Thread: Backers of immigrant law seek to strengthen benefit restrict

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/ ... 31-ON.html

Backers of immigrant law seek to strengthen benefit restrictions

Associated Press
Jan. 31, 2006 03:40 PM


A dozen supporters of an Arizona law denying some government benefits to illegal immigrants rallied Tuesday outside a courthouse where a legal challenge was mounted in hopes of strengthening the restrictions.

The advocates for reducing illegal immigration said Gov. Janet Napolitano and Attorney General Terry Goddard weakened the voter-approved law by telling state employees that it applied to a limited number of government benefits.

Holding a sign that read "Up With The Wall," retired computer scientist John Leopard of Sun City West said the governor's actions on Proposition 200 shows she's weak on illegal immigration.

"I think Gov. Napolitano and the attorney general should probably be put in jail because of their actions on Proposition 200," Leopard said.

The law also requires voters to provide identification at the polls and makes it a crime for public employees to fail to report illegal immigrants who seek the benefits in question.

Proponents of the law say illegal immigrants are draining Arizona's coffers by fraudulently obtaining government services, while opponents say the law will do nothing to stop fraud.

Arizona, the busiest illegal entry point along the country's southern border, serves as a hub for smugglers who transport illegal workers across the country.

After the law was approved in late 2004, Goddard issued a legal opinion saying Proposition 200's benefit restrictions applied only to some welfare programs. Napolitano then ordered state agencies to enforce the law as outlined in Goddard's opinion.

Supporters of the law filed a lawsuit asking a state court to declare Goddard's opinion in error, but the case was dismissed. The judge ruled Goddard didn't abuse his discretion when he issued the opinion, prompting an appeal by the law's proponents.

The Arizona Court of Appeals is considering arguments made Tuesday in the case.

Mary O'Grady, an attorney representing the state, said Goddard's opinion was meant to provide public employees with guidance on applying the law.

David Abney, a lawyer for supporters of the law, said the governor's order essentially offers government employees some immunity from the consequences of not enforcing the restrictions.

"You have taken that (voter) initiative and destroyed it," Abney said.

In a separate case, a federal appeals court refused in August to block implementation of the portion of the law that denies some public benefits to illegal immigrants.

In October, federal officials approved Arizona's rules requiring voters to show identification at the polls but allowing those without IDs to cast provisional ballots, which would be counted only if the voters later produce identification at an election office.

http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/hourlyupdate/113814.php

Published: 01.31.2006

Appeals court asked to trump governor, attorney general on Prop. 200 ruling
By Howard Fischer
CAPITOL MEDIA SERVICES

PHOENIX — The attorney for an anti-illegal immigration group asked the state Court of Appeals Tuesday to force state officials to deny virtually all public benefits to those not here legally.

David Abney argued that Attorney General Terry Goddard was legally wrong when he issued a legal opinion that Proposition 200, approved by voters in 2004, only makes a small number of health and welfare "public benefits'' off limits to illegal immigrants. He wants the Court of Appeals to order Goddard to rescind his opinion and issue a broader one.

That argument was viewed with skepticism by some of the judges. Judge G. Murray Snow questioned the authority of any court to overturn was essentially is an "advisory opinion'' by Goddard to his clients, meaning various state agencies.

But Abney pointed out that Gov. Janet Napolitano ordered the agencies to follow what Goddard said, essentially translating what had been purely an opinion into force of law.

Randy Pullen, chairman of the Yes on 200 Committee, was more direct in comments after the hearing. He charged that Goddard and Napolitano "colluded and came up with a scheme in order to eviscerate implementation of Prop 200.''

Pullen conceded he has no actual evidence of such collusion. He pointed out, though, that both Goddard and Napolitano opposed Proposition 200 which denies public benefits to those in this country illegally.

And Pullen noted that three months before the election — while Napolitano was campaigning against the initiative — she released documents showing that it would cost tens of millions of dollars for state agencies to comply with the terms of the initiative because they would have to verify the legal status of everyone from people having their vehicles tested at emission stations to those wanting to visit state parks. It was only after the election that the state took a much narrower view of the scope of the initiative.

Goddard's opinion — and Napolitano's executive order — said only a handful of welfare programs are affected. Goddard specifically said that other programs, like the state's health care program for the poor, was not covered by Proposition 200.

Assistant Attorney General Mary O'Grady said Goddard has broad legal authority to issue opinions. That also was the conclusion reached last year by a lower court judge. But Judge Jefferson Lankford pointed out that initiative supporters were also challenging how state agencies, following Goddard's opinion and Napolitano's order, actually implemented the initiative. He noted, for example, that the state Department of Housing concluded none of its programs require proof of legal residency.

Lankford said even if Abney can't force Goddard to change his opinion, he may be able to challenge the failure of state agencies to demand proof of legal residency when administering certain programs.

O'Grady conceded the point but insisted that Abney would have to make specific complaints about each program.

The court gave no indication when it would rule. Whichever side loses is expected to take the case to the Arizona Supreme Court.