PDA

View Full Version : The second-most important result on election day was Prop 200 ...



Melonie
11-06-2004, 09:10 AM
... which, like earlier California Prop 167, denies welfare/medicaid and other social services benefits to people who are residing in the US illegally. This is the second time such a measure has been approved by voters, and also will be the second time that such a measure will be dragged through the courts (the California court declared it unconstitutional, and required that California taxpayers continue to fund welfare/medicaid benefits for illegal aliens residing in the state).

However what's different this time is that, in light of republican election victories, the Arizona courts are much less likely to strike down this measure. As a result, it's a virtual certainty that liberal law groups will appeal to Federal courts. When that happens, it opens the door for every single state as well as the Federal gov't to require that welfare/medicaid benefits only be paid out to legal residents.

Lawyers gear up for fight over immigrant measure

03:32 PM Mountain Standard Time on Friday, November 5, 2004

Associated Press Report

PHOENIX (AP) -- Lawyers are gearing up to explain, challenge and defend Proposition 200, a voter-approved measure intended to keep illegal immigrants from voting or receiving some government services.

Also Online

Prop. 200 sends fear through immigrant community

Poll: Prop. 200 won support from blue-collar workers

Arizonans pass Proposition 200

Lawyers analyze Arizona immigration measure to determine impact

Proposition 200 opponents said Friday they will file a lawsuit in U.S. District Court to challenge on constitutional grounds all provisions of the initiative measure, which voters approved Tuesday, 56 percent to 44 percent.

"We lost the battle, but we're not going to lose the war," attorney Danny Ortega said. "We should have beaten at the polls, but I truthfully and honestly believe we will beat in the courts."

Proposition 200's provisions include a requirement that Arizonans provide proof of citizenship when registering to vote and that they provide ID when voting at polls. It also would require proof of citizenship or legal immigration status to obtain some government services. Finally, it would make it a misdemeanor for public employees to not report illegal immigrants trying to obtain some public services.

Ortega said the challenge will be filed soon after state officials canvass the election results, expected on Nov. 22. Once the canvass has taken place, Gov. Janet Napolitano has said she will sign a proclamation declaring it law.

Ortega declined to name the specific legal grounds for the challenge, which he said has drawn numerous offers from lawyers willing to work on it for free.

In other Proposition 200 legal developments:

- A spokeswoman for Attorney General Terry Goddard said his office will issue a legal opinion before Nov. 22 to answer the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System's question on what "state and local public benefits" are covered. AHCCCS provides health care, mostly under the federal Medicaid program for low-income people.

Goddard will try to craft an opinion that also provides guidance to other state agencies, spokeswoman Andrea Esquer said.

Goddard opposed passage of Proposition 200 but will defend it in court now that voters have passed it, Esquer said. "That's our job once a decision has been made and something's become law."

- A group that supported Proposition 200 said it will seek to intervene in the legal challenges to help Goddard's office defend Proposition 200 law.

Randy Pullen, chairman of Yes on 200, said he expects Goddard to mount a strong defense. "That being said, it's such a critical issue that you don't want to leave anything to chance."

Pullen said the voter provisions are "pretty straight forward," particularly since other states already require voters to show ID, but there is a lack of clarity on what public services are covered. "That's going to be adjudicated."

- The Phoenix City Council on Wednesday will consider whether to authorize the city to defend any of the city's 14,000 employees who may be accused of violating a Proposition 200 provision that requires public workers to check immigration eligibility of applicants for public services.

Though the city is developing policies and procedures to comply with the law, there is debate about its provisions.

"If city employees are acting in good faith in attempting to follow the law, and following city policies and procedures with respect to the law, they should not be required to defend themselves or pay the legal costs associated with implementing this proposition," the request to the council said.

Sheryl Sculley, assistant city manager, said Phoenix has asked Goddard to provide a legal opinion on Proposition 200's impact on city services and that city officials expect that guidance by Nov. 22.

"We know that Proposition 200 will affect city operations, but it's complicated and we don't know what city operations it will impact as yet," Sculley said.

The City Council is prepared to let the city attorney go to court for a judicial interpretation of Proposition 200's requirements, but the city attorney so far does not feel there is a need to do that, Sculley said.

azamber
11-06-2004, 02:43 PM
I voted against it because of privacy concerns. I don't think illegal immigrants should be receiving services at the expense of taxpayers, nor do I think a non-citizen should be allowed to vote, but I didn't think Prop. 200 was the answer.

PhaedrusZ
11-06-2004, 04:30 PM
... which, like earlier California Prop 167...


Quick correction: I think you meant California Prop 187, but not sure if you simply mistyped, as I do all too often.

Had a link for an analysis of Calif Prop 187 from a NYC law firm here, but it wasn't working. For those interested, insert "California Proposition 187" into Google, and then click on whatever link contains: "www.ssbb.com/article1," which might be the second or third link.


PhaedrusZ

montythegeek
11-06-2004, 09:40 PM
I do not think a state can do anything except arrest them, give them a hearing, and remand them over to the custody of the Feds. The equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment applies to persons not citizens.

Amendment XIV



Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Casual Observer
11-06-2004, 10:54 PM
The Mexification of the American Southwest continues unabated...

Melonie
11-08-2004, 10:44 PM
Thank you for correcting my typo, yes prop 187.

The point I was trying to make is that more conservative governments are beginning to recognize that state taxpayers should not be forced to shoulder the costs of providing totally free health/education/welfare benefits to illegals despite the resulting "political incorrectness" (i.e. prop 187 having been previously struck down by liberal California judges).

hardkandee
11-09-2004, 09:46 AM
I voted against it because of privacy concerns. I don't think illegal immigrants should be receiving services at the expense of taxpayers, nor do I think a non-citizen should be allowed to vote, but I didn't think Prop. 200 was the answer.
Same here. I actually didn't think it would pass. But it doesn't matter anyway. Everyone says that it won't go into action because of legal mumbojumbo.

