Sonia Terrones immigrated to the United States from Mexico 15 years ago, to live with her single daughter in Oakland. Although she was eligible for SSI by virtue of her age, she was supported completely by her daughter. She did not apply for SSI until this year, when she was 80 years old. She did so only after her daughter was laid off work and could not find another job. Under H.R. 4138, her benefits would be terminated.

Linda Cortés, who is 46 years old, was admitted to the United States by the Immigration and Naturalization Service on a permanent resident visa in 1973. Two years later, she underwent surgery which left her a paraplegic. Unable to continue working, she lived on her savings and her family's resources until 1977, when she applied for medicaid only. The Welfare Department referred her to SSI, and she became an SSI recipient. Under H.R. 4138 and 4139, she would be denied benefits.

Eduardo Colunga immigrated to the bay area 212 years ago from Panama. He brought his wife and three children with him. He was employed until he was injured on the job in 1976, and he has been unable to return to work since. After his injury, his 3-year-old daughter, Odelia, contracted gangrene in her left leg. The family then applied for AFDC and medical assistance. Delays were encountered in the application, and the gangrene progressed to the point where amputation was eventually necessary. The welfare department refused to grant AFDC until the family first applied for SSI, and so the Colunga family eventually became SSI recipients at the welfare department's insistence. Under H.R. 4138 and H.R. 4139, the Colunga family would lost SSI benefits.

Raul and Pilar Saavedra entered the U.S. illegally 25 years ago in order to find work. In 1976, when Raul was 85 years old, and his wife Pilar was 70, they arranged with the Immigration and Naturalization Service to obtain permanent resident visas. At that time they had been receiving a small amount of title II benefits for 2 years. When they came into the Social Security office to report a change of address last year, their claim representative encouraged and persuaded them to apply for SSI. Under H.R. 4138, they would lose the SSI benefits they have just begun to receive.

In the opinion of Social Security and other caseworkers in the San Francisco Bay area that I have contacted, the cases described here are typical of the noncitizen SSI recipient population.

This contrasts with the reports in the bay area press about exploitation and implied abuse of SSI by noncitizens.

Seven: The proposed legislation would tend to undermine our Nation's efforts to aid Indochinese and other political refugees granted permanent residence in the United States.

Since World War II, the United States has admitted 144,000 Indochinese refugees, over 1 million Cuban refugees, and a variety of others. Unlike the typical immigrant to the United States, these groups are not rigorously screened by the Immigration and Naturalization Service for the ability to support themselves in our country. The reason, of course, is that our national policy has been to provide refuge for these selected groups. Because the elderly, blind, and disabled among them are often ineligible for medicare, title II,

and othr kinds of assistance, SSI has been available as assistance of last resort. All three of the proposed bills would remove that resource to refugees our Nation has decided to shelter.

Eight: Legislated restriction of benefits is a relatively inefficient method of discouraging potential freeloads from immigrating to the United States.

Responsibility for evaluating the ability of prospective immigrants to support themselves currently rests with the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service-INS. Caseworkers I have contacted feel that the incidence of SSI eligibility among immigrant populations is below the national average, suggesting that INS' efforts at screening have been effective.

INS makes its determinations at the administrative level, in accordance with present law. They are able to exercise some discretion which leaves them in a position to take humanitarian and practical factors into consideration on a case by case basis. For example:

Miguel López is a Mexican national who was working in this country illegally at the time he was struck by a passing automobile. After he was deflected off the windshield of the car, the angry occupants of the car got out and beat him. Miguel was hospitalized for 5 months, during which time he had three operations attempting to insert metal plates into his skull. He remains unable to work. INS in San Francisco placed Miguel on its docket of deportable aliens, but has decided not to pursue the case during his continued medical treatment. Under the three proposed bills. Miguel's SSI benefits would be terminated, in spite of INS' determination that he should be allowed to remain in this country so that he could receive treatment.

INS' screening procedures remain a far more effective means of discouraging potential freeloaders from entering the country. At the same time, INS' discretionary authority avoids some of the unwarranted and unnecessary human suffering that the proposed legislative remedies would cause.

Nine: Needy, deserving, permanent residents and future citizens of our country would be deprived of SSI benefits in an inequitable way, contrary ot the congressional intent that SSI be an assistance program of last resort.

It is my hope that the case histories I have recounted so far demonstrate the sort of unnecessary human costs of the proposed legislation. Given the inequitable consequences illustrated by these cases, and given the lack of data of the actual extent of the abuses the proposed legislation seeks to remedy, it is clear to the National Council of La Raza and its local affiliated organizations that none of the three bills should be enacted.

Ten: The proposals are contrary to the founding spirit of our Nation, turning against the long-standing American tradition of enrichment and growth of our country through immigration.

