what services are denied to undocumented residents in us

Overview of Immigrant Eligibility for Federal Programs

Updated OCTOBER 2021

By Tanya Broder, Gabrielle Lessard, and Avideh Moussavian

The major federal public benefits programs have long excluded some non–U.S. citizens from eligibility for assistance. Programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly known as the Food Postage Programme), nonemergency Medicaid, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), and Temporary Aid for Needy Families (TANF) and its precursor, Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), were largely unavailable to undocumented immigrants and people in the United States on temporary visas.

However, the 1996 federal welfare and clearing laws introduced an unprecedented era of restrictionism.^[1] Prior to the enactment of these laws, lawful permanent residents of the U.South. generally were eligible for assistance in a manner similar to U.Southward. citizens. Once the laws were implemented, nigh lawfully residing immigrants were barred from receiving assist nether the major federal benefits programs for 5 years or longer.

Fifty-fifty where eligibility for immigrants was preserved past the 1996 laws or restored by subsequent legislation, many immigrant families hesitate to enroll in disquisitional health care, task-training, nutrition, and cash assistance programs due to fear and confusion caused past the laws' complexity and other intimidating factors. As a result, the participation of immigrants in public benefits programs decreased sharply later passage of the 1996 laws, causing astringent hardship for many low-income immigrant families who lacked the support available to other low-income families.^[two]

Efforts to address the chilling effects and confusion accept continued since that time. The Trump administration's exclusionary policies compounded the problem, making it even more difficult to ensure that eligible immigrants and their family members would secure services.

This article focuses on eligibility and other rules governing immigrants' access to federal public benefits programs. Many states accept attempted to fill some of the gaps in noncitizen coverage resulting from the 1996 laws, either by electing federal options to cover more eligible noncitizens or by spending state funds to encompass at least some of the immigrants who are ineligible for federally funded services.

In determining an immigrant's eligibility for benefits, it is necessary to understand the federal rules as well as the rules of the state in which an immigrant resides. Updates on federal and state rules are bachelor on NILC's website.^[3]

Immigrant Eligibility Restrictions

Categories of Immigrants: "Qualified" and "Not Qualified"

The 1996 welfare law created two categories of immigrants for benefits eligibility purposes: "qualified" and "not qualified." Contrary to what these names suggest, the police excluded many people in both groups from eligibility for many benefits, with a few exceptions. The "qualified" immigrant category includes:

lawful permanent residents, or LPRs (people with green cards)
refugees, people granted asylum or withholding of deportation/removal, and conditional entrants
people granted parole by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for a period of at least 1 yr
Cuban and Haitian entrants
certain abused immigrants, their children, and/or their parents^[iv]
certain survivors of trafficking^[5]
individuals residing in the U.S. pursuant to a Meaty of Free Clan (COFA) (for Medicaid purposes merely)^[6]

All other immigrants, including undocumented immigrants, as well as many people who are lawfully present in the U.S., are considered "not qualified."^[7]

In the years since the initial definition became law, at that place have been a few expansions of access to benefits. In 2000, Congress established a new category of noncitizens — survivors of trafficking — who are eligible for federal public benefits to the same extent as refugees, regardless of whether they have a qualified immigrant status.^[viii] In 2003, Congress clarified that "derivative beneficiaries" listed on trafficking survivors' visa applications (spouses and children of developed trafficking survivors; spouses, children, parents, and small siblings of child survivors) besides may secure federal benefits.^[9] Past 2009, Iraqis and Afghans granted Special Immigrant visas similarly became eligible for benefits to the same extent as refugees.^[10] In 2021, Congress extended the same benefits eligibility to certain Afghans paroled into the U.Due south.^[11] And in 2020, Congress declared that, for Medicaid purposes only, citizens of Federated states of micronesia, Marshall Islands, and Palau who reside in the U.Southward. pursuant to a Compact of Free Clan (COFA migrants) would exist considered "qualified" immigrants.^[12]

Federal Public Benefits Generally Denied to "Not Qualified" Immigrants

With some of import exceptions detailed below, the police prohibits not-qualified immigrants from enrolling in most "federal public benefit programs."^[13] Federal public benefits include a variety of safe-net services paid for by federal funds.^[14] Only the welfare constabulary'due south definition does not specify which programs are covered by the term, leaving that clarification to each federal benefit–granting agency. In 1998, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) published a notice clarifying which of its programs fall under the definition.^[15] The list of 31 HHS programs includes Medicaid, the Children'south Health Insurance Programme (CHIP), Medicare, TANF, Foster Care, Adoption Aid, the Child Care and Development Fund, and the Depression-Income Home Energy Assistance Program. Any new programs must be designated as federal public benefits in social club to trigger the associated eligibility restrictions and, until they are designated as such, should remain open to broader groups of immigrants.

