The Immigrant Welfare Debate Is Back

The political climate involving immigration in the mid-1990s was starkly different from what we see today, with one of the big issues being welfare usage. The issue died down in 1996 for reasons I’ll analyze below, but with the Center for Immigration Studies’ release last week of a new study, the controversy has returned, with counteranalyses by supporters of high-level immigration, and a CIS rejoinder.

I’ll have some comments in the CIS study later in this post, but first want to discuss the history, to put all this in context.

During the 90s I did extensive research on one aspect of immigration welfare use, public assistance usage by elderly immigrants, including Supplemental Security Insurance (SSI). Though SSI’s name sounds like “social security” and it is indeed run by the Social Security Administration, it is in fact welfare, the means-tested public assistance program for our aged poor.

SSI was intended, as its name implies, as a supplement for older Americans who somehow did not have sufficient resources to live on. But immigrant community groups, responding to encouragement of the federal government, started widely promoting the program among elderly immigrants in the early 1990s. The old folks were immigrating to the U.S. after retirement age, and thus were ineligible for Social Security and Medicare, having never worked in the U.S.

The response in some immigrant communities was overwhelming. Now it was feasible to bring over Grandpa and Grandma to the U.S., with the advance intention of putting them on welfare, including by the way not just SSI and Medicaid but also subsidized housing for the poor and so on. Stanford Professor Tom MaCurdy, on whom I’ll say more below, remarked that he was shocked when one of his grad students told him that her Indian parents were coming to the U.S. to avail themselves of a “pension,” which turned out to be SSI.

Recently Jeb Bush made some poorly-phrased remarks on Asian “anchor babies.” What he said was absolutely correct, but unfortunately he phrased it in an us-(Latinos)-versus-them manner that made me wince. In that light, rhough, I reluctantly note that the top immigrant SSI user groups per capita as of the 1990s were the Chinese and Koreans. Nationwide, the Chinese and Korean rates were 47% and 50%, while the next-closest group was the Filipinos at 39%. Donald Trump may be surprised that the Mexican rate was only 21% (though it would not surprise Jeb Bush, because a social worker explained to me that Latinos pride in taking care of their seniors themselves).

Picture the Chinese and Koreans taking the legendary energy they use in academics and business, and now applying that energy to promoting welfare usage by the old folks, and then you’ll understand the enormous drive to get immigrants to sign up for SSI. The Chinese community organizations, such as Self Help for the Elderly (yes, an ironic name) in San Francisco, the Chinatown Service Center in Los Angeles and the City Hall Senior Center in New York’s Chinatown, pulled out all the stops in promoting SSI, Medicaid and subsidized senior housing (including campaigning for the building of such housing). Chinese-language public service TV programs, such as on Channel 26 KTSF of the Bay Area, would regularly dispense advice on how to obtain these benefits, and the World Journal, the largest Chinese-language newspaper in the U.S., ran a weekly Dear Abby-style advice column on obtaining welfare.

Large numbers of the recipients of assistance arguably didn’t need it. A typical scenario in the Bay Area at the time (and still largely true today) involved a senior on SSI, living with his son and daughter-in-law, both Silicon Valley engineers from China or Taiwan. The son would have applied for the parent for immigration, promising the keep the parent off welfare for 5 years (increased from 3 years by the 1993 legislation), but would have planned ahead of time to put the parent on welfare after that. All perfectly legal, mind you. Statistical and qualitative details are available in my 1996 Senate testimony.

The non-native usage of SSI skyrocketed, and this attracted the attention of Congress, which began a series of reforms. Though these reforms are viewed today as coming from the Republicans, they actually were bipartisan. The first came in 1993, when the Democrats held both houses of Congress, as well as the presidency. And though the 1996 legislation was initiated by the Republicans, who then controlled Congress, the Democrats offered a similar, if somewhat less draconian, bill and of course President Bill Clinton signed the Republican version that passed.

The bipartisan nature of the agreement on the welfare issue at the time is hard to imagine today. Democrat Mario Cuomo, then governor of New York and widely viewed as a future presidential candidate, said

[Immigrants] are part of our strength.  They will be a nourishment for our future…They are also expensive [in terms of use of government services],

Democratic Rep. Mike Honda, then a California state senator, also supported clamping down on immigrant welfare use, specifically regarding the sponsors not supporting their family members as promised. After having been helped into Congress by some influential Asian fundraisers, Honda has had a very different stance ever since.

On the more general issue of immigration, the 1995 Jordan Commission, headed by a prominent liberal member of the House (with Vice Chair Michael Teitelbaum, known to some readers here), recommended major reforms in order to reduce the problem of “chain migration” —  immigrant X brings in his brother Y and Mrs. Y, then Y brings in her sister Z, whose husband later brings in his elderly mother, etc. Among others things, the commission recommended eliminating the Fourth Preference category, under which adult naturalized citizens can petition for the immigration of their adult siblings. In 1996 President Clinton was ready to support these recommendations, and the immigration reform groups were elated. The head of one such group even wondered if his organization would have anything left to do after the reform would be enacted.

