HR-9456-119
Referred to the House Committee on Agriculture.
Sponsored by Tim Burchett (R-TN)
What it does
This bill would amend the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 to restrict eligibility for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) to non-citizens who are lawful permanent residents (green card holders) and who have resided lawfully in the United States for at least 10 consecutive years from the date of admission. Non-citizens who do not meet both conditions — including refugees, asylees, certain veterans, and other currently eligible immigrant categories — would be ineligible for SNAP benefits regardless of their household's otherwise qualifying status.
Who benefits
U.S. citizens and long-term lawful permanent residents (10+ years) who would face less competition for program resources. Taxpayers if federal SNAP spending decreases as a result of reduced enrollment. Advocates of stricter immigration-benefit linkage policies. State governments if reduced federal SNAP rolls lower administrative burdens, though states could choose to fund their own programs.
Who is hurt
Lawful permanent residents with fewer than 10 years of U.S. residency who currently qualify for SNAP. Refugees and asylees, who are currently eligible for SNAP under existing law but would lose eligibility under this bill. Certain immigrant veterans and their families who currently qualify. Children in mixed-status households, who may experience food insecurity if a non-qualifying adult's removal from the household benefit calculation reduces total benefits. Food retailers and agricultural producers in communities with large immigrant populations, who could see reduced SNAP purchasing. Anti-hunger organizations that would face increased demand for emergency food assistance.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that SNAP is a taxpayer-funded safety net intended primarily for citizens and those with deep, demonstrated ties to the United States, and that a 10-year residency threshold is a reasonable measure of that commitment. They contend that current law — which allows some non-citizens to access benefits after only 5 years — creates a fiscal burden and an incentive for immigration that Congress did not intend, and that tightening eligibility would better target limited program resources toward those with the longest-standing contributions to American society.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill would strip food assistance from lawful immigrants — including refugees fleeing persecution and immigrant veterans — who are legally present, pay taxes, and are already subject to a 5-year waiting period under the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act. They contend that cutting benefits to this population would increase child hunger in mixed-status households, shift costs to local food banks and emergency services, and punish legal immigrants for following the rules, without producing meaningful fiscal savings relative to the program's overall cost.