Search Penny Hill Press

Monday, November 25, 2013

What Would a Secure Border Look Like?


Marc R. Rosenblum
Specialist in Immigration Policy

This hearing raises an important question for Members of Congress concerned about border security: What would a secure border look like? The United States spends billions of dollars and expends extraordinary effort to secure the border; and the Department of Homeland Security collects tables full of enforcement data. Yet after years of grappling with this question, no consensus exists about how to measure border security or how to evaluate existing enforcement efforts. Thus, while the White House asserts that our borders today “are more secure that at any time in the past several decades,”
1 Chairman Miller and others have warned against “accepting empty promises on border security,” and asked “how the American people can be assured that the border is truly secure?”

My testimony begins by describing how to measure border security and identifies several concrete steps that could be taken to develop better border metrics. The second part of my testimony reviews recent border security and immigration enforcement efforts and identifies possible gaps in these efforts. I conclude by offering a tentative assessment of the current state of border security.

Date of Report: February 26, 2013
Number of Pages: 20
Order Number: T-022613
Price: $29.95


To Order:


T-022613.pdf   to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART


e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881


For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing

Monday, November 11, 2013

A Line in the Sand: Assessing Dangerous Threats to Our Nation's Borders Committee on Homeland Security, Subcommittee on Oversight, Investigations and Management


Marc R. Rosenblum
Specialist in Immigration Policy

Chairman McCaul, Ranking Member Keating, Members of the Committee: Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on behalf of the Congressional Research Service. My statement draws on a new report that I am coauthoring with my CRS colleagues Jerome Bjelopera and Kristin Finklea; and I want to thank them and acknowledge their role, along with several other colleagues at CRS, in preparing this statement.

Pursuant to the Committee’s request, my statement today will consist of three parts. First, I will discuss key threats to U.S. borders. Second, I will describe selected threat scenarios. Third, I will discuss some policy options Members of Congress may consider with respect to border security in the next four years and beyond.


Date of Report: November 16, 2012
Number of Pages: 15
Order Number: T-111612
Price: $29.95


To Order:


T-111612.pdf   to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART


e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881


For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing

Wednesday, September 25, 2013

Noncitizen Eligibility for Public Benefits: Legal Issues



Kate M. Manuel
Legislative Attorney

Whether and when noncitizens may receive particular types of government assistance can be difficult to ascertain because of the various federal, state, and local laws governing their eligibility for such assistance. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996 was enacted to establish “national policy with respect to welfare and immigration.” With certain exceptions, PRWORA bars aliens who are not “qualified aliens” from receiving federal, state, or local “public benefits,” and also precludes qualified aliens from receiving “federal means-tested public benefits” for five or more years after they enter the United States in a qualified status. However, there are also a number of federal, state, and local measures adopted prior to, or after, PRWORA, some of which make different provisions for noncitizens’ eligibility for particular benefits. The application of these measures can raise complicated issues of constitutional law, statutory interpretation, and administrative law.

The constitutional guarantee of equal protection applies to all “persons” within the United States, including aliens. Thus, measures governing eligibility for public benefits could be subject to legal challenge if they treat aliens differently than citizens. Because of Congress’s plenary power over immigration, federal measures that distinguish between aliens and citizens will generally be upheld so long as they are rationally related to a legitimate government interest. State and local measures, in contrast, are generally subject to some type of heightened scrutiny, the degree of which can vary depending upon the benefit involved and the aliens’ status. However, state and local measures that follow a “uniform rule” established by Congress could potentially receive the same deferential review afforded to federal measures. Courts have reached differing conclusions as to whether PRWORA establishes such a uniform rule. Courts have also disagreed as to whether measures that treat lawful nonimmigrant aliens differently from citizens are subject to the same level of scrutiny as those that distinguish between lawful immigrant aliens and citizens.

Questions can also arise as to whether particular state and local measures are preempted by federal law. Some states and localities, concerned about the presence of unauthorized aliens within their jurisdiction, have recently enacted measures which would define benefits or related terms more broadly than PRWORA does, and further restrict aliens’ eligibility for them. Such measures could potentially be challenged on preemption grounds because the Constitution grants Congress the power to regulate immigration. State and local measures that purport to determine the conditions upon which aliens may enter or remain in the United States are, per se, preempted. Federal statutes can also preempt state and local measures by expressly prohibiting them, containing conflicting requirements, or occupying the field.

Moreover, in the application of particular measures, there have been questions about whether particular government programs, services, or types of assistance are benefits. For example, although PRWORA includes certain types of assistance within its definitions of public benefit, it also refers to “any other similar benefit.” Parties have litigated whether particular assistance constitutes a benefit “similar” to those governed by PRWORA. They have also litigated whether PRWORA bars aliens from receiving benefits whose provision entails the expenditure of appropriated funds, even if the aliens themselves must pay a fee for the benefit; as well as what it means for a state to “affirmatively provide” for eligibility. Similarly, because PRWORA does not affirmatively define “federal means-tested public benefits,” there has been debate about the degree of deference to be accorded to agency interpretations of this term as encompassing only five mandatory spending programs (e.g., Medicaid), and no discretionary spending programs.


Date of Report: September 9, 2013
Number of Pages: 32
Order Number: R43221
Price: $29.95

To Order:
R43221.pdf   to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART




e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.