Thread: New Arizona law links services, citizenship proof

New Arizona law links services, citizenship proof

From pools to libraries, local officials puzzled by mandate

by Matthew Benson -
Dec. 14, 2009 12:00 AM
The Arizona Republic .

Confusion surrounding a provision in state law that took effect last month has local governments wondering whether they'll now have to verify the citizenship of people seeking any public benefit, from a public pool to a library.

The source of the problem: A section in House Bill 2008, signed into law in September as part of the 2010 state budget, that requires those who seek "any state or local public benefit" to prove citizenship by providing a driver's license, passport or other legal identification.

The law also applies to federal benefits that have citizenship as a requirement for eligibility.
In both instances, the applicant must sign a sworn affidavit attesting to the validity of their ID.

The law's potential reach is worrisome for municipalities already facing a budget crunch.

"Is this for water and sewer hookups?" questioned Patrice Kraus, Capitol lobbyist for Chandler. "Is this for library cards? Is it a kid signing up for a city soccer team?"

A representative for Phoenix said many of those issues and others remain an open question.

"We don't know how broadly (the law) applies, and it may impact a lot of things we do," said Karen Peters, who lobbies for Phoenix.

"This is about us having to bring on staff, train staff (to verify citizenship)," she said. "It's just going to add time and expense to providing services at a time when we are already cutting."

In the past year, Phoenix City Hall cut nearly $160 million from city services out of a $1 billion-plus general-fund budget. Departments have submitted plans for as much as 30 percent in additional reductions as the city grapples with sales-tax collections devastated by the lagging economy.

Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard has pledged to offer an opinion clarifying the reach of the new law for state and local governments, though that direction isn't expected in the immediate future.

That's because of the complexity of legal questions surrounding the law, as illustrated by a Nov. 18 letter from the Arizona Department of Administration to Goddard. The state agency asked for his opinion regarding 13 separate questions with the law, including whether its provisions apply to all government employees, volunteers, contractors, sub-contractors and vendors, and whether sworn affidavits required under the law must be notarized.

"We understand that there are timeliness matters at hand for the agencies impacted by this," Goddard spokeswoman Anne Hilby told The Arizona Republic. "We're going to be mindful of that, and complete the opinion as quickly as possible."

Cities and towns were hoping for a hold on the law when they filed suit last month challenging the way in which the illegal-immigration provisions, as well as other policy matters, were inserted into a budget bill.

But the state Supreme Court rejected the suit; the executive committee of the League of Arizona Cities and Towns is meeting today to consider whether to file the complaint in a lower court.

State Sen. Russell Pearce, who was instrumental in getting the citizenship provision inserted into the budget bill, suggested that uncertainty professed by cities about the law is little more than a smokescreen for those opposed to enforcing its provisions.

Library cards? Use of municipal recreation facilities? After-school programs?

Pearce, R-Mesa, said he intended the law to target none of those things.

"It's just a silly argument I'm not going to play with," Pearce said. "(Cities) know the law. They know their obligations.

"The law is pretty clear for anyone who can read plain English."

Pearce's provision builds off existing Arizona prohibitions against undocumented immigrants receiving government benefits. Those regulations were approved by Arizona voters in 2004 with Proposition 200, though Goddard subsequently offered an opinion narrowing the law's application to a handful of welfare programs.

But the new law has potential to apply far more broadly. It points to a definition of public benefits in U.S. Code, which cites all government grants, contracts, loans, welfare and unemployment assistance, public housing "or any other similar benefit for which payments or assistance are provided to an individual . . . by an agency of a state or local government."

Additionally, the law makes it a misdemeanor for a government employee to fail to report immigration violations they come upon while administering public benefits.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/ ... w1214.html

I wish CA could have a law like that! We pay 1 billion a year in Los Angeles County alone for just two items, food stamps and welfare to illegal aliens.

We need a Sheriff Joe and a Rep Pearce in CA!

"This is about us having to bring on staff, train staff (to verify citizenship)," she said. "It's just going to add time and expense to providing services at a time when we are already cutting."

Well, doesn't she think that there will be cost savings in weeding out those that are here illegally?

Originally Posted by vortex

"This is about us having to bring on staff, train staff (to verify citizenship)," she said. "It's just going to add time and expense to providing services at a time when we are already cutting."

Well, doesn't she think that there will be cost savings in weeding out those that are here illegally?

E-Verify is free and easy. My children have had SS#s since before they were one year old.

"This is about us having to bring on staff, train staff (to verify citizenship)," she said. "It's just going to add time and expense to providing services at a time when we are already cutting."

And how much do you think your going to save by cutting off illegal invaders? Think of how much expense and time will be saved if illegals are removed from the public services.