





































  Journal of Student Social Work, Volume III   15 

Public policy affecting the social welfare of immigrants is a 
realization of their impact on society as well as a reflection of the 

value that society places on them. The Personal Responsibility and Work 
Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (hereafter, referred to as “welfare 
reform”) has had a profound impact on the lives of immigrants and suggests 
a deeply fundamental shift in our national stance toward immigration. 
This paper will examine the impact of welfare reform on legal, non-citizen 
immigrants in the United States. After summarizing the debate over its 
impact, it will evaluate the merits of the devolution of welfare policies 
to states, as well as the role of welfare reform in promoting naturalization. 
Ultimately, it will demonstrate that measures taken to ameliorate the 
harsh effects of welfare reform were insufficient. Although not 
necessarily caused by welfare reform, subsequent anti-immigrant 
legislation in the United States reinforces a growing social and 
political climate based on fear and intolerance towards immigrants. 
Discrimination towards immigrants continues to define our post 9/11 
social and political environment, posing complex challenges for social 
workers who provide services and make policies affecting immigrants.

WELFARE REFORM AND IMMIGRANTS: 
IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation 
Act of 1996 profoundly impacted immigrants and suggested a 
fundamental shift in our national stance toward immigration. This paper 
examines the impact of welfare reform on legal, non-citizen immigrants in 
the United States. It describes how welfare reform restructured the laws 
that determined the eligibility for benefits among immigrants, discusses 
changes made to these laws, and summarizes the debate over whether these 
changes were sufficient. It concludes with implications for policy and policy 
options that exist within the context of the present laws. Ultimately, 
through welfare reform, the government devalued the role of the immigrant 
and inverted the ideals of opportunity, equality, and full participation in 
society that, in theory if not in practice, characterize our national identity.  

Alice Kopij



welfare reform and immigrants

16  Journal of Student Social Work, Volume III   

Background on Welfare Reform for Legal Immigrants

The Welfare Reform Act passed by President Clinton in 1996 included 
drastic changes in eligibility rules for legal, non-citizen immigrants seeking 
welfare benefits and various forms of public assistance. Specifically, 
welfare reform renders most legal, non-citizen immigrants, who were living 
in the United States prior to 1996, ineligible for Temporary Assistance for 
Needy Families (TANF), Supplemental Security Insurance (SSI), food 
stamps and Medicaid programs regardless of their age, disability status, 
or whether or not they received benefits prior to the legislation (Carnegie 
Endowment for International Peace [CEIP], 2001; Kim, 2001). Exceptions 
to these restrictions include immigrants who meet specific requirements 
relating to work, military service, and refugee or asylee status. In addition, 
the new laws state that legal immigrants entering the United States after 
August 22, 1996 are ineligible for TANF, SSI, Medicaid, and the State 
Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) during their first five years 
in the country (CEIP; Corderro-Guzman & Navarro, 2000; Fix & Haskins, 
2002; Mautino, 2000). The Food Stamp Program is especially restrictive 
because legal permanent residents and some groups of qualified immigrants 
remain ineligible for the program after the five-year residency rule (CEIP).  

Such disproportionately severe eligibility restrictions on immigrants 
lay bare policy distinctions that are based on nationality and citizenship. 
These divisions have enormous implications for how a nation determines 
whose welfare is more valuable and, therefore, more deserving of federal 
resources. Welfare reform legislation concerning immigrants, in its original 
form, ignited a heated debate concerning the status and rights of immigrants 
and the roles and responsibility of the federal government for their welfare.

Opponents of welfare reform argue that prior to 1996, immigrants 
had access to benefits based on the principle that immigrants should be 
treated like Americans since they participate in economic, social, and 
political activities (Fix & Haskins, 2002). Kim (2001) points out that 
legal immigrants are expected to be contributing members of society who 
pay taxes and can be drafted into the military and thus deserve the basic 
safety net of welfare benefits. Opponents also argue that the children of 
non-citizens, many of whom are U.S. citizens, bear the burden of these 
laws and suffer the consequences of poverty (Fix & Haskins; Kim). 
Proponents of welfare reform argue that federal policy restricting the rights 
and benefits of immigrants is nothing new in American public policy (Fix 
& Haskins). Their justification for restrictions on immigrant benefits also 
relies on familiar rhetoric of balancing the budget and saving taxpayers’ 



kopij

Journal of Student Social Work, Volume III   17

money (Fix & Tumlin, 1997; Rector, 2002). For example, immigration 
restrictions on welfare would save the federal government $23 billion, 
or approximately half of their total expected savings from all welfare 
reform laws (Fix & Tumlin, 1997). Rector also supports welfare reform 
because the new laws make the immigrant’s sponsor liable for his or 
her support, effectively shifting the financial burden off of the taxpayer.