The HHS detect clarifies that not every benefit or service provided within these programs is a federal public benefit. For example, in some cases not all of a programme's benefits or services are provided to an individual or household; they may extend, instead, to a community of people — every bit in the weatherization of an entire apartment building.^[16]

The welfare law also attempted to force states to pass boosted laws, after Baronial 22, 1996, if they choose to provide state public benefits to sure immigrants.^[17] Such micromanagement of country diplomacy by the federal authorities is potentially unconstitutional nether the Tenth Amendment.^[18]

Exceptions to the Restrictions

The police includes of import exceptions for certain types of services. Regardless of their immigration status, non-qualified immigrants are eligible for emergency Medicaid^[19] if they are otherwise eligible for their state's Medicaid plan.^[20] The constabulary does not restrict access to public health programs that provide immunizations and/or treatment of communicable illness symptoms (whether or not those symptoms are caused past such a illness). School breakfast and lunch programs remain open to all children regardless of immigration status, and every state has opted to provide access to the Special Supplemental Diet Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC).^[21]

Brusk-term noncash emergency disaster help remains available without regard to clearing status. Also exempted from the restrictions are other in-kind services necessary to protect life or rubber, equally long as no individual or household income qualification is required. In 2001, the U.S. attorney general published a final order specifying the types of benefits that come across these criteria. The attorney general's list includes child and adult protective services; programs addressing atmospheric condition emergencies and homelessness; shelters, soup kitchens, and meals-on-wheels; medical, public wellness, and mental health services necessary to protect life or safety; disability or substance abuse services necessary to protect life or safety; and programs to protect the life or safety of workers, children and youths, or customs residents.^[22]

Verification Rules

When a federal agency designates a plan as a federal public benefit foreclosed to not-qualified immigrants, the law requires the state or local agency to verify the immigration and citizenship condition of all plan applicants. However, many federal agencies have non specified which of their programs provide federal public benefits. Until they do, state and local agencies that administer the programs are not obligated to verify the immigration condition of people who apply for them.

And under an important exception contained in the 1996 immigration police, nonprofit charitable organizations are not required to "determine, verify, or otherwise crave proof of eligibility of any applicant for such benefits." This exception relates specifically to the immigrant benefits restrictions in the 1996 welfare and immigration laws.^[23]

Eligibility for Major Federal Benefit Programs

Congress restricted eligibility even for many qualified immigrants by arbitrarily distinguishing between those who entered the U.South. before or "on or after" the date the law was enacted, August 22, 1996. The constabulary barred near immigrants who entered the U.S. on or later on that date from "federal means-tested public benefits" during the five years afterward they secure qualified immigrant status.^[24] This waiting period is often referred to as the five-year bar. Federal agencies clarified that the "federal means-tested public benefits" are Medicaid (except for emergency services), CHIP, TANF, SNAP, and SSI.^[25]

TANF, Medicaid, and Scrap

States can receive federal funding for TANF, Medicaid, and CHIP to serve qualified immigrants who have completed the federal five-yr bar.^[26] Refugees, people granted asylum or withholding of deportation/removal, Cuban/Haitian entrants, certain Amerasian immigrants,^[27] Iraqi and Afghan Special Immigrants, and survivors of trafficking are exempt from the five-year bar, as are qualified immigrants who are veterans or active duty armed services and their spouses and children. In addition, children who receive federal foster care and COFA migrants are exempt from the five-yr bar in the Medicaid plan.

Over one-half of u.s.a. have used state funds to provide TANF, Medicaid, and/or CHIP to some or all of the immigrants who are subject to the five-year bar on federally funded services, or to a broader grouping of immigrants.^[28] Several states or counties provide health coverage to children or pregnant persons regardless of their immigration status.

In 2009, when Congress showtime reauthorized the Scrap program, states were granted an pick to provide federally funded Medicaid and Flake to "lawfully residing" children and/or meaning persons regardless of their date of entry into the U.S.^[29] 30-v states plus the District of Columbia (as of July 2021) have opted to have advantage of this federal funding for immigrant health care coverage,^[thirty] which became available on Apr 1, 2009.

Seventeen states plus the District of Columbia use federal funds to provide prenatal care regardless of immigration status, nether the Chip programme's pick enabling states to enroll fetuses in Fleck. Thus the pregnant person'south fetus is technically the recipient of Fleck-funded services. This approach potentially limits the scope of services bachelor to the pregnant person to those directly related to the fetus's wellness.

The District of Columbia, New Jersey, and New York provide prenatal intendance to women regardless of immigration status, using land or local funds.

Although the federal wellness care reform law, known equally the Affordable Care Act (ACA),^[31] did non alter immigrant eligibility for Medicaid or CHIP, it provided new pathways for lawfully present immigrants to obtain health insurance. Coverage purchased in the ACA's wellness insurance marketplaces is available to lawfully present noncitizens whose immigration status makes them ineligible for Medicaid.^[32]

SNAP

Although the 1996 law severely restricted immigrant eligibility for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly known as the Nutrient Stamp Plan), subsequent legislation restored access for many immigrants. Qualified immigrant children, refugees, people granted aviary or withholding of deportation/removal, Cuban/Haitian entrants, certain Amerasian immigrants, Iraqi and Afghan Special Immigrants, survivors of trafficking, qualified immigrant veterans, active duty military and their spouses and children, lawful permanent residents with credit for twoscore quarters of work history, certain Native Americans, lawfully residing Hmong and Laotian tribe members, and immigrants receiving disability-related assist are eligible regardless of their date of entry into the U.S.^[33] Qualified immigrant seniors who were born before August 22, 1931, may exist eligible if they were lawfully residing in the U.S. on August 22, 1996. Other qualified immigrant adults, nevertheless, must wait until they take been in qualified status for five years before they can secure critical diet assist.