Of the more than 11 million Latinos in the U.S. today, many are descended from Spanish settlers present in this country at the time the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock. Others of us have immigrated into the United States over the years. While our numbers still do not approach the size of some other immigrant groups, such as the

approximately 25 million Italian-Americans, who have helped enrich this Nation, we are proud of our heritage and contributions.

It is unfortunate that the noncitizens and future citizens among us must be labeled "aliens," instead of immigrants, for the term implies that we are foreigners who do not belong.

The Federation of Hispanic American Organizations of the Baltimore Metropolitan Area has addressed that problem of terminology, as well as discussing the specific impact the proposed legislation would have.

I have appended their paper on the subject to my statement. Mr. Chairman, I think you for this opportunity to represent the National Council of La Raza before this hearing.

[Attachment to the prepared statement follows:]

ADDENDUM TO THE STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF LA RAZA (Prepared by The Federation of Hispanic American Organizations of the Baltimore Metropolitan Area)

A RETURN TO DECENT AND CLEAR THINKING ABOUT IMMIGRATION

It is being proposed that "aliens" should not be permitted to qualify for SSI unless they have been present in the 50 states or the District of Columbia for either 1 year or 5 years. This initiative is suggested by the San Francisco Examiner and the Chronicle which have campaigned for limitations of “aliens", members of Congress who have been subjected to pressure from the press, and individuals who have written in clear opposition to "aliens". This view should be evaluated along with other examples of hate toward people who come into the United States. Recently, the country witnessed the hate and reluctance to extend a welcoming hand to the Indochinese refugees. This was another symptom of the same disease. From where does this disease come? Why are people in this country filled with hate toward newcomers? It used to be better, more positive.

We say this is the fruit of the seeds planted by the Immigration and Naturalization Service-I.N.S.-in its campaign to obtain massive increases in its budget and become a super agency. This campaign began in the early years of the Nixon Administration. The most effective weapon used by I.N.S. was to substitute for the word immigrant the pejorative word "alien". When this negative word was made even more negative by adding the word "illegal" to it, I.N.S. had forged an effective weapon. The I.N.S. campaign uses public funds-tax dollars. It has succeeded to the extent that the Congress, the media. the Executive Departments and agencies now talk about immigrants and immigration using the dirty names.

The word "aliens" means persons who are not native born citizens. According to Webster's Dictionary, the complete definition includes a person who is now a naturalized United States citizen but who was born elsewhere. Under this complete definition, there are even members of Congress who are aliens, and certainly almost all members of Congress would be aliens or descendants of aliens. We used to call the United States a nation of immigrants. With the change in vocabulary by I.N.S., we would now have to call ourselves a nation of aliens.

The word is so negative because in our age it is most frequently used to describe beings from outer space and things and ideas which are repugnant to us and unpleasant. We disagree with what is being done to stir un hate toward immigrants by pinning a dirty word on them. The words “alien" and "illegal" should be added to the condemned list of racial and ethnic slur words that people use to stir un hatred and reinforce discrimination.

Instead of weakmindedly following I.N.S. and the brainwashed media, we should call immigrants-immigrants. "Immigrants" means people who come in to establish a permanent residence. It evokes a positive image of people at work who have goals and dreams that agree with the goals of mankind. Let

us talk about immigrants in an objective way. Let us keep in mind that all mankind was given feet by the Creator so that we could use those feet to help us survive. The Creator intended us to migrate if necessary to assure our survival. Our immigration laws limit this natural right and are necessarily artificial and a repression of nature. We should be very careful to explain who is violating such laws and specify what the exact violations are. We should talk about immigrants who have permission to settle and the remaining immigrants who are here without permission to settle, avoiding dirty names altogether.

You should very carefully consider what the results of limiting the rights of immigrants as a class from participating in S.S.I. will be. There is no rational basis for this discrimination, if you look at the class of immigrants. They have been carefully selected before visas are granted to enter and settle they are younger, more skilled, and less subject to disease than the general population they are joining. The few exceptions to stringent requirements have been in favor of refugees, such as the Cubans and the Indochinese, in the recent past, and displaced Europeans in the more remote past. In the future, there will undoubtedly be other calls on us to exercise compassion for other refugee groups and suspend some of our rules for immigrants. Despite these suspensions, the class of immigrants participates less in Federal economic and social programs than the general population. The class of immigrants works and pays taxes at a higher rate of participation than the general population, primarily because of its greater youth.