The Effects of Welfare Reform on Immigrants

When President Clinton signed the Welfare Act, he acknowledged 
its severity and agreed to work with Congress to restore benefits to 
society’s most needy members (Mautino, 2000). Not long after the 
enactment of welfare reform came subsequent legislation intended to 
mitigate the harsh effects of welfare reform on immigrants. With these 
changes came rigorous debate over whether an appropriate safety net 
that ensured the welfare of immigrants could be adequately provided. 

Some argue that welfare reform created a climate of fear and confusion 
among immigrants, further reducing their participation in welfare 
programs. Since 1996, many immigrants have chosen not to apply for 
eligible public benefits out of fear that they will be considered a public 
charge or face deportation or both (Betancourt-Swingle, 2000; Fremstad, 
2000; Mautino, 2000). In response to this confusion, in May of 1999, 
the INS issued a set of guidelines that clearly defined the public charge 
rule and its relevance for those seeking public benefits (Betancourt-
Swingle; Fremstad; Mautino). This provided clarification and encouraged 
relatively high participation in public benefit programs for those who 
qualified under the welfare reform laws. Despite the clarification of the 
public charge rule, Cordero-Guzman and Navarro (2000) describe many 
concerns felt by immigrants regarding their immigration status and 
use of benefits after welfare reform. Social service providers continue 
to report panic and misinformation among immigrant clients who 
have difficulty keeping up with legislative changes and guidelines.   

Those who argue against welfare reform point out that emerging data 
on the use of public benefits since its passage show significant declines in 
the number of immigrants on the welfare roles. Fix and Haskins (2002) 
also cite evidence from the U.S. Census Bureau that shows a precipitous 
decline of non-citizen use of TANF, SSI, food stamps, and Medicaid or 
SCHIP between 1994 and 1999. This report attributes a small portion of 
the decrease on other factors but concludes that much of it can be ascribed 
to benefit cuts imposed by welfare reform. In contrast, proponents of 



welfare reform typically interpret declining welfare roles as a measure 
of success for the alleviation of poverty (Rector & Fagan, 2003). 

Those who claim that welfare reform and its subsequent legislation 
were too harsh on immigrants argue that we need only to look at the lives 
of the immigrants around us to see the poverty and hardship that they 
face. Cordero-Guzman and Navarro (2000) used information gathered 
from immigrant service providers to report that changes in immigration 
and welfare laws have resulted in noticeable panic among immigrants, 
less access to health services, decreased food security, loss of Medicaid 
and food stamp eligibility, and fewer immigrants who receive social 
services. Ku (2003) cites a report by the Kaiser Commission claiming 
that low-income, non-citizen immigrant children are more likely to 
lack medical insurance than citizen children and that this disparity 
has increased significantly since the enactment of welfare reform.   

Conservative arguments claim that welfare reform, in general, has 
had a positive impact on lessening poverty throughout society. Rector and 
Fagan (2003) asserted that, overall, welfare reform has significantly reduced 
child poverty and rates of childhood hunger, and that decreases in welfare 
caseloads are the result of increased employment among single mothers.  

Devolution to the States

Faced with the fear of leaving countless legal immigrants destitute 
as a result of the new laws, states have been forced to decide if and how 
they will provide for the welfare of immigrants within their borders. 
This devolution of immigrant policy from the federal to state level 
has given rise to a multitude of new policies, challenges, and debates 
among those who work at state and federal levels of government.   

