many unauthorized aliens obtain such
benefits. The degree to which unauthorized resident aliens should be accorded certain rights and
privileges as a result of their residence in the United States, along with the duties owed by such
aliens given their presence, remains the subject of intense debate in Congress. This report focuses
on the policy and legislative debate surrounding unauthorized aliens’ access to federal benefits.
Except for a narrow set of specified emergency services and programs, unauthorized aliens are
not eligible for federal public benefits. The law (§401(c) of P.L. 104-193) defines federal public
benefit as
any grant, contract, loan, professional license, or commercial license provided by an agency
of the United States or by appropriated funds of the United States; and any retirement,
welfare, health, disability, public or assisted housing, postsecondary education, food
assistance, unemployment benefit, or any other similar benefit for which payments or
assistance are provided to an individual, household, or family eligibility unit by an agency of
the United States or by appropriated funds of the United States.
The actual number of unauthorized aliens in the United States is unknown. According to
demographer Jeffrey Passel’s calculations based on the 2005 March Current Population Survey
(CPS), there were approximately 11.1 million unauthorized aliens residing in the United States
(the most recent analysis with detailed statistical breakdowns). Passel further estimated the
number of persons living in families in which the head of the household or the spouse was an
unauthorized alien was 14.6 million. There were 6.6 million unauthorized families, which he
defines as a family unit or solo individual in which the head or spouse is unauthorized. A
noteworthy portion of the households headed by unauthorized aliens are likely to have U.S.
citizen children, as well as spouses who may be legal permanent residents (LPRs). These “mixed
status” families represent about one-third of all unauthorized families and five out of six
unauthorized families with children as of March 2005. Policy researcher Steven Camarota
concludes (based on his estimates drawn from the 2002 CPS) that the U.S. citizen children of
unauthorized aliens account for much of the costs associated with illegal migration.
Although the law appears straightforward, the policy on unauthorized aliens’ access to federal
benefits is peppered with ongoing controversies and debates. Some center on demographic issues
(e.g., how to treat mixed-immigration status families). Others explore unintended consequences,
most notably when tightening up the identification requirements results in denying benefits to
U.S. citizens. Still others are debates about how broadly the clause “federal public benefit” should
be implemented. This report will be updated if policy changes warrant.






Introduc tion ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Unauthorized Population in the United States.................................................................................1
Estimates of Unauthorized Resident Aliens..............................................................................1
Mixed-Immigration Status Families..........................................................................................2
“Quasi-legal” Migrants.............................................................................................................3
Benefit Eligibility Rules..................................................................................................................4
Pre-1996 Policies......................................................................................................................5
Program Rules.....................................................................................................................5
PRUC OL ......................................................................................................................... .... 5
Current Federal Law.................................................................................................................6
State Benefits............................................................................................................................8
Determining Status and Eligibility..................................................................................................9
Immigrant Verification..............................................................................................................9
Citizenship Verification...........................................................................................................10
Receipt of Benefits...................................................................................................................11
Selected Issues...............................................................................................................................12
Treatment of Mixed Status Families.......................................................................................12
Expansion of Documentary Requirements..............................................................................13
Scope of “Federal Public Benefits” Clause.............................................................................14
Competing Priorities for Emergency Relief............................................................................14
Re-emergence of PRUCOL with “Quasi-legal” Migrants......................................................16
Refinement or Revisions of the Rules.....................................................................................17
Figure 1. U.S. Residents in Unauthorized Families, 2005..............................................................2
Figure 2. “Mixed Status” and Other Unauthorized Families, by Demographic
Composition, 2005.......................................................................................................................3
Author Contact Information..........................................................................................................17






The number of foreign-born people residing in the United States (37 million) is at the highest
level in our history and, as a portion of the U.S. population, has reached a percentage (12.4%) not th1
seen since the early 20 Century. Of the foreign-born residents in the United States,
approximately one-third are speculated to be unauthorized residents (often characterized as illegal
aliens).
The degree to which unauthorized resident aliens should be accorded certain rights and privileges
as a result of their residence in the United States, along with the duties owed by such aliens given 2
their presence, remains the subject of intense debate in Congress. Included among the specific
policy areas that spark controversy are due process rights, tax liabilities, military service,
eligibility for federal assistance, educational opportunities, and pathways to citizenship. This
report focuses on the policy and legislative debate surrounding unauthorized aliens’ access to 3
federal benefits.

The three main components of the unauthorized resident alien population are foreign nationals
who overstay their nonimmigrant visas, foreign nationals who enter the country surreptitiously,
and foreign nationals who are admitted on the basis of fraudulent documents. In all three
instances, these aliens are in violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and subject
to removal. The actual number of unauthorized aliens in the United States is not known, as
locating and enumerating people who are residing in the United States without permission poses
many methodological problems.
The most commonly cited estimates of the size of the unauthorized resident alien population are
based on the annual March Current Population Survey (CPS) conducted by the U.S. Census 4
Bureau and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Jeffrey Passel, a demographer at the Pew Hispanic
Center, drew on the CPS to estimate that 11.1 million unauthorized aliens were residing in the
United States in 2005. Passel further estimated the number of persons living in families in which
the head of the household or the spouse is an unauthorized alien was 14.6 million as of March
2005. This estimate of 14.6 million includes the 11.1 million unauthorized aliens in its

1 For consistency, this report presents 2005 data. Although more recent data are available for some statistics, the 2005
data remain the most recent analysis that breaks down the estimates of the unauthorized alien population into family
and household characteristics
2 For a comprehensive legal analyses of these issues at the state and local levels, see CRS Report RL34345, State and
Local Restrictions on Employing, Renting Property to, or Providing Services for Unauthorized Aliens: Legal Issues
and Recent Judicial Developments, by Michael John Garcia, Alison M. Smith, and Jody Feder.
3 For policy on legal permanent residents eligibility, see CRS Report RL33809, Noncitizen Eligibility for Federal
Public Assistance: Policy Overview and Trends, by Ruth Ellen Wasem.
4 For a full analysis of these data, see CRS Report RL33874, Unauthorized Aliens Residing in the United States:
Estimates Since 1986, by Ruth Ellen Wasem.





calculation.5 Although more recent aggregate estimations are available, the 2005 data remain the
most recent analysis that breaks down the data into family characteristics.
Figure 1. U.S. Residents in Unauthorized Families, 2005
Source: CRS presentation of analysis of Current Population Survey data conducted by Jeffrey Passel (2006).
As Figure 1 illustrates, Passel also reported that there were an estimated 1.8 million children who
were unauthorized and an estimated 3.1 million children who were U.S. citizens by birth living in
families in which the head of the family or a spouse was unauthorized in 2005. He projected that
unauthorized aliens accounted for about 4.9% of the civilian labor force in March 2005, or about 6

7.2 million workers out of a labor force of 148 million.


