May 4, 2004
Dear Attorney General Lockyer:
Pursuant to Elections Code Section 9005, we have reviewed
the proposed initiative entitled “The Comprehensive Population Policy of the
State of California” (File No. SA2004RF0017). This measure’s
provisions relate to reducing population growth in California.
The United States Census Bureau indicates that California’s population grew from 29.8 million in 1990 to 34 million in 2000, an average annual increase of 1.3 percent. The California Department of Finance estimates that subsequent population growth through July 1, 2003, results in a figure close to 36 million people. The annual growth in statewide population since 2000 has averaged 631,000, consisting of both natural increase (the excess of births over deaths) and net in-migration (persons moving to California from other states and countries minus people leaving the state for other destinations). In recent years, each of these two factors has contributed roughly equally to the state’s overall population increase.
The U.S. has no universal national identity card, so documenting citizenship even for native-born citizens or legal immigration status for aliens can be complex. Generally, several documents are needed—for example, a U.S. birth certificate to establish the basis for citizenship and a driver’s license with a photo to establish identity. However, many people, especially children, do not have a driver’s license or other official photo identification. Documenting citizenship for these people may involve additional steps, such as verifying the identity of a child’s parents.
Most legal immigrants have an identification card from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to verify their status, such as a “green card” issued to immigrants who are granted permanent residence in our country. The DHS has developed a computer system that government agencies and employers can use to check the validity of most types of immigration documents. No similar nationwide automated system exists to check the validity of birth certificates, which are issued by thousands of local agencies throughout the country.
Under the U.S. Constitution, children born in this country to undocumented immigrant parents are U.S. citizens—just like any other child born here. Many undocumented immigrant families in California have citizen children, who have the same rights and are entitled to the same public benefits as any other citizen.
The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (the 1996 federal welfare reform law) defines “qualified” and “nonqualified” aliens, and makes the latter ineligible for federal public benefits. Qualified aliens include immigrants who are permanent residents, asylees, refugees, and certain other groups of immigrants who are granted the legal right to remain in the United States. By comparison, nonqualified aliens include undocumented immigrants and some types of nonresident aliens, such as tourists.
The welfare reform law also prohibits state and local governments from providing public benefits to nonqualified aliens without state enactment of authorizing legislation. Examples of programs where the state has passed legislation to provide benefits to nonqualified aliens include prenatal care and long-term care benefits in the Medi-Cal Program.
This measure directs the Governor and Legislature to develop a comprehensive state population policy. The measure requires that the policy include, but not be limited to, the following population reduction measures: (1) improved and expanded access to culturally appropriate family planning services; (2) encouragement of smaller family size; (3) expanded education towards, and encouragement of, responsible sexual behavior; and (4) stopping illegal immigration.
The measure precludes the state from providing the following to undocumented immigrants: (1) driver’s licenses, (2) reduced college tuition, and (3) any other benefit. It does not, however, define the term “benefit,” nor restrict local governments from granting such benefits.
If this measure is approved by the voters, we estimate that it would have the following fiscal effects.
State Costs for Verification of Benefit Eligibility. In order to ensure that undocumented immigrants do not receive reduced college tuition or other benefits (as required by this measure), the state would have to verify applicants’ citizenship or immigration status. Thus, whenever a person applies for a benefit (which again this measure does not explicitly define), the state would need to verify the applicant’s eligibility for benefits. Consequently, the state would likely experience increased administrative costs to comply with the measure’s requirements. For example, under the measure the state would need to verify eligibility for various higher education, health, and social services-related benefits.
With regard to these costs, the state would incur unknown, but potentially major, one-time expenses to implement verification procedures. Ongoing costs could vary substantially because the number of information requests from one governmental entity to another is unknown. These annual costs are potentially in the tens of millions of dollars.
Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) Costs. The measure precludes the DMV from issuing driver’s licenses to undocumented immigrants. Because this represents current law, this provision of the measure would not result in additional costs to the state.
Savings Resulting From Reduced Services. This measure would result in savings because it eliminates the option of the state to provide benefits to undocumented immigrants. The magnitude of these savings to the state is unknown, but could be in the low hundreds of millions of dollars annually.
Denying Some Services May Increase Future Costs. Denying some services to undocumented immigrants could result in future increased state health-care costs. For example, eliminating prenatal services to undocumented immigrant women could result in higher Medi-Cal costs to their infants, who would be citizens. In addition, failure to treat and control serious contagious diseases—such as tuberculosis—among undocumented immigrants could increase future costs to treat the disease in the general population.
The measure would result in no direct revenue effects. However, unknown potential state and local revenue reductions could occur, depending on how the measure is implemented and the extent to which it reduces the labor force, production, statewide personal income, and other revenue-related economic variables.
The measure could have the following major fiscal effects:
Program savings to the state due to reduced expenditures for certain public services. These savings could be in the low hundreds of millions of dollars annually.
Potentially major one-time costs, with annual costs in the tens of millions of dollars, to verify citizenship or immigration status of persons receiving benefits.