Proponents of state authority claim that policy stemming from state 
and local governments is more effective in meeting the needs of specific 
local populations (Fix & Tumlin, 1997). State control over benefits also 
has the potential to be more cost effective in the allocation of resources. 
Furthermore, states’ ability to set conditions for aid gives them the power 
to make rules that encourage naturalization. Opponents of shifting control 
of benefit eligibility to states argue that this essentially gives states the 
power to create and place their own value on the meaning of citizenship 
(Fix & Tumlin). State control over benefits for immigrants may also cause 
financial hardships for individual states, especially those who have higher 
concentrations of immigrants. In addition, states may find that there is a 
financial incentive to establish less generous benefits, thereby avoiding the 

welfare reform and immigrants

18  Journal of Student Social Work, Volume III



possibility of becoming a “welfare magnet” for immigrants from other states. 
The laws put into effect through welfare reform give states the 

authority to refuse a wide range of benefits to countless immigrants. 
States, therefore, have been faced with tough individual choices 
regarding their policies. They must now establish distinct eligibility 
criteria for state and federally funded programs, decide if and how they 
will spend state money to offset the cuts made through welfare reform, 
and decide how they will enforce restrictions on benefit use as well 
as the obligations of sponsors of immigrants (Fix & Tumlin, 1997).

Instead of facing a crisis of widespread poverty, states are opting to 
implement policies that address the needs of non-citizen immigrants. By 
1997, less than one year after welfare reform, Congress passed a law giving 
states the option of purchasing food stamps from the federal government to 
provide food assistance to immigrants who were denied food stamp benefits 
through welfare reform (Carmody & Dean, 1998). Within six months of its 
passage, eleven states had already passed legislation that allowed for food 
stamp purchases. In 2002, The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act was 
passed, restoring federal food stamp eligibility to legal immigrants who are 
either disabled, have been in the United States for over five years, or are 
under 18 years old (Capps et al., 2004). While this legislation represents a 
shift in policy back towards federal responsibility, states still face important 
choices about how they will publicize new eligibility rules and make social 
services accessible to language and cultural minorities (Gigliotti, 2004).

Overall, the trend toward devolution of welfare policy to states 
continues. Alabama is now the only state that does not provide TANF 
to eligible immigrants who entered the country prior to 1996 (Zimmerman 
& Tumlin, 1999). By 2004, 23 states relied on state funds to provide 
Medicaid or SCHIP benefits to legal non-citizen immigrants rendered 
ineligible by welfare reform (Fremstad & Cox, 2004). Although many 
states appear to be generous towards immigrants, they have also 
implemented conditions that still prevent many immigrants from 
accessing benefits. These include limitations on aid for immigrants 
arriving in the United States after welfare reform enactment, eligibility 
limitations on certain population groups, and consideration of the income 
of the immigrant’s sponsor (Zimmerman & Tumlin). 

Public welfare policy for immigrants, if done correctly, can be created 
and implemented on a state level. States have the potential to decrease 
bureaucracy and provide relevant services to those that they identify as the 
neediest. The federal government position implemented through welfare 
reform, however, is incongruous with this aim and provides an inappropriate 

Journal of Student Social Work, Volume III   19

kopij



context for work at the state level. Through welfare reform, the federal 
government has devalued the role of the immigrant and inverted the ideals 
of opportunity, equality, and full participation in society that have, in theory 
if not in practice, helped define our national identity. If states are to assume 
more responsibility for the welfare of immigrants, they need a federal policy 
that supports them by passing laws requiring more adequate minimum 
standards for the welfare of immigrants. Left to stand alone, state policies 
for immigrants will continue to provide safety nets that are inconsistent, 
inadequate, and ultimately permeable to the complex needs of immigrant 
communities.    

The Naturalization Question

States also implement policies for immigrants that encourage 
naturalization. By helping immigrants become U.S. citizens, states 
are relieved of the burden of providing benefits to these immigrants, 
who, as citizens, qualify for federal welfare benefits (Zimmerman & 
Tumlin, 1999).  Examples of state action to encourage naturalization 
include providing English and civics classes, conducting outreach 
campaigns, requiring naturalization for state-funded services, and 
reimbursing immigrants for fingerprints and other required fees.  

