Immigration and Social Security Numbers: A Primer

External Source
admin
November 19, 2025
0
26
53 minutes read

Social Security numbers (SSNs) have become as American as apple pie, Chevrolet … and efforts to instill integrity into our immigration system. They are used in a myriad of ways to determine which aliens are eligible to work, receive public benefits, and vote.

Summary

SSNs are generally issued to lawful permanent residents and other aliens who are authorized to work under federal law. They are also issued to aliens legally in the United States who are not authorized to work but who need SSNs to receive state or federal benefits or services. However, if earnings are reported to the Social Security Administration on such SSNs, federal law requires SSA to notify DHS.
Under SSA’s Enumeration at Entry program, aliens admitted for permanent residence can obtain SSNs based on data collected as part of the immigration process.
Federal law requires applicants for SSNs to provide evidence establishing their age, citizenship or alien status, and true identity. Aliens seeking SSNs valid for employment purposes must also provide evidence of their work authorization.
As required by the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, all employers must attest on an “I-9” form that they have reviewed specified documents provided by new hires demonstrating identity and employment eligibility. Some documents establish both identity and employment authorization, while others establish only employment authorization or identity. A Social Security card (unless stating “not valid for employment”) is one of the acceptable documents establishing employment authorization.
Unfortunately, a booming market in fraudulent documents — including Social Security cards — soon developed. In response, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 created an electronic system that verifies for employers that SSNs (and DHS-created identifiers) provided by new hires are valid. The system, now known as E-Verify, is generally voluntary on the part of employers.
SSA has in the past issued “no-match” letters to employers informing them that “employee names and [SSNs] on the Wage and Tax Statements (Forms W-2) … do not match our records” and thus that SSA “cannot credit employees’ earnings to their Social Security records”. One of the primary reasons for a “no-match” is that an alien not authorized to work is using a fake SSN. SSA during the Biden administration ceased issuing these letters. In any event, the Department of Justice to this day warns employers that firing employees on the basis of a no-match letter “could subject the employer to liability under the antidiscrimination provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act”. During the George W. Bush administration, DHS published a rule providing that “an employer’s failure to take reasonable steps in response to … receiv[ing]” a no-match letter “may lead to a finding that [it] had … constructive knowledge” of the knowing employment of an alien not authorized to work in violation of federal law. DHS set forth “safe-harbor” procedures employers could follow to “be certain that DHS will not find that [they] had [such] constructive knowledge”. The Obama administration rescinded DHS’s rule.
Aliens sponsored for green cards by U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident relatives are inadmissible unless their sponsors execute affidavits of support. These affidavits are legally enforceable against sponsors by the sponsored aliens themselves and by any entities that provided means-tested public benefits to the aliens. Sponsors are required to provide their SSNs.
The REAL ID Act of 2005 provides that “a Federal agency may not accept, for any official purpose, a driver’s license … issued by a State” unless the state meets certain requirements, including that it requires “presentation and verification” of applicants’ SSNs.
DHS’s SAVE (Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements) program “allows registered federal, state, and local government agencies to verify immigration status and U.S. citizenship of applicants seeking benefits[ and] licenses”. As DHS explains, SAVE can be used for verifying voting eligibility: “Federal law only allows U.S. citizens to vote in federal elections, and SAVE is an effective tool that registered agencies, such as State divisions of elections, can use to verify U.S. citizenship for voter registration[ and] voter list maintenance.” DHS states that “SAVE optimized its service in 2025 to better serve voter verification agencies. This optimization allowed agencies accessing SAVE through a web browser to create cases using a … (SSN) and to create cases in bulk; and eliminated SAVE transaction charges for state and local agencies.”
There are several steps the Trump administration can take on its own to ensure that SSNs contribute fully to ensuring the integrity of our immigration system.

Social Security Numbers

In 2009, Carolyn Puckett wrote in “The Story of the Social Security Number” that “At its inception [in 1936], the [Social Security number’s] SSN’s only purpose was to uniquely identify U.S. workers, enabling employers to submit accurate reports of covered earnings for use in administering benefits under the new Social Security program. That is still the primary purpose for the SSN.”

However, as Puckett has explained:

[T]he simplicity and efficiency of using a unique number that most people already possess has encouraged widespread use of the SSN by both government agencies and private enterprises. … Use of the SSN as a convenient means of identifying people in large systems of records … appears to be an enduring trend.
[T]he coming of the computer age in the 1960s led government agencies and private industry alike to find many uses for the SSN.

Social Security numbers are now as American as apple pie and Chevrolet.

The first three digits of the SSN compose the area number, the next two the group number, and the final four the serial number. As Puckett explained:

The … area number is assigned by geographic region … .

