Thread: New Arizona Law Rekindles Immigrant Benefit Debate

New Arizona Law Rekindles Immigrant Benefit Debate

Updated: Thursday, 24 Dec 2009, 6:27 PM MST
Published : Thursday, 24 Dec 2009, 6:27 PM MST

JACQUES BILLEAUD, Associated Press Writer

PHOENIX (AP) — A new Arizona law that expands the list of government benefits denied to illegal immigrants has left officials in cities wondering what exactly constitutes a public benefit and raises questions about whether the restrictions got a full public airing before they were enacted.

The restrictions build on a 2004 voter-approved law that denied benefits to illegal immigrants. Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard later issued a legal opinion saying it applied only to a small number of welfare programs.

The new law, part of a budget package approved in August by the Legislature, applies to a wide range of state programs. It contains requirements that applicants provide at least one form of identification, including a birth certificate or passport, and sign an affidavit saying their documents are authentic. It also gave any Arizonan the option of filing a lawsuit in a bid to remedy a violation.

"You don't have a right to get free stuff at taxpayer expense if you are in the country illegally," said Republican Sen. Russell Pearce of Mesa, author of the new restrictions.

Supporters say the restrictions were needed to reduce the millions of dollars that illegal immigrants who get benefits are costing the state each year and reverse the limits that Goddard's legal opinion put on the 2004 law.

Since the law took effect Nov. 24, nearly 800 people who sought public benefits from Arizona's welfare agency were unable to prove their lawful presence in the country. Their names were reported to federal immigration authorities, who noted that they give top priority to people who pose the greatest threats to public safety.

City officials and other critics say the new law's definition of "public benefit" is vague and that the Legislature never really hashed out the details of the new rules during a special session of the Legislature that was largely devoted to the state's budget crisis.

It's clear that the new law expands the list of government benefits denied to illegal immigrants. That's because it was written to apply to all state programs, whereas the 2004 law was interpreted by Goddard as centering on only several small welfare programs.

The law relies on a definition of "public benefit" that's already in federal law. Under that definition, public benefits includes any retirement, welfare, health, housing, higher education and unemployment benefits — as well as any grants, contracts, loans and licenses — provided by state and local government.

What exactly that means is open to interpretation.

Pearce said the restrictions apply to "any and all" benefits, with a few notable exceptions, such as K-12 education and emergency medical care that are legally available to illegal immigrants under a court ruling and a federal law, respectively.

Ken Strobeck, executive director of the League of Arizona Cities and Towns, which filed an unsuccessful lawsuit challenging the benefit restrictions and other provisions in a budget bill, said city attorneys were disagreeing on the meaning of public benefits.

Would the restrictions apply to people seeking library cards and contractors who do business with a city? Or, Strobeck asked, would people have to attest to their citizenship when they sign up for water and sewage services in small towns that subsidize the costs of their utility systems?

The Arizona Supreme Court dismissed the league's constitutional challenge earlier this month.

The league claimed that bill provisions containing the benefit restrictions and changes to policies on development impact fees and building codes violated the Arizona Constitution, because they fell outside budget-related topics and because unrelated legislation was packaged in one bill. The court said the case can be refiled in a lower court.

Even though benefit restrictions were considered by committees, were the subject of some debate and were contained in several drafts of the budget, critics of the law insist that lawmakers still didn't give it a full examination.

Democratic Rep. Kyrsten Sinema of Phoenix, who voted against the bill, said most lawmakers were more focused on cuts in the state's budget and paid less attention to non-fiscal issues. She said the budget was rushed through committee and floor hearings after legislative leaders gathered enough votes for passage.

"Was it publicly available? Yes. Was it widely available? No. Was it available for a long enough time for people to be informed and understand it? Probably not," Sinema said, noting that she spoke out against the bill in a floor session.

Karen Peters, government relations director for the city of Phoenix, said there was little opportunity for the benefit restrictions to be properly vetted.

Peters said she talked it over with key people in state government, but wasn't successful in convincing them to defeat the measure.

"It got into a budget bill where policy issues do not belong, and there was never an opportunity to hear both sides of the issue," Peters said.

Pearce rejected the criticism that the restrictions weren't fully debated.

"Nothing flew under the radar. That's a specious fabrication by those who are open-border anarchists who refuse to protect the taxpayer," Pearce said.

In any event, the debate over whether the restrictions isn't expected to fade away any time soon.

Goddard has been asked by a state agency to issue a legal opinion on the new restrictions.

And Strobeck said the league was waiting until Jan. 15 to decide whether to file its challenge in Superior Court.

www.myfoxphoenix.com

800 Illegal Immigrants applied for OUR Welfare Benefits in just one month in Arizona ??

OUTRAGEOUS

And Strobeck said the league was waiting until Jan. 15 to decide whether to file its challenge in Superior Court.

Yes, do it and bring the law one step closer to a SCOTUS decision! Then if the court actually upholds the constitution such laws can be made Nationwide!