November 7th, 2003, 05:05 PM #41141. Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of August 22, 1996 (110 Statutes-at-Large 2105)
Established restrictions on the eligibility of legal immigrants for means-tested public assistance:
Barred legal immigrants (with certain exceptions) from obtaining food stamps and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and established screening procedures for current recipients of these programs;
Barred legal immigrants (with certain exceptions) entering the U.S. after date of enactment from most federal means-tested programs for 5 years;
Provided states with broad flexibility in setting public benefit eligibility rules for legal immigrants by allowing states to bar current legal immigrants from both major federal programs and state programs.
Increased the responsibility of the immigrants' sponsors by: making the affidavit of support legally enforceable, imposing new requirements on sponsors, and expanding sponsor-deeming requirements to more programs and lengthening the deeming period.
Broadened the restrictions on public benefits for illegal aliens and nonimmigrants.
Barred illegal, or "not qualified aliens," from most federal, state and local public benefits.
Required INS to verify immigration status in order for aliens to receive most federal public benefits.
If what you said were true, about the 14th ammendment protecting illegal immigrants, how could the bold part of the immigration law be constitutional?
Last edited by lost-and-found; November 7th, 2003 at 05:33 PM.
November 7th, 2003, 05:33 PM #42
Excellent find lost-and-found. Now if only our judges and government knew about such laws
November 7th, 2003, 06:58 PM #43
This is what you said, "They don't have any constitutional ground for ANY protection. " That isn't true. Even if you are here illegally, the 14th Amendment applies. If what you said was true, it would mean you could murder an illegal alien and defend yourself by saying that they have no constitutional protections - obviously, a rediculous argument.Conservatives: "If the facts disagree with our opinion, ignore the facts -- or at least misrepresent them."
November 7th, 2003, 08:33 PM #44
MTA, I've been re-reading my post over and over and still don't see how you could derive from that statement that "THEY" refers to LEGAL residents. If you still have trouble comprehending, I'm talking about illegal immigrants, not legal residents.
Wow, you really have a way of putting things out of context MTA. Once again, the 14th ammendment only applies to legal residents and US citizens. Illegal immigrants are criminals since day one in the US. Even US criminals have a right to life, you can't just go and murder a thief. Taking anyone's life away is a crime in the US, whether it be a citizen's life, or an immigrants life.
14th ammendment was used to win many of the African-American equality cases, but it still only applies to legal African-Americans.
If 14th ammendment applied, as you said, to illegal immigrants, how could the government deport illegals and even legal residents who misbehave? Isn't deportation depriving a person of one's liberty or even property?
Only full legal US citizens may enjoy the full protection of US constitution. Legal residents don't enjoy all of the benefits (like voting). And illegal immigrants receive only the basic protection of life.
November 7th, 2003, 09:38 PM #45
Let me try this again. This is what you said, "They [illegal aliens] don't have any constitutional ground for ANY protection. " The 14th Amendment applies to everyone, citizen, non-citizen, illegal alien, criminals. Therefore, your basic premise is not correct. I don't know how I can be any clear.
As to your question, "If what you said were true, about the 14th ammendment protecting illegal immigrants, how could the bold part of the immigration law be constitutional?" That's a very good question. The answer is that the 14th Amendment does not bar Congress from making certain rational distinctions in order to manage the public affairs. In other words, it is legal to have different rates of taxes for different income levels. That does not violate equal protection.
Likewise, Congress has the right to manage immigration. However, basic rights belong to all. In addition, the courts have ruled that all children regardless of legal status, are entitled to public education. [Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982) (USSC+)
A Texas statute which withholds from local school districts any state funds for the education of children who were not "legally admitted" into the United States, and which authorizes local school districts to deny enrollment to such children, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.]
Last edited by MTAtech; November 7th, 2003 at 11:06 PM.Conservatives: "If the facts disagree with our opinion, ignore the facts -- or at least misrepresent them."
November 7th, 2003, 10:59 PM #46
MTA, but the key world here is "illegal" while I agree that the children should not be judged for their parents' actions, I don't agree that the adults should enjoy any benefits. Otherwise why have a process of legally obtaining residency in the US if you can just cross the border and be given all the privileges and rights enjoyed by the residents and citizens?
November 7th, 2003, 11:45 PM #47
We are in murky waters as this area of the law is complicated as there is no clear rule for deciding when a classification is unconstitutional. Generally, the question of whether the equal protection clause has been violated arises when a state grants a particular class of individuals the right to engage in activity yet denies other individuals the same right. The Supreme Court has dictated the application of different tests depending on the type of classification and it's effect on fundamental rights. Traditionally, the Court finds a state classification constitutional if it has "a rational basis" to a "legitimate state purpose." The Supreme Court, however, has applied more stringent analysis in certain cases. It will "strictly scrutinize" a distinction when it embodies a "suspect classification." In order for a classification to be subject to strict scrutiny, it must be shown that the state law or its administration is meant to discriminate. Usually, if a purpose to discriminate is found the classification will be strictly scrutinized if it is based on race, national origin, or, in some situations, non U.S. citizenship (the suspect classes).
Aliens can be denied the right to vote and certain governmental services, such as drivers licenses. Of course, illegal aliens are always subject to deportation.Conservatives: "If the facts disagree with our opinion, ignore the facts -- or at least misrepresent them."
November 7th, 2003, 11:49 PM #48
I think you are confusing "rights" with "protection".
For example, even if you can beat your wife in Mexico, you can't do it here. You will be arrested since the victim is protected by US laws. You will be deported because you have no "right" to be here. You may serve jail time if the crime is such that the retribution required is greater that that levied by deportation.
They may have the right to sue someone, let them. The problem is the country's general impatience with illegal immigration.“Rancher Bundy should’ve told the feds that those were Mexican cows – who came across the border illegally to seek better grazing opportunities. It was an act of love.”
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)