Generally, area numbers were assigned in ascending order beginning in the northeast and then moving westward. For the most part, people on the east coast have the lowest area numbers and those on the west coast have the highest area numbers.
Within each area number allocated to a state, the sequence of group number assignments begins with the odd-numbered group numbers from 01 to 09, followed by even group numbers 10 through 98, then even numbers 02 through 08, and finally odd numbers 11 through 99.
The serial number represents a straight numerical series of numbers from 0001–9999 within each group.

In What Instances Can Aliens Receive Social Security Numbers?

As the Congressional Research Service (CRS) has explained, aliens “authorized to work in the United States are eligible for SSNs” and “Social Security cards [SSC] issued to [aliens] who are residing permanently in the United States are identical to those issued to U.S. citizens.” Section 137 of the Social Security Amendments [Act] of 1972 (now found at 42 U.S.C. § 405) provided that:

[The Social Security Administration (SSA)] shall take affirmative measures to assure that [SSNs] will, to the maximum extent practicable, be assigned to all members of appropriate groups or categories of individuals by assigning such numbers (or ascertaining that such numbers have already been assigned):

(I) to aliens at the time of their lawful admission to the United States either for permanent residence or under other authority of law permitting them to engage in employment in the United States and to other aliens at such time as their status is so changed as to make it lawful for them to engage in such employment.

Puckett noted that “In September 1992, SSA began to annotate [SSCs] for aliens with temporary work authorization ‘valid for work only with [Immigration and Naturalization Service] INS [now DHS] authorization’”.

However, SSNs are also issued to aliens without work authorization. Puckett explained that “In 1974, SSA began assigning SSNs for nonwork purposes when such use of an SSN was authorized by law. … In May 1982, SSA began annotating cards issued for nonwork purposes with the legend “not valid for employment.”

Currently, as CRS has written, “SSA … issues SSNs to [aliens] not authorized to work if the [alien] is legally in the United States and needs an SSN to receive state or federal benefits or services.” However, “Prior to late 2003, the policy for assignment of nonwork SSNs was less restrictive, and [aliens] could be assigned an SSN for a variety of nonwork purposes, such as to obtain a driver’s license.”

20 CFR § 422.104 provides that:

[SSA] can assign … a [SSN to] … [ a]n alien with evidence of lawful admission but without authority to work in the U.S. … but only for a valid nonwork reason.
[SSA] consider[s an alien] to have a valid nonwork reason if:

(i) [the alien] need[s] a [SSN] to satisfy a Federal statute or regulation that requires [the alien] to have a [SSN] in order to receive a Federally-funded benefit to which [the alien] ha[s] otherwise established entitlement and you reside either in or outside the U.S.; or

(ii) [the alien] need[s] a [SSN] to satisfy a State or local law that requires [the alien] to have a [SSN] in order to receive public assistance benefits to which [the alien] ha[s] otherwise established entitlement, and [the alien is] legally in the United States.
If [SSA] assign[s an alien a SSN] for a nonwork purpose, [SSA]… will … mark [the] SSC with a legend such as ‘‘NOT VALID FOR EMPLOYMENT.’’

Section 422.104 also provides that “If earnings are reported to [SSA] on [the] number, [SSA] will inform [DHS] of the reported earnings.” This requirement comes from the “Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996” (IIRIRA) (now found at § 290 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) (8 U.S.C. § 1360), which required that:

(1) Not later than 3 months after the end of each fiscal year … [SSA] shall report to the Committees on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Senate on the aggregate quantity of [SSNs] issued to aliens not authorized to be employed, with respect to which, in such fiscal year, earnings were reported to [SSA].

(2) If earnings are [so] reported … [SSA] shall provide [DHS] with information regarding the name and address of the alien, the name and address of the person reporting the earnings, and the amount of the earnings.

CRS explained that “the SSN issued to a[n alien] does not change” if the alien adjusts status to lawful permanent residence [LPR] or naturalizes.

Enumeration at Entry

Puckett wrote that “Beginning in 2002, SSA began another pilot program referred to as Enumeration at Entry (EaE) that allows [aliens] admitted for permanent residence to obtain SSNs and [SSCs] based on data collected as part of the immigration process.” Further:

This pilot was expanded worldwide in early 2003. EaE is a joint effort involving … [the State Department] DoS[], DHS, and SSA. Under EaE, a person aged 18 or older can apply for both an immigrant visa and an SSN at a DoS office in his or her home country. If the visa is granted, then DoS transmits the identifying data from the person’s visa/SSN application to DHS. If and when the person is physically admitted to the United States, DHS updates certain data, if necessary, and sends it to SSA for the SSN to be assigned and the card to be issued. All noncitizens enumerated through EaE receive an SSN in the special area number series 729 through 733.

