Arizona bars state benefits to immigrants allowed by Obama to stay

Status
Not open for further replies.

giga

Member
Disgusting.

Excerpt below, read more: http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/ar...cle_ee12c308-e72c-11e1-80a3-0019bb2963f4.html

large.jpg


Saying they still will not be here legally, Gov. Jan Brewer on Wednesday told state agencies to deny benefits and even driver's licenses to those illegal immigrants the Obama administration will allow to remain in the country.

In an executive order, the governor said the "deferred action'' program for those who arrived as children does not actually grant them any legal status. And that, she said, makes those in this category ineligible for public benefits under the terms of a 2004 voter-enacted measure.

"Allowing more than an estimated 80,000 deferred action recipients improper access to state or local benefits ... will have significant and lasting impacts on the Arizona budget, its health care system and additional public benefits that Arizona taxpayers fund,'' the order reads.

So she directed all state agencies to change their operations, policies and rules -- and statutes if necessary -- to prevent those in this category from getting benefits.

Brewer also said driver's licenses will be off limits to those in the deferred action program because state law prohibits the Department of Transportation from issuing licenses "unless an applicant submits proof satisfactory to ADOT that the applicant's presence in the United States is authorized under federal law.''

But that directive flies in the face of current ADOT policies which say that licenses are available to anyone with an Employment Authorization Document issued by the federal government without further documentation.

Potentially more significant, an attorney who specializes in immigration law says the governor's action is illegal.

Regina Jefferies acknowledged that those who will be part of the deferred action program will not have legal status. What they have, however, is "lawful presence.''

"They've got permission to be here,'' she said.

In fact, Jefferies said the whole concept of deferred action, while vastly expanded under the president's announcement, is not new. She said federal immigration officials have similarly classified others in the past, such as victims of domestic violence, and made their presence legal.

Jefferies said that classification will not entitle those in the new program to things like food stamps. But she said anyone who is granted deferred action can sue -- she believes successfully -- if the state denies any of these people a driver's license.
 
Could you imagine being brought to the USA when you were 2 years old, growing up here your whole life, and then facing deportation to a country that you have absolutely no memory of and may not even speak the language?

Well if you can't imagine that situation or you just don't give a fuck about the person in such a situation, you just may be Jan Brewer.
 
I'd say she's doing this for conservative political clout, but I doubt she needs it for Arizona. Really, all it feels like is a temper tantrum--one declaration met with another, just to show rebellion. She can't think Obama's going to fail to followup on this, can she?
 
Why didn't the OP put down the rest of the article stating pretty important stuff showing that "As DHS has told us repeatedly, these individuals who are granted deferred action do not have lawful status,'' So which will stand, Obama or DHS in this?
 
Why didn't the OP put down the rest of the article stating pretty important stuff showing that "As DHS has told us repeatedly, these individuals who are granted deferred action do not have lawful status,'' So which will stand, Obama or DHS in this?
Because the legal status was discussed earlier in the article and posting the full text of long articles is discouraged here. I'll put a notice that there's more to read in the OP.
 
I hope you guys read the rest of the article... not posted in the OP

you forgot the part where obama's plan does not explicitly guarantee legal status.

Why didn't the OP put down the rest of the article stating pretty important stuff showing that "As DHS has told us repeatedly, these individuals who are granted deferred action do not have lawful status,'' So which will stand, Obama or DHS in this?
because people love to get riled up over non-existent issues.

Because the legal status was discussed earlier in the article and posting the full text of long articles is discouraged here. I'll put a notice that there's more to read in the OP.
again, nothing in your quoted portion mentions that technically, the federal law does not grant legal status and thus the governor's order is more or less a redundancy.
 
Could you imagine being brought to the USA when you were 2 years old, growing up here your whole life, and then facing deportation to a country that you have absolutely no memory of and may not even speak the language?

Well if you can't imagine that situation or you just don't give a fuck about the person in such a situation, you just may be Jan Brewer.