While naturalization may seem to be a solution to restrictive benefit 
laws, the relationship between naturalization and public benefits is 
somewhat ambivalent. First, there is evidence that immigrants do not pursue 
naturalization for the purpose of receiving public benefits. For example, 
recently naturalized immigrants use public benefits at slightly lower rates 
than all immigrants who are eligible for benefits. On the other hand, there 
is some evidence that immigrants are responding to this changed, post-
1996 political climate by naturalizing. Specifically, 1996 marked the end 
of a long-standing downward trend in naturalization rates among legal 
immigrants. Between 1970 and 1996, the naturalization rates of legal 
immigrants fell from 64% to 39% (Fix, Passel, & Sucher, 2003). These 
rates increased sharply in 1996 and have risen to 49% of all legal 
immigrants in 2002 (Fix et al.). Explanations for this increase may 
include welfare reform and other anti-immigrant legislation such as 
Proposition 187 in California and the Illegal Immigration Reform and 
Immigration Responsibility Act of 1996. Rising numbers of eligible 
immigrants, increased costs for replacing expired green cards, and 
decreased restrictions on dual nationality imposed by sending countries 
are also contributing factors to this trend (Fix et al.).  

welfare reform and immigrants

20  Journal of Student Social Work, Volume III



kopij

As more immigrants become citizens after welfare reform, it is 
increasingly clear that encouraging naturalization is not the panacea 
for poverty that state policy makers need. Social service providers 
report that their immigrant clients are frustrated by the inefficient and 
bureaucratic policies of the INS that have caused a backlog of naturalization 
applications (Cordero-Guzman & Navarro, 2000). Increasingly, immigrants 
have become discouraged by the lengthy process of naturalization, which 
can take up to 15 months (Pinto, 2002). In January of 1999, the application 
fee for naturalization was raised from $95 to $225 (Cordero-Guzman & 
Navarro).  Immigrants applying for citizenship in order to have more access 
to public benefits are unlikely to be able to afford such high fees. This 
is supported by findings showing that immigrants who are eligible to
naturalize, but have not, are more likely to have limited English skills, 
lower education levels, and lower incomes than those who have 
naturalized (Fix et al., 2003).  

Pinto (2002) notes the difficult decisions that immigrants are forced 
to make in order to be eligible for benefits. For some immigrants, their 
original citizenship helps them to define their identity and remain connected 
to their families and homelands in spite of all they may have lost in their 
lives. Therefore, an immigrant’s decision to become a U.S. citizen could 
cause emotional hardship and distress for immigrants and their families.

Perhaps one of the most salient arguments against state-implemented 
policies for immigrants impacted by welfare reform is the poverty, 
marginalization, and exclusion that legal immigrants continue to face. 
Implementing policy that coerces immigrants to become citizens 
of a country that purposely excludes, devalues, and discriminates 
against them is unfair. Naturalization can be positive because it gives 
immigrants the right to vote and thus a voice in society. However, making 
state benefits contingent on naturalization only deepens the divide 
between immigrants who are able to naturalize and those who cannot.  

Welfare Reform in the Current Context

Welfare reform continues to adversely impact the lives of immigrants 
today. Its message also has renewed relevance in the political and social 
context of the post  9/11 era. Since welfare reform, legislation such as the 
USA Patriot Act, The Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform 
Act of 2002, and the Intelligence Reform and Terrorist Prevention Act 
of 2004 represent a deeper government commitment to the promotion 
of fear and discrimination towards immigrants. As national security 

Journal of Student Social Work, Volume III   21



interests provide another reason to marginalize immigrants, it is 
increasingly difficult for citizens and policy makers to come to terms 
with conflicting notions of our economic need for immigrants and fear 
of their presence. It is from within this context that social workers, as 
service providers and policy makers alike, must rise to the challenge 
to advocate for the well-being of our legal immigrant population. In the 
end, we all stand to benefit from the physical, economic, and social well- 
being of those who have and continue to make our nation what it is today. 

22  Journal of Student Social Work, Volume III

welfare reform and immigrants

References

Betancourt-Swingle, D. (2000). Immigrants and August 22, 1996: Will 
the public charge rule clarify program eligibility?  Families in Society, 
81(6), 605-610.  

Capps, K., Koralek, R., Lotspeich, K., Fix, M. E., Holcomb, P. A., & 
Rearden-Anderson, J. (2004, November).  Assessing implementation 
of the 2002 Farm Bill’s legal immigrant food stamp restorations 
(Research Report). Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.  