20 CFR § 422.103 provides that:

[SSA] may enter into an agreement with … DOS[] and … DHS[] to assist [SSA] by collecting enumeration data as part of the immigration process. Where an agreement is in effect, an alien need not complete a prescribed application and may request, through DOS or DHS, as part of the immigration process, that [SSA] assign[s] a [SSN] and issue a [SSC] to him or her.
Where an alien has requested a [SSN] as part of the immigration process … [DHS] will electronically transmit to SSA[] … the data elements collected for immigration purposes, by both [DHS] and DOS, that SSA needs to assign the alien a [SSN] along with other data elements as agreed upon by SSA and DOS or [DHS] … . Using this data, SSA will assign a [SSN] to the alien.

Evidentiary Standards for Aliens Seeking Social Security Numbers

As CRS wrote, “[t]he Social Security Amendments [Act] of 1972 … required SSA to obtain evidence to establish age, citizenship or alien status, and identity” for all applicants for SSNs. Section 137 (now found at 42 U.S.C. § 405) provided that:

[SSA] shall require of applicants for [SSNs] such evidence as may be necessary to establish the age, citizenship, or alien status, and true identity of … applicants, and to determine which (if any) [SSN] has previously been assigned to such individual.
In carrying out the requirement[] … [SSA] shall enter into such agreements as may be necessary with [DHS] and other officials and with State and local welfare agencies and school authorities (including nonpublic school authorities).

Implementing the statutory requirement, 20 CFR § 422.107 provides that:

To obtain an original [SSC], [an applicant] must submit convincing evidence of … age, U.S. citizenship or alien status, and true identity. … [SSA] require[s] an in-person interview if [an applicant is] age 12 or older and [is] applying for an original [SSN], [except for] an alien who requests a [SSN] as part of the immigration process.
Evidence of identity may consist of a driver’s license, identification card, school record, medical record, marriage record, passport, [DHS] document, or other similar evidence. … The evidence must contain sufficient information to identify [the applicant], including … name and … age, date of birth, or parents’ names; or … photograph or physical description. … A birth record is not sufficient evidence to establish identity.

Specifically as to aliens seeking SSNs for work purposes, 20 CFR § 422.107 provides that:

When a person who is not a U.S. citizen applies for an original [SSN] … he or she is required to submit, as evidence of alien status, a current document issued by [DHS]. … The document must show that the applicant has been lawfully admitted to the United States, either for permanent residence or under authority of law permitting him or her to work in the United States, or that the applicant’s alien status has changed so that it is lawful for him or her to work. … If the applicant submits an unexpired [DHS] document(s) which shows current authorization to work, a [SSN] will be assigned or verified and a card which can be used for work will be issued.

Further, 20 C.F.R. § 422.105 provides that:

[Generally,] if [an alien is] a nonimmigrant alien, [SSA] will presume that [the alien] ha[s] permission to engage in employment if [the alien] present[s] a Form I–94 [arrival/departure record] issued by [DHS] that reflects a classification permitting work. … If [the alien] ha[s] not been issued a Form I–94, or if [the] Form I–94 does not reflect a classification permitting work, [the alien] must submit a current document authorized by [DHS] that verifies authorization to work has been granted e.g., an employment authorization document, to enable SSA to issue a[ SSC] that is valid for work.

As to aliens with temporary work authorization, § 422.107 provides that “If the authorization of the applicant to work is temporary or subject to termination by [DHS], the SSA records may be so annotated.”

Specifically as to foreign students on “F-1” visas who do not have a DHS employment authorization document and are not authorized for curricular practical training (CPT):

As to aliens seeking SSNs for nonwork purposes, § 422.107 provides that “If the applicant requests the number for a nonwork purpose and provides evidence documenting that the number is needed for a valid nonwork purpose, the number may be assigned and the card issued will be annotated with a nonwork legend.” However, “If earnings are later reported to SSA, [DHS] will be notified of the report. SSA may also notify that agency if earnings are reported for a [SSN] that was valid for work when assigned but for which work authorization expired or was later terminated by [DHS].”

Immigration-Related Uses of Social Security Numbers

Social Security numbers are now as American as apple pie, Chevrolet … and efforts to instill integrity into our immigration system. They are used in a myriad of ways to determine which aliens are eligible to work, receive public benefits, and vote. Thus, § 264 of the INA (8 U.S.C. § 1304) provides that “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, [DHS] is authorized to require any alien to provide the alien’s [SSN] for purposes of inclusion in any record of the alien maintained by [DHS].”

