You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front: Culture Wars
Illegal Aliens can be denied benefits in AZ
2005-08-10
PHOENIX -- A federal appeals court refused Tuesday to block part of an Arizona law that denies some public benefits to illegal immigrants, saying the plaintiffs had no right to sue.
Something which needs to be said many, many more times to many, many more people.
The voter-approved law appeared on Arizona's November election ballot.
And Yours Truly helped in the campaign.
The portion at issue bars illegal immigrants from getting certain public benefits and makes it a crime for public employees to fail to report illegal undocumented immigrants who seek the benefits.
And absolutely nothing about restricting benefits to those here legally, regardless of what MALDEF says.
A separate provision, unaffected by the court challenge, though opposed by the Democratic National Committee requires people to show proof of citizenship when registering to vote.
Though not actually to vote.
If the election judges do their jobs on election day and only let properly registered voters in line, it wouldn't be a problem, but the judges in Seattle and Milwaukee were kinda fuzzy on this point last time ...
The plaintiffs had asked the 9th U.S. Circuit Court, known for its loopy rulings to rule that U.S. District Judge David Bury had abused his discretion when he refused to grant a preliminary injunction to stop the law from going into effect until after a trial is held to determine its constitutionality. The appeals court panel denied their request (!), saying the plaintiffs had not demonstrated they were hurt by the law.
Since for illegal aliens benefits are supposed to be zero in the first place.
The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund had argued that the law was unconstitutional on the grounds that it usurps the federal government's power over immigration and naturalization.
Does the Constitution mandate that Arizona spend money on hospitalization for illegals? Does it prohibit citizens (who happen to work for the State) from reporting criminals to federal law enforcement? No. It's scum like you that make Me start to dislike even legal immigrants, which isn't fair to them.
Supporters argued it was necessary because Arizona, the busiest illegal entry point on the country's southern border, spends millions of dollars annually to provide food stamps, welfare and other social services to illegal immigrants.
Posted by:Jackal

#7  borgboy

As hard it is seems the 'black%white' view in me says to strip the kids of their citizenship and send them (and their mother) back. Citizenship should not be granted if either parent is illegal.
That is the 'hardcase' in me talking :)

Of course the law, as it now is, gives the kids citizenship. So legally we cannot deport them. However we should still deport and/or deny benefits to the mother.

We simply cannot give residence or benefits simply because an illegal had a baby in the united states otherwise we will invite (in fact are inviting) a flood of women to come here to have a baby in order to be able to 'stay' and/or get on welfare. And of course to deny the fathers would be 'sex discrimination' so we would have to give benefits to them as well.

Yes - its a hard line and a hard case. But we have to draw the line somewhere.
Posted by: CrazyFool   2005-08-10 19:25  

#6  The reality of life in southern Arizona is shaded gray not black or white: what to do concerning a undocumented mother of three, residing in the U.S. for years, whose children are all born on U.S. soil... ???
Posted by: borgboy   2005-08-10 18:05  

#5  Once again, note that one hundred years ago, Senators were not directly elected by the people. Its is long past time that the federal judiciary be directly accountable to the people as well. Since Congress has obviously politicized the process anyway, since Congress refuses to perform its function to remove justices for bad behavior [as in creating new law or levying taxes (see the Kansas City Missouri School system case)], the power of consent should revert back to the people. King George III was independent. We don't need to call this a republic or a democracy if we tolerate a new defacto aristocracy. Far fewer cases will even appear before the bench if the power goes back to the real people, not the neo-marxist claim of in the name of the 'people'. Lets move the fight from the Senate to the country. Why should the Senators have all the fun.
Posted by: Thinemble Hupomotch7256   2005-08-10 14:36  

#4  But the extra time taxpayers have to work to fund these non-taxpayer non-citizens due to the increase in financial success punishmentswon't be classed as harm.

You need to mug ANY judge who decides that taxpayers are there to be milked and take 50% of his/her wallet and claim you haven't harmed him/her.
Posted by: Ulereger Clavigum6227   2005-08-10 12:30  

#3  Shades of Prop 187. Except in AZ, there are more reasonable folk.
Posted by: Bomb-a-rama   2005-08-10 12:25  

#2  Don't get too excited. The 9th Circuit vacated the lower court's ruling in Arizona's favor because the folks who brought the suit can't yet show actual harm or an imminent threat of prosecution. As soon as benefits are denied or a public employee is charged this issue will go right back through the courts and I've got a case of beer that says that the 9th Circuit will spike the Arizona law the first time they actually hold on the merits of the issue.
Posted by: AzCat   2005-08-10 12:21  

#1  I guess the 9th decided to do something different and use their brains for a change.
Posted by: Desert Blondie   2005-08-10 12:06  

00:00