A noteworthy portion of the households headed by unauthorized aliens are likely to have U.S.
citizen children, as well as spouses who may be legal permanent residents (LPRs). Children born
in the United States to parents who are unlawfully present in the United States are U.S. citizens,
consistent with the British common law principle known as jus soli. This principle is codified in
the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and by §301(a) of the INA, which provides

5 Pew Hispanic Center, Size and Characteristics of the Unauthorized Migrant Population in the U.S.: Estimates Based
on the March 2005 Current Population Survey, by Jeffrey Passel, March 7, 2006. Additionally, the Department of
Homeland Securitys Office of Immigration Statistics (OIS) published its 2006 estimates of the unauthorized resident
alien population and yielded results consistent with Passel’s discussed above. OIS demographers drew their estimates
from the American Community Survey of the U.S. Census Bureau. The OIS reported an estimated 11.6 million
unauthorized alien residents as of January 2006, up from 8.5 million in January 2000. Department of Homeland
Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United
States: January 2006, by Michael Hoefer, Nancy Rytina, and Christopher Campbell, 2007.
6 Pew Hispanic Center, Estimates of the Size and Characteristics of the Undocumented Population, by Jeffrey Passel,
March 21, 2005.





that a person who is born in the United States, subject to its jurisdiction, is a citizen of the United 7
States regardless of the race, ethnicity, or alienage of the parents.
Figure 2. “Mixed Status” and Other Unauthorized Families,
by Demographic Composition, 2005
Source: CRS presentation of analysis of Current Population Survey data conducted by Jeffrey Passel (2006).
As depicted in Figure 2, Passel estimates that there were 6.6 million unauthorized families,
which he defines as a family unit or solo individual in which the head or spouse is unauthorized.
He offers a further demographic breakdown of this population:
Out of the total of 6.6 million unauthorized families, a significant share can be classified as
being of “mixed status”—in other words, families in which at least one parent is
unauthorized and at least one child was born in the United States. There were 1.5 million
unauthorized families in which all the children were born in the United States. These
families represent about one-quarter of all unauthorized families and more than half of
unauthorized families with children. Another 460,000 families, or 7% of unauthorized
families, had both U.S. citizen children and children who were unauthorized. Taken together,
these mixed status families represent about one-third of all unauthorized families and five 8
out of six unauthorized families with children.
Not all unauthorized aliens lack legal documents, leading many observers to characterize these
documented aliens as “quasi-legal”migrants. Specifically, there are certain circumstances in
which the Department of Homeland Security issues temporary employment authorization
documents (EADs) to aliens who are not otherwise considered authorized to reside in the United

7 8 U.S.C. §1401(a). For a complete legal analysis of jus soli, see CRS Report RL33079, U.S. Citizenship of Persons
Born in the United States to Alien Parents, by Margaret Mikyung Lee.
8 Pew Hispanic Center, Estimates of the Size and Characteristics of the Undocumented Population, by Jeffrey Passel,
March 21, 2005.





States. Aliens with EADs, in turn, may legally obtain social security cards.9 These “quasi-legal”
unauthorized aliens fall in several categories:
• The government has given them temporary humanitarian relief from removal, 10
such as Temporary Protected Status (TPS).
• They have sought asylum in the United States and their cases have been pending 11
for at least 180 days.
• They are immediate family or fiancées of legal permanent residents (LPRs) who
are awaiting in the United States their legal permanent residency cases to be 12
processed.
• They have overstayed their nonimmigrant visas and have petitions pending to 13
adjust status as employment-based LPRs.
None of the aliens described above have been formally approved to remain in the United States
permanently, and many with pending cases may ultimately be denied LPR status. Only about 25% 14
of asylum seekers, for example, ultimately gain asylum. Approximately 80% to 85% of LPR 15
petitions reportedly are approved. There are an estimated 1 million to 1.5 million people who 16
fall into this unauthorized “quasi-legal” category.

It is not surprising that most persons lacking legal authority to reside in the United States would
not be eligible for federally provided assistance. It is also not unexpected that many persons
residing illegally would be on the margins socioeconomically and, thus, would pose particular
dilemmas for service providers. The policies discussed below reflect a balancing of the integrity
of entitlement programs with humanitarian provision of emergency services and assistance.

9 For further background, see CRS Report RL32004, Social Security Benefits for Noncitizens: Current Policy and
Legislation, by Dawn Nuschler and Alison Siskin.
10 For further background, see CRS Report RS20844, Temporary Protected Status: Current Immigration Policy and
Issues, by Ruth Ellen Wasem and Karma Ester.
11 For further background, see CRS Report RL32621, U.S. Immigration Policy on Asylum Seekers, by Ruth Ellen
Wasem.
12 For further background, see CRS Report RL32235, U.S. Immigration Policy on Permanent Admissions, by Ruth
Ellen Wasem.
13 The extent that some nonimmigrant (e.g., temporary workers, tourists, or foreign students) overstay their temporary
visas and becomequasi-legal aliens with petitions pending to adjust to legal status is discussed in CRS Report
RS22446, Nonimmigrant Overstays: Brief Synthesis of the Issue, by Ruth Ellen Wasem.
14 For further background, see CRS Report RL32621, U.S. Immigration Policy on Asylum Seekers, by Ruth Ellen
Wasem.
15 For a full analysis of this issue, see Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman, 2007 Annual Report to
Congress, June 11, 2007, available at http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/gc_1188255274471.shtm, last accessed
May 13, 2008.
16 Pew Hispanic Center, Estimates of the Size and Characteristics of the Undocumented Population, by Jeffrey Passel,
March 21, 2005.