Employment Authorization

Employer Sanctions

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986” (IRCA) created a new § 274A of the INA (8 U.S.C. § 1324a), providing in part that it is unlawful for an employer to:

hire … for employment in the United States … an alien knowing the alien is an unauthorized alien … with respect to such employment, or … an individual without complying with the requirements of [the new employment eligibility verification process, or]
after hiring an alien for employment … to continue to employ the alien … knowing the alien is (or has become) an unauthorized alien with respect to such employment.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals wrote in 1990 in Intercommunity Center v. I.N.S. that:

[IRCA] was the result of fifteen years of congressional hearings and executive branch studies concerning the problem of illegal immigration. … By 1986, Congress had determined from these hearings and studies that “employment is the magnet that attracts aliens here illegally or, in the case of nonimmigrants, leads them to accept employment in violation of their status.” … Addressing this problem, Congress concluded that employer “[s]anctions, coupled with improved border enforcement, is the only effective way to reduce illegal entry and … the most practical and cost-effective way to address this complex problem.”

The “I-9” Process

Section 274A sets forth IRCA’s employment eligibility verification process, requiring an employer to attest on an “I-9” form that it has reviewed specified documents provided by a new hire demonstrating identity and employment eligibility and that the documents reasonably appeared to be genuine and relate to the new hire. An employer must examine either a document establishing both employment authorization and identity, or both a document establishing employment authorization and one establishing identity. One of the documents establishing employment authorization is a SSC (of course other than one that specifies that it does not authorize employment).

As I have written, the Achilles Heel of IRCA’s employer sanctions was and continues to be the verification mechanism. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee’s immigration subcommittee from 1995 to 2000, explained (along with then-subcommittee counsel and my then-colleague Edward Grant) in 1997 that:

The enforcement centerpiece of the IRCA — sanctions against employers who hire illegal aliens — failed to include any system whereby employers could reasonably verify the status of their new employees. A booming market in fraudulent documents soon developed.
Unfortunately, the easy availability of counterfeit documents … has made a mockery of the law. Fake documents were produced in mass quantities. … As a result, even the vast majority of employers who wanted to obey the law had no reliable means of identifying illegal aliens. … At the other extreme, rogue employers could easily collude with illegal alien employees to avoid the provisions of IRCA … comfortable in the knowledge that they were presented with “genuine” documents.

In 1999, the now Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that “Data from INS’ employer sanctions database showed that over the 20-month period from October 1996 through May 1998, about 50,000 unauthorized aliens used 78,000 fraudulent documents to obtain employment. About … 36 percent [of the fraudulent documents used] were [SSCs].” GAO also reported that year that:

In May 1998, INS seized more than 24,000 counterfeit [SSCs] in Los Angeles. … In November 1998, INS seized more than 2 million counterfeit documents in Los Angeles, including INS permanent resident cards, Social Security cards, and drivers’ licenses from various states. According to INS, these counterfeit documents were headed for distribution points around the country.

E-Verify

Not surprisingly, the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, chaired by stateswoman and civil rights icon Barbara Jordan, recommended to Congress in 1994 that:

A better system for verifying work authorization is central to the effective enforcement of employer sanctions.
The Commission recommends development and implementation of a simpler, more fraud-resistant system for verifying work authorization.
In examining the options for improving verification the Commission believes that the most promising option for secure, non-discriminatory verification is a computerized registry using data provided by the [SSA] … and the INS.

Jordan testified before the House Judiciary Committee in 1995¹ as to her commission’s recommendation:

A computerized registry would be used to verify that a [SSN] is valid and has been issued to the individual who is being hired. This database would be created and updated from SSA and INS files, but not connected to either. From SSA would come a limited set of data: name; [SSN]; and several other identifiers, such as date of birth and mother’s maiden name. From INS would come information about the immigration status of lawfully admitted immigrants, nonimmigrants, and other aliens permitted to remain temporarily or permanently in the United States … .

The Commission believes the key to this process is the [SSN]. For decades, all workers have been required to provide employers with their [SSN]. The computerized registry would add only one step to this existing requirement: an employer check that the [SSN] is valid and has been issued to someone authorized to work in the United States.

In 1995, U.S. Rep. Lamar Smith introduced major immigration reform legislation (H.R. 2202) that included an electronic employment eligibility confirmation system like the one recommended by the Jordan Commission — with one major change. Rather than a “database … created and updated from SSA and INS files, but not connected to either”, the verification system, as the House Judiciary Committee described it, would simply “use[] existing databases of the SSA and the INS”, “compar[ing] the social security (and, for a noncitizen, alien) number provided by new employees against the existing databases”. Chairman Smith crafted the confirmation system in this way in order to assuage concerns about a new federal database for U.S. citizens. The system was later enacted as part of IIRIRA and is now known as “E-Verify”.

