MOKGORO J may hold in the case of immigrants who are viable in the job market and who are still in the process of applying for permanent resident status, the argument is seemingly not valid in the case of children and the aged who are already settled permanent residents and part of South African society. [66] Respondents relied in their argument on the decision of a United States appellate court in City of Chicago v Shalala.65 In that case it was held that the relevant legislative provisions which disqualified non-citizens who were legal permanent residents from participation in the scheme, were not inconsistent with the equal protection clause of the US Constitution.66 In reaching its decision the court applied a rational basis standard of review, holding that there was a rational connection between the federal government’s immigration policy and its welfare policy of encouraging the self-sufficiency of immigrants. [67] The test for rationality is a relatively low one. As long as the government purpose is legitimate and the connection between the law and the government purpose is rational and not arbitrary, the test will have been met.67 Despite the failure of many of the respondents’ arguments with respect to the purpose of the exclusion of permanent residents from the social-assistance scheme, I am prepared to assume that there is a rational connection between the 65 189 F.3d 598 (7th Cir 1999). 66 Id at 609. 67 City Council of Pretoria v Walker 1998 (2) SA 363 (CC); 1998 (3) BCLR 257 (CC) at para 27. 41