With the single exception of emergency Medicaid, unauthorized (illegally present) aliens were
barred from participation in all the major federal assistance programs that had statutory
provisions for noncitizens, as were aliens here legally in a temporary status (i.e., nonimmigrants
such as persons admitted for tourism, education, or employment). Since 1986, for example, a
Medicaid recipient was required to declare under penalty of perjury whether he or she is a citizen
or national of the United States or—if not a citizen or national—that he or she is an alien in a 17
“satisfactory immigration status.”
However, many health, education, nutrition, income support, and social service programs did not
include specific provisions regarding alien eligibility, and unauthorized aliens were potential 18
participants. These programs included, for example, the Special Supplemental Nutrition
Program for Women, Infants, and Children (the WIC program); child nutrition programs;
initiatives funded through the Elementary and Secondary Education Act; the Earned Income Tax
Credit (EITC); community and migrant health centers; and the Social Services Block Grant
(SSBG) program.
PRUCOL, an acronym for “permanently residing under color of law,” is an eligibility standard
that is not defined in statute; historically, it has been used to provide a benefit to certain foreign
nationals who the government knows are present in the United States, but whom it has no plans to
deport or remove. Considered by many to be an obsolete construct, PRUCOL recently began re-
emerging in the context of “quasi-legal” aliens.
Prior to1996, eligibility for federal benefits depended on how the PRUCOL standards were
interpreted. Many service providers had construed PRUCOL narrowly to include only those
aliens here under certain specific statutory authorizations during the 1970s. A federal court,
however, disagreed with these narrow interpretations. In Holley v. Lavine, the United States Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that “[w]hen ... a legislative body uses the term ‘under
color of law’ it deliberately sanctions the inclusion of cases that are, in strict terms, outside the 19
law but are near the border.” At that time, the court concluded that the PRUCOL standard for
Aid for Families with Dependent Children (AFDC, the precursor to Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families), for example, could cover aliens known by the government to be undocumented
or deportable, but whom the government nevertheless allowed to remain here indefinitely. The
court decisions, however, did not offer a uniform definition of PRUCOL, resulting in differing
applications according to the benefit and the class of alien.

17 §1137(d) of the Social Security Act, as amended by the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986 (P.L.
99-163).
18 A number of states reportedly had enacted laws denying various types of public assistance to all aliens or to legal
aliens who had not resided in the United States for a fixed number of years. However, in 1971 the Supreme Court
declared these state-imposed restrictions unconstitutional in Graham v. Richardson (403 U.S. 365 (1971), both because
they violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and because they encroached upon the
exclusive federal power to regulate immigration. See also Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982).
19 553 F.2d 845 (2d Cir. 1977).





Over a decade ago, Title IV of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation
Act (PRWORA) of 1996 (P.L. 104-193) established comprehensive restrictions on the eligibility
of all noncitizens for means-tested public assistance, with exceptions for legal permanent
residents (LPRs) with a substantial U.S. work history or military connection. Regarding
unauthorized aliens, §401 of PRWORA sought to end the PRUCOL eligibility standard by barring
them from any federal public benefit except the emergency services and programs expressly listed
in §401(b) of PRWORA.
This overarching bar to unauthorized aliens hinges on how broadly the phrase “federal public
benefit” is implemented. The law defines this phrase to be
(A) any grant, contract, loan, professional license, or commercial license provided by an
agency of the United States or by appropriated funds of the United States; and (B) any
retirement, welfare, health, disability, public or assisted housing, postsecondary education,
food assistance, unemployment benefit, or any other similar benefit for which payments or
assistance are provided to an individual, household, or family eligibility unit by an agency of 20
the United States or by appropriated funds of the United States.
So defined, this bar covers many programs whose enabling statutes do not individually make
citizenship or immigration status a criterion for participation. Thus, unauthorized aliens are
statutorily barred from receiving benefits that previously were not individually restricted—Social
Services Block Grants and migrant health center services, for example—unless they fall within
the 1996 welfare act’s limited exceptions. These statutory exceptions include the following:
• treatment under Medicaid for emergency medical conditions (other than those 21
related to an organ transplant);
• short-term, in-kind emergency disaster relief;22
• immunizations against immunizable diseases and testing for and treatment of
symptoms of communicable diseases;
• services or assistance (such as soup kitchens, crisis counseling and intervention,
and short-term shelters) designated by the Attorney General as (1) delivering in-
kind services at the community level, (2) providing assistance without individual
determinations of each recipient’s needs, and (3) being necessary for the
protection of life and safety; and
• to the extent that an alien was receiving assistance on the date of enactment,
programs administered by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development,

20 §401(c) of PRWORA, 8 U.S.C. 1611.
21 For further analysis of this issue, see CRS Report RL31630, Federal Funding for Unauthorized Aliens Emergency
Medical Expenses, by Alison Siskin.
22 The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 USC §5121 et. seq.) authorizes the
President to make the initial determination of eligibility for federal relief and recovery assistance through the issuance
of either a major disaster or emergency declaration. Under §403 of the Stafford Act, FEMA may provide assistance
essential to save lives and property (42 U.S.C. 5170b). For a full discussion of available assistance, see CRS Report
RL33053, Federal Stafford Act Disaster Assistance: Presidential Declarations, Eligible Activities, and Funding, by
Keith Bea.





programs under title V of the Housing Act of 1949, and assistance under Section 23

306C of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act.


Beyond the statutory exceptions noted above, the PRWORA also includes special rules governing
the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). These provisions are aimed at preventing unauthorized
aliens from receiving an EITC by requiring that Social Security Numbers (SSNs) for recipients 24
(and spouses) be valid for employment in the United States.
PRWORA separately has language on certain federally supported nutrition programs that directly 25
bears on unauthorized aliens. More precisely, Title VII includes provisions that (1) stipulate that
students eligible to receive free public education may receive federally subsided school meals 26
(e.g., free school lunches/breakfasts) without regard to their citizenship status and (2) leave to
state discretion whether the state will deny benefits to unauthorized aliens under the Special
Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (the WIC program), the Child
and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP), the Summer Food Service program, the Special Milk
program, the Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP), the Emergency Food Assistance 27
Program (TEFAP), and the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR).
PROWRA mandated that unauthorized alien women be ineligible for prenatal care under
Medicaid. Congress also enacted a provision that automatically provides Medicaid coverage at
birth to children born of Medicaid-eligible mothers, but imposes a waiting period on covering 28
children born of mothers who are not Medicaid-eligible. When the question of whether citizen
children of unauthorized alien mothers were Medicaid-eligible at birth arose, a court dismissed
the argument that children of all Medicaid-ineligible mothers rather than alienage was the
relevant classification. In Lewis v. Thompson, the court found that citizen children of
unauthorized alien mothers must be accorded automatic eligibility on terms as favorable as those 29
available to the children of citizen mothers.
While the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)30 is otherwise considered a federal
public benefit (barring unauthorized aliens), the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

