YOU WOULD HAVE thought that President Clinton had a gun pointed to his head
when he signed legislation three years ago ``to end welfare as we know it.''
At an elaborate White House ceremony on Aug. 22, 1996, he said he would
sign the bill (euphemistically called the Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Reconciliation Act) even though he was ``deeply disappointed''
that it would strip legal immigrants and their children from a range of
federally funded benefits, including food stamps and Medicaid.
``Legal immigrants and their children should not be penalized if they
become disabled and require medical assistance through no fault of their
own,'' he declared. ``Neither should they be deprived of food stamp
assistance without proper procedures or due regard for individual
The law signalled a radical departure from our nation's historic treatment
of legal immigrants. Until the welfare law went into effect, legal
immigrants, who pay taxes like any other American, were eligible for
virtually all benefits.
Even as he was signing the bill, Clinton vowed to try to reverse some of
the provisions he found most egregious. ``I am determined to work with
Congress in a biparisan effort to correct the provisions of this legislation
that go too far and have nothing to do with welfare reform,'' he declared.
But he failed to take into account multiple obstacles, including the U.S.
Supreme Court. This week, the court refused to hear an appeal by Chicago
city officials and a group of legal immigrants who said that denying them
benefits violated their constitutional rights. Chicago had already lost in
two lower courts, which had ruled that the United States is not required to
give non-citizens the same welfare benefits as citizens.
The Supreme Court's decision --
or more accurately, its lack of one -- will provide a cover for legislators
who will be able to cite the court's inaction to justify doing nothing to
restore benefits to legal immigrants.
Two years ago, immigrant advocates launched a ``Fix '96'' campaign to
restore some of the excised benefits. So far, the campaign has yielded some
successes. For example, Congress has restored food stamps and Supplemental
Security Income to disabled and elderly low-income immigrants who came to
the United States before August 1996.
But the basic architecture of the bill remains untouched. Still left out
in the cold are all new immigrants (other than refugees) who arrived in the
United States after the law went into effect.
Over the past three years, nearly 60,000 new immigrants have settled
annually in San Jose, Oakland and San Francisco alone. Increasingly, local
and state authorities have been left with the burden of picking up what was
once a federal responsibility.
Just because the Supreme Court has refused to weigh in on the subject,
Congress should not be let off the hook. Congress now has an opportunity to
correct the problem in two ways.
It can vote to approve legislation sponsored by Sen. Daniel Moynihan,
D-N.Y. and Rep. Sander Levin, D-Mich., which would allow states to provide
health coverage to legal
immigrant children and pregnant women, and to restore Social Security
disability benefits to elderly immigrants even if they came here after 1996
--but only if they become disabled after they get here.
Or Congress could approve proposals contained in President Clinton's 2001
budget, which includes $2.5 billion over the next five years to do much of
what the Moynihan-
Levin bill will accomplish.
But the larger lesson is one that ought to be obvious to every third-
grader: once a president signs a bill, it becomes the law of the land. As
Clinton has discovered, it is far easier to sign something into law than to
remove it from the books later on. The time to protest would have been
before he signed the bill, not afterward.
It is now likely that he will leave the White House with the 1996 bill
largely intact. To each new immigrant, his words of protest on that muggy
summer's day 3 1/2 years ago will sound increasingly hollow.
©2000 San Francisco Chronicle