Melonie
11-10-2004, 04:47 AM
Everyone says that it won't go into action because of legal mumbojumbo

It's precisely the upcoming legal mumbo jumbo that is so important. I'm hoping that this case winds its way to the US Supreme Court in a couple of years, at which point some newly appointed judges should be able to swing the balance toward a decision that no state is required to provide voting rights or social benefits to illegal residents - thus laying the groundwork for states to retake control of their elections and state budgets !

hardkandee
11-10-2004, 09:39 AM
...a decision that no state is required to provide voting rights or social benefits to illegal residents - thus laying the groundwork for states to retake control of their elections and state budgets !
I'm absolutely in favor of that. The problem with Prop 200 was that the benefits weren't defined well enough. With some sharpening, I hope something like this goes into effect in the future. It just isn't fair for an illegal alien to get in a car accident and be treated free of charge, get a free commercial flight to Mexico City and then my friend who's gall bladder ruptured has to pay over $15,000 for a three day hospital stay. :-\

NinaDaisy
11-10-2004, 01:55 PM
Well this is certainly an important issue with no easy solutions.

The tide of immigration from Mexico will continue here as long as they're trying to escape the miserable conditions they live with there. Yes, it's not our fault/problem, but the fact is that there's a third-world country immediately south to us, one of the wealthiest countries in the world, the so-called Land of Plenty.

Oftentimes these immigrant take all the shit jobs Americans don't want. They are typically the people that cook our food, care for our children, clean our homes, tend to our gardens and build our buildings.

I truly do believe that if we were able to stop the tide today and even send back every illegal immigrant, this country wouldn't quite grind to a halt, but come close.

Until we find a solution, I'm working with a group that helps provide healthcare for uninsured (and often illegal) Latinos in the Northeast. We've gotten a lot of good doctors to volunteer their time and skills and good corporate support, including donated testing supplies for illnesses like diabetes, which is a huge problem in the Latin community. It's not a permanent solution, but it helps provide healthcare (which IMO is a basic human right) without using public tax funding.

hardkandee
11-10-2004, 05:23 PM
Oftentimes these immigrant take all the shit jobs Americans don't want. They are typically the people that cook our food, care for our children, clean our homes, tend to our gardens and build our buildings.

To play devil's advocate,
These immigrants also take away jobs from citizens when they are ready to work for fractions of the price.

Melonie
11-11-2004, 03:55 AM
To play devil's advocate,
These immigrants also take away jobs from citizens when they are ready to work for fractions of the price.

Actually there are many jobs in the USA which US citizens really aren't interested in taking. After all, in states like NY and CA and many others, the "cash value" of sitting at home collecting welfare, medicaid, food stamps etc. versus giving up eligibility for most of those social benefits in favor of a minimum wage unskilled labor job just doesn't compute !!! IMHO it is THIS problem, i.e. our generous social programs providing a strong incentive for unskilled people to sit at home instead of working a menial job, that leaves a considerable void between employers who need reliable minimum wage workers and illegal aliens as virtually the only "reliable" workers willing to make a serious effort in a minimum wage job.

This is what Bush's 'guest worker' initiative is all about. Instead of the current situation of having illegal workers crossing the border, let them come over legally IF they have a job waiting. This will result in much greater peace of mind for the workers and employers, will allow border controls to actually be tightened against "harmful" illegal immigration (i.e. terrorists, criminals, indigents), and will also allow the government to collect taxes from the employers and guest workers.

threlayer
11-13-2004, 02:32 PM
Bush's 'guest worker' concept.

Dont we already have temporary work visas? Why not make them a bit easier to get for neighboring countries where we have porous borders with? The duration of such would have to be changed, as well as the legal rights, too.

dancedc
11-27-2004, 11:09 AM
When did Americans stop doing construction jobs, being chefs or providing daycare? Oh, I know when, ever since employers have a huge supply of people who will work under the table, plus there is that extra benefit to the employer who doesn't have to deal with payroll taxes or pay FICA or provide healthcare benefits, workman's comp., unemployment insurance. It seems that these things that provide for the social services, education costs, hospitals, court systems, police protection etc, are the same things make the US citizens lose out when competing for work. Why wouldn't an employer want to pay a illegal 10 bucks an hour under the table instead of a citizen who might get 14 bucks and have to deal with all of the bull that comes along with hiring a citizens. Especially since the communities that the illegals reside in have to deal with the added costs of a larger unaccounted for population that isn't paying their federal, state, local income taxes. (unless they are using fraudulent IDs of course or committing ID theft).
Let's not forget that hospital MUST take anyone that comes to the emergency room regardless of their immigration status so those illegals who suffer from diabetes do get treated, those injured on the job, and the births of their children do get paid for by the states (those kids are citizens now right, thus making them entitled to welfare benefits, housing, healthcare and everything else). All the perks, none of the responsibilities of a citizen. I wonder if it would be worth it for the employers had to fork out the difference to the state to provide for the special education they need, court fees, prison costs, social service funds used, and healthcare money that is spent by the taxpayers for the "undocumented workers" they hire. I wonder how cheap is cheap labor.

Besides, the illegals aren't just mowing lawns or housecleaning or washing dishes. Let's not forget that it is illegal to be an illegal alien, and it is illegal to hire an illegal alien. It is also illegal to aid and abed a known felon. Wouldn't it be nice if senoir citizens or veterans who can't afford their medicine or see a doctor had the same kind of services that this country is providing for a group of people who show a lack of respect for US laws?