Section 403 of IIRIRA (now found, as amended, at 8 U.S.C. 1324a (note)), provides that:

A[n employer] that elects to participate in the E-Verify Program … shall obtain from the [new hire] ([who] shall provide) and shall record on the I–9 or similar form … the [new hire’s SSN], if the [new hire] has been issued such a number.
As part of the confirmation system, [SSA] … shall establish a reliable, secure method, which, within the time periods specified … compares the name and [SSN] provided in an inquiry against such information maintained by [SSA] in order to confirm (or not confirm) the validity of the information provided regarding an individual whose identity and employment eligibility must be confirmed, the correspondence of the name and [SSN], and whether the individual has presented a [SSN] that is not valid for employment. [SSA] shall not disclose or release social security information (other than such confirmation or nonconfirmation).
[SSA] shall update [its] information in a manner that promotes the maximum accuracy and shall provide a process for the prompt correction of erroneous information, including instances in which it is brought to their attention in the secondary verification process.

Social Security Administration “No-Match” Letters

As I have written, SSA has in the past issued “no-match” letters to employers informing them of “employee names and [SSNs] on the Wage and Tax Statements (Forms W-2) … that do not match our records” and that “when the information reported does not match our records, we cannot credit employees’ earnings to their Social Security records”, and “provid[ing employers with] useful information about free online wage reporting tools, including how to view and correct name and SSN mismatches”. SSA under the Biden administration “discontinued mailing [no-match] letters effective April 2021”, claiming it “intend[ed] to implement a new modern software in December 2021 for electronic wage reporting, which informs the reporter of certain errors in real time as they upload wage reports”.

As DHS explained in 2008, “There can be many causes for a mismatch, including clerical error[,] name changes[, and] the submission of information for an alien who is not authorized to work in the United States and who may be using a false SSN or an SSN assigned to someone else,” and that “A no-match letter places an employer on notice of the possibility that some of its employees whose SSNs are listed in the letter may not be who they claimed, and may be unauthorized to work in the United States.”

SSA’s latest no-match letter contained language informing recipient employers that the letter “does not address your employee’s work authorization or immigration status” and warned that “tak[ing] adverse action against an employee … just because this letter identifies a mismatch … could violate state or federal law”. Additionally, the Department of Justice’s (DOJ’s) website to this day states that “an employer should not assume that an employee referenced in a no-match letter is not work authorized, and should not take adverse action against the … employee based on that assumption” because “Such action could subject the employer to liability under the antidiscrimination provision of the [INA].”

However, an employer can be found to have hired or continued to employ an alien “knowing the alien is an unauthorized alien” through “constructive knowledge”. In 2007, DHS published a final rule providing that “an employer’s failure to take reasonable steps in response to … receiv[ing]” a no-match letter “may lead to a finding that [it] had … constructive knowledge” that “the employee referred … was an alien not authorized to work”, and thus that the employer was violating IRCA’s prohibitions. In the regulations, DHS set forth “safe-harbor” procedures employers could follow to “be certain that DHS will not find that [they] had [such] constructive knowledge”.

The procedures involved first that “The employer must check its records to determine whether the discrepancy results from a typographical, transcription, or similar clerical error.” If it did, “the employer must correct the error and inform [SSA] of the correct information” and “verify with [SSA] that the employee’s name and [SSN], as corrected, match [SSA] records”.

Second:

If the employer determines that the discrepancy is not due to an error in its own records, the employer must promptly request that the employee confirm that the name and [SSN] in the employer’s records are correct. … If the employee confirms that its records are correct, the employer must promptly request that the employee resolve the discrepancy with [SSA].

Third, “If the employer is unable to verify with [SSA] … that the employee’s name and [SSN] matches [SSA’s] records, the employer must again verify the employee’s employment authorization and identity.” The verification procedure required “[t]he employer [to] complete[] a new Form I-9 for the employee”, during which “[t]he employer must not accept any document referenced in [the no-match letter], [or] any document that contains a disputed [SSN] or alien number referenced in [the no-match letter] … to establish employment authorization or identity or both”. Additionally, “The employee must present a document that contains a photograph.”

DHS set forth in the preamble to the proposed regulations the consequences to an employer of not taking advantage of the safe harbor:

If the discrepancy referred to in the no-match letter is not resolved, and if the employee’s identity and work authorization cannot be verified … then the employer must choose between taking action to terminate the employee or facing the risk that DHS may find that the employer had constructive knowledge that the employee was an unauthorized alien.

In 2007, in AFL-CIO v. Chertoff, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California enjoined implementation of the final rule. In March 2008, DHS published a new supplemental proposed rule “to address the issues raised by the court”, after which “DHS w[ould] seek to have the preliminary injunction dissolved”, and in October 2008 it published a supplemental final rule “reaffirm[ing] the text of the [2007] final rule without substantive change”. In August 2009, DHS under the Obama administration proposed to rescind the no-match regulations, which it did that October.