Six states — California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, and Washington — provide state-funded nutrition assistance to some or all of the immigrants who were rendered ineligible for the federal SNAP plan.^[34]

SSI

Congress imposed its harshest restrictions on immigrant seniors and immigrants with disabilities who seek assistance nether the SSI programme.^[35] Although advocacy efforts in the two years post-obit the welfare law's passage achieved a fractional restoration of these benefits, significant gaps in eligibility remain. For example, SSI continues to exclude not-qualified immigrants who were not already receiving the benefits, as well every bit nearly qualified immigrants who entered the country after the welfare constabulary passed and seniors without disabilities who were in the U.Southward. before that date.^[36]

"Humanitarian" immigrants (including refugees, people granted asylum or withholding of displacement/removal, Amerasian immigrants, Cuban and Haitian entrants, Iraqi and Afghan Special Immigrants, and survivors of trafficking) can receive SSI, only only during the first seven years after having obtained the relevant status. The main rationale for the seven-year time limit was that information technology was intended to provide a sufficient opportunity for humanitarian immigrant seniors and those with disabilities to naturalize and retain their eligibility for SSI equally U.S. citizens. However, a combination of factors, including clearing backlogs, processing delays, sometime statutory caps on the number of asylees who can adjust their immigration condition, language barriers, and other obstacles, made it impossible for many of these individuals to naturalize within seven years. Although Congress enacted an extension of eligibility for refugees who faced a loss of benefits due to the seven-yr time limit in 2008, that extension expired in 2011.^[37] Subsequent attempts to reauthorize the extension were unsuccessful, and the termination from SSI of thousands of seniors and people with disabilities continues.

V states — California, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, and New Hampshire — provide cash assistance to sure immigrant seniors and people with disabilities who were rendered ineligible for SSI; some others provide much smaller full general assistance grants to these immigrants.

The Impact of Sponsorship on Eligibility

Under the 1996 welfare and immigration laws, family members and some employers eligible to file a petition to aid a person immigrate must become financial sponsors of the immigrant by signing a contract with the government (an affidavit of back up). Under the enforceable affidavit (Form I-864), the sponsor promises to support the immigrant and to repay sure benefits that the immigrant may utilise.

Congress imposed additional eligibility restrictions on immigrants whose sponsors sign an enforceable affidavit of support. When an agency is determining a lawful permanent resident's financial eligibility for TANF, SNAP, SSI, nonemergency Medicaid, or Scrap,^[38] in some cases the law requires the agency to "deem" the income of the immigrant'south sponsor or the sponsor's spouse as available to the immigrant. The sponsor'due south income and resource are added to the immigrant'southward, which frequently disqualifies the immigrant as over-income for the programme. The 1996 laws imposed deeming rules in sure programs until the immigrant becomes a citizen or secures credit for twoscore quarters (approximately ten years) of work history in the U.S.

Domestic violence survivors and immigrants who would go hungry or homeless without assistance ("indigent" immigrants) are exempt from sponsor deeming for at least 12 months.^[39] Some programs apply additional exemptions from the sponsor-deeming rules.^[40] The U.South. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has issued helpful guidance on the indigence exemption and other deeming and liability bug.^[41]

Beyond Eligibility: Overview of Barriers That Impede Access to Benefits for Immigrants

Confusion near Eligibility

Confusion nigh eligibility rules pervades benefit agencies and immigrant communities. The confusion stems from the complex interaction of the immigration and welfare laws, differences in eligibility criteria for various state and federal programs, and a lack of acceptable grooming on the rules as clarified by federal agencies. Consequently, many eligible immigrants have assumed that they should not seek services, and eligibility workers have turned away eligible immigrants mistakenly.

Fear of Beingness Considered a Public Accuse

The immigration laws allow officials to deny an application for lawful permanent residence or to deny a noncitizen entry into the U.S. if the regime determine that the person is "probable to go a public charge."^[42] In deciding whether an immigrant is probable to become a public accuse, clearing or consular officials review the "totality of the circumstances," including the person's health, age, income, instruction and skills, employment, family circumstances, and, well-nigh chiefly, the affidavits of support.

The misapplication of this public charge basis of inadmissibility immediately after the welfare law passed contributed significantly to the chilling upshot on immigrants' access to services. The law on public accuse did not change in 1996, and use of programs such as Medicaid or SNAP had never weighed heavily in determining whether individuals were inadmissible under the public charge ground.

Confusion and fright about these rules, yet, became widespread.^[43] Immigrants' rights advocates, health care providers, and land and local governments organized to persuade federal agencies to clarify the limits of the rules. In 1999, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS, whose functions were later on causeless by the Department of Homeland Security, or DHS) issued helpful guidance and a proposed regulation on the public accuse doctrine.^[44] The guidance clarifies that receipt of health care and other noncash benefits will non jeopardize the clearing status of recipients or their family unit members by putting them at hazard of being considered a public accuse.^[45]

The Trump assistants attempted to alter these rules dramatically past issuing rules that would get in much more difficult for low- and eye-income families to immigrate, and that profoundly exacerbated the chilling effect on admission to services. Multiple courts institute that the rules were likely unlawful. The Biden administration dismissed the appeals of these decisions, allowed an lodge vacating the DHS rule to accept effect, and formally withdrew the prior assistants'southward DHS public charge rule. It has appear its intention to promulgate new public accuse rules. In the meantime, the principles articulated in the 1999 Field Guidance govern public charge decisions.