Carmody, K. & Dean, S. (1998, July). New federal food stamp 
restoration for legal immigrants: Implications and implementation 
issues. Retrieved on November 10, 2003, from Center on Budget and 
Policy Priorities Web site: http://www.cbpp.org/71098fs.htm

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (CEIP). (2001).
Immigrants, their families and their communities in the aftermath 
of welfare reform. In A. Singer (Ed.), Research Perspectives on 
Migration, 3(1), 2-9. Retrieved on November 14, 2003, from the CEIP 
Web site: http://www.ceip.org/files/projects/imp/rpm/rpmvol3no1.pdf

Cordero-Guzman, H. R. & Navarro, J.G. (2000). What do immigrant 
service providers say about the impact of recent changes in 
immigration and welfare laws?  Migration World Magazine, 28(4), 
20-27.  

Fix, M. & Haskins, R. (2002). Welfare benefits for non-citizens. Policy 
Brief No. 15. Retrieved November 14, 2003, from Washington, DC: 
The Brookings Institution Web site: http://www.brookings.edu/
dybdocroot/es/wrb/publications/pb/pb15.pdf 

Fix, M., Passel, J. S., & Sucher, K. (2003, September). Trends in 
Naturalization. (Immigrant Families and Workers: Facts and 
Perspectives, Brief No. 3). Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.  

Fix, M. E. & Tumlin, K. C. (1997, October). Welfare reform and the 
devolution of immigrant policy. Retrieved on November 14, 2003, 
from The Urban Institute Web site: http://www.urban.org/url.



Journal of Student Social Work, Volume III   23

kopij

cfm?ID=307045
Fremstad, S. (2000, January). The INS public charge guidance: What does 

it mean for immigrants who need public assistance? Retrieved on 
November 10, 2003, from Center on Budget and Policy Priorities Web 
site: http://www.cbpp.org/1-7-00imm.htm

Fremstad, S. & Cox, L. (2004). Covering new Americans:  A review of 
federal and state policies related to immigrants’ eligibility and 
access to publicly funded health insurance. Washington, DC:  Kaiser 
Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured.

Gigliotti, K. (2004, August). Food stamp access for immigrants: How 
states have implemented the 2002 Farm Bill restoration. Retrieved on 
March 10, 2005, from National Conference of State Legislatures Web 
site: http://www.ncsl.org/programs/ immig/immigrantandfoodstamps1
004.htm

Kim, R.Y.  (2001).  Welfare reform and “ineligibles”: Issue of 
constitutionality and recent court rulings. Social Work, 46(4), 315-324. 

Ku, L. (2003, October). Report documents growing disparities in health 
care coverage between immigrant and citizen children as Congress 
debates immigrant care legislation. Retrieved on November 10, 2003, 
from Center on Budget and Policy Priorities Web site: http://www.
cbpp.org/10-14-03health.htm

Mautino, K. S. (2000). Welfare reform: An update.  Journal of Immigrant 
Health, 2(1), 1-3. 

Pinto, R. M. (2002). Social work values, welfare reform, and immigrant 
citizenship conflicts. Families in Society, 83(1), 85-93. 

Rector, R. E. (2002, September). The Baucus “WORK” act of 2002: 
Repealing welfare reform. Retrieved on November 15, 2003, from 
The Heritage Foundation Web site: http://www.heritage.org/Research/
Welfare/BG1580.cfm

Rector, R. E. & Fagan, P. F. (2003, February). The continuing good 
news about welfare reform. Retrieved on November 16, 2003, from 
The Heritage Foundation Web site:  http://www.heritage.org/Research/
Welfare/bg1620.cfm

Zimmerman, W. & Tumlin, K. C. (1999, April). Patchwork policies: State 
assistance for immigrants und welfare reform (Occasional Paper No. 
24). Retrieved on November 14, 2003, from The Urban Institute Web 
site:  http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=309007



24  Journal of Student Social Work, Volume III

welfare reform and immigrants

Alice Kopij is a second year master’s student at CUSSW 
within the Policy Practice method in the International Social 
Welfare and Services to Immigrants and Refugees field 
of  practice with a minor in International Social Welfare.  She is 
currently a policy research intern at CUSSW where she studies 
immigrant children and the school environment. She holds a 
bachelor’s degree in English and Environmental Studies from 
Bowdoin College. Her email address is ack2101@columbia.edu.


