Montana Supreme Court orders state to provide benefits to illegal aliens
Posted: May 16, 2016 2:58 PM PDTUpdated: May 16, 2016 3:02 PM PDT
Montana Supreme Court orders state to provide benefits to immigrants
By Aja Goare - MTN News
BILLINGS -Immigrants who entered the U.S. illegally but have since acquired legal documentation are permitted to receive Montana benefits, the Montana Supreme Court has ruled.
The court’s opinion, issued last week, helped clarify the 2012 state law that excluded certain non-citizens from receiving Montana benefits.
Those benefits include a state license, employment, disability and unemployment aid, and federal funding for higher education.
The Montana Immigration Justice Alliance, which is based in Helena, first filed the complaint in Lewis and Clark County.
According to the language of the law, “illegal aliens,” who are defined as a non-U.S. citizen who entered the country illegally or stay in the country illegally, cannot receive state benefits.
MIJA argued that an immigrant who entered the U.S. illegally but has since become lawfully documented should not be prohibited from receiving state benefits.
The anti-immigration law, known as LR-121, was approved by Montana voters in 2012 by an 80 percent vote in favor.
A District Court judge ruled in favor of MIJA, only keeping in place the provision that required state agencies report immigrants who applied for benefits to immigration authorities.
The State of Montana appealed the ruling.
The high court said in its opinion that the state law violates federal law that permits documented immigrants to receive benefits.
“While states have the power to deny certain state services to immigrants who are not lawfully present in the US, states do not have the power to decide which immigrants are lawfully present,” according to the ruling.
The District Court ruling was upheld by the Montana Supreme Court, but the high court went a step further and removed the reporting requirement.
MIJA called the ruling a victory for immigrants.
“The Legislature ignored its own legislative services division’s warnings that the law was unconstitutional, and wasted state resources defending this unconstitutional law," said Brian Miller, one of the attorneys who represented MIJA's case. “The court’s decision protects vulnerable immigrant populations from discrimination by state agencies in the provision of important services.”
http://www.ktvq.com/story/31987046/m...-to-immigrants
Forcing Montana Taxpayers to Support Illegals
Arnold Ahlert · May 19, 2016
In one of the more egregious examples of leftist judicial activism, the Montana Supreme Court eviscerated the last remaining provision of a voter-approved Montana law aimed at preventing illegal aliens from living and working in that state. In short, the court unanimously determined that the efforts to deny unemployment benefits, university enrollment and other government services to illegals is unconstitutional.
In 2012, the people of Montana voted a whopping 80% in favor of Legislative Referendum 121. As the law itself stated, “every individual seeking a state service, such as applying for any state licenses, state employment, unemployment or disability benefits, or aid for university students, must provide evidence of U.S. citizenship or lawful alien status, and/or have their status verified through federal databases.” It further noted that state agencies “must notify the U.S. Department of Homeland Security of noncitizens who have unlawfully entered or remained in the U.S. and who have applied for state services.”
The statute was set to take effect on Jan. 1, 2013. Yet in December 2012, a lawsuit was filed by the Montana Immigrant Justice Alliance, a state group that champions the causes of “undocumented immigrants” who they believe have been unjustly targeted because they are “commonly confronted with financial, food and housing insecurity, racial prejudice, language barriers, cultural and political barriers, overt hostility to their presence, and inability to access services.” Apparently the idea that Americans should be hostile to the presence of unlawful invaders in their midst — invaders they now have to support with their hard-earned tax dollars — is anathema to those for whom the fundamental transformation of America is the primary agenda.
The first jurist to abide this agenda was District Judge Jeffrey Sherlock, of Helena. In June 2014, Sherlock ruled that “state agents are unqualified and unauthorized to make independent determinations of immigration status. Such determinations amount to immigration regulation that is pre-empted by the United States Constitution.” The judge further noted that the Immigration and Nationality Act “provides no definition for the term ‘illegal alien’ or the term ‘lawfully present,’” rendering LR121 “unenforceable.”
The Montana Supreme Court not only agreed with that ruling, it went one step further and rejected the single remaining provision that required state workers to notify federal immigration officials if they discovered illegals were applying for the aforementioned services. “The risk of inconsistent and inaccurate judgments issuing from a multitude of state agents untrained in immigration law and unconstrained by any articulated standards is evident,” Justice Patricia Cotter wrote in the opinion.
Every sentient American knows the game being played here. First, the idea that the Immigration and Nationality Act provides no specific definition for the transparently obvious terms “illegal alien” and “unlawfully present” reeks of judicial sophistry aimed at advancing leftist politics in lieu of law. Yet far more important, progressive-dominated state courts — and a 2012 study by a pair of Stanford political science professors revealed Montana’s state Supreme Court is the sixth most liberal court in the country — render decisions that prohibit states from enforcing immigration law, knowing full well the Obama administration has no intention whatsoever of doing so either.
Nothing illustrates this calculated legal vacuum better than the existence of more than 340 sanctuary cities in open defiance of federal immigration law. Not a single lawsuit has been filed against any of them. Moreover in 2010, Department of Justice spokeswoman Tracy Smaler explained the administration’s “rationale” for failing to file such suits: “There is a big difference between a state or locality saying they are not going to use their resources to enforce a federal law, as so-called sanctuary cities have done, and a state passing its own immigration policy that actively interferes with federal law.”
Despite Smaler’s assertion — and the murder of Kate Steinle by Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, a seven-time convicted felon who had been deported five times — San Francisco is attempting to do exactly that. County Supervisor John Avalos has crafted legislation that would ban law enforcement officials from contacting Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) about illegal aliens unless they’ve perpetrated a violent felony within the past seven years. “Our public safety is founded on a clear separation between local law enforcement and immigration enforcement,” Avalos contended.
Such a statute clearly interferes with federal law, yet it is virtually guaranteed the same Obama administration intent upon granting de facto amnesty to millions of illegals will do nothing about it.
In Montana, plaintiffs' attorney Shahid Haque-Hausrath contended the Court’s decision sends a message that states have no business creating immigration law. Adding insult to injury, he further insisted LR121 was “a discriminatory attempt to drive immigrants out of the state, and would have unjustly targeted immigrants with valid federal immigration status.”
Saying illegals have valid immigration status is, quite simply, a lie. The Obama administration is attempting to grant millions of illegals de facto amnesty by executive fiat, via the Department of Homeland Security’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) programs. But 26 states filed a lawsuit against those measures, and the case known as the United States v. Texas is currently being adjudicated by the U.S. Supreme Court. SCOTUS will ultimately decide if an injunction issued by federal district Judge Andrew S. Hanen preventing the implementation of DACA and DAPA remains in force.
If SCOTUS rules in the Obama administration’s favor, the separation of powers doctrine outlined in the Constitution will cease to exist.
Either way, Montanans will have nothing to celebrate. Judicial tyranny is forcing the people of that state to underwrite lawbreakers, and if the reaction by Montana Attorney General Tim Fox is any indication, surrender is the order of the day. “This case is concluded, but it remains to be seen if the federal government will ever fulfill its duty,” he said in a statement.
No, it doesn’t. There is no greater disconnect in America than the one between the ruling class elites in both both parties, who abide illegal immigration for cheap votes and cheap labor, and ordinary Americans who must bear the brunt of elitist contempt for Rule of Law. There will be no genuine federal enforcement of immigration law in Montana, or anywhere else the peoples' desire to protect our sovereignty, our culture and our exceptionalism runs afoul of progressive elitist sensibilities. Thus, the orchestrated descent towards Third World status continues.
http://patriotpost.us/articles/42679