Particularly given these developments, widespread confusion and concern about the public charge rules remain, deterring many eligible immigrants from seeking critical services.^[46]

Requirement of Affidavits of Back up

The 1996 laws enacted rules that go far more difficult to immigrate to the U.Southward. to reunite with family members. Effective Dec 19, 1997, relatives (and some employers) who sponsor an immigrant have been required to run into strict income requirements and to sign a long-term contract, or affidavit of support (USCIS Form I-864), promising to maintain the immigrant at 125 percent of the federal poverty level and to repay any means-tested public benefits the immigrant may receive.^[47]

The specific federal benefits for which sponsors may be liable have been defined to be TANF, SSI, SNAP, nonemergency Medicaid, and Flake. Regulations near the affidavits of support issued in 2006 brand clear that states are non obligated to seek reimbursement from sponsors and that states cannot collect reimbursement for services used prior to issuance of public notification that the services are considered ways-tested public benefits for which sponsors volition exist liable.^[48]

Almost states take not designated which programs would give rise to sponsor liability, and, for diverse reasons, agencies by and large have not attempted to seek reimbursement from sponsors. Nonetheless, the specter of making their sponsors liable financially has deterred eligible immigrants from applying for critical services.

Linguistic communication Admission

Many immigrants face significant linguistic and cultural barriers to obtaining benefits. As of 2019, approximately 22 percent of the U.South. population (5 years of age and older) spoke a language other than English at domicile.^[49] Although 97 per centum of long-term immigrants to the U.S. somewhen learn to speak English well,^[fifty] many are in the process of learning the linguistic communication, and around 8.ii percent of people living in the U.South. speak English language less than very well.^[51] These limited–English expert (LEP) residents cannot effectively apply for benefits or meaningfully communicate with a health care provider without language help.

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its implementing regulations prohibit recipients of federal funding from discriminating on the basis of national origin, which has been interpreted to prohibit bigotry based on language. Benefit agencies, health care providers, and other entities that receive federal fiscal assistance are required to take "reasonable steps" to assure that people who are LEP take "meaningful access" to federally funded programs, merely compliance with this constabulary varies widely, and language admission remains a challenge.^[52]

Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act prohibits bigotry on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex activity, historic period, or disability in wellness programs or activities that receive federal funding or are administered by an executive agency or any entity established under Title I of the ACA, which created the wellness insurance marketplaces such as HealthCare.gov.^[53]

Regulations finalized in 2020 rolled dorsum aspects of department 1557'due south implementation, every bit provided in 2016 regulations, including narrowing the telescopic of its coverage and some specific provisions related to language access. The Biden administration has indicated that it will suggest new regulations in the spring of 2022.^[54]

Verification

Rules that require benefit agencies to verify applicants' immigration or citizenship condition have been misinterpreted by some agencies, leading some to need immigration documents or Social Security numbers (SSNs) in situations when applicants are not required to submit such information.

In 1997, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), the department primarily responsible for implementing and enforcing immigration laws prior to the creation of DHS in 2002, issued interim guidance for federal benefit providers to use in verifying immigration status.^[55] The guidance, which remains in effect, directs do good agencies already using the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (Relieve) process to continue to exercise so.^[56] Previously, the utilise of SAVE in the SNAP program was an option that could be exercised by each land, but the 2014 Farm Bill mandated that SAVE be used in SNAP nationwide.^[57]

However, important protections for immigrants who are subject to verification remain in place. Applicants for major benefits are guaranteed a "reasonable opportunity" to provide requested immigration documents, including, in some cases, receipts confirming that the person has practical for replacement of lost documents. In the federal programs that are required by law to use Salve, applicants who declare that they accept a satisfactory status and who provide documents within the reasonable opportunity menses should remain eligible for help while verification of their condition is pending. And data submitted to the Relieve organisation may not be used for civil clearing enforcement purposes.

The 1997 guidance recommends that agencies brand decisions almost fiscal and other eligibility factors before asking an applicant for information well-nigh their immigration condition.

Questions on Awarding Forms

Federal agencies have worked to reduce the chilling effect of clearing condition–related questions on benefit applications. In 2000, HHS and USDA issued a "Tri-Bureau Guidance" document, recommending that states delete from benefit applications questions that are unnecessary and that may arctic participation by immigrant families.^[58] The guidance confirms that only the immigration status of the bidder for benefits is relevant. It encourages states to allow family or household members who are not seeking benefits to exist designated as nonapplicants early in the application process. Similarly, nether Medicaid, TANF, and SNAP, only the bidder must provide a Social Security number. In 2011, the USDA issued a memo instructing states to use these principles in their online application procedures.^[59]

SSNs are non required for people seeking only emergency Medicaid.^[60]

In 2001, HHS said that states providing CHIP through separate programs (rather than through Medicaid expansions) are authorized, but non obligated, to require SSNs on their Scrap applications.^[61]

Reporting to the Department of Homeland Security

Another common source of fear in immigrant communities stems from a 1996 provision that requires benefits-administering agencies to study to DHS people who the agencies know are not lawfully present in the U.S. This requirement is, in fact, quite narrow in scope.^[62] It applies only to iii programs: SSI, certain federal housing programs, and TANF.^[63]

In 2000, federal agencies outlined the limited circumstances under which the reporting requirement is triggered.^[64] Only people who are actually seeking benefits (not relatives or household members applying on their behalf) are subject to the reporting requirement. Agencies are not required to written report such applicants unless there has been a formal determination, subject field to administrative review, on a merits for SSI, public housing, or TANF. The conclusion that the person is unlawfully present also must be supported by a conclusion by the immigration government, "such as a Last Order of Deportation."^[65] Findings that do not meet these criteria (e.chiliad., a DHS response to a Save computer research indicating an immigrant's status, an oral or written access by an bidder, or suspicions of agency workers) are insufficient to trigger the reporting requirement. Agencies are not required to submit reports to DHS unless they have knowledge that meets the in a higher place requirements. Finally, the guidance stresses that agencies are non required to make immigration status determinations that are not necessary to confirm eligibility for benefits.

In that location is no federal reporting requirement in wellness programs. To address the concerns of eligible citizens and immigrants in mixed–clearing status households, the DHS issued a memo in 2013 confirming that information submitted by applicants or family members seeking Medicaid, Scrap, or health care coverage nether the Affordable Care Act would not exist used for civil immigration enforcement purposes.^[66]

Looking Alee

The 1996 welfare police produced sharp decreases in public benefits participation by immigrants. Proponents of welfare "reform" saw that fact as show of the law's success, noting that a reduction of welfare use, specially among immigrants, was precisely what the legislation intended. The wisdom of these restrictions increasingly has been called into question, including the unfairness of excluding immigrants from programs that are supported by their taxes.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, many states and localities recognized that they could not protect the health and safety of their residents unless everyone in the community had admission to wellness care, safe working conditions, and economical support. Numerous jurisdictions offered short-term disaster help, stimulus payments, or other relief to individuals who were excluded from federal economic affect payments and unemployment insurance programs. Some offered tax credits or basic income to a subset of residents regardless of their clearing status.

These efforts, while helpful, were not sufficient to come across the demand or to accost the longstanding racial disparities in admission to intendance, support, and opportunities. Understanding that our lives, wellness, and economic security are interconnected, policymakers are exploring new strategies for ensuring that all community members can thrive.

This article, "Overview of Immigrant Eligibility for Federal Programs," is periodically updated equally new developments warrant. The edition published immediately prior to this July 2021 edition was dated December 2015.

NOTES

[one] Personal Responsibility and Piece of work Opportunity Reconciliation Human action of 1996 (hereinafter "welfare law"), Pub. L. No. 104– 193, 110 Stat. 2105 (Aug. 22, 1996); and Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (hereinafter "IIRIRA"), enacted equally Division C of the Defence force Department Appropriations Act, 1997, Pub. 50. No. 104–208, 110 Stat. 3008 (Sept. 30, 1996).

[2] Michael Fix and Jeffrey Passel, The Scope and Impact of Welfare Reform'south Immigrant Provisions (Word Paper No. 02-03) (The Urban Institute, Jan. 2002), www.urban.org/inquiry/publication/scope-and-impact-welfare-reforms-immigrant-provisions.

[3] Guide to Immigrant Eligibility for Federal Programs update page, www.nilc.org/updatepage/.

[iv] To be considered a "qualified" immigrant under the battered spouse or child category, the immigrant must have an approved visa petition filed by a spouse or parent, a self-petition nether the Violence Confronting Women Act (VAWA) that has been approved or sets forth a prima facie instance for relief, or an approved awarding for counterfoil of removal nether VAWA. The spouse or kid must have been battered or subjected to extreme cruelty in the U.South. by a family member with whom the immigrant resided, or the immigrant's parent or child must accept been subjected to such treatment. The immigrant must also demonstrate a "substantial connection" betwixt the domestic violence and the need for the benefit being sought. And the battered immigrant, parent, or child must not be living with the abuser. While many people who take U visas accept survived domestic violence, they are not considered qualified battered immigrants under this definition.

[five] Survivors of trafficking and their derivative beneficiaries who obtain a T visa or whose application for a T visa sets along a prima facie case are considered "qualified" immigrants. This group was added to the definition of "qualified" past the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Human action of 2008, Pub. L. 110–457, § 211 (Dec. 23, 2008).

[6] 8 U.S.C. § 1641(b)(8).

[vii] Throughout the remainder of this article, qualified will be understood to take this particular meaning, as will not-qualified; they will non be enclosed in quotation marks.

Before 1996, some of these immigrants were served past do good programs nether an eligibility category chosen "permanently residing in the U.S. under color of police" (PRUCOL). PRUCOL is not an clearing status, only a benefit eligibility category that has been interpreted differently depending on the benefit program and the region. Generally, it means that the U.South. Section of Homeland Security (DHS) is aware of a person'due south presence in the U.S. but has no plans to acquit or remove them from the state. A few states, including California and New York, continue to provide services to immigrants meeting this definition, using state or local funds.

[8] The Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000, Pub. L. No. 106–386, § 107 (Oct. 28, 2000). Federal agencies are required to provide benefits and services to individuals who accept been subjected to a "astringent form of trafficking in persons" to the aforementioned extent as refugees, without regard to their immigration condition. To receive these benefits, the survivor must be either nether 18 years of age or certified by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) as willing to assist in the investigation and prosecution of severe forms of trafficking in persons. In the certification, HHS confirms that the person either (a) has made a bona fide application for a T visa that has not been denied, or (b) is a person whose continued presence in the U.S. is being ensured by the attorney full general in order to prosecute traffickers in persons.

[9] Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2003, Pub. L. No. 108–193, § four(a)(ii) (Dec. xix, 2003).

