Speech #1040132740

We are talking about American citizens. not legal aliens. As Senator FEINSTEIN indicated during the debate. the Supreme Court in 1964. in the case Schneider v. Rusk ruled that "the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized citizens are of the same dignity and coextensive." There can be no rationale for explicitly or implicitly designating as "secondclass" citizens individuals who have come by their citizenship legally. It is as simple as that. The Feinstein amendment would have eliminated any disparate treatment once citizenship has been achieved. That is what the Constitution requires. and that is why I supported her amendment. The other amendments in this area addressed extending federally meanstested benefits to noncitizens. Unlike the issue in the aforementioned Feinstein amendment. in these instances I felt there could be a legitimate policy distinction between citizens and noncitizens. Exact symmetry in our treatment of these groups is not necessaryand. in certain situations. not appropriate. A second Feinstein amendment dealing with immigration would limit the deeming requirements to only cash and cashlike Federal benefits. Therefore. legal aliens with sponsors would not have to have their sponsors income taken into consideration when applying for such Federal benefits as Medicaid and Head Start. This amendment raises three issues. First. the letter of the law is that all legal immigrants entering this countryeven those who ultimately plan to stay permanently and become citizensmust assure immigration officials that they will not become public charges while they are here. They must show sufficient resources either of their own or belonging to their sponsor. While this law has not been diligently enforced. it is important to remember that those are the terms of an immigrants entrance into our country. Second. we are in the process of making difficult budget decisions on many programsincluding Medicaid and Head Start. Are we prepared to facilitate the ability of noncitizens to gain access to these programs at the same time we are placing limits on the funding available to meet the needs of our own citizens? Last. the argument is made that. if these people are not eligible for Federal benefits. the States will end up bearing the cost of providing these services. The bill does make exceptions -such as emergency medical care. disaster relief. school lunches. child nutrition. and immunization against diseaseso that under certain circumstances the Federal Government will cover the cost of certain benefits.