Immigrant Use of Public Programs
In The United States, 1996
By
David
E. Hayes-Bautista
Gregory Rodriguez
Abstract
Immigration and Welfare Reform
The U.S. accepts some 700,000 immigrants a year. They come here to create better lives for themselves and their families, and the overwhelming majority of immigrants optimize their new opportunity. Immigrants pay federal, state and local taxes at the same rate as American citizens. But, under the 1996 Welfare Reform Law, legal immigrants are denied SSI and food stamps, benefits, and states have the option to refuse them other assistance programs and non-emergency health care.
California's own battles over legal and illegal immigration have led to the widespread belief that immigrants either overutilize or abuse public benefits programs. This report provides data on immigrant utilization of a number of public assistance programs. While including data on immigrants from 18 different national origins, it highlights the two California immigrant groups most often characterized as heavy welfare users: Mexican and El Salvadoran. The federal program reported on include:
Medicaid
SSI
AFDC
Public Assistance
Food Stamps
Data Sources
In the March, 1996, Current Population Survey, the United States Bureau of the Census made a particular effort to generate data about immigrants from 18 countries/areas of origin. While there had been studies of immigrants by country of origin since 1994, the earlier studies had not included non-cash transfer programs such as Medicaid or Food Stamps.
The Current Population Survey is based on a sample of the nation's population. Because there are relatively few immigrants from any one country/area of origin, national level figures are reported in order to provide for a reasonable margin of error.
In order to provide some basis for comparison, data for use of these programs (except Food Stamps) by all Americans is provided from the 1995 Current Population Survey. The 1995 data were used for the All U.S. comparison because the 1996 data were not available at the time of this writing. While the data are separated by one year, they may be usefully compared for at least an order-of-magnitude comparison.
The purpose of this brief report is to provide overall patterns in the use of these public benefit programs. The All U.S. Population is very large (especially if compared to the immigrant population from any given country/area of origin) and its trends change very slowly and in small increments. There is no reason to believe that the All U.S. rates for 1996 will be significantly different from the rates for 1995.
If the two years of comparison had been widely separated (e.g., comparing 1990 rates to 1996), or if the two years had seen a sharp policy and/or programmatic change (such as Welfare Reform in late 1996) the comparison might be less useful.
Rather than wait for 1996 All U.S. data availability, these two consecutive years are being used to provide an order-of-magnitude comparison in order to inform public debate about these issues.
Country/Area Of Origin
Immigrants have come to the U.S. at different times, for different reasons, with varying levels of acceptance. Their stay in this country is conditioned by different economic conditions in different areas and at different times (e.g., the boom years of the 1980's compared to the recession-wracked 1990's). Their use of public programs is further conditioned by differing state rules for participation, and changes in each state over time.
For these reasons, in order to provide the most comprehensive "overall" view of immigrants and program participation, national level figures for each country/area of origin will be used in this study.
The 1996 Current Population Survey reported data for immigrant from the following countries/areas of origin:
|
|
In 1996, there was a total of 23,531,000 immigrants in the United States from the above groups. The countries/areas with the greatest number of immigrants were: Mexico (6,679,00), Other Europe (3,024,000), and Other Asia (2,559,00).
Nationally, Mexican immigrants accounted for 28% of the total foreign-born population, Other Europe accounted for 13%, and Other Asia accounted for 11%. See Figure 1 for a pie chart of immigrant composition.
Immigrant And Poverty
Poverty Rates
In 1995, 14% of the total U.S. population lived in poverty. In 1996, immigrants from most countries/areas of origin had poverty rates equal to or higher than All U.S. rate.
Immigrant from the Dominican Republic, Mexico, El Salvador, Other Caribbean, Other Central America, Cuba, Viet Nam, Other Asia, and Jamaica had poverty rates substantially higher than the All U.S. rate. See Figure 2.
Immigrants from other countries had poverty rates approximately equal to the All U.S. poverty rate: Korea, China, Other Europe, and South America.
Poverty rates lower than All U.S. rate were seen for immigrants from Germany, Great Britain, India, Canada, and the Philippines, although the difference are generally slight.
Movement Out of Poverty
the historical pattern for immigrants arriving in America is to arrive comparatively poor, and to move out of poverty over time. This pattern appears to continue to hold. While most immigrant groups have poverty rates equal to or higher than the All U.S. rate, the general pattern is that the longer an immigrant group has been in the U.S., the lower the poverty rate.
Figure 3 shows this change over time in eight immigrant groups. The general trend for these groups, including immigrants from Mexico, El Salvador, and Other Central America is that the most recently arrived (form 1990 to 1996) have the highest poverty rates, while those who arrived earlier have lower poverty rate.
Life in poverty is difficult, and public policy should be concerned about the welfare of those who live in poverty. However, concern about poverty should not lead to the conclusion that immigrants are necessarily mired in poverty, unable to move out. Clearly there is movement. Perhaps a portion of public policy should focus on facilitating and optimizing the natural movement out of poverty that immigrant typically exert.
Program Recipient as Percent of Poverty Population
Most public assistance programs for those under age 65 are means tested: a person must have low income in order to enroll and participate. There is variation from state to state in the exact income level for participation, and each program may have different income levels. In order to provide the most efficient but comprehensive portrait of immigrant and public program use, a simple control for poverty will be employed here: immigrants from a country/area of origin receiving a benefit will be expressed as a percent of immigrants from that country/area of origin living in poverty.