Other Uses

Puckett explained that:

The Consent Based SSN Verification Service (CBSV) is available to enrolled private companies and federal, state, and local agencies to verify that the submitted name and SSN match SSA records. The recent consent of the SSN holder to release the information is required.
The SSN Verification Service (SSNVS) is a free Internet-based system that can be used by registered employers for SSN verification prior to wage reporting. Real-time service is provided for 10 requests or less, and overnight processing is provided for up to 250,000 SSNs.

Recourse for Victims of Identity Theft Involving Social Security Numbers

CRS has explained that:

A November 2013 enhancement to E-Verify enables the system to lock [SSNs] that appear to have been used fraudulently. According to [U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services] USCIS, it “will use a combination of algorithms, detection reports and analysis to identify patterns of fraudulent SSN use and then lock the number in E-Verify.” A more recent enhancement, known as my E-Verify, builds on this lock feature and the Self Check initiative … and enables individuals to track the status of an E-Verify case. By creating a my E-Verify account, individuals also have the ability to lock their own [SSNs] to prevent unauthorized use in E-Verify and to track where their identities have been used in E-Verify.

And Puckett has explained that:

Under a few rare circumstances, SSA may legitimately issue a new SSN to a person with a prior SSN. The conditions are highly restrictive. SSA will assign a new SSN to a victim of harassment, abuse, or life endangerment if the individual provides evidence to substantiate the allegations. In addition, SSA may assign a new SSN to an individual who is a victim of SSN misuse, which means that the number has been used with criminal or harmful intent and the individual has been subjected to economic or personal hardship. Third party evidence is necessary for SSA to substantiate an individual’s allegation of SSN misuse. However, an individual should consider changing his or her SSN only as a last resort because getting a new SSN may adversely impact one’s ability to interact with federal agencies, state agencies, and employers, as all of the individual’s records will be under the former SSN.

Affidavits of Support

Sections 212 (8 U.S.C. § 1182) and 213A (8 U.S.C. § 1183a) of the INA provide that aliens sponsored for LPR by U.S. citizen or LPR relatives are inadmissible unless the sponsors executed legally enforceable affidavits of support with respect to the sponsored aliens. By signing an affidavit, a sponsor agreed 1) “to provide support to maintain the sponsored alien at an annual income that is not less than 125 percent of the Federal poverty line during the period in which the affidavit is enforceable”; 2) “that [the affidavit] is legally enforceable against the sponsor by the sponsored alien, the Federal Government, any State (or any political subdivision of such State), or by any other entity that provides any means-tested public benefit”; and 3) “to submit to the jurisdiction of any Federal or State court for the purpose of actions” for reimbursement. Further, “Upon notification that a sponsored alien has received any means-tested public benefit, the appropriate … entity … shall request reimbursement by the sponsor in an amount which is equal to the unreimbursed costs of such benefit.”

In order to facilitate reimbursement requests, INA § 213A provides that “[a]n affidavit of support shall include the [SSN] of each sponsor” and 8 CFR § 213a.4(a)(3) provides that “Requesting information through the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlement (SAVE) Program is sufficient, and a subpoena is not required, to obtain … the name, [SSN] and last known address of a sponsor.”

REAL ID Act

The driver’s license provisions of the “REAL ID Act of 2005” (now found at 49 USC § 30301 note) provide in part that “a Federal agency may not accept, for any official purpose, a driver’s license or identification card issued by a State to any person unless the State is meeting the requirements of this section”, one such requirement being that “a State shall require, at a minimum, presentation and verification of the following information before issuing a driver’s license or identification card to a person … [t]he person’s [SSN] or verification that the person is not eligible for a [SSN]”.

This requirement was finally implemented as of May 7, 2025. On January 14, 2025, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and DHS issued a final rule, “Minimum Standards for Driver’s Licenses and Identification Cards Acceptable by Federal Agencies for Official Purposes; Phased Approach for Card-Based Enforcement”, that amended 6 C.F.R. § 37.5. to provide that:

Except as provided [in the following bullet], on or after May 7, 2025, Federal agencies shall not accept a driver’s license or identification card for official purposes from any individual unless such license or card is a REAL ID-compliant driver’s license or identification card issued by a State that has been determined by DHS to be in full compliance.
Federal agencies may implement th[ese] requirements … through a phased enforcement plan if the agency determines phased implementation is appropriate. Federal agencies that implement phased enforcement plans … must:

(1) Make a determination that a phased enforcement plan is appropriate in consideration of relevant factors including security, operational feasibility, and public impact;

(2) Coordinate the phased enforcement plan with DHS;

(3) Make the phased enforcement plan publicly available on the agency’s web page; and

(4) Achieve full enforcement … no later than May 5, 2027.