Yet attempts to eliminate the Fourth Preference, going back to the 1980s (when it was the Fifth Preference) had been repeatedly defeated by the Chinatown immigrant advocacy groups. For these activists, it was literally the case that their jobs would be on the line if the Fourth Preference were to be eliminated, or access to SSI rescinded. Yvonne Lee, a Chinese activist considered to be the community’s pipeline to the White House (and appointed to the U.S. Civil Rights Commission by Clinton), stated in an interview on KTSF in 1995 that if restrictions were placed on subsidized housing, “Our Chinatown will have a big problem [of underpopulation].” Lee later told AsianWeek in 1997,

…[given the new restrictions against welfare use by future immigrants] how many people are going to take the risk of sponsoring someone [for immigration] and what long-term impact will that have on our social status and political empowerment?

So the activists redoubled their efforts. The Urban Institute got involved on their side (the Chinese organizations were a paid client, if I recall right). Much more important, some ethnic Chinese with monetary clout started making big donations to the Democrats. Some of the donations were actually illegal, resulting in scandal, but my point here is that the efforts, both legal and otherwise, convinced Clinton to change his mind about immigration. The Fourth Preference remains in place today, and though it now takes longer to be eligible for SSI, the immigrant seniors and their adult sons and daughters are willing to wait for it. Chinatowns are not underpopulated.

Under the 1996 welfare reform act, an immigrant must naturalize in order to qualify for SSI — and that is exactly what they did, upon enactment of the statute. A study found that “The national origin groups most likely to receive public assistance in the pre-[legislation] period experienced the largest increases in naturalization rates after 1996.” In the Bay Area, a household in which both husband and wife are high-salary immigrant Silicon Valley engineers, but who have their elderly parents on SSI, is still the norm.

Even I, who see instances of this all the time, was taken aback a couple of weeks ago when I was in a public library in the East Bay City of Fremont, a Chinese and Indian stronghold. In the couple of hours I was there, several times a librarian got onto the public address system to announce that that day a government specialist in SSI would be coming to answer questions from seniors and their families.

Now turning to the CIS report, the critics’ highlighted argument is that CIS was wrong to tabulate at the household level. But at the CIS report author Steve Camarota points out, this is absolutely standard, and makes sense for the reasons cited. In addition to the examples given, the household approach was used by the Urban Institute people, who were supporting the Chinese. In fact, the pro-immigration Stanford professor Tom MaCurdy, writing for the pro-immigration think tank PPIC, recommended that eligibility for SSI be made on the household level.

Camarota also refutes the scenario offered by CIS’ critics, in which a family is headed by an immigrant but in which the kids are citizens. The critics say welfare usage by the kids shouldn’t be counted as “immigrant welfare.” But Camarota points out that the householder is the breadwinner, and if his failure to support the kids results in their using welfare, it should indeed be counted in the immigrant column. I would add that the same holds for the SSI setting: The U.S. citizen brought his parents here, knowing that they would not be able to support themselves, and would eventually go on welfare. So, if the parents are living in this household, it too should count in the immigrant column, even though the householder is a citizen.

CIS’ critics claim that the immigrants who use welfare are not doing anything out of line, as they are poor, and poor people sometimes use welfare. I largely agree with that, but there is much more to it than that.

They are often not so poor after all. In the case of SSI, my illustrations above, and the corresponding data in my Senate testimony, show that it often happens that there are welfare recipients in households headed by the well-educated. MaCurdy’s study found similarly that a large portion of the immigrant SSI recipients live in above-average income households.

In addition, there is the issue of sponsors, especially in the case of immigration of the elderly. When someone immigrates past retirement age, it is obvious that they almost certainly will need to use welfare, in SSI, Medicaid and so on. The sponsor’s legal responsibility should be permanent, but unfortunately it is not.

My personal view has always been that our immigration policy should welcome a broad socioeconomic range of immigrants, and if some may need occasional welfare assistance, they should not be barred from it (except if they have family sponsors). But these costs should be factored in a national discussion on immigration policy — if we were ever to have one.

20 thoughts on “The Immigrant Welfare Debate Is Back

  1. Thank you for your long-overdue commentary regarding the topic of elderly immigrants abusing welfare in California. As a professor in a California publicly-funded college, I recognize the approximately billion dollars that the State of California has yet to disburse to institutions of higher education. I also understand the concept of “zero sum” as in when elderly immigrants consume California taxpayer funds, those funds are not available for public higher education. This situation deserves significant reforms to protect the overburdened California taxpayer – and possibly free up more funding for public higher education.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. It is not well known that the parent of a deceased worker can be eligible for a Social Security survivors benefit for the rest of their life,

    This makes the SS taxpayer liable for immigrant parents dependent on a worker eligible for benefits far longer than even the children of a deceased worker. And they can claim benefits as early as age 62!

    The ability of a US citizen to sponsor extended family for residency should be one of the major reasons for objecting to amnesty with a pathway to citizenship. This is, in my opinion, one of the major factors for illegal overstays by “immediate family” of guest workers and permanent residents.