Thus, a rate will be calculated which is the number enrolled in a program as a percent of the total poverty population. While there are more definitive measures possible, their development would take considerable time. This rough control for poverty provides an "order-of-magnitude" portrait of immigrant participation in public programs by country/area of origin. While a little rough, it certainly is appropriate for informing public policy debate about immigrants and the use of public assistance programs.
Medicaid
One of the major non-cash assistance programs used by the poor and near-poor is Medicaid. The California version of this program is called Medi-Cal. Enrollment in Medicaid is means-tested: a person must demonstrate low income in order to be enrolled. Different states have different eligibility rules. Some, such as California's Medi-Cal, allows enrollment in some aspects for people earning up to 200% of the federal poverty level income. Other states are more stringent.
In the All U.S. population in 1995, Medicaid recipients represented 88% of all Americans in poverty. By way of comparison, in 1996, immigrants from most countries/areas of origin had rates of Medicaid recipience that were lower than the U.S. figure. In particular, immigrants from Mexico, El Salvador, Other Central America, and South America had very low rates of Medicaid recipience, about half the rate of all Americans in poverty and at about the same rate as immigrants from Germany, Canada, China, and Korea. See Figure 4.
Immigrants from Viet Nam, the Philippines, and other Europe had Medicaid recipience rates significantly higher than the All U.S. rate. Immigrants from Great Britain, Cuba and Dominican Republic had rates approximately equal to, but slightly lower than, the All U.S. rate.
It should be pointed out that rates of over 100% are possible, because in some states a person may earn more than poverty income (up to 200% of poverty income) and still be eligible for some Medicaid coverage.
SSI
SSI is a cash transfer program, i.e. recipients receive a cash amount. In the All U.S. population in 1995, SSI recipients represented 13% of all Americans in poverty. In 1996, immigrants from about a third of the countries/areas of origin had SSI recipience rates that were substantially below the All U.S. rate: Mexico, El Salvador, Jamaica, South America, and India. See Figure 5.
Immigrants from about a third of the countries/areas of origin had SSI recipience rates that were significantly above the All U.S. rate: the Philippines, Cuba, China, Other Europe, and Korea.
Immigrants from the remaining countries/areas of origin had recipience rates that were approximately equal to the All U.S. rate.
AFDC
Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) is another cash-transfer program. In the All U.S. population for 1995, AFDC recipients represented 10% of all Americans in poverty. In 1996, immigrants from Mexico, El Salvador, Other Central America, and South America had rates of AFDC recipience that were approximately equal to the All U.S. rate, as did immigrants from Canada, Other Caribbean, Great Britain, Other Europe, and Other Asia. See Figure 6.
Immigrants from some countries/areas of origin -- Cuba, Germany, China, India, and Korea -- had rates that were substantially below the All U.S. rate.
Immigrants from only four countries -- The Dominican Republic, Viet Nam, Jamaica, and the Philippines -- had AFDC recipience rates significantly above the all U.S. rate.
Use of AFDC will depend heavily upon the presence of children. Thus, the low use of this program by immigrants from Cuba and Germany may be partly explained by the relative lack of children in those immigrant populations. Yet, immigrants from other high fertility areas such as Mexico, El Salvador, and India also have comparatively low rates of utilization.
Public Assistance
Public Assistance is another cash-transfer program. In the All U.S. population for 1995, Public Assistance recipients represented 14% of all Americans in poverty. Immigrants from Mexico, El Salvador, Other Caribbean, South America and India had Public Assistance recipience rates that were approximately equal to the All U.S. rates. See Figure 7.
Immigrants from a number of countries/areas of origin had Public Assistance recipience rates that were significantly higher than the All U.S. rate: the Philippines, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Other Europe, Viet Nam, China and Korea.
Food Stamps
Food Stamps are a non-cash-transfer program that expands the ability of a low-income family to buy food. Data were not available fro an All U.S. rate of Food Stamp recipience, so no All U.S. comparison is made here.
Immigrants from Cuba, Viet Nam, the Dominican Republic, and other Europe made comparatively high usage if this program compared to immigrants from other countries/areas of origin. Immigrants from Other Caribbean, India, and Korea made comparatively light usage. Immigrants from Mexico and El Salvador had recipience rates that fell in the middle range compared to immigrants from the other countries/areas of origin. See Figure 8.
Conclusion
National level data have provided a comparative picture of public assistance program use by immigrants from 18 different countries/areas of origin during 1996. By way of comparison, national level data for participation in the same programs (except Food Stamps) for the entire U.S. population have been presented for 1995.
These national level data allow us to see different patterns in the different groups. Not all immigrants behave alike: when compared to the All U.S. population, great variances are seen.
However, one constant pattern is that immigrants from Mexico, El Salvador, and Other Central America have utilization patterns at or below the rates for the All U.S. population.
Immigrants from other countries/areas of origin have more varied patterns of use. There are many reasons for the differences: time of arrival, age structure, gender composition, educational level, etc. While a more detailed analysis remains to be done that take these variables into account, much welfare reform at the state and national level appears to assume that all immigrants behave alike. These data are provided here to inform the public debate about differential patterns of public assistance program utilization.