Additionally, the “REAL ID Modernization Act” provided that “Notwithstanding any other provision of law … a State does not need to require an applicant for a driver’s license or identification card to provide separate documentation of the applicant’s [SSN] in order to comply with the requirements of the REAL ID Act of 2005.” TSA clarifies that:

Although states are no longer required to collect a social security document from a REAL ID applicant they still must collect and retain the [SSN] as part of the application process and verify that information with [SSA] as currently required by the REAL ID regulations. Not all states have applied this, so please check with your state driver’s licensing agency to find the most up to date information.

Finally, Puckett noted that “State Departments of Motor Vehicles use the Social Security OnLine Verification (SSOLV) system to verify names and SSNs for the issuance of new and renewal driver’s licenses and identity cards.”

SAVE and Voter Verification

USCIS explains that the SAVE (Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements) program “is an online service … that allows registered federal, state, and local government agencies to verify immigration status and U.S. citizenship of applicants seeking benefits, licenses, and for other authorized purposes.” Further:

SAVE is an information service whereby user agencies submit information (such as name, date of birth, and an enumerator) and SAVE uses that information to query against source databases maintained by DHS, [DOJ], and … SSA[] to verify and provide, if retrievable, a point-in-time response that includes the individual’s U.S. citizenship or immigration status.

USCIS explains how SAVE can be used for verifying voting eligibility:

Federal law only allows U.S. citizens to vote in federal elections, and SAVE is an effective tool that registered agencies, such as State divisions of elections, can use to verify U.S. citizenship for voter registration, voter list maintenance, or oversight of these processes. … When provided with required data elements, SAVE can usually verify U.S.-born citizens, naturalized U.S. citizens, and in certain cases, acquired U.S. citizens [citizenship conveyed to children through the naturalization of parents or, under certain circumstances, at birth to foreign-born children of U.S. citizens]. SAVE can also verify immigration status if the individual is not a U.S. citizen, and whether the individual is deceased, if that information is retrievable.

There are some limitations in SAVE’s capacity:

SAVE can verify U.S. citizenship based on SSA or DHS records for U.S.-born citizens and citizens who have completed the naturalization process or have acquired U.S. citizenship and received a Certificate of Citizenship from USCIS or a predecessor agency. However, if an individual with acquired citizenship … has not received a Certificate of Citizenship from USCIS … or is not designated as a U.S. citizen in SSA records, SAVE may not be able to confirm that individual’s U.S. citizenship.

USCIS states that “SAVE optimized its service in 2025 to better serve voter verification agencies. This optimization allowed agencies accessing SAVE through a web browser to create cases using a … (SSN) and to create cases in bulk; and eliminated SAVE transaction charges for state and local agencies.” While “SAVE usually provides an automated response within seconds … [c]ases submitted in large volumes using the SAVE Bulk Upload tool typically receive initial responses within a day but may take longer depending on the file size.”

On September 11, Jude Joffe-Block and Miles Parks reported for NPR’s “All Things Considered” that these enhancements to SAVE “were celebrated by many voting officials” who “felt the revamped SAVE tool could be useful for confirming citizenship status without encumbering voters”. Joffe-Block and Parks wrote that “[s]ince most states only collect the last four digits of [SSNs] from voters, the latest upgrade swung open the door for many more states to use SAVE”, “mak[ing] the tool far more accessible, since it now aligns with the information most states collect or have access to for most voters.” Idaho Secretary of State Phil McGrane stated that “It’s getting access to data that already exists and just making it so [election officials] can more easily compare things without making it hard for voters[.]”

USCIS explains how SAVE works to establish voter eligibility:

When a user agency creates a case using an SSN, SAVE first queries SSA databases. Based on SSA data, SAVE can verify the U.S. citizenship of most U.S.-born individuals as well as check the SSA Death Master File. If SSA data confirm that the individual has an Alien number… that number is then used to query data available to DHS to confirm the U.S. citizenship or immigration status of the individual. If no match is found with SSA data, the voter verification agency is prompted to confirm their data and create a new case with corrected or additional information.
When a DHS-issued enumerator is used, whether as entered by the agency or retrieved from SSA, SAVE queries data available to DHS. If a DHS-issued enumerator (such as an A[lien]-Number … ) is provided, SAVE searches DHS systems. SAVE may provide a U.S. citizen response, an immigration status response (e.g., [LPR]), or request additional information.
SAVE cases cannot be created using only a name and date of birth, and SAVE cannot search using … a driver’s license number, Consular Report of Birth Abroad, or other documentation issued by entities other than DHS or SSA. SAVE does not query data sources for addresses or telephone numbers.
The information required to submit a SAVE case includes the individual’s: first name, last name, date of birth, and one or more enumerators (required enumerators include an A[lien]-number/USCIS Number, Certificate of Naturalization Number, Certificate of Citizenship Number, or [SSN]).