[ten] Iraqis and Afghans granted Special Immigrant visas (SIV) under the Refugee Crisis in Iraq Act of 2007 § 1244(g) (subtitle C of title XII of segmentation A of Public Constabulary 110-181; 122 Stat. 398) or the Afghan Allies Protection Act of 2009 § 602(b)(8) (title VI of sectionalisation F of Public Police 111- 8; 123 Stat. 809) are eligible for benefits to the same extent as refugees. Department of Defense force Appropriations Deed, 2010, Pub. 50. No. 111-118, § 8120 (Dec. 19, 2009). Afghans granted special immigrant parole (who have applied for SIV) are considered covered under this act and are as well eligible for benefits to the same extent as refugees. "Afghan Special Immigrant Parolee and Lawful Permanent Resident Status" (USCIS, Aug. 12, 2021), https://www.uscis.gov/salvage/whats-new/afghan-special-immigrant-parolee-and-lawful-permanent-resident-status.

[11] Extending Authorities Funding and Delivering Emergency Help Deed, Pub. Fifty. 117-43 (Sept. thirty, 2021). Afghans granted humanitarian parole betwixt July 31, 2021, and September 30, 2022 — and their spouses and children, and parents or guardians of unaccompanied children granted parole later September 30, 2022 — besides are eligible for federal benefits to the same extent as refugees. Eligibility for this group continues until March 31, 2023, or the end of their parole term, whichever is afterward.

[12] Consolidated Appropriations Human activity, 2021, Pub. L. 116-260, § 208(c) (Dec. 27, 2020).

[13] Welfare law § 401 (8 U.South.C. § 1611).

[14] "Federal public benefit" is described in the 1996 federal welfare law equally (a) any grant, contract, loan, professional person license, or commercial license provided past an agency of the U.S. or past appropriated funds of the U.S., and (b) whatever retirement, welfare, wellness, disability, public or assisted housing, postsecondary education, nutrient assistance, unemployment, benefit, or whatsoever other like benefit for which payments or assistance are provided to an private, household, or family eligibility unit by an agency of the U.S. or appropriated funds of the U.Due south.

[15] HHS, Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Human action of 1996 (PRWORA), "Estimation of 'Federal Public Benefit,'" 63 Fed. Reg. 41658–61 (Aug. four, 1998). The HHS observe clarifies that not every do good or service provided within these programs is a federal public benefit.

[sixteen] HHS, Partitioning of Energy Assistance, Office of Community Services, Memorandum from Janet M. Fox, Director, to Depression Income Home Energy Help Plan (LIHEAP) Grantees and Other Interested Parties, re. Revision-Guidance on the Interpretation of "Federal Public Benefits" Under the Welfare Reform Law (June 15, 1999).

[17] Welfare law § 411 (viii U.s.a.C. § 1621).

[18] See, e.g., Matter of Application of Cesar Adrian Vargas for Admission to the Bar of the State of New York (2015 NY Skid Op 04657; decided on June iii, 2015, Appellate Division, Second Department Per Curiam) (holding that the requirement under eight U.Due south.C. § 1621(d) that states must pass legislation in order to opt out of the federal prohibition on issuing professional licenses — in this example, admission to the New York State bar — to undocumented immigrants infringes on New York State's 10th subpoena rights).

[19] Emergency Medicaid covers the handling of an emergency medical condition, which is defined as "a medical condition (including emergency labor and delivery) manifesting itself past astute symptoms of sufficient severity (including astringent pain) such that the absence of immediate medical attention could reasonably be expected to result in: (A) placing the patient's health in serious jeopardy, (B) serious damage to bodily functions: or (C) serious dysfunction of any bodily organ or part." 42 U.S.C. § 1396b(five).

[20] Welfare law § 401(b)(1)(A) (8 U.Due south.C. § 1611(b)(one)(A)).

[21] Welfare law § 742 (8 U.S.C. § 1615).

[22] U.S. Dept. of Justice (DOJ), "Final Specification of Community Programs Necessary for Protection of Life or Safe under Welfare Reform Legislation," A.Grand. Society No. 2353– 2001, 66 Fed. Reg. 3613–16 (January. 16, 2001).

[23] IIRIRA § 508 (8 The statesC. § 1642(d)).

[24] Welfare law § 403 (eight UsaC. § 1613).

[25] HHS, Personal Responsibility and Piece of work Opportunity Reconciliation Human action of 1996 (PRWORA), "Interpretation of 'Federal Means-Tested Public Benefit,'" 62 Fed. Reg. 45256 (Aug. 26, 1997); U.S. Dept. of Agriculture (USDA), "Federal Ways Tested Public Benefits," 63 Fed. Reg. 36653 (July 7, 1998). The CHIP program, created later the passage of the 1996 welfare law, was later designated equally a federal means-tested public benefit plan. See Wellness Care Financing Assistants, "The Administration's Response to Questions near the Land Child Health Insurance Program," Question 19(a) (Sept. xi, 1997).

[26] States were besides given an option to provide or deny federal TANF and Medicaid to most qualified immigrants who were in the U.S. before Aug. 22, 1996, and to those who enter the U.S. on or subsequently that date, once they accept completed the federal five-year bar. Welfare law § 402 (8 UsC. § 1612). Merely 1 state, Wyoming, denies Medicaid to immigrants who were in the country when the welfare law passed. Colorado'south proposed termination of Medicaid to these immigrants was reversed by the country legislature in 2005 and never took effect. In add-on to Wyoming, half-dozen states (Mississippi, Montana, N Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Texas) require lawful permanent residents who complete the 5-year bar to accept credit for 40 quarters of work history in the U.S. in guild to qualify for Medicaid. South Carolina and Texas, notwithstanding, provide health coverage to lawfully residing children, while Due south Carolina and Wyoming encompass lawfully residing meaning persons regardless of their appointment of entry into the U.South. Five states (Indiana, Mississippi, Ohio, South Carolina, and Texas) neglect to provide TANF to all qualified immigrants who complete the federal five-year waiting period. For more detail, come across NILC's "Table: Overview of Immigrant eligibility for Federal Programs," endnotes five-7, at world wide web.nilc.org/table_ovrw_fedprogs/.