23 Subtitle E of Title V of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (Division C of P.L. 104-
208) later facilitated the removal of unauthorized aliens from housing assistance. For analysis, see CRS Report
RL31753, Immigration: Noncitizen Eligibility for Needs-Based Housing Programs, by Alison Siskin and Maggie
McCarty.
24 The Internal Revenue Code does not have a special classification for individuals who are in the United States without
authorization. Instead, the Code treats these individuals in the same manner as other foreign nationals—they are subject
to federal taxes and classified for tax purposes as either resident or nonresident aliens. An unauthorized individual who
has been in the United States long enough to qualify under thesubstantial presence” test is classified for tax purposes
as a resident alien. For a fuller explanation, see CRS Report RS21732, Federal Taxation of Aliens Working in the
United States and Selected Legislation, by Erika Lunder.
25 As opposed to the rules noted here, the law governing the Food Stamp program bars unauthorized aliens from
participation.
26 The PWORA itself does not address a states’ obligation to grant all aliens equal access to education under the
Supreme Court’s decision in Plyer v. Doe (47 U.S. 202 [1982]).
27 No state has, as yet, taken the option to deny benefits under these programs.
28 42 U.S.C. §1396a(e)(4) and 42 C.F.R. §§435.117, 435.301(b)(1)(iii).
29 Lewis v. Thompson, 252 F.3d 567, 588 (2d. Cir. 2001). For a complete analysis, see CRS Report RS21470,
Noncitizen Eligibility For Major Federal Public Assistance Programs: Legal Concepts, by Alison M. Smith.
30 Title XXI of the Social Security Act.





(HHS) promulgated regulations in 2002 permitting states to provide SCHIP coverage to fetuses.31
States reportedly are using this option of SCHIP coverage for fetuses to provide prenatal care
services to pregnant women who are unauthorized aliens, in contradiction to the statutory bar 32
expressed in Title IV of PRWORA.
Unlike earlier federal law, PRWORA expressly bars unauthorized aliens from most state and
locally funded benefits. The restrictions on these benefits parallel the restrictions on federal
benefits. Unauthorized aliens are generally barred from state and local government contracts, 33
licenses, grants, loans, and assistance. The following exceptions are made:
• treatment for emergency conditions (other than those related to an organ
transplant);
• short-term, in-kind emergency disaster relief;
• immunization against immunizable diseases and testing for and treatment of
symptoms of communicable diseases; and
• services or assistance (such as soup kitchens, crisis counseling and intervention,
and short-term shelters) designated by the Attorney General as (1) delivering in-
kind services at the community level, (2) providing assistance without individual
determinations of each recipient’s needs, and (3) being necessary for the
protection of life and safety.
Also, the restrictions on state and local benefits do not apply to activities that are funded in part
by federal funds; these activities are regulated under PRWORA as federal benefits. Furthermore,
the law states that nothing in it is to be construed as addressing eligibility for basic public
education. Finally, the 1996 law allows the states, through enactment of new state laws, to
provide unauthorized aliens with state and local benefits that otherwise are restricted.
Despite the federally imposed bar and the state flexibility provided by PRWORA, states still may
expend a significant amount of state funds for unauthorized aliens. Public elementary and
secondary education coupled with school lunches for unauthorized aliens remain compelled by 34
judicial decision, and payment for emergency medical services for unauthorized aliens remains 35
compelled by federal law. Meanwhile, certain other costs attributable to unauthorized aliens,
such as criminal justice costs, remain compelled by the continued presence of unauthorized 36
aliens.

31 Federal Register, vol. 67, pp. 61955-74, October 2, 2002.
32 8 U.S.C §1611. For further discussion, see CRS Report RS22785, SCHIP Coverage for Pregnant Women and
Unborn Children, by Evelyne P. Baumrucker.
33 For a comprehensive legal analyses of these issues at the state and local levels, see CRS Report RL34345, State and
Local Restrictions on Employing, Renting Property to, or Providing Services for Unauthorized Aliens: Legal Issues
and Recent Judicial Developments, by Michael John Garcia, Alison M. Smith, and Jody Feder.
34 457 U.S. 202 (1982).
35 For further analysis of this issue, see CRS Report RL31630, Federal Funding for Unauthorized Aliens Emergency
Medical Expenses, by Alison Siskin.
36 For a fuller discussion, see CRS Report RL33431, Immigration: Frequently Asked Questions on the State Criminal
Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP), by Karma Ester.






Although the bars on unauthorized aliens obtaining federal benefits are emphatic, determining a
person’s immigration and citizenship status is not always easy. The laws governing the eligibility
of legal permanent residents (LPRs) for means-tested federal assistance are based on a complex
set of factors (e.g., work history, category of admission, and petitioning sponsorship), and states
have options to provide benefits to LPRs that they may not opt to provide to unauthorized 37
aliens.
The Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) system provides federal, state, and
local government agencies access to data on immigration status that are necessary to determine
noncitizen eligibility for public benefits. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS)
does not determine benefit eligibility; rather, SAVE enables the specific program administrators
to ensure that only those noncitizens who meet their program’s eligibility rules actually receive
public benefits. According to USCIS, SAVE draws on the Verification Information System (VIS)
database, which is a nationally accessible database of selected immigration status information that 38
contains over 60 million records.
SAVE’s statutory authority dates back to the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 39
(IRCA). The IRCA, as amended, mandates the following programs and agencies to participate
in the verification of an applicant’s immigration status: the Temporary Assistance to Needy
Families (TANF) Program, the Medicaid Program, and certain Territorial Assistance Programs
(U.S. Department of Health and Human Services); the Unemployment Compensation Program
(U.S. Department of Labor); Title IV Educational Assistance Programs (U.S. Department of
Education); and certain Housing Assistance Programs (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development). Subsequently, PRWORA required the Attorney General to establish procedures for
a person applying for a federal public benefit to provide citizenship information in a fair, 40
nondiscriminatory manner.
According to USCIS, state and local agencies may access SAVE through several different web-
based internet technologies or by a manual verification (by submitting a formal document
verification request). SAVE charges fees to the agencies using web-based internet access. These
agencies must have a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and a purchase order with the
SAVE program contractor to pay the transaction fees for Web-based Internet access.
In addition to establishing the SAVE system, there has been a consensus for well over a decade
that immigration documents issued to aliens should include biometric identifiers. In designing
these documents, the priorities have centered on document integrity as well as personal
identification. The official document issued to LPRs is the permanent resident card, commonly