User Agencies must sign a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with USCIS, which emphasizes that the “User Agency cannot deny a benefit based on a SAVE response where additional action is required of the User Agency by SAVE or additional verification is requested by the applicant but has not been completed.”

The MOA explains that:

User Agency must request additional verification … in all cases where [it] receives any SAVE response other than that of U.S. citizen. If the User Agency does not request additional verification or SAVE does not verify the registrant or registered voter as a U.S. citizen after conducting additional verification, the User Agency must contact the registrant or registered voter to obtain proof of U.S. citizenship, if necessary under the circumstances.
[The User Agency must p]rovide all registrants or registered voters who are not verified as U.S. citizens based solely or in part on the SAVE response with the opportunity to use the User Agency’s existing process to appeal the denial and to contact DHS-USCIS to correct their immigration records prior to a final decision, if necessary. … Benefit applicants may need to correct their records with other government agencies depending on the error.

Joffe-Block and Parks reported that:

USCIS says almost 80% of the 33 million voters validated via SAVE were run through the system since the Aug. 15 change.
In recent months, several Republican-led states have brokered new agreements with USCIS to use SAVE, or announced the results of SAVE reviews. Ohio election officials will begin removing from their rolls thousands of inactive voters that SAVE identified as deceased. And Louisiana’s secretary of state announced … that officials identified 79 likely noncitizens who had voted in at least one election since the 1980s, after running nearly all of the state’s 2.9 million registered voters through SAVE.

DHS is encouraging officials in other states to upload data to the system — even going so far as to make millions of dollars of grant money contingent on them using it.
The most in-depth data about how the updated SAVE is working came last week from Louisiana.

The state’s Republican secretary of state, Nancy Landry, told reporters that by using SAVE, her office identified 390 people on the voter rolls who they believe are noncitizens. Seventy-nine of them were found to have voted.

Joffe-Block and Parks reported that there is a degree of reticence to utilize SAVE by voting officials, even Republicans:

Last month, North Carolina’s Republican-controlled state election board did not take up an offer by USCIS to participate in a “soft launch” of the upgraded tool. Spokesperson Patrick Gannon told NPR in a statement that state officials are pursuing “agreements to ensure that proper safeguards would be in place to protect and secure the data, if a decision is ultimately made to use the service.”

Mississippi Secretary of State Michael Watson, a Republican, told NPR the upgraded SAVE seemed like a “fantastic tool,” but he still has questions before he can run his voter list through it to ensure it is authorized under state law.

“Where’s that data going? And at the end of the day, is it stored? What are they going to do with it? Who has access? Is it shared?” Watson told NPR last month. “I don’t want to do something that I don’t necessarily have the ability to do without legislative authority. So we just want to be very clear on that before we move forward.”

Joffe-Block and Parks noted that:

[U]nder USCIS policy, all queries are saved for 10 years for audit purposes, so if a state runs its whole voter list through the tool, that data will remain with DHS for a decade.
The [MOAs] include a clause that grants DHS permission to use information from states “for any purpose permitted by law, including, but not limited to, the prosecution of violations of Federal administrative or criminal law.”

Recommendations for the Trump Administration

Department of Homeland Security

DHS should repromulgate its George W. Bush-era “no-match” regulations providing that “an employer’s failure to take reasonable steps in response to … receiv[ing]” a SSA no-match letter “may lead to a finding that [it] had … constructive knowledge” of the knowing employment of an alien not authorized to work in violation of federal law.
DHS should investigate all instances in which it is informed by SSA of reported earnings on non-work authorized SSNs.

The Social Security Administration

SSA should resume its large-scale issuance of “no-match” letters to employers. When DHS repromulgates its “no-match” regulations, SSA should revise the letters to specify that employers should fire the relevant employees after following the safe harbor procedures set forth in the regulations.

The Department of Justice

In conjunction with DHS repromulgating its “no-match” regulations, DOJ should republish its Federal Register notice clarifying that employers have not engaged in unlawful discrimination by following the regulations’ safe-harbor procedures. And DOJ should then specify on its website that employers should fire the relevant employees after following the safe harbor procedures set forth in the regulations.

End Note

¹ “Verification of Eligibility for Employment and Benefits: Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims of the House Committee on the Judiciary”, 104^th Congress, 1995.