[27] For purposes of the exemptions described in this article, the term Amerasians applies just to individuals granted lawful permanent residence under a special statute enacted in 1988 for Vietnamese Amerasians. See § 584 of the Strange Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1988 (as independent in § 101(c) of Public Police 100-202 and amended by the 9th proviso under Migration and Refugee Aid in Championship 2 of the Foreign Operations, Consign Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1989, Public Law 100-461, as amended).

[28] Come across Guide to Immigrant Eligibility for Federal Programs, 4th ed. (National Immigration Constabulary Center, 2002), and updated tables at www.nilc.org/updatepage/.

[29] Section 214 of the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009 (CHIPRA) (H.R.2), Public Law 111-3 (Feb. 4, 2009).

[30] Postpartum care is non covered past these federal funds unless a state usually pays for this intendance as part of a bundled payment or global fee method. HHS Letter to Land Health Officials (Nov. 12, 2002). Run across as well Medical Assist Programs for Immigrants in Various States (National Immigration Law Center, July 2021), www.nilc.org/medical-help-various-states/.

[31] Pub. Law No. 111-148, as amended past the Health Care and Education Act of 2010, Pub. Law No. 111-152. For more information most immigrant eligibility for coverage nether the Affordable Intendance Human action, run into Immigrants and the Affordable Care Act (ACA) (NILC, Jan. 2014), www.nilc.org/immigrantshcr/.

[32] For more information on the ACA, see NILC's fact sheets at www.nilc.org/acafacts/.

[33] For the purpose of "immigrants receiving inability-related assistance," disability-related programs include SSI, Social Security inability, state disability or retirement alimony, railroad retirement disability, veteran's inability, disability-based Medicaid, and disability-related General Assistance, if the disability conclusion uses criteria as stringent as those used for SSI.

[34] Run into NILC's updated tables on state-funded services at world wide web.nilc.org/updatepage/.

[35] Welfare law § 402(a) (8 U.S.C. § 1612(a)).

[36] Most new entrants cannot receive SSI until they become citizens or secure credit for 40 quarters of work history (including work performed by a spouse during marriage, persons "holding out to the community" as spouses, and by parents before the immigrant was 18 years old).

[37] The SSI Extension for Elderly and Disabled Refugees Act, Pub. Law. 110-328 (Sept. 30, 2008).

[38] Welfare law § 421 (eight UsC. § 1631).

[39] IIRIRA § 552 (viii UsaC. § 1631(east) and (f)).

[40] Children, for example, are exempt from deeming in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. In states that cull to provide Medicaid and CHIP to lawfully residing children and pregnant persons, regardless of their engagement of entry, deeming and other sponsor-related barriers practice not apply to these groups.

[41] vii C.F.R. § 274.iii(c). Run into also Supplemental Diet Assistance Plan: Guidance on Non-Citizen Eligibility (USDA, June 2011), https://fns-prod.azureedge.internet/snap/eligibility/not-citizen-eligibility. Run across also Deeming of Sponsor'southward Income and Resources to a Non-Denizen (HHS, TANF-ACF-PI-2003–03, Apr. 17, 2003), https://www.acf.hhs.gov/ofa/policy-guidance/tanf-acf-pi-2003-03-deeming-sponsors-income-and-resources-non-citizen. Federal agencies (HHS and USDA) posted additional guidance pursuant to the Trump assistants'south May 23, 2019, memorandum on enforcing the responsibilities of sponsors. President Biden rescinded this memorandum on February 2, 2021, directing agencies to review all actions taken in accordance with the Trump memorandum.

[42] INA § 212(a)(4).

[43] Claudia Schlosberg and Dinah Wiley, The Touch on of INS Public Accuse Determinations on Immigrant Access to Health Care (National Wellness Law Program and NILC, May 22, 1998), https://www.montanaprobono.cyberspace/geo/search/download.67362.

[44] DOJ, "Field Guidance on Deportability and Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds," 64 Fed. Reg. 28689–93 (May 26, 1999); come across as well DOJ, "Inadmissibility and Deportability on Public Charge Grounds," 64 Fed. Reg. 28676–88 (May 26, 1999); U.S. Dept. of State, INA 212(A)(4) Public Charge: Policy Guidance, 9 FAM 40.41.

[45] The use of all health care programs, except for long-term institutionalization (e.thou., Medicaid payment for nursing home care), was declared to exist irrelevant to public charge determinations. Programs providing greenbacks assistance for income maintenance purposes are the only other programs that are relevant in the public charge determination. The determination is based on the "totality of a person'due south circumstances," and therefore even the past use of cash assistance tin exist weighed confronting other favorable factors, such as a person's electric current income or skills or the contract signed by a sponsor promising to support the intending immigrant.

[46] See, east.g., Research Documents Harm of Public Charge Policy During the COVID-xix Pandemic (Protecting Immigrant Families, Apr. 2021), https://protectingimmigrantfamilies.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/PIF-Documenting-Harm-Fact-Canvas-2.pdf.