    Liked by 1 person

    • 1. SSI is NOT Social Security.

      2. The elderly parents are generally NOT dependents of the adults sons and daughters. On the contrary, that is the problem.

      3. The Republicans have suggested amnesty without the possibility of citizenship. This is because they are afraid the amnestied will become Democratic voters. That’s also why the Democrats won’t accept the Republican proposal. Both parties are just playing games.


      • Social Security death benefits are in a limited case payable to parents of a deceased worker. This is separate from and may be in addition to SSI. When a parent is the dependent of a deceased individual whose child dependents are eligible for SSA survivor’s benefits, the parent may also be able to receive monthly support payments. This is more likely to be the case if the sponsoring child dies before the parent becomes eligible for SSI and Medicaid and had been removed as a dependent from the workers taxes in order to qualify for those programs. What is particularly abhorrent to me is that my child who was determined to be disabled as an adult and is now dependent on us will not receive any SS survivors benefits following our deaths even with our combined total of over 80 years of work under the SS system.

        There is another interesting effect that I have found in my own community. Some medical practices are refusing new MEDICARE patients but are accepting new MEDICAID patients. While most are younger than retirement age, there are some elderly Medicaid patients not qualifying for Medicare who meet the eligibility requirements for care at the practice while individuals with Medicare who have worked nearly 50 years do not.

        There is also the problem of the income required to sponsor an immigrant being only 125% of the federal poverty level for the family size. This is an inadequate amount based on the need to purchase health insurance for the entire family in addition to normal living expenses. The amount required is not location dependent and is absurdly low for the high cost of living areas of the country. At the level required for sponsorship, the sponsoring family may be a recipient if income based assistance before counting the sponsored immigrant.


        • Yes, the 125% factor is probably too low. For the elderly, though, there is something called Medicare buy-in, which essentially allows one to purchase Medicare, at a reduced price. A policy might reduce the price further, making sure the sponsor is doing his share.


          • If a person qualifies for Medicaid, the price of that premium will be paid by the government. If the elders are ‘poor’ they are covered at no cost both for Medicare and w/Medicaid acting as a Medigap. It is worse that you even imagine.


          • As an American who married and sponsored a Chinese immigrant…I was required to sign a contract with the US Government that if we ever split, I would need pay 125% of Federal poverty level.

            I googled this issue to find your post, because my wife is livid that rich Chinese are coming here to retire their parents on our welfare system..I was totally unaware of this abuse.


          • The abuse is very, very extensive, far to much for me to detail here, with tons of loopholes in the law.

            But to give you an example, there is lots of government-subsidized senior housing being built, and in most cases the tenants are almost all Chinese immigrants.


  3. This is all too complex for me to make any helpful comment on. But as a guy who works for a company that is at LEAST 20% immigrant Indian (i.e. non-native born US Citizens), I seem to see this all the time. As soon as one family member has some variation of permanent status (anchor baby, perhaps), the flood of family members starts. I see co-workers at retail stores and grocery stores frequently with their parents who speak zero English. You can’t tell me that their parents aren’t signed up for the entire alphabet soup of benefits, especially since they have zero “income.”


  4. Friend from UK says that South Asian immigrants get off the jet at Heathrow and immediately go to their version of Social Security office at the airport and get signed up.

    As far as this issue in the states, this is part of the problem why real estate is so expensive in the SF Bay Area and also other West Coast areas with heavy immigrant populations.


    • An economist in the area points to building restrictions and “nature set-asides” as the cause of the more rapidly rising housing prices I the wonder SF area.

      So, can I send my elderly relatives to “South Asia” to live out their elder years? Quid pro quo.


        • “Prior to 1970, housing prices in California were much like housing prices in the rest of the country, even thoughCalifornia housing prices later rose to become 3 or more times housing prices in the country at large… Incomes rose less sharply in California during that decade than in the country as a whole…” — Thomas Sowell 2008 _Economic Facts & Fallacies_ pp 23-24, 29 (citing William A. Fischer 1995 _Regulatory takings: Law, Economics, and Politics_ pg238; Randal O’Toole 2006_The Planning Penalty: How Smart Growth Makes Affordable Housing Unaffordable_ pp32-33)

          See also Randal O’Toole 2006-05-22 _San Francisco Chronicle_ “The High Price of Land-Use Planning” PgB7; Patrick McGeeham 2006-05-20 _NYTimes_ “After a Centu, Room and Board Still Sting” pgA1

          I cut the quote a bit short, but that should get you there.


          • The 1965 Immigration Act (which I mostly support) marked the beginning of large scale immigration to California. If Sowell, by all accounts a brilliant man, can’t make the connection, that’s pretty sad.


  5. Somewhere I read that in the coming couple of decades, China will have an elderly population equal to that of the current population of the entire US–about 300 million. I’ve also read that China now has a law requiring children to support their parents. Just imagine the incentives there for Chinese immigrants to further game our welfare system.


    • It’s an interesting point. In Japan, where the elderly population has become quite large, some companies have developed settlements for the aged in other countries, I think the Phillipines, as a way of dealing with the “excess” elderly.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s