If you let yourself be affected by hatred and discrimination and adopt a complete exclusion of immigrants, you will eliminate the few aged, blind, or disabled immigrants who are presently in the SSI program and close the door on the use of this program to relieve economic deprivation of members of the class of immigrants in the future. This would include the end of qualification of the refugees previously admitted under special rules. Although AFDC would be available to some families, individuals who are poor and old or handicapped and have no children would not receive Federal assistance. The 5 year residence requirement would eliminate the Indochinese SSI who do not yet have 5 years of residence. It would be about 1980 or 1981 before the Indochinese refugees could once again look to the SSI program for any assistance.

A 1 year residence requirement in place of the present 30 day requirement would probably not aaffect the refugees presently receiving SSI or more than 1,000 other immigrants. However, it would mean an immigrant who comes in 1977, started working, and experienced disabling injury would be unable to get help unless he or she had children and lived in a State which helps the type of family involved. This would occur because in the first year, a working immigrant could not qualify for disability insurance under title II of the Social Security Act. The coverage requirements for all but young immigrants in their 20's are at least 20 quarters of work, or 5 years of work. A 1 year residence requirement would make an immigrant who was stopped from working by disease or injury wait until he or she completed 1 year of residence before any help would be available. He or she would qualify for Medicaid in only a few States whose requirements are more liberal than merely covering SSI and AFDC recipients. He or she would qualify for food stamps, but would have no income to purchase them until the 1 year residence requirement was met. A 1 year requirement would eliminate SSI's protection for the class of immigrants at the point in time when immigrants are most vulnerable if they become incapacitated by serious disease or injury. A one year requirement would eliminate SSI as an immediately available program for any future refugees. The Supreme Court indicated in its decision in the Diaz case on the 5 year residence requirement in the Medicaid program (section 1836 of title XVIII of the Social Security Act), that you, the Congress can discriminate against the class of immigrants through such requirements. Many of us had hoped you would stop this form of discrimination against the class of immigrants. We thought you would find it unacceptable that an immigrant could earn the required quarters of coverage to qualify for retirement or survivors insurance in less than 5 years but still be barred by the residence requirement from health insurance. We thought you would say to yourselves that the class of immigrants which is more productive than the

general population and has proven itself more self-reliant would receive equal protection under the Federal laws from the possibilities of unusual circumstances when the laws of chance are against them. We thought you would see that the class is more vulnerable when newly arrived than it is later on when its work has borne fruit.

Instead of positive change and a better attitude toward immigrants, you are now considering further restrictions, because some immigrants have actually participated in the SSI program close to the time of arrival in the country. There are no statistics which show how many have done this. The best educated guess would have to be no more than 350 nationwide. Yet, it seems that no mater how few have done so, they are perceived by the San Francisco Chronicle to have committed a great sin. It is inconceivable to the Chronicle and certain people who have written in, that the class of immigrants has any right to share in the Federal general revenues, no matter how much taxes 5 million immigrants pay. We do not accept this hate and discrimination. We ask you to put yourself above these prejudices and accept the equality of immigrants as a class with the general population. We ask you to recognize the substantial contribution the class makes to general revenues and its greater self-reliance and financial independence in adversity. We ask you to begin to consider how you can eliminate, from the Social Security Act and other laws, the discrimination against immigrants, to make them, once admitted, truly welcome to our nation. You should remember that although the general population participates in SSI at the rate of 2%, the Indochinese who arrived with nothing participate at a rate of 1%. If there is a problem, it lies with the general population, not the immigrants.

Mr. CORMAN. Thank you, very much, Mr. Cortés.

Mr. Jacobs?

Mr. JACOBS. No questions.

Mr. CORMAN. Mrs. Keys?
Mrs. KEYS. No questions.

Mr. CORMAN. Can you tell me what the general relief is in San Francisco County?

Mr. CORTÉS. No; I don't have those figures, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CORMAN. I suspect that general relief is larger than the State's portion of SSI. If that San Francisco reporter succeeds, he is going to add a little extra cost onto the county taxpayers, but it wouldn't be very much because I doubt there are very many drawing benefits.

I thank you very much for your contribution. I have a deep feeling for people who come from Mexico to this country under whatever guise, because if California won the case of Edwards v. California, the Okies and Arkies would not have gotten to California either.

Mr. JACOBS. Do you know of any person who would.

Mr. CORMAN. I might have been an unemployed lead miner rather than a Congressman. The other gentleman was born there and I guess he has a different feeling. We all go to California for the same. reason. It is a great place to live. There are great job opportunities, but it is tragic that we use the term, alien, legal or illegal. I am not sure we will ever sort it out.

Mr. CORTÉS. It is said that under Webster's strict definition which defines aliens as nonnative, many Members of Congress would be properly classed as aliens.

Mr. CORMAN. Thank you very much. I intend to call your testimony to the attention of our members when we get to markup. Thank you very much, Mr. Cortés.

The next witness is Dennis W. Carroll, staff attorney, National Senior Citizens Law Center.