Thread: Group opposed to illegals seeks to halt just about all benef

http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/border/113923

Published: 02.01.2006

Group opposed to illegal entrants seeks to halt just about all benefits
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, who represents the group, argued Attorney General Terry Goddard was wrong when he issued a legal opinion that Proposition 200, approved by voters in 2004, makes only 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 what 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 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.

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 are also challenging how state agencies, following Goddard's opinion and Napolitano's order, enforced the initiative. He noted, for example, the state Department of Housing concluded none of its programs requires proof of legal residency.

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

He noted, for example, the state Department of Housing concluded none of its programs requires proof of legal residency.

As an American and a TAXPAYER this makes me absolutely furious. The safety nets we have created are for CITIZENS...not illegal aliens.

RR