.
 
because people love to get riled up over non-existent issues.


again, nothing in your quoted portion mentions that technically, the federal law does not grant legal status and thus the governor's order is more or less a redundancy.
Non existant issue? You're kidding.

And yes it does it does mention legal status.

the governor said the "deferred action'' program for those who arrived as children does not actually grant them any legal status

Regina Jefferies acknowledged that those who will be part of the deferred action program will not have legal status. What they have, however, is "lawful presence.''
 
So like the article states, they do have lawful presence and authorized to work. In order to work they need a driver's license...what's her deal? The article also says having an EAD waves every other form of documentation in order to obtain a driver's license. whatev.
 
Non existant issue? You're kidding.

And yes it does it does mention legal status.
this isn't racism against hispanics, it's a law against illegal immigrants. it's racist to assume illegal immigrants are all hispanic.

and you're right, i missed that part. my bad.
 
again, nothing in your quoted portion mentions that technically, the federal law does not grant legal status and thus the governor's order is more or less a redundancy.

Regina Jefferies acknowledged that those who will be part of the deferred action program will not have legal status. What they have, however, is "lawful presence.'

Skim much?

Edit:
and you're right, i missed that part. my bad.

Got to remember to refresh.
 
So like the article states, they do have lawful presence and authorized to work. In order to work they need a driver's license...what's her deal? The article also says having an EAD waves every other form of documentation in order to obtain a driver's license. whatev.

Unless your job description requires you to drive, you don't need a driver's license. There is a thing called public transportation.
 
Disgusting. I hate how it's acceptable to be racist towards hispanic people.

It feels weird. I'm half white half Mexican and whenever we go to visit family in north Dakota I get some crazy looks from people. I know that this is nothing new and that it must be much worse for black people, but its a spooky feeling coming from norcal.

Also, I sympathize with people who try to come here illegally. To get your green card you have to go to the offices in Juarez Mexico and spend about a week there. My mom recently helped my grandma get her green card there and on one ocassion they were followed by an unmarked rape van (the white ones without windows) as you guys have heard its not a good place right now
 
Those with work permits are legally required to pay taxes so they are just as entitled to benefits as anyone else who pays taxes as well as the ability to vote. No taxation without representation will quickly make its way up the channel to the SCOTUS. Since only the federal government can set immigration policy, this action of defiance is actually an illegal one which will result in the state being sued for big money.

While I don't really agree with what Obama did here and don't go for the "please won't someone please think of the children" argument, I don't believe the states have strong grounds to ignore the fed in this matter no matter how much they may feel it sucks.
 
In Arizona? No there isn't. Or not much that deserves to be called public transportation

There are bus lines. and On the east side theres rail lines in areas.

This is all part of a bigger issue. Arizona being a dick helps maybe push the issues to actually get looked at rather than bandaided forever.

It wasnt too long ago Obama was saying it would be unconstitutional and illegal for him to do the very thing he did. Its all grey areas that need to be resolved with actual attempts not halfassness
 
So basically immigrants should just immigrate 1 state over and deny Arizona all economic benefits of their presence?

Sounds smart economically.
 
This doesn't surprise me.
 
I edited.

Have you been to say new york or europe by any chance? That's real public transport. What the majority of states in the US have isn't. One bus an hour isn't transportation.

Yeah most towns only have bus lines that run every hour. Major cities obviously do not but get outside of them and you're looking at a lot of wait time unless there is some kind of train.
 
If they didn't have access before, why would they now? This was just a change in deportation priority policies. In some cases they can apply for visas though, which would grant legal status
 
This is news? Since when can states not nullify federal law?

LOL, really? Did you fall asleep during social studies in school? States have the right to make their own laws. And yes, it is very possible for a federal law and a state law to co-exist and conflict with each other. For example, if you live in a state that allows marijuana for medical purposes, you can still be busted by the feds for possessing marijuana with a perscription.
 
yeah, screw fake transportation, so fake

If it's not really decent or someone has to transfer a lot which might make them late, it's not really reliable or prompt some times even in major cities. If you don't want to get fired a car is definitely better.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom