ALIENS

ALIENS

Foreign-born persons who have not been naturalized to become U.S. citizens under federal law and the Constitution.

The federal immigration laws determine
whether a person is an alien. Generally, a person
born in a foreign country is an alien, but a child
born in a foreign nation to parents who are U.S.
citizens is a U.S. citizen. The term alien also
refers to a native-born U.S. citizen who has
relinquished U.S. citizenship by living and
acquiring citizenship in another country. Aliens
are categorized in several ways: resident and
nonresident, immigrant and nonimmigrant,
documented and undocumented (“illegal”).

Overview

The United States welcomes a large number
of aliens every year. Millions of foreign-born
persons travel, work, and study in the country,
and hundreds of thousands more choose to
immigrate and become U.S. citizens. All of them
are subject to federal immigration law. At the
simplest level, the law serves as a gatekeeper for
the nation’s borders: it determines who may
enter, how long they may stay, and when they
must leave. In totality, of course, its scope far
exceeds this simple purpose. Immigration law is
concerned not only with borders but with what
goes on inside them. It has much to say about
the legal rights, duties, and obligations of aliens
in the United States, which, in some respects, are
different from those of citizens. Ultimately, it
also provides the means by which certain aliens
are naturalized as new citizens with all the rights
of citizenship.

Congress has total authority over immigra-
tion. In the legislative branch of government, this power has no equal. The U.S. Supreme Court has determined that “over no conceivablesubject is the legislative power of Congress morecomplete” (Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787, 97 S. Ct.1473, 52 L. Ed. 2d 50 [1977]).With a few notableexceptions concerning the right of aliens to constitutionalprotections, the courts have rarelyintruded. Presidents have no inherent say; theirinfluence is limited to policies on REFUGEES.Moreover, congressional authority preempts allstate laws and regulations and even addresses the rights of aliens during wartime. In practicalterms, these circumstances mean that immigrationlaw is entirely the domain of federal lawmakers,whose say is usually final. Congressalone decides who will be welcomed or turnedaway, as well as what aliens may and may not doin the United States.This authority has a long and controversialpast. The first laws date to 1875, and their historyis rife with discrimination. Lawmakers havealways created barriers that favor some aliensover others. At one time, Chinese were notwanted; at others, Japanese; the list goes on andon. Only in the last half of the twentieth centurywere these widely divergent policies codifiedunder a primary federal statute, the Immigrationand Nationality Act (INA) (Pub. L. No. 414,ch. 477, 66 Stat. 163, codified as amended inscattered sections of 8 U.S.C.A., 18 U.S.C.A., 22U.S.C.A., 49 U.S.C.A., 50 App. U.S.C.A.), since1952 the basic source of immigration law. Fordecades, the INA was easily tinkered withthrough amendments and bills. A dazzling numberof political reasons made Congress create apatchwork of preferences, exceptions, and quotas,each reflecting who was wanted and whowas not. Although somewhat less frequentlytoward the end of the twentieth century,national origin has often decided whether theUnited States admitted an alien.Modern legislation has introduced significantchanges. Reform has followed two distinctlines of thought: the need to stem illegal immigration,and the desire to make the law more fairfor legal immigrants. Congress tackled the firstissue in the Immigration Reform and ControlAct of 1986 (IRCA) (Pub. L. No. 99-603, 100Stat. 3359, codified as amended in scattered sectionsof the U.S.C.A.). The IRCA toughenedcriminal sanctions for employers who hire illegalaliens, denied these aliens federally fundedWELFARE benefits, and legitimized some aliensthrough an AMNESTY program. Related legislation,the Immigration Marriage Fraud Amendmentsof 1986, 8 U.S.C.A. § 1101 note et seq.,cracked down on the popular illegal practice ofmarrying to obtain citizenship. Fairness issueshelped influence the second major reform, the Immigration Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-649,104 Stat. 4978 (codified in scattered sections ofthe U.S.C.A.). Thoroughly revamping the INA,the 1990 act allocated visas more evenly amongforeign nations, eliminated archaic rules, andincreased the level of worldwide immigration by35 percent, to an annual level of 675,000.The SEPTEMBER 11TH TERRORISTS ATTACKSon the United States led to a reorganization ofthe agencies responsible for carrying out thenation’s immigration laws, as well as to severalrevisions in the immigration laws themselves. In2002, Congress abolished the Immigration andNaturalization Service (INS), replacing it withthe Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services(BCIS), a part of the HOMELAND SECURITYDEPARTMENT (DHS). The move became effectiveMarch 1, 2003. The attacks also led to theenactment of a number of statutes that seekboth to improve the immigration system and tohelp protect the United States from illegal alienswho may engage in terrorist activities on its soil.The goals of the new statutes were to accelerateimmigration processes related to citizenship andbenefits, to strengthen border patrol andenforcement, and to ensure detention andremoval of illegal aliens.Administrative Implementation ofImmigration and Naturalization LawsFor many years, the INS was responsible forimplementing many of the nation’s immigrationand naturalization laws. The terrorist attacks onSeptember 11, 2001, along with a number ofother incidents, led to harsh criticism of theagency. According to a number of lawmakersand other commentators, the INS was the worstmanaged agency in the federal government.Calls for reforming the agency led in 2002 to acall to abolish the agency. When Congresspassed the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub.L. No. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135 (codified asamended in scattered sections of 6 U.S.C.A.), iteliminated the agency and created the BCIS. Theprimary mission of the DHS is to prevent terroristattacks, reduce the vulnerability of theUnited States to TERRORISM, and minimize anydamage and assist in any recovery should terroristattacks occur in the country.The BCIS does not possess all of the powersthat the INS once had. It focuses exclusively onimmigration and citizenship issues regardingaliens in the United States. Among the agency’sprimary responsibilities are the review of petitionsby aliens for entry or retention in thecountry, adjudication of ASYLUM and processingof refugees, implementation of naturalizationprocedures, and issuance and renewal of documents.Many of the law enforcement powersthat the INS held have been removed from theBCIS, however.Under the Homeland Security Act, a numberof new agencies were created to carry outseveral other functions. Many of the responsibilitiesfor preventing entry of terrorists into theUnited States, carrying out immigrationenforcement functions, and other issues relatingto the protection of U.S. borders were delegatedto the Undersecretary for Border andTransportation Services. Other enforcementpowers were given to the Bureau of BorderSecurity Enforcement, which is responsible forthe detention, investigation, and inspection ofaliens under federal law.Admission ProceduresNormally, aliens wishing to enter the UnitedStates first apply for a visa at one of the over twohundred U.S. consulates and embassies abroad.Visas are documents required for travel to mostnations in the world. For example, U.S. citizensmay not simply cross the borders of Germany orZaire without a visa. Aliens, likewise, may notsimply cross the borders into the United States;they have no inherent right to enter the country.A visa is the only legal means of entry. In a largersense, it is the key to understanding the goalsand practices of immigration law.Two types of visas exist: immigrant visas andnonimmigrant visas. It is much easier to obtainnonimmigrant visas, which are primarily issuedto tourists and temporary business visitors. In1993, the INS admitted 21,447,000 nonimmigrantsto the United States. Nonimmigrant visasare divided into eighteen main categories rangingfrom vacationers and diplomatic personnelto athletes, temporary workers, and students.Most categories do not have any numerical limitation.The reasoning is simple: nonimmigrantsgenerally spend a short time and a lot of moneyin the United States, with obvious benefits forthe nation’s economic, social, and cultural life,and relatively few demands on its resources. Themost significant issue in nonimmigrant visas iswhether the alien may work in the United Stateswithout violating the terms of the visa.Immigrants find visas much harder toobtain. Millions of aliens want to live and work in the United States and enjoy the benefits ofU.S. citizenship, but only a fraction of them can.Congress sets numerical limits on most types ofimmigrant visas, under the theory that thecountry can realistically absorb only so manynew people. The 1995 annual ceiling was675,000, with flexibility for some categories. Inaddition, many immigrant visas are subject toper-country caps—roughly 25,000 per country,though some countries receive specialallowances.In law, aliens granted visas are said to haveobtained entry. The term entry has a specialmeaning that is different from a mere “physicalpresence in the United States.” An alien mightcross the border but still be determined byauthorities not to have entered the country.Entry means legal admittance and the freedomfrom official restraint. Its benefits are tangible:generally, aliens recognized by law to havegained entry have more rights than those whohave not gained entry.Denial of entry is called exclusion. Datingfrom the earliest attempts to control immigration,this controversial concept holds that it isnot in the national interest to admit some persons. Far-reaching grounds bar applicants forreasons related to health, crime, national security,and other variables. As part of the processfor reviewing visa applications, consular officialsdecide whether any ground for exclusionapplies. If the officials decide that none does, avisa may be granted, but entry is still not certain.The Bureau of Border Security Enforcement candecide otherwise when the alien actuallyattempts to cross the border. In practice, exclusionoccurs every day.Excluded aliens can argue their case in anexclusion hearing. This procedure differs greatlyfrom a deportation hearing, which involves analien who has already entered the United States.Deportation hearings are actually more advantageous:unlike exclusion proceedings, deportationhearings only follow from specificallegations and aliens subject to deportationhave more forms of legal relief. In an exclusionhearing, the burden is always on the alien toprove his or her right to enter the United States.The alien is entitled to many attributes of proceduralDUE PROCESS, and aliens who lose mayalso seek asylum (refuge or protection, usuallyfor political reasons) in some instances. Excluded applicants seeking to cross theborder may be kept in detention facilities untiltheir hearings have been held. In some cases,officers may choose to release an alien onPAROLE pending further review. Parole allows analien to travel away from the border and detentionfacilities temporarily, for reasons such aspreventing the separation of families. As a limitedright, parole is not equivalent to entry.Nonimmigrant VisasEach applicant for a nonimmigrant visa mustdemonstrate that she or he has no intention ofimmigrating. Generally, the application requiresdetailed information about the alien’s native residence,place of employment, reason for travelingto the United States, and destination. Most nonimmigrantvisas do not have annual numericallimits, but the INA does restrict those for professionalsto 65,000; temporary agricultural workersto 66,000; and performing athletes, artists,and entertainers to 25,000.Nonimmigrant aliens apply for a visa fromone of 18 categories, each assigned a letter, asfollows:A. Career diplomats;B. Temporary visitors for business and pleasure;C. Aliens in transit;D. Crew members;E. Treaty traders and investors;F. Students;G. International organization representatives;H. Temporary workers;I. Foreign media representatives;J. Exchange program visitors;K. Fiancées, fiancés, or children of U.S. citizens;L. Intracompany transferees;M. Students in nonacademic institutions;N. Parents and children of special immigrants;O. Aliens with extraordinary abilities;P. Entertainers;Q. Participants in cultural exchange programs;R. Religious workers.The visas are further categorized by numbers—for example, A-1, A-2, and so forth.Aliens use specific procedures for the particularvisa sought. Broadly speaking, these fall intothree classes: (1) applications that do not requirecontact with anyone in the United States (visasA, B, C, D, E, G, I, and O); (2) applications thatrequire proof of acceptance in an authorizedprogram (visas F, J, M, and Q, and visas for specialeducation trainees); and (3) applicationsthat require approved petitions which providethe basis for the alien’s presence in the UnitedStates (visas H, K, L, P, and R). Over half of allvisas require supporting documents at the timeof application. For example, an alien hoping towork temporarily in the United States as a registerednurse needs an employer’s petition toobtain an H-1A visa. Similarly, an alien planningto study at a university must present proof ofacceptance at the university for an F-1 visa. Analien engaged to a U.S. citizen will never see a Kvisa—let alone get married—unless the citizenhas filed a petition. In all cases, consular officialsmake the final decision. Generally, no JUDICIALREVIEW is available.Once admitted into the United States, aliensare inspected by Bureau of Border SecurityEnforcement officers, who give them a form I-94indicating the length and terms of their stay.Most aliens ultimately return to their country oforigin. Some wish to stay and immigrate.Generally,all nonimmigrant visa holders who are inthe United States may apply to have their visastatus adjusted to permanent-resident status,with the exception of crew member visa (visa D)holders. To qualify, the alien must have beeninspected and admitted or paroled into theUnited States and must meet standard eligibilityrequirements for obtaining an immigrant visa,and an immigrant visa must be immediately available at the time the application is filed. Inaddition, the alien must not have been in anunlawful status or, with few exceptions, haveaccepted any unauthorized employment.Immigrant VisasImmigrant visas come in two main categories:visas subject to numerical limitation andvisas not subject to numerical limitation. Theterm numerical limitation means several things.First, it refers to the overall limits set by Congresson immigrants. Second, it involves the useof per-country caps. Third, and most important,numerically limited visas are organized along asystem of preferences that favors certain aliensover others. Every immigrant wants the bestshot at a visa, but qualifying for the easiest category—visas not subject to numerical limitation—is quite difficult. Congress has reservedthis category for immediate relatives of U.S. citizens,resident aliens returning from temporaryvisits abroad, and former U.S. citizens. Consequently,for the vast majority of aliens who wantto immigrate, demand is much higher than therelatively short supply prescribed by law.Though having no numerical limitationmakes it easier to obtain, the immediate-relativevisa still carries strict limitations. Generally, theterm immediate relatives means children,spouses, and parents, but unique rules apply tochildren and spouses. To qualify as a child, theperson must be unmarried and under 21 yearsof age. The law is also concerned with how theparent came to have the child, and it applies specialage restrictions to legitimate and illegitimatechildren, stepchildren, adopted children, andorphans. Spouses of U.S. citizens must pass themost demanding tests. The law requires the aliento have a “valid and subsisting marriage” withthe citizen under the laws of the country wherethe marriage took place and considers a widevariety of marriages insufficient for granting thevisa. This severity is an answer to the commonabuse of marriage to obtain citizenship. TheImmigration Marriage Fraud Amendments of1986 impose criminal penalties for violations.The Fraud Amendments also impose a two-yearconditional residency requirement before alienspouses and their sons and daughters may petitionfor permanent-resident status.Three categories exist for visas subject tonumerical limitation: family sponsored,employment related, and so-called diversityimmigration. The last is a special category createdto reverse the drastic reductions in immigrationfrom European countries, particularlyIreland. Effective after 1995, a formula was usedto determine whether in the previous five yearsa country had been “underrepresented.” If so, analien from that country is eligible for one of55,000 visas annually allocated to diversityimmigrants. Aliens may apply once a year in alottery, making this a highly uncertain way toobtain a visa. Not everyone is eligible; applicantsmust generally have a high school education andtwo years of work experience. Different goalsmake more visas available to Hong Kong:because of uncertainty over the transfer of thecountry to China, the law allotted 20,000 visasannually to certain Hong Kong citizens whowere employees of U.S. businesses, their spouses,and their children.The primary types of numerically limitedvisas—family sponsored and employmentrelated—are organized into preference categories.Preference means that the law allocatesvisas to certain aliens over others in order topromote such goals as preserving families, protectingU.S. jobs, and admitting immigrantsmost likely to benefit the nation. How the lawranks aliens can be seen from the numerical limitson each category. Families are allotted226,000 visas annually, with a somewhat flexiblemaximum of 465,000 in four preference categories.Only 140,000 employment-related visasare allotted, in five preference categories.Unused visas from higher preference categoriesare reallocated to the lower categories.Preference in family-sponsored visas isdecided by the nature of an alien’s relationshipto the petitioner:First preference: Unmarried sons and daughtersof U.S. citizens, who are too old to qualify(age 21 or older) for the nonnumericallylimited immediate-relative visa: 23,400 visasplus any unused visas from the other familysponsoredpreference classes.Second preference: Spouses, children, andunmarried sons and daughters of aliens whoare lawful permanent residents: minimumof 114,200 visas. Spouses and children areallocated 77 percent of the visas; unmarriedsons and daughters (at least 21 years old), 23percent.Third preference: Married sons and daughters ofU.S. citizens: 23,400 plus any unused visasfrom the first- and second-preference classes. Fourth preference: Brothers and sisters of U.S.citizens, if the citizen is at least 21 years old:65,000 plus any unused visas from the threehigher classes.Employment-related preferences are notbased on any familial relationship. They focuson educational attainment and stress occupationsthat are highly specialized. Their levels areset as percentages of the worldwide maximumof 140,000.First preference: Priority workers are allotted28.6 percent. These are persons of “extraordinaryability” in the sciences, arts, education,business, or athletics; outstandingprofessors and researchers; and multinationalexecutives and managers.Second preference: Professionals holdingadvanced degrees or persons of exceptionalability in the sciences, arts, or business areallotted 28.6 percent.Third preference: Skilled workers in short supply,professionals holding baccalaureate degrees,and other workers in short supply are allotted28.6 percent.Fourth preference: Certain special immigrants:7.1 percent. These are mainly religiousworkers, as well as former employees of theU.S. government and international organizations.Fifth preference: Employment creation immigrantsare allotted 7.1 percent. These areinvestors who will create at least ten U.S. jobsby investing in a new commercial enterprisebenefiting the U.S. economy, especially inareas of low employment. Generally, theminimum required investment is $1 million.Though all potential immigrants face rigorousapplication requirements, certain categoriesare more exacting. Petitions are needed for visasbased on the immediate-relative, family-sponsored,and employment-related preference categories.These must be filed in the United Statesby citizens or resident aliens on behalf of theapplicant and then approved by the BCIS.(Under a significant exception, anyone maypetition on behalf of Amerasian children of U.S.service members.) Many of the employmentrelatedpreference categories also need anemployer’s petition. As a safeguard intended toprotect U.S. jobs, the employer is first requiredto seek an official form of permission calledlabor certification. This is approved only if(a) sufficient qualified workers are not availableand (b) employment of the alien will notadversely affect wages or working conditions ofsimilarly employed U.S. workers. The DEPARTMENTOF LABOR defines the occupations forwhich employers may seek certification in twogroups: the professions and unskilled labor.Only rarely is an unskilled labor applicationapproved. Furthermore, the job for which theemployer seeks labor certification must also bepermanent in nature.After approval of the labor certification orpreference petition, or both, the actual visaapplication process begins for an alien whoresides outside the United States. This processtakes place at the appropriate U.S. consulate,where authority to approve or deny an applicationbelongs exclusively to consular officials. Ifeligible, the alien must submit considerable documentation.The required documents includebiographical reports; police, court, prison, andmilitary records; birth and marriage certificates;passports; photographs; and evidence that thealien will not become a public charge while inthe United States. The alien gives the consulthese documents and the results of a medicalexamination. If all is in order, the applicant signsa formal application under oath.The consul usually rules on the applicationthe same day. The principal consular officerreviews any refusal to issue a visa, but no formalreview is available after that. The STATE DEPARTMENThas only limited authority over visadenials. The applicant has one year to overcomethe objection to the visa on which a refusal wasbased, or the entire visa application processmust be started anew. The BURDEN OF PROOF isalways on the applicant to establish eligibility. Ifthe applicant passes, the consul issues an immigrantvisa. Under certain circumstances, immigrantsunable to travel immediately may receivenew visas later.Once the immigrant actually arrives in theUnited States, an immigration officer againindependently examines the alien’s visa eligibility.This officer may exclude the alien in spite ofthe visa. In that case, the alien may be temporarilydetained, either aboard the vessel of arrival orin the United States pending a ruling. If the officerfinds the visa in order and admits the alien,the visa is retained by the BCIS as a permanentrecord of admission. The alien is then issued aform I-151, commonly known as a green card(even though its color is now off-white), andbecomes a permanent-resident alien. Although it is most often thought of as an employmentpermit, the green card was originally designed toserve as evidence of the alien’s status as a permanentresident of the United States.Rights of AliensAliens enjoy many of the rights afforded tocitizens. They can claim general protectionsunder the Constitution and the BILL OF RIGHTS.On the other hand, aliens cannot vote or holdfederal elective office— rights belonging solelyto citizens. Further legal rights depend on analien’s status: use of the courts, ownership ofland, obtaining a public education, and qualifyingfor federal welfare benefits are each to avarying degree restricted to lawful residentaliens. Similarly, the liability of an alien to paytaxes depends on resident or nonresident status.Resident aliens pay taxes in much the same waythat citizens do; nonresident aliens may qualifyfor special exemptions. Aliens can also berequired to obtain a so-called exit permit toensure that all taxes owed are paid before leavingthe country.In addition to following laws generally,aliens also have special duties. Some visasimpose additional requirements such as notifyingthe BCIS of changes of address and refrainingfrom engaging in paid employment.Criminal penalties apply to some misconduct ofaliens and citizens who abet them, includingMISREPRESENTATION or fraud in obtainingimmigration status, unlawful entry, and transportingor concealing an undocumented alien.For aliens who violate the law, the penalty iscommonly deportation. Citizens who bringaliens into the country illegally may face a fine,imprisonment for up to five years, or both, foreach alien they have illegally transported.Although the Supreme Court has held thatCongress alone makes immigration law, historically,states have placed harsh restrictions onaliens. In 1886, the Supreme Court struck downa San Francisco ordinance effectively banningChinese laundries, in the landmark case YICKWO V. HOPKINS, 118 U.S. 356, 6 S. Ct. 1064, 30 L.Ed. 220. Yick Wo established that the FourteenthAmendment’s Equal Protection Clause appliedto aliens. But states simply ignored it, and, fordecades, the Supreme Court found numerousways to uphold discriminatory restrictions.In state cases, a turning point came in 1971.In Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365, 91 S. Ct.1848, 29 L. Ed. 2d 534, the Supreme Court heldthat aliens could not be denied state welfare benefits.Most important, the Graham decisionstruck a blow against state discrimination ingeneral: it said that EQUAL PROTECTION casesinvolving aliens would be subject to the sameSTRICT SCRUTINY applied in RACIAL DISCRIMINATIONcases. In a series of decisions that followed,the Court removed numerous statebarriers—laws that barred all aliens from competitivecivil service employment, engineeringlicenses, and licenses to practice law. Nonetheless,through the late 1970s and 1980s, it backedaway from the strict scrutiny standard: it upheldNew York’s limitations on the certification ofalien public school teachers (Ambach v. Norwick,441 U.S. 68, 99 S. Ct. 1589, 60 L. Ed. 2d 49[1979]), for example, and California’s restrictionof peace officer jobs to citizens (Cabell v.Chavez-Salido, 454 U.S. 432, 102 S. Ct. 735, 70 L.Ed. 2d 225 [1982]). One key exception was Plylerv. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 102 S. Ct. 2382, 72 L. Ed. 2d786 (1982), granting the children of undocumentedaliens the right to attend public schools.Naturalization and CitizenshipResident aliens become citizens through naturalization.To apply for naturalization, mostaliens must meet several requirements. Theymust (1) reside continuously in the UnitedStates for five years as lawfully admitted permanentresidents; (2) be physically present in theUnited States for at least half of the time beforefiling the petition for naturalization; and(3) reside for at least three months within thedistrict in which the petition is filed. Aliens mustgenerally be at least 18 years of age, althoughparents who are citizens can file on behalf ofyounger children. Literacy and educational standardsmust be met: unless physically unable todo so, aliens must be able to speak, understand,read, and write simple English. They have toshow “good moral character”—an ambiguousterm that includes not being a drunkard, gambler,or convict jailed for 180 days or more. Theymust exhibit an attachment to constitutionalprinciples, essentially proved through a belief inrepresentative democracy, the Bill of Rights, andpolitical processes.To ascertain an applicant’s fitness for naturalization,a naturalization examiner conductsan informal hearing. The examiner questionsthe applicant and witnesses who can testify onher or his behalf and then renders a decision. Ifdenied, the applicant may reapply with LEGALREPRESENTATION; in some cases, federal district courts may determine naturalization or remandthe matter to the BCIS with instructions. Finally,if approved, the applicant is granted citizenshipat a hearing in open court after taking an oath ofallegiance to the United States.DeportationDeportation is the expulsion of an alienfrom the United States. In theory, it is a civil proceedingrather than a punishment, though thosewho are deported may certainly see it as a punishment.It is designed to remove undesirables asdefined under the INA. As in most aspects ofimmigration law, the Supreme Court has lefttotal authority over deportation to Congress.Merely allowing aliens to enter the country “is amatter of permission and tolerance,” the Courthas said, leaving the government free rein “toterminate hospitality” (Harisiades v. Shaughnessy,343 U.S. 580, 72 S. Ct. 512, 96 L. Ed. 586[1952]). Deportation provisions apply to allaliens whether they have legally or illegallyentered the country, with several specific exceptionsranging from ambassadors to employees ofinternational organizations such as the UNITEDNATIONS. Citizens cannot be deported, butdenaturalization proceedings can be broughtagainst a naturalized citizen and can then lead todeportation.Five major broad categories of grounds fordeportation cover (1) being excludable at thetime of entry or adjustment of status; (2) committingcriminal offenses; (3) failing to registerand falsifying documents; (4) posing a securityrisk and related grounds; and (5) becoming apublic charge of the state. Many more groundsfor deportation follow from these; the first categoryalone establishes nine classes of aliensexcludable at the time of entry. Since the TechnicalAmendments Act of 1991, these groundshave expanded with the addition of attemptingor conspiring to commit a crime. Deportation isfar-reaching in additional ways: frequently, theBCIS applies the statutes retroactively, so thataliens may be deported for conduct that was nota ground for deportation at the time they committedthe act. Many of the provisions alsodepend on when the alien entered the UnitedStates, and still others make aliens deportablefor acts they committed prior to entry.The mechanism of deportation involvesbroad official powers. Officers of the Bureau ofBorder Security Enforcement have considerablepower to investigate without search warrants,arrest, and detain suspects within one hundredmiles of the U.S. border. Aliens then receive adeportation hearing conducted by an immigrationjudge. They are entitled to legal counsel—though not at government expense—and thebasic rights of due process, as well as the rightsto examine evidence, present new evidence, andcross-examine witnesses. If the judge finds analien deportable, various avenues of relief areavailable, including administrative and judicialappeals. Furthermore, several forms of discretionaryrelief may entitle the alien to leave voluntarily,claim suspension of deportation, applyfor an adjustment of status, seek asylum as arefugee, or pursue numerous other options.Deportation often causes the U.S. citizenchildren of aliens to leave the United States.These children are not technically deported andmay ultimately choose to return.Deportation RemediesAliens generally want to avoid deportation atall costs. Even if an immigration judge rules thatan alien is deportable, the alien may still fightthe deportation order. This is called seekingrelief from deportation. Broadly speaking, twokinds of options exist: filing an appeal and seeking“discretionary” relief.Whichever method thealien chooses, time is of the essence. She or heusually must seek relief before the BCIS beginsexecuting the deportation order.Appeals from deportation rulings operate onthree levels. First, the alien’s attorney may file amotion to reopen the case, also called a motion toreconsider. It is used chiefly to present new evidence,and strict rules govern its usage. Courtsfrown on such motions because of the potentialfor unnecessarily delaying deportation, and thejudge may deny the motion if the alien has previouslyfailed to establish a sufficient case. In anyevent, the motion will not stop a pending deportationorder. Second, aliens may go to the higherauthority of the Board of Immigration Appeals(BIA). Filing a so-called administrative appealwith the BIA automatically delays the executionof a pending deportation order. The BIA decisionto uphold the deportation order, throw itout, or send the case back to the immigrationjudge is final. Within six months, however, thealien may appeal a decision of the BIA to a federalcourt for judicial review. Courts may hearthe case if there have been violations of the alien’sconstitutional rights.As the name implies, discretionary relief isgranted at the discretion of a judge. If granted, itwill eliminate or postpone the execution of adeportation order. Generally, the alien mustapply for discretionary relief during the deportationhearing, although some forms of reliefmay be sought before the hearing begins. In atwo-part process, the judge first determineswhether the alien is eligible under statutoryrequirements and then at the judge’s discretiondecides whether to grant it. Mere eligibility isnot a guarantee of relief.Several forms of discretionary relief exist.One very popular form is voluntary departure,which permits the alien to leave the UnitedStates under his or her own power, seek a destination,and even return to the selected countryimmediately, thus avoiding the stigma andpenalties of deportation. Suspension of deportationhelps the alien who has been in the UnitedStates for a long period of time and for whomdeportation would result in harsh consequences.Qualifying for suspension relief is difficult: thealien must have been continuously present inthe United States for seven to ten years, dependingon the nature of the conduct that renderedthe alien deportable—for example, overstaying avisa versus committing a felony; must have beena person of good moral character during thattime; and must demonstrate that he or she orthe alien’s U.S. citizen spouse, parent, or childwould suffer extreme hardship (under theseven-year rule) or exceptional and extremelyunusual hardship (under the ten-year rule) ifthe alien were deported. Another form of relief,adjustment of status, is available to an alienwhose status would otherwise let him or herremain in the United States: if an alien is admissiblefor permanent residence, he or she mayseek this relief to avoid having to go abroadwhile an immigrant visa is processed.Asylum, available only to aliens who qualifyas refugees, differs from other forms of discretionaryrelief. First, it does not guarantee analien permanent residence but merely grants theright to reside and work in the United Statestemporarily, for as long as the alien is entitled torefugee status. Under the INA, a refugee is analien unwilling or unable to return to her or hisnation because of a well-founded fear of persecutionon the ground of race, religion, nationality,membership in a particular social group, orpolitical opinion, or an alien whose nationalityhas been given refugee status by the president ofthe United States. Asylum may be sought at anytime during a deportation or exclusion hearingand can sometimes lead within one year to thegranting of permanent residence.Closely related to asylum is withholding ofdeportation. Although the grounds for withholdingare similar to those for asylum, thisform of relief may only be sought during adeportation hearing, and its duration is alwaystemporary. Aliens granted asylum or withholdingof deportation may qualify for adjustment ofstatus and thereby become lawful permanentresidents or citizens.Finally, a few kinds of discretionary relief areused in exceptional circumstances. A stay ofdeportation is a temporary hold on a deportationorder, commonly used in connection with amotion to reopen a case or pending an applicationfor permanent residence. Registry, availableonly to aliens who entered the United Statesbefore January 1, 1972, is used to create a lawful record of admission when no record is available.Further relief includes deferred action status, anonstatutory guideline contained within BCISinstructions to district directors; it amounts toan indefinite hold on any deportation actionbased on sympathetic factors. Rarely used isestoppel, in which courts stop deportation ordersbecause of government misconduct.Treatment of Aliens afterSeptember 11, 2001Since the September 11th attacks, reforms inthe immigration system have sought to accomplishtwo broad, yet competing, goals. On theone hand, many of the new laws relating toaliens have sought to accelerate the processespertaining to the citizenship and naturalizationbenefits. The former INS was heavily criticizedfor its inefficiency in carrying out the provisionsof the IRA, and the new agencies that replacedthe INS have been charged with the responsibilityof improving this system.On the other hand, the new laws have soughtto improve immigration procedures to identifypotential terrorists and other illegal aliens. Thefirst statute among several that enhanced lawenforcement procedures for dealing with terroristattacks was the USA PATRIOT ACT OF 2001,Pub. L.No. 107-56, 115 Stat. 272. This legislationand subsequent revisions through statute andregulation have sought to improve proceduresfor identifying known terrorists and suspectedcriminals at the various ports of entry.The dual concerns of immigration policy—that is, expediting the applications of aliens whowish to enter the United States lawfully versusthe protection of the country from those whowish to inflict harm—were also present whenthe INS possessed powers both to implementimmigration services and to enforce the immigrationpolicies. The extensive backgroundchecks of aliens caused a backlog of applications,slowing the process that was perceived tobe inaccurate and inefficient even prior to theattacks. Processing of immigrant applicationstook as long as three years in some cases. Theadministration of President GEORGE W. BUSHhas sought to mandate a six-month standard forthe processing of these applications.The detention of aliens under the new lawshas also caused concerns about the protection ofthe CIVIL RIGHTS of legal aliens. In the months thatfollowed the September 11th attacks, thousandsof suspect aliens were detained by the INS andofficials of the JUSTICE DEPARTMENT. Nevertheless,protection of U.S. citizens and land within thecountry has been a primary concern under theBush administration, and many observers havenoted that improved screening of aliens couldhave prevented the terrorist attacks in 2001.FURTHER READINGSCole, David. 1999. “Supreme Court Denies First AmendmentRights to Legal Aliens.” Legal Times 21 (March): 19.Illegal Aliens in the U.S. 1995. Upland, Pa.: Diane PublishingCompany.Immigration Legal Resource Center. 2001. A Guide for ImmigrationAdvocates. San Francisco: Immigrant LegalResource Center.McWhirter, Robert James. 2001. The Criminal Lawyer’sGuide to Immigration Law: Questions and Answers.Chicago: American Bar Association.Raskin, Jamin B. 1993. “Legal Aliens, Local Citizens: TheHistorical, Constitutional and Theoretical Meanings ofAlien Suffrage.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review141 (April): 1391-1470.CROSS-REFERENCESAmnesty; Asylum; Citizens; Deportation; Immigration andNaturalization; Parole; Refugees; Visa.

Aliens and Civil RightsSince the SEPTEMBER 11TH ATTACKS on the UnitedStates in 2001, the status of aliens physicallywithin the United States or its territories has beendecidedly more tenuous. Aliens (non–citizens owingpolitical allegiance to another country) are generallyafforded certain fundamental rights and protectionsunder the U.S. Constitution. For example, the DUEPROCESS CLAUSE of the FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTstates, in relevant part, that “no person shallbe deprived of life or liberty without due process oflaw.” But other constitutional provisions reserve certainfundamental rights to citizens only; for example,the FIFTEENTH and NINETEENTH AMENDMENTS guaranteethe right “of citizens of the United States” tovote.INTERNATIONAL LAW uses the term “alienenemy” to indicate a person who is the subject or citizenof a nation hostile to, or at war with, the nation inwhich the alien is found. The significance is that theperson becomes, in time of war, impressed with thecharacter of the enemy. However, the problem formany aliens in the United States is that, while theirhomeland may not be in a declared war with theUnited States, it may harbor terrorists or contribute toTERRORISM in a manner that renders the distinctionmoot. How, then, does the United States treat aliensfrom those countries? As author Roberta Smith notedin her 1997 law journal article, “America Tries toCome to Terms With Terrorism: The United StatesAnti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of1996 v. British Anti-Terrorism Law and InternationalResponse”:“The Fundamental question facing the UnitedStates, a democratic society . . . is how canthey constrain terrorism without jeopardizingtheir value systems (e.g., protecting constitutionaland CIVIL RIGHTS such as prohibitionsagainst unreasonable SEARCHES AND SEIZURES,and protection of free speech).”Prior to 2001, alleged terrorist attacks on theUnited States or on U.S. property included the 1993bombing of the World Trade Center in New York City;the 1995 bombing of the Murrah Federal Building inOklahoma City; the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassiesin Kenya and Tanzania; the 1999 rocket shelling ofU.S. buildings in Islamabad, Pakistan; and the 2000attack on the U.S.S. Cole. Mostly in response to theOklahoma bombing, Congress in 1996 passed theAntiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act(AEDPA), P.L. 104-132 (codified in scattered sectionsof 18 U.S.C.), and the Illegal Immigration and Reformand Immigration Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), P.L. 104-208 (codified as amended at 8 U.S.C. 1101). TheAEDPA amended immigration laws and streamlineddeportation procedures for aliens charged with terrorism.Before these acts were passed, excludablealiens (those whose right to enter the United Stateswas questioned by the Immigration and NaturalizationService [INS] prior to entry) were distinguishedfrom deportable aliens (those whose entry into theUnited States was found to be illegal, or whose rightto stay in the United States had terminated), and differentcorrelative rights were attached to each. Thatdistinction closely paralleled the terms of distinctionbetween nonimmigrant aliens and illegal aliens.However, the AEDPA and IIRIRA muddied those distinctions,granting power to act against both illegaland immigrant aliens who fell under the acts’ criteria.For aliens, the distinction between punishableacts of terrorism and the constitutionally protectedrights of association with, or support for, groups thathistorically advocate or engage in violence, wasbecoming increasingly nebulous. The AEDPA andIIRIRA permitted terrorism charges to be broughtagainst an alien for any alleged association with anorganization designated as terrorist by the SECRETARYOF STATE. Moreover, charges of terrorism couldrest entirely on confidential reports not disclosed tothe subject alien. Likewise, the IIRIRA limited JUDICIALREVIEW in deportation cases, even when thechallenge to deportation rested on First or FourteenthAmendment constitutional grounds.Nonetheless, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Reno v.Arab Anti-discrimination Committee, 525 U.S. 471, 119S.Ct. 936, 142 L.Ed.2d. 940 (US 1999), allowed the challengedAEDPA to stand. The Court again confrontedAEDPA issues in Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 121S. Ct. 249, 150 L.Ed.2d. 653 (US 2001), where a narrowmajority ruled that deportable aliens with criminalrecords could not be detained indefinitely when theircountries of nationality refused their return. The decisionreaffirmed that Due Process Clause protections still existed for this narrowly defined class of personswho faced deportation.In the wake of the September 2001 attacks, Congresspassed the all-encompassing USA PATRIOT ACT(formally, the Uniting and Strengthening America byProviding Appropriate Tools Required to Interceptand Obstruct Terrorism Act), H.R. 3162 (October 2001).The act, like the AEDPA, affects and amends severalother provisions in the U.S. Code. Over 100 pageslong, the act contains over 150 sections under tentitles. Of significance to aliens, Section 412 of the actprovides for mandatory detention of suspectedaliens. Aliens are suspect under the act for any ofseven enumerated causes for detention. Further, certainaliens may be held for seven days without beingcharged and might possibly be detained indefinitely ifdeemed not removable. The section provides for limitedjudicial review of such detentions.The act also required enhanced communicationsand sharing of data between the FBI, the JUSTICEDEPARTMENT, and the STATE DEPARTMENT, making iteasier to watch and track individuals. The Immigrationand Naturalization Service (INS) feeds informationinto the FBI’s crime database, particularlyconcerning aliens who have received final deportationorders but failed to show for their exit trip. Anysubsequent entry of that person’s name or data in anyother legal system, even for minor traffic offenses,will trigger arrest and deportation. In 2002, the JusticeDepartment announced that younger MiddleEastern men from nations with active al Qaida cellswho have ignored deportation orders would beexpelled first.Another key provision of the act was the implementationof an electronic tracking system affectingforeign students. It also began intense review of visaapplications of scientists, engineers, and students intechnical fields. Many foreign students accepted intoscientific or academic programs were ultimatelydenied visas. The Patriot Act also prohibited illegalaliens, among others, from having access to “selectagents” that could be used for harmful purposes.Following the release of information that seven ofthe 19 terrorists who boarded planes on September11, 2001, held drivers’ licenses from the Commonwealthof Virginia (although they were illegal aliens),many states began enacting laws to limit theissuance of drivers’ licenses to those aliens whoseimmigration status was legal. Approximately 12states had similar laws by the end of 2002 (California,Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota,New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina,and Virginia).In June 2003, an official U.S. Justice Departmentreport from its inspector general was critical of thedetainment of several aliens in the wake of the September2001 attacks. The 198-page report cited majordelays in informing the detainees of the reasons fortheir detention and criticized the unwritten “no bond”policy of detention. The report also mentioned harshconditions of confinement and instances of verbaland physical abuse.FURTHER READINGS“Arab Americans, Civil Rights Leaders Criticize Deportation Initiative.”2002. Press Release. KnightRidder WashingtonBureau.“Being on the Front Lines Against Terrorism.” 2003. NationalLaw Journal 25.Cohen, Adam. 2002. “Immigration.” Time 158, 159.“Licenses Denoting Noncitizens Criticized.” 2002. State GovernmentNews 45.Martin, David A. 2001. “Graduated Application of ConstitutionalProtections for Aliens: The Real Meaning of Zadvydas v.Davis.” Supreme Court Review.Michaels, C. William, and Jennifer Van Bergen. 2002. “The USAPatriot Act: One Year Later.” Truthout. Available online at<www.globalpolicy.org/wtc/liberties/2002/1114patriot.htm> (accessed July 14, 2003).Mukerjee, Madhusree. 2003. “Boxed Out.” Scientific American288.Ross, Susan Dente. 2001. “In the Shadow of Terror: The IllusiveFirst Amendment Rights of Aliens.” Comm. Law and Policy 6.“U.S. Report Critical of 9/11 Detainee Treatment.” CNN. Availableonline at <edition.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/02/detainees/>(accessed on November 20, 2003).

Welfare and ImmigrationIn 1875, the United States passed thefirst of many restrictive laws intendedto keep out certain aliens. A powerfulforce behind federal legislation hasalways been widespread hostility towardsome new arrivals. Disliking everythingfrom skin color to habits of speech,appearance, and worship, citizens haveconsistently opposed certain immigrants:the Irish in the 1800s, Jews and Slavs inthe early twentieth century, and SoutheastAsians subsequently. Illegal alienshave upset many U.S. citizens fordecades. Since the late 1980s, a newtheme has entered public discussion:opposing WELFARE benefits tolegal immigrants.Opponents of providingwelfare for immigrants usuallyvoiced such opposition withina general context of oppositionto the welfare system. Theinfluential conservative authorGeorge Will argued that aliens are brainwashedin much the same way as poorU.S. citizens—into believing that welfareis a normal way of life. “Today immigrantsare received in a welfare culturethat encourages an entitlement mentality,”Will wrote. The notion of an “entitlementmentality” is well-established in theanti-welfare camp, where it is believedthat government has erred by creating amindset of casual acceptance amongrecipients of benefits. This view does notdiscriminate between citizens and aliens.It holds that welfare is equally wrong forboth because it creates dependence overseveral generations and leads, as theprominent critic Charles Murray hasasserted, to social ills such as crime, drugaddiction, and illegitimate children.Moderates, such as President BILL CLINTON,embrace this analysis to a degree, yetremain less inclined than conservatives tosupport eliminating welfare completely.Welfare is a jumping-off point for abroader attack on federal immigrationlaw. If welfare is a mistaken policy, it followsthat any immigration policy thatcreates new dependents is itself flawed.Does U.S. policy create newdependents? The majoremphasis of the 1990 ImmigrationAct (Pub. L. 101–649,Nov. 29, 1990, 104 Stat. 4978)was on family unification: itstressed immigration by relativesof U.S. citizens and residentaliens, the majority ofwhom were generally granted visas aslong as they did not become “publiccharges,” that is, welfare recipients. Immigrantswere supposed to meet thisrequirement by having a sponsor familythat would help feed, clothe, and care forthem. Despite this requirement, federaldata suggested that many immigrantsbecame public charges anyway. In early1995, the GENERAL ACCOUNTINGOFFICE (GAO) reported that 6 percentof legal immigrants were receiving assistance,as opposed to only 3.4 percent ofcitizens.To the most outspoken critics, theUnited States was clearly welcoming thewrong immigrants. Instead of opening itsdoors to just anyone, they argued, thenation should be more selective. “Today’slaws,” Investor’s Business Daily editorializedin 1995, “. . . perversely favor immigrantsfrom the Third World over otherswith higher skills and greater understandingof Western culture.” The newspaperbemoaned this “low-skilled tide”for “push[ing] down the wages of poorerAmericans.” Not only did the conservativefinancial press make this argument;the left-wing magazine of opinion, TheNation, also repeated it, with a slightlydifferent emphasis on race. Immigrantshave “pushed blacks out of the marketplacealtogether,” the writer Wanda Colemanasserted in 1993. The economistSimon Kuznets and the author PeterBrimelow have tied the relative economicprogress of African Americans to the dramaticdecline in immigration between1920 and 1965.Some advocates of immigrationreform went farther. The AmericanEnterprise Institute, a neo-conservativethink tank, called for dumping thefamily-reunification goal for a systembased on “designer immigration”: admittingbetter-educated immigrants. Thiscase is made in detail in a 1995 bookcalled The Immigration Wave: A Plea toHold It Back, by Brimelow, himself animmigrant from England. Brimelow contendedthat the future is bleak: by the year 2050, the U.S. population will be nearly400 million, and over one-third of it willbe low-skilled immigrants who arrivedafter 1970. Unlike the one-third of theimmigrant population that came duringthe great wave between 1890 and 1920and then returned home, these men,women, and children will have stayedbecause of the welfare system. “The failuresare no longer winnowed out,”Brimelowwrote. “Instead, they are encouragedto stay—at the expense of the Americantaxpayer.” Only a designer approach canprevent a “bureaucratically-regulatedracial spoils system.”Of course, there was another side tothe debate. Reviewing The ImmigrationWave, the author Richard Bernstein criticizedBrimelow for ignoring “the genuinelymoving spectacle of millions ofpeople making better lives for themselvesin this country than they could in thecountries they came from.”Writing in theNew York Times, Nathan Glazer expressedregret over an increasingly agitated tonein the debate: “[W]e will all have to keepour heads and remember that we all camefrom someplace else.” Such sentimentshave long informed arguments in favor ofimmigration—namely, that it is generousand humanitarian.Sharper attacks on the reformerscame from the political left. In 1993, theNew Left Review defended immigrationby blasting public selfishness in the formof “the fiscal constraints on public spendingimposed by conservative, suburbanvoters.” Instead of restricting immigration,the Progressive magazine urged PresidentClinton to “try to ease theeconomic deprivations and political persecutionsthe United States has fosteredaround the globe, which themselves havepropelled much of the immigration tothis country.”This debate set the stage for thechanges in welfare for legal immigrantsthat were made in the 1990s. The reformefforts began in California: in 1994,nearly two-thirds of the state’s voterspassed Proposition 187 (CA Prop. 187[1994], 1994 Cal. Legis. Serv. Prop. 187[WEST]), a law intended to deny educationand public assistance to illegal aliens.The biggest appeal of Proposition 187was saving tax dollars. Concerns aboutheavy state expenditures prompted Californiaand Florida to bring unsuccessfullawsuits in the early 1990s, demandingreimbursement from the federal government,alleging that the federal failure toenforce immigration laws had saddledthe states with incredible debts. Althoughthe proposition was not aimed at legalimmigrants, its success with votersprompted some observers to regard it asa symptom of increasing intolerancetoward immigration in general.However,a federal district court decision in 1995,League of United Latin American Citizensv. Wilson, 908 F.Supp. 755, C.D.Cal(1995), prevented it from going intoeffect, by ruling that most of the law waspreempted by federal immigration law.In 1996, the federal governmentpassed the far-reaching welfare reformact known as the Personal Responsibilityand Work Opportunity ReconciliationAct of 1996 (PRWORA) (Pub. L. 104–193Aug. 22, 1996, 110 Stat. 2105). The newwelfare law particularly affected immigrants.Under the law, immigrants whoentered the United States legally afterAugust 22, 1996, were prohibited for atleast five years from receiving federal,non-emergency, means-tested benefits,including MEDICAID and the servicesfunded by federal block grants. Additionally,immigrants were barred from twoother programs, Supplemental SecurityIncome (SSI) and food stamps, until theyeither became United States citizens orworked in the country for 40 qualifyingquarters (8 USCA § 1601 et. seq.).The reforms did not stop there. Afterthe five-year ban expired, it was up to thestates to determine what welfare to givenew immigrants. States had the option ofdenying non-emergency Medicaid tomost new arrivals even after the five-yearban was over. States could also bar immigrantsfrom participating in any of thebenefit programs financed by Title XXblock grants, such as CHILD CARE, inhomeassistance for DISABLED PERSONS,and support services for abusedand neglected children. Finally, statescould exclude most current and futureimmigrants from other state-fundedbenefits, including Temporary Assistancefor Needy Families.Three groups of noncitizens wereexempted from disqualification: (1)REFUGEES, ASYLUM seekers, and aliensgranted withholding of deportation duringthe first five years after receiving theimmigration benefit; (2) permanent residentaliens if they have worked 40 qualifyingquarters as defined by the SOCIALSECURITY ACT; and (3) an alien and his or her family if the alien lawfully residesin the United States and is on active dutyin the military or has received an honorabledischarge. Proponents suggested avariety of reasons for enacting thesereforms, most embodied in the argumentsagainst welfare for immigrantslisted above. Some also alluded to a monetaryfactor: the immigrant restrictionsaccounted for almost half the total federalsavings from the welfare reform law.The provisions of the PRWORA thatdeal with immigrants were generally seenas the harshest part of the act and wereopposed by a wide variety of groups.President Bill Clinton, who signed thePRWORA into law, made it clear he disagreedwith its provisions for cuttingimmigrant benefits and campaignedagainst them in the 1996 election. Immigrantrights groups filed CLASS ACTIONlawsuits, and the state of Florida filed itsown lawsuit, worried that its taxpayerswould end up supporting immigrants whohad been cut off from federal benefits.As a result, Congress modified someof the harsher aspects of the law. As partof the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, thelaw restored SSI to those immigrants whowere receiving SSI as of August 22, 1996.It also allowed immigrants residing in theUnited States on August 22, 1996, to beeligible for SSI if they became disabled inthe future. New immigrants were still noteligible for SSI, nor would earlier immigrantsbe eligible in the future based ontheir age.Then, in 1998, Congress decided topartially restore food stamps by reinstatingeligibility for legal immigrant childrenand elderly persons who were legalimmigrants as of August 22, 1996. Thisaction readmitted approximately 250,000immigrants who were excluded under the1996 law. In addition, some states, such asWashington, have attempted to restore atleast partial food stamp benefits to immigrantswho were not covered by the 1998legislation.But other attempts to restore benefitsat the federal level have failed, for exampleone in 2002. Interestingly, at least onestudy released by the Center for ImmigrantStudies in 2003 claimed that thewelfare reform act had failed to reduceimmigrant usage of welfare programs.The study found that while immigrantusage of programs such as food stampsand Temporary Assistance for NeedyFamilies had fallen, this had been offsetby increased use of MEDICARE by immigrants,with the net percentage of immigrantsusing welfare programs remainingthe same as it was before welfare reformswere passed in 1996.

FURTHER READINGS

Camarota, Steven A. 2003. “Back Where WeStarted: An Examination of Trends inImmigrant Welfare Use since WelfareReform.” Center for Immigration Studies(March).Dodson, Marvin E. 2001. “Welfare Generosityand Location Choices among UnitedStates Immigrants.” International Reviewof Law and Economics 21 (March).McCurdy, Thomas, and Margaret O’Brien-Strain. 1998. “Reform Reversed? The Restoration of Welfare Benefits to Immigrants in California.” Public Policy Institute of California.