37 For further analyses of these issues, see CRS Report RL33809, Noncitizen Eligibility for Federal Public Assistance:
Policy Overview and Trends, by Ruth Ellen Wasem.
38 The VIS database is also used for the E-Verify system that employers may use to check whether an alien is
authorized to work in the United States.
39 P.L. 99-603.
40 P.L. 104-193, § 432.





called a “green card” because it had been printed on green stock. Now it is a plastic card that is
similar in size to a credit card. Since April 1998, the card has incorporated security features, 41
including digital images, holograms, micro-printing, and an optical memory stripe. The USCIS
also issues an employment authorization document (EAD) that has incorporated security features, 42
including digital images, holograms, and micro-printing, since 1998.
Given that over 11 million foreign nationals were estimated to be residing in the United States
without legal authorization in 2005, it is reasonable to presume that many of these unauthorized
aliens are committing document fraud. The extent to which unauthorized aliens enter with 43
fraudulently obtained documents or acquire bogus documents after entry is not known.
As discussed above, the technology to verify legal immigration status has advanced considerably
over the years. The United States, however, does not require its citizens to have legal documents
that verify their citizenship and identity (i.e., national identification cards). Although some assert
that the United States has de facto identification cards in the form of social security cards and 44
driver’s licenses or state identification cards, none of these documents establishes citizenship.
The U.S. passport is one of the few documents that certifies that the individual is a U.S. citizen;
indeed, for most U.S. citizens, it is the only document they possess that verifies both their
citizenship and identity. Until recently, self-attestation of citizenship was generally accepted for
most government purposes.
False claims of citizenship have long been an illicit avenue for benefit fraud and, as a result, are
considered a crime. In general, §1015 of the United States Criminal Code criminalizes acts of
fraud relating to naturalization, citizenship, or alien registry. Specifically, it is a criminal offense
for a person to knowingly ... make any false statement or claim that he is, or at any time has been,
a citizen or national of the United States, with the intent to obtain, for himself or another, any 45
federal or state benefit or service, or to engage unlawfully in employment in the United States.
The INA also makes “misrepresentation” (e.g., falsely claiming U.S. citizenship) a ground for 46
inadmi ssibil it y.
Congress enacted in recent years several specific laws aimed directly at these perceived loopholes
of citizenship self-attestation and identity document integrity. In terms of document integrity, for
example, the REAL ID Act (P.L. 109-13, Division B) contains provisions to enhance the security
of state-issued drivers’ licenses and personal identification (ID) cards. If state-issued drivers’

41 For further analysis, see CRS Report RL34007, Immigration Fraud: Policies, Investigations, and Issues, by Ruth
Ellen Wasem.
42 For more complete analyses of alien employment laws, policies, and issues, see CRS Report RL33973, Unauthorized
Employment in the United States: Issues and Options, by Andorra Bruno, and CRS Report RS22180, Unauthorized
Employment of Aliens: Basics of Employer Sanctions, by Alison M. Smith.
43 For further analysis, see CRS Report RL34007, Immigration Fraud: Policies, Investigations, and Issues, by Ruth
Ellen Wasem.
44 For a fuller discussion of national identification issues, see CRS Report RS21137, National Identification Cards:
Legal Issues, by Alison M. Smith.
45 18 U.S.C. §1015. For a complete legal analysis, see CRS Report RL32657, Immigration-Related Document Fraud:
Overview of Civil, Criminal, and Immigration Consequences, by Yule Kim and Michael John Garcia.
46 §212(c) of INA.





licenses and ID cards are to be accepted for federal purposes, the Act requires states to establish
minimum issuance standards and adopt certain procedures to verify documents used to obtain 47
drivers’ licenses and ID cards. In terms of obtaining Medicaid, §6036 of the Deficit Reduction
Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-171), as amended by the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-

432), requires that state obtain satisfactory documentation of citizenship and identity to determine 48


eligibility.
There is a widely held perception that many unauthorized migrants obtain federal benefits—
despite the restrictions and verification procedures. Given that data on unauthorized aliens are
estimates at best and that these aliens are expressly barred from most federal programs, reliable
data on the extent that they actually receive benefits are not available. That said, there are a few
program evaluations and investigations, as well as demographic projections, that attempt to 49
address this thorny issue.
The most recent U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) study available, for example, estimated that
$38.0 million in Unemployment Compensation (UC) was paid to unauthorized aliens in 5051
FY2002. In total, the UC program expended $53.8 billion that same year. In determining
eligibility for UC, the state agency requires that any individual applying for UC, under penalty of
perjury, declare in writing whether or not he or she is a citizen or a national of the United States.
If the individual is not a citizen or a national, the individual must present documentation from the
USCIS containing the individual’s alien admission number or alien file number or such other
documents as the state determines constitute reasonable evidence indicating a satisfactory 52
immigration status. Immigration status is supposed to be verified through the SAVE Program.
The DOL concluded, “[T]he largest reason for making the error ... involved the state’s failure to
use information it had in hand to determine that this information definitely pointed to an 53
eligibility issue.” The DOL study does not provide sufficient detail to determine the extent that
these unauthorized alien beneficiaries were “quasi-legal” migrants who had EADs and SSNs.

47 The act specifies the minimum requirements to be established. These requirements include two biometric features: a
digital photograph and a signature. For further discussion, see CRS Report RL34430, The REAL ID Act of 2005: Legal,
Regulatory, and Implementation Issues, by Todd B. Tatelman.
48 For further discussion, see CRS Report RS22629, Medicaid Citizenship Documentation, by April Grady.
49 For a more complete synthesis of the research on the costs of unauthorized aliens, see CRS congressional distribution
memorandum, Cost Estimates of Unauthorized (Illegal) Immigration, by Alison Siskin, May 27, 2007 (available on
request).
50 U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, An Analysis of Overpayments Not Included In
the Unemployment Insurance (UI) Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) Measure for “Prevention of
Overpayments, report available at http://workforcesecurity.doleta.gov/unemploy/integrity/gpra_overpayments.asp, last
accessed May 5, 2008.
51 For more on the Unemployment Compensation Program, see CRS Report RL33362, Unemployment Insurance:
Available Unemployment Benefits and Legislative Activity, by Julie M. Whittaker.
52 §1137(d) and (e) of the Social Security Act (SSA).
53 U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, An Analysis of Overpayments Not Included In
the Unemployment Insurance (UI) Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) Measure for “Prevention of
Overpayments, report available at http://workforcesecurity.doleta.gov/unemploy/integrity/gpra_overpayments.asp, last
accessed May 5, 2008.





Mixed-immigration status families are another factor that confounds research on benefit receipt.
The Food Stamp Program Quality Control sample reported that 1.8 million U.S. citizen children 54
who were living with noncitizen parents received food stamps in FY2006. Although many of
these noncitizen parents are likely to be legal permanent residents (LPRs), some parents may be
unauthorized migrants. Similarly, FY2006 data on characteristics of TANF recipients indicate that

37.5% of the “child-only” cases are U.S. citizen children of foreign born parents who do not meet 55


the definition of “qualified alien.”
Steven Camarota, Director of Research at the Center for Immigration Studies, used the March
CPS and the decennial census as the basis for his widely cited estimations on federal benefits that 56
may have gone to households headed by unauthorized migrants in 2002. Camarota estimated
that the largest costs were Medicaid ($2.5 billion), treatment for the uninsured ($2.2 billion), and
food assistance programs ($1.9 billion). Camarota’s cost calculations additionally included
programs that unauthorized aliens are eligible for, such as emergency Medicaid and school lunch.
He concluded, “[M]any of the costs associated with illegals are due to their American-born
children, who are awarded U.S. citizenship at birth ... greater efforts at barring illegals from
federal programs will not reduce costs because their citizen children can continue to access 57
them.”

Although the law appears straightforward, the policy on unauthorized aliens’ access to federal
benefits is peppered with ongoing controversies and debates. Some center on demographics
issues (e.g., how to treat mixed-immigration status families.) Others explore unintended
consequences, most notably when tightening up the identification requirements results in denying
benefits to U.S. citizens. Still others are debates about how broadly the clause “federal public
benefit” should be implemented. The concluding section of this report offers an illustrative
sampling of these issues.
Whether an unauthorized alien who is the head of house is permitted to be the payee of a federal
benefit for U.S. citizen children varies across programs. Most statutes are silent on the matter
because the benefit is paid directly to the eligible individual. In the case of food stamps, the
“assistance unit” is a household, typically those living together who also purchase and prepare
food together. The value of food stamps allocated to a mixed-immigration status family is based
only on those family members who are eligible, but includes the income of ineligible family

54 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Characteristics of Food Stamp Households, Fiscal Year 2006, FSP-07-CHAR,
September 2007.
55 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Characteristics and Financial Circumstances of TANF Recipients,
Fiscal Year 2006, Table 12, November 1, 2007.
56 For a complete discussion of Camarotas methodology on the costs of unauthorized aliens, see CRS congressional
distribution memorandum, Cost Estimates of Unauthorized (Illegal) Immigration, by Alison Siskin, May 27, 2007
(available on request).
57 Steven A. Camarota, The High Cost of Cheap Labor: Illegal Immigration and the Federal Budget (Washington,
D.C.: Center for Immigration Studies, August 2004).





members in the prorated allocation.58 Food stamp rules, however, do not bar an unauthorized
alien head of house from applying for and obtaining the pro-rated food stamp benefit on behalf of
eligible family members.
The Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program, while not expressly barring them, sets a
barrier for unauthorized alien parents to be the payees of SSI benefits for their U.S. citizen
children. More precisely, the Social Security Act requires an investigation into a potential
representative payee to determine his or her suitability and as part of this investigation: “verify 59
the social security account number (or employer identification number) of such person.” This
provision is somewhat analogous to requirement that taxpayers claiming the EITC provide their 60
SSN and the SSN of any qualifying child.
Foreign nationals who are LPRs, as discussed more fully above, have biometric identification
documents, and their eligibility for federal benefits may be confirmed through the SAVE system.
Congress has already enacted strong incentives for states to issue enhanced drivers licenses
(EDLs) that indicate country of citizenship. Requiring that the Social Security Administration
issue SSNs that may be used to verify immigration status and citizenship is another option.
Proponents of expanding the documentary requirements to include proof of U.S. citizenship assert
that it is the most effective way to stop ineligible aliens from making false claims of U.S.
citizenship. A secondary argument is one of equal treatment; that is, it levels the playing field by
holding U.S. citizens to the same documentary requirements as foreign nationals.
Medicaid provides an excellent example because, as noted earlier, a citizenship documentation 61
requirement was added in 2006 to supersede the self-declaration of citizenship status. Medicaid
now requires that a state obtain satisfactory documentation of citizenship and identity to 62
determine eligibility. When the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) evaluated the
new requirement in 2007, it found only limited information about the extent to which the
requirement deterred aliens who were not qualified from applying for Medicaid. These findings
were consistent with the 2005 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of
Inspector General (OIG) report on state self-attestation policies, which did not find problems 63
regarding false allegations of citizenship. Rather, the GAO found evidence of inadvertent
denials of persons who appeared to be U.S. citizens. “Twenty-two of the 44 states reported
declines in Medicaid enrollment due to the requirement, and a majority of these states attributed
the declines to delays in or losses of Medicaid coverage for individuals who appeared to be 64
eligible citizens.”

58 §6 of the Food Stamp Act; 7 U.S.C. 2015.
59 §1631(a)(2)(B)(ii)(II) of the Social Security Act. Presumably, an alternate payee would be designated to receive the
money on the child’s behalf if the payees SSN was not valid.
60 §451 of PRWORA. 8 U.S.C. 1161.
61 §6036 of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-171), as amended by the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of
2006 (P.L. 109-432).
62 For further discussion, see CRS Report RS22629, Medicaid Citizenship Documentation, by April Grady.
63 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General, Self-Declaration of U.S. Citizenship
for Medicaid, July 2005.
64 U.S. Government Accountability Office, States Reported That Citizenship Documentation Requirement Resulted in
(continued...)





