My Politically Incorrect Point of View

With California in debt by $24 billion dollars, ideas are being pushed to curtail spending in the state. Who are these activist targeting? Illegal immigrants and their U.S.-born children who receive public benefits.

What is their plan? According to the Los Angeles Times, this plan has been tried before. Proposition 187, was a 1994 bill that was deemed “unconstitutional” by the federal court. The California ballot initiative is based on a plan that would end public benefits for illegal immigrants.

Basically, this initiative would cut off all welfare for their children (who are legal?) and impose new rules for birth certificates. The illegal’s children are protected by the 14th Amendment and this is a subject of debate.

The 14th Amendment states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizen of the United States and the State wherein they reside.” That seem pretty simple to understand but the anti-illegal immigration activists explain their position in a different way.

Those in California that back the new ballot initiative claim that illegal residents are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and since they are not legal residents, their U.S.-born children should not be citizens.

Other states have passed similar decisions to cut illegal immigrants out of the ability to use the welfare system, medical care and other benefits in the attempt to save money in face of this economic crisis. Arizona, Oklahoma, Virginia, Colorado and Georgia are just a few that deemed illegal immigration a drain on their state economy.

California has an estimated 2.7 million illegal immigrants, which they claim accounts for $4 billion to $6 billion (others claim these figures are much higher) of the $105 billion dollar state budget. These costs are tied in with the cost of education, prisons and health care. At a time when California is $24 billion dollars in the red, something has to give.

The first time Proposition 187 was brought up for a vote, Californians passed it with a 59% to 41% majority. However, it was overturned and ruled unconstitutional. Is the proposition racist?

Peter Schey, an L.A. attorney who fought against the first Prop. 187, believes so. Schey states, “It is plainly driven by racism and a desire to whip up xenophobia during difficult economic times for U.S. citizens.” He also believes it will fail because “it has no chance of surviving a constitutional challenge.”

The backers of the new initiative have worked with an attorney this time and are hoping for a different ruling. Instead of claiming state authority to regulate immigration, the group is claiming its fight based on the federal rules delegated to the states.

Illegal residents are barred from welfare, public housing, food assistance, unemployment aid and other federal benefits, according to the 1996 federal welfare reform law. However under California’s law, illegals can receive some help and local benefits, including non emergency assistance.

I know this is a hot button issue but it is one that President Obama wants to take on by year’s end. So, lets have an open and honest debate on the subject of illegal immigration.

I do not believe that those who break our laws should benefit from them. Including those that apply for a visa, come to the U.S., and then violate the law by not leaving when required. I do not fault them for wanting to be inside our country, but we have laws and they must be respected.

So, let us open the debate. Where do you stand on “illegal immigration?” Should individuals who enter the U.S. illegally be afforded the same rights as U.S. citizens? Does the U.S. Constitution apply to those who are not legal residence?
Source: Los Angeles Times
 

Trackback URI | Comments RSS