[47] Welfare law § 423, amended by IIRIRA § 551 (8 U.S.C. § 1183a).

[48] U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security, "Affidavits of Back up on Behalf of Immigrants," 71 Fed. Reg. 35732, 35742–43 (June 21, 2006). On May 23, 2019, the Trump administration issued a memorandum on enforcing the responsibilities of sponsors. President Biden rescinded the memorandum through an executive social club issued on February 2, 2021, directing agencies to review all actions taken in accordance with the Trump memorandum.

[49] Selected Social Characteristics in the Us (American Communities Survey table, 2019).

[50] James P. Smith and Barry Edmonston, eds., The New Americans: Economical, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1997), world wide web.nap.edu/itemize.php?record_id=5779#toc, p. 377.

[51] American Community Survey, supra note 50.

[52] Run into the federal interagency language admission website, world wide web.lep.gov, for a variety of materials, including guidance from the U.S. Dept. of Justice and federal benefit agencies.

[53] 42 United states of americaC. § 18116.

[54] Uniform Regulatory Calendar, (Office of Management and the Budget, Leap 2021). https://www.reginfo.gov/public/practise/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=202104&RIN=0945-AA17.

[55] DOJ, "Interim Guidance on Verification of Citizenship, Qualified Conflicting Status and Eligibility Under Title IV of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996," 62 Fed. Reg. 61344–416 (Nov. 17, 1997). In Aug. 1998, the agency issued proposed regulations that draw heavily on the interim guidance and the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (Salvage) program. Come across DOJ, "Verification of Eligibility for Public Benefits," 63 Fed. Reg. 41662–86 (Aug. 4, 1998). Concluding regulations have not yet been issued. In one case the regulations become concluding, states will take two years to implement a befitting system for the federal programs they administrate.

[56] Salvage is used to help state benefits agencies verify eligibility for several major benefits programs. See 42 U.Due south.C.§ 1320b-seven. DHS verifies an applicant's immigration status by tapping numerous databases and/or through a manual search of its records. This data is used simply to verify eligibility for benefits and may not exist used for civil immigration enforcement purposes. Come across the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, 99 Pub. L. 603, § 121 (November. six, 1986); DOJ, "Verification of Eligibility for Public Benefits," 63 Fed. Reg. 41662, 41672, and 41684 (Aug. iv, 1998). Run across also The Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (Relieve) Programme: A Fact Sheet (American Immigration Quango, Dec. 15, 2011), https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/systematic-alien-verification-entitlements-save-program-fact-canvas.

[57] 113 Pub. L. 79, § 4015 (Feb. 7, 2014).

[58] Letter and accompanying materials from HHS and USDA to State Health and Welfare Officials: "Policy Guidance Regarding Inquiries into Citizenship, Immigration Status and Social Security Numbers in State Applications for Medicaid, State Children's Wellness Insurance Program (SCHIP), Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), and Food Stamp Benefits" (Sept. 21, 2000).

[59] Conforming to the Tri-Agency Guidance through Online Applications (USDA, February. 2011), www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/Tri-Agency_Guidance_Memo-021811.pdf.

[60] The Medicaid rules also require that agencies assist eligible applicants in obtaining an SSN, may not filibuster or deny benefits pending issuance of the SSN, and provide exceptions for individuals who are ineligible for an SSN or who have well-established religious objections to obtaining i. 42 C.F.R. § 435.910(e), (f), and (h).

[61] HHS, Health Care Financing Administration, Interim Concluding Rule, "Revisions to the Regulations Implementing the State Children's Wellness Insurance Programme," 66 Fed. Reg. 33810, 33823 (June 25, 2001). The proposed dominion on Medicaid and CHIP eligibility nether the Affordable Care Human activity of 2010 codifies the Tri-Agency Guidance, restricting the data that may exist required from nonapplicants, but proposes to make SSNs mandatory for Chip applicants. 76 Fed. Reg. 51148, 51191-2, 51197 (Aug. 17, 2011).

[62] Welfare constabulary § 404, amended past BBA §§ 5564 and 5581(a) (42 U.S.C. §§ 608(g), 611a, 1383(e), 1437y).

[63] Id. See too H.R. Rep. 104–725, 104th Cong. 2d Sess. 382 (July 30, 1996). The Food Stamp Plan (at present called the Supplemental Nutrition Assist Program, or SNAP) had a reporting requirement that preexisted the 1996 law.

[64] Social Security Administration, HHS, U.S. Dept. of Labor, U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development, and DOJ – Immigration and Naturalization Service, "Responsibility of Certain Entities to Notify the Immigration and Naturalization Service of Whatever Alien Who the Entity 'Knows' Is Not Lawfully Present in the United States," 65 Fed. Reg. 58301 (Sep. 28, 2000). USDA similarly has clarified that "State agencies must conform to the reporting requirements of the Interagency Notice." See Supplemental Nutrition Aid Program: Guidance on Not-Citizen Eligibility (USDA, June 2011), https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/snap/eligibility/non-denizen-eligibility, pp. 48-52. Come across also seven C.F.R. § 273.4(b)(1).

[65] Id.

[66] Description of Existing Practices Related to Sure Health Care Information (DHS, Oct. 25, 2013), www.water ice.gov/doclib/ero-outreach/pdf/ice-aca-memo.pdf.

shawthateg.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.nilc.org/issues/economic-support/overview-immeligfedprograms/