Also at issue is whether expanded documentary requirements are cost effective. The HHS Centers
for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) estimated the new citizenship documentation
requirement would result in savings for the federal government and states of $90 million for
FY2008. When GAO investigated this cost savings, it concluded that the potential fiscal benefits
for the federal government and states were uncertain. “Specifically, CMS did not account for the
increased administrative expenditures reported by states, and the agency’s estimated savings from 65
ineligible, noncitizens no longer receiving benefits may be less than anticipated.”
The language of §401 of PRWORA appears to be quite broad (see the “Current Federal Law”
section, above), yet its implementation across federal public benefits is not uniform. An excellent
example of this ambiguity centers on tax refunds. As noted earlier, the Internal Revenue Code
generally does not distinguish between resident aliens who are lawfully present in the United
States and those who are not (with the exception of the EITC). It appears that the Internal
Revenue Service (IRS) permits unauthorized resident aliens to claim the additional child tax 66
credit. There is no indication, moreover, that the IRS generally considers refundable tax credits 67
to be federal public benefits that unauthorized migrants are barred from receiving.
It is possible that refundable tax credits could fall within the types of benefits described by §401.
Under this interpretation, the refundable nature of a credit makes it equivalent to a “grant” or
“payment or assistance” provided by a federal agency or appropriated funds. Refundable tax
credits, as some elaborate, are being “provided to an individual, family, or eligibility unit” and 68
thus could be classified as a federal public benefit under §401 of PRWORA.
Government officials sometimes face competing priorities when dealing with unauthorized aliens,
and such dilemmas are especially evident during major disasters. When a major disaster occurs,
two competing priorities come into play: access to emergency disaster relief and immigration
enforcement. According to §401 of PRWORA, unauthorized aliens are eligible for short-term, in-
kind emergency disaster relief and services or assistance that deliver in-kind services at the

(...continued)
Enrollment Declines for Eligible Citizens and Posed Administrative Burdens, GAO-07-889, June 2007.
65 U.S. Government Accountability Office, States Reported That Citizenship Documentation Requirement Resulted in
Enrollment Declines for Eligible Citizens and Posed Administrative Burdens, GAO-07-889, June 2007.
66 See Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, The Internal Revenue Services Individual Taxpayer
Identification Number Creates Significant Challenges for Tax Administration, Report No. 2004-30-023, at 3 (January
2004) (stating thatunauthorized resident aliens are eligible for the Additional Child Tax Credit (ACTC), which is one
of only two major credits that can result in a Federal Government payment above the tax liability. In TY 2001, $160.5
million was given to approximately 203,000 unauthorized resident aliens, with about 190,000 of these filers having no
tax liability and receiving $151 million).
67 CRS congressional distribution memorandum, Legal Analysis of Whether Section 401 of the Personal Responsibility
and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act Prohibits Unauthorized Resident Aliens from Receiving Refundable Tax
Credits, by Erika Lunder and Edward Liu, January 28, 2008 (available on request).
68 CRS congressional distribution memorandum, Legal Analysis of Whether Section 401 of the Personal Responsibility
and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act Prohibits Unauthorized Resident Aliens from Receiving Refundable Tax
Credits, by Erika Lunder and Edward Liu, January 28, 2008 (available on request).





community level, provide assistance without individual determinations of each recipient’s needs, 69
and are necessary for the protection of life and safety. The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 70
Emergency Assistance Act, the authority under which the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) conducts disaster assistance efforts, requires nondiscrimination and equitable 71
treatment in disaster assistance. FEMA assistance provided under the Stafford Act includes (but
is not limited to) grants for immediate temporary shelter, cash grants for uninsured emergency
personal needs, temporary housing assistance, home repair grants, unemployment assistance due
to the disaster, emergency food supplies, legal aid for low-income individuals, and crisis 72
counseling.
When a situation threatens human health and safety, and a disaster is imminent but not yet
declared, the Secretary of DHS may pre-position employees and supplies and provide 73
precautionary evacuation measures. As part of a mock evacuation May 2008 in the Rio Grande
Valley of Texas, DHS Border Patrol officials in that region announced that border patrol agents
would pre-screen residents for citizenship documents before allowing them to board evacuation
buses in the event of a hurricane. DHS Border Patrol spokesperson Dan Doty stated that the
border patrol will assist other federal, state, and local authorities in a safe evacuation but at the 74
same time uphold its job of “border security, protecting the border, and establishing alienage.”
DHS has reportedly acknowledged the importance of keeping families together during an
evacuation; however, officials have not indicated how mixed-immigration status families would
be treated, or what would happen (when asked) if everyone in the family except an elderly 75
grandparent had proper documents. Notwithstanding the media reports, DHS Headquarters

69 For a more complete analysis, see CRS Congressional Distribution Memorandum, Noncitizen Eligibility for Disaster-
Related Assistance, by Alison Siskin, February 15, 2002, and CRS Report RL33091, Hurricane Katrina-Related
Immigration Issues and Legislation, by Ruth Ellen Wasem.
70 42 USC §5121 et. seq.
71 42 USC §5151(a): The President shall issue, and may alter and amend, such regulations as may be necessary for the
guidance of personnel carrying out Federal assistance functions at the site of a major disaster or emergency. Such
regulations shall include provisions for insuring that the distribution of supplies, the processing of applications, and
other relief and assistance activities shall be accomplished in an equitable and impartial manner, without discrimination
on the grounds of race, color, religion, nationality, sex, age, disability, English proficiency, or economic status.
72 For a full discussion of available assistance, see CRS Report RL33053, Federal Stafford Act Disaster Assistance:
Presidential Declarations, Eligible Activities, and Funding, by Keith Bea.
73 The Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 (Title VI, P.L. 109-295) authorized the President to
support precautionary evacuation measures, accelerate federal emergency response and recovery aid, and provide
expedited federal assistance (coordinated with the state to the extent possible) in the absence of a specific request from
state officials authorized to provide transportation assistance to those displaced from their residences, including that
assistance needed to move among alternative temporary shelters or to return to their original residence; and provide
case management services to state, local, or qualified private organizations that provide assistance to victims. (P.L.
109-295, §681, 120 Stat. 1444, which amended §§402 and 502 of the Stafford Act.) For more information on the
expanded assistance, see CRS Report RL33729, Federal Emergency Management Policy Changes After Hurricane
Katrina: A Summary of Statutory Provisions, by Keith Bea et al.
74 Rio Grande Guardian, “Hurricane evacuees leaving the Valley by bus will be prescreened for citizenship,” by Joey
Gomez, May 14, 2008. Doty later responded to criticism that this policy would endanger people by stating:In the
event of a mandatory evacuation, any illegal alien that is taken into custody by the Border Patrol will be evacuated by
the Border Patrol to a detention facility in a safe area of the state. People in custody will still be moved out of the
immediate danger areas. Houston Chronicle, “Border Patrol plans to check IDs in hurricane evacuations,Associated
Press, May 16, 2008, and Rio Grande Guardian,Hinojosa, AILA, criticize Border Patrol involvement in Valley
hurricane evacuation,by Steve Taylor, May 17, 2008.
75 San Antonio Express-News, “U.S. Citizenship To Be Checked In Event Of A Storm,” by Lynn Brezosky, May 16,
2008.





officials indicate that the department has not issued a formal policy on pre-screening during 76
emergency evacuations.
When the disaster relief moves from emergency assistance for the protection of life and safety to
disaster aid based on determinations of each recipient’s needs (e.g., funds to help repair a
damaged home), the “federal public benefits” question arises. FEMA requires additional
information from applicants at this point in the application process. That information may include
proof of a rental agreement or property ownership, employment status, and other factors that may 77
further identify an applicant’s citizenship status as part of the eligibility determination.
Regardless of their programmatic eligibility, when unauthorized aliens are receiving federal
disaster aid, according to DHS officials, they have no immunity from deportation. In the
aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005, there were reportedly many displaced aliens 78
who feared that seeking government help might lead to their deportation. “The administration’s
priority is to provide needed assistance: water, food, medical care, shelter,” DHS spokesperson
Joanna Gonzalez explained at the time. “However, as we move forward with the response, we 79
can’t turn a blind eye to the law.” DHS arrested, detained, and ordered deported an unspecified 80
number of unauthorized aliens displaced by the 2005 hurricanes.
As awareness of and confusion over “quasi-legal”migrants grows, the policies embodied by 81
PRUCOL are returning to the fore. This issue most frequently arises in the context of
compensation or training for laid-off workers or in debates over tax refunds or rebates. Those
aliens who have EADs and SSNs—but who are not otherwise authorized to reside in the United
States—pose a particular dilemma to some because they are permitted to work and have likely
paid into the system that finances the particular benefit. They also are difficult to distinguish from
LPRs because they possess valid government-issued documents.

76 CRS has been advised that this reported citizenship pre-screening is not an official DHS policy at this time. Meeting
with DHS Customs and Border Protection officials, May 21, 2008.
77 FEMAs policy states that if you are not a U.S. citizen or a qualified alien, another adult household member who is
eligible may qualify and “no information regarding your status will be gathered.” If a minor child who is a U.S. citizen
or a qualified alien resides with you, you can apply for assistance on your child’s behalf and “no information regarding
your status will be gathered.” This policy is available on the FEMA website at http://www.fema.gov/assistance/
dafaq.shtm#citizen1, last access May 21, 2008.
78 CRS Report RL33091, Hurricane Katrina-Related Immigration Issues and Legislation, by Ruth Ellen Wasem.
79 Washington Post, “For Illegal Immigrants, Some Aid Is Too Risky, by Darryl Fears, September 20, 2005.
80 Wall Street Journal, “Storms in the Gulf: Roundup of Immigrants in Shelter Reveals Rising Tensions,” by Chad
Terhune and Even Perez, October 3, 2005; Chicago Tribune, Immigration Agents Net 5,” by Tribune News Service,
September 20, 2005; and El Paso Times,”Evacuee Faces Deportation,” by Louie Gilot, September 22, 2005.
81 PRUCOL specifically arose earlier in the 110th Congress when §226 of the House-passed Trade Adjustment
Assistance (TAA) Act of 2007 (H.R. 3920) stated: “No benefit allowances, training, or other employment services may
be provided under this chapter to a worker who is an alien unless the alien is an individual lawfully admitted for
permanent residence to the United States, is lawfully present in the United States, or is permanently residing in the
United States under color of law.” This provision restated language in the existing TAA statute that had been
superseded by Title VI of PRWORA. Although the Senate has not acted on H.R. 3920, P.L. 110-161 has appropriated
funding for TAA through September 30, 2008, without the PRUCOL language. For background and legislative tracking
on TAA, see CRS Report RL34383, Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) for Workers: Current Issues and Legislation,
by John J. Topoleski.





A similar issue is whether states may provide in-state tuition to foreign nationals who have
Temporary Protected Status (TPS), a subset of “quasi-legal”migrants. Some have asserted the bar
on benefit receipt does not apply to foreign nationals with TPS because §244 of INA considers
them lawfully present. However, others point out that §244(f)(4) limits that “lawfully present”
designation to nonimmigrant adjustments or changes in immigration status. Aliens with TPS are
not defined qualified aliens under PRWORA. Given the bar on federally funded postsecondary
education in §401 of PRWORA, the question of states providing in-state tuition to foreign 82
nationals with TPS may ultimately hinge on whether federal funds are involved.
Congress has grappled on numerous occasions with the question of whether to refine or revise the
access rules for unauthorized aliens. These issues are sometimes centered in intricate and, some
would say, secondary concerns (e.g., the citizenship documentation requirements in the proposed 83
SCHIP reauthorization legislation). Other times, the issue becomes embroiled in major “hot-
button” controversy, such as the motion to re-commit H.R. 3161 with instructions to amend it to 84
bar use of funds to employ or provide housing for unauthorized aliens.
Some argue that—if unauthorized aliens can end-run the system—federal benefit programs are a
magnet for unauthorized migration. Others argue that—in the absence of congressional action on
comprehensive immigration reform—the dilemma of unauthorized aliens, mixed-immigration
status families, and “quasi-legal” migrants fosters a growing underclass of noncitizens who lack
access to services. Whether additional restrictions and expenditures to further bar access to
benefits, as well as fraudulent receipt of benefits, are cost-effective options in terms of the value
of the benefits provided is yet another argument for Congress to weigh.
Ruth Ellen Wasem
Specialist in Immigration Policy
rwasem@crs.loc.gov, 7-7342




82 For further analyses of these issues, see CRS Report RS22500, Unauthorized Alien Students, Higher Education, and
In-State Tuition Rates: A Legal Analysis, by Jody Feder, and CRS Report RL33863, Unauthorized Alien Students:
Issues and “DREAM Act” Legislation, by Andorra Bruno.
83 Specifically, the citizenship documentation provisions are §143 in H.R. 3162, as passed by the House; §301 in H.R.
976, as passed by the Senate; and §211 in the bicameral agreement that passed both chambers prior to being vetoed. For
background, see CRS Report RL34129, Medicaid and SCHIP Provisions in H.R. 3162, S. 1893/H.R. 976, and
Agreement, by Evelyne P. Baumrucker et al.
84 The House of Representatives established a special committee to investigate the August 2, 2007, roll call vote to
recommit H.R. 3161, the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies
FY2008 Appropriations Act. For background on this dispute, see CQ Today,Preliminary Report on Disputed Vote
Answers Few Questions,” by Kathleen Hunter, September, 28, 2007, and CQ Today, “This Is One Ugly Dispute That
May Soon Be Ready for Its Close-Up,” by Molly K. Hooper, April 17, 2008.