Thread: Arizona law denying benefits to illegal aliens draws critici

Arizona law denying benefits to illegal aliens draws criticism

San Francisco Examiner
December 1, 2009

A new Arizona law that denies benefits to illegal aliens has drawn criticism for being too harsh and punitive, and that it may affect the children (anchor babies) of illegal immigrants as well.

House Bill 2008 (HB 200 mandates that any employee of the state of Arizona must report undocumented immigrants to the proper immigration authorities. The law carries penalties of up to four months in jail for failing to properly file a report.

The new law also gives Arizona citizens the ability to sue the state or city municipality if the law is not properly enforced.

The reaction from pro illegal alien groups was swift. “This is a terrible change,â€

Despite assurances that the new law won’t affect federal benefits or necessary services, many advocates worry that state workers will be forced to report those attempting to access these benefits due to fear they will lose their own job if they don’t. In particular, state workers may be required to report illegal alien parents when they bring in their children to receive free health care or other services. As a result, parents may elect to avoid state social services altogether, potentially endangering their children.

Kudos to AZ, wish every state would do this. Cutting off ALL incentives will encourage illegals into returning to their home countries.

In light of this continuing fiscal crisis, the state of Arizona has every right and moral obligation to eliminate benefits and services to anyone here illegally, and to use all legitimate means available to identify illegal aliens and deport them.

I agree completely. And for the bleeding hearts who think this law is too harsh, then you're more than welcome to pick up the tab for unpaid medical expenses accrued by illegal aliens because we as legal citizens and taxpayers are tired of footing the bill.

It is drawing complaints from people whose interests should not be put before ours.

http://site03.sequoia.fuzint.com/upload/123104LURS.pdf

L i t i g a t i o n U p d a t e
Advocate for freedom and justice®
2009 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
202.588.0302
WLF Washington Legal Foundation
December 31, 2004
COURT UPHOLDS ARIZONA LAW
DENYING WELFARE FOR ILLEGAL ALIENS
(Friendly House v. Napolitano)
The U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona this week upheld Proposition 200, an initiative adopted in November by Arizona voters and designed to deter illegal aliens from collecting welfare benefits.
The decision was a victory for the Washington Legal Foundation (WLF), which filed a brief in the case, Friendly House v. Napolitano, in support of the new law. The court agreed with WLF that Arizona voters are well within their rights in adopting additional measures to ensure that public welfare benefits are not being paid to illegal aliens. The court reasoned that because federal law prohibits states from providing welfare benefits to illegal aliens, there can be no objection to taking steps to ensure that the prohibition is enforced. The court held that Proposition 200 is neither preempted by federal immigration law nor a violation of the due process rights of state employees or welfare applicants.
The suit challenging Proposition 200 was filed by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) in November. MALDEF then filed a motion for a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the law; this week's ruling denied that motion. WLF's brief, filed on behalf of Protect Arizona NOW ("PAN," the group that sponsored Proposition 200 and arranged to have it placed on the ballot), argued that the motion for a preliminary injunction should be denied.
MALDEF has announced that it plans to appeal the ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco. WLF has pledged to continue its efforts to uphold the new Arizona law.
"Thousands of aliens who are in this country illegally are collecting welfare benefits in Arizona, even though federal law prohibits such payments," said WLF Chief Counsel Richard Samp after reviewing the court decision. "Proposition 200 is an effective means of putting teeth
into that prohibition, and thus ensuring that Arizona taxpayers are not forced to provide support to those who are here in violation of American law. Illegal immigration may become a less attractive option if aliens become aware that they cannot collect welfare after coming here
illegally," Samp said.
Proposition 200 contains two provisions designed to decrease the likelihood that public welfare benefits will be awarded to illegal aliens. First, it requires state and local governments and their employees to verify both the identity of welfare applicants and their eligibility for
benefits before approving a benefits application. Second, it requires employees, if they discover that a welfare applicant has violated federal immigration law, to report that fact to federal immigration authorities. Employees who are aware of such violations but fail to make a report
are guilty of a misdemeanor. Proposition 200 also includes provisions regarding voter registration, but those provisions were not at issue in this week's ruling.
MALDEF made three principal arguments against Proposition 200. First, they argued that Proposition 200 is preempted by federal immigration law. Second, they argued that Proposition 200 violates the due process rights of welfare applicants because it does not provide for appeal hearings for those who lose their benefits as a result of the new law. Third, they argued that Proposition 200 violates the due process rights of state and local government employees because it does not provide them with fair warning regarding precisely what the reporting requirements are, and precisely when they can be subject to criminal prosecution for failure to make required reports.
In its decision, the district court held that all three arguments are without merit. The court agreed with WLF that federal immigration law would preempt Proposition 200 only if there was some indication that Congress did not want the states to take steps to verify the eligibility of aliens seeking welfare benefits. The court found that the evidence showed
precisely the opposite: Congress has encouraged states to verify that aliens applying for welfare benefits are legally entitled to them. Second, the court held that Proposition 200 does not deny due process to welfare applicants because it does not establish any new eligibility requirements;
rather, it merely mandates that state and local government employees verify compliance with existing requirements. WLF's brief noted that those existing requirements provide a right of appeal to anyone who contests a decision to deny benefits. Third, the court held that Proposition
200 provides state and local government employees with more than enough notice regarding the types of reports they are required to make.
WLF also argued that the suit should be dismissed because none of the 18 plaintiffs possesses the requisite "standing" for bringing suit. The court did not address that argument.
WLF is a public-interest law and policy center with supporters in all 50 states, including many in Arizona. It devotes a significant portion of its resources to combatting illegal immigration and ensuring that aliens who engage in criminal activities are excluded from American society.
* * *
For further information, contact WLF Chief Counsel Richard A. Samp (202) 588-0302.
A copy of WLF's brief is posted on its web site, www.wlf.org.