Immigration: Face of America HTY-110

doc4._ebscohost_14.pdf

Home >History homework help >Immigration: Face of America HTY-110

broadly disseminate information respecting the benefits which aliens may receive under this section and the requirements to obtain such benefits.’’

(2) The table of contents for chapter 5 of title II is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 245 the following new item:

‘‘Sec. 245A. Adjustment of status of certain entrants before January 1, 1982, to that of person admitted for lawful residence.’’

(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—(1) Section 402 of the Social Security Act is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new subsection: ‘‘42 USC 602’’

‘‘(f)(1) For temporary disqualification of certain newly legalized aliens from receiving aid to families with dependent children, see subsection (h) of section 245A of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

‘‘(2) In any case where an alien disqualified from receiving aid under such subsection (h) is the parent of a child who is not so disqualified and who (without any adjustment of status under such section 245A) is considered a dependent child under subsection (a)(33), or is the brother or sister of such a child, subsection (a)(38) shall not apply, and the needs of such alien shall not be taken into account in making the determination under subsection (a)(7) with respect to such child, but the income of such alien (if he or she is the parent of such child) shall be included in making such determination to the same extent that income of a stepparent is included under subsection (a)( 31).’’

(2)(A) Section 472(a) of such Act ‘‘42 USC 672’’ is amended by adding at the end thereof (after and below paragraph (4)) the following new sentence: ‘‘In any case where the child is an alien disqualified under section 245A(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act from receiving aid under the State plan approved under section 402 in or for the month in which such agree- ment was entered into or court proceedings leading to the removal of the child from the home were instituted, such child shall be considered to satisfy the requirements of paragraph (4) (and the corresponding requirements of section 473(a)(1)(B)), with respect to that month, if he or she would have satisfied such requirements but for such disqualification.’’

(B) Section 473(a)(1) of such Act ‘‘42 USC 673’’ is amended by adding at the end thereof (after and below subparagraph (C)) the following new sentence: ‘‘The last sentence of section 472(a) shall apply, for purposes of subparagraph (B), in any case where the child is an alien described in that sentence.’’

note’’—Notwithstanding the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 471 et seq.), the Attorney General is authorized to expend from the appropriation provided for the administration and enforcement of the Immigration and Nationality Act, ‘‘8 USC 1101 note’’ such amounts as may be necessary for the leasing or acquisition of property in the fulfillment of this sec- tion. This authority shall end two years after the effective date of the legalization program.

(2) USE OF RETIRED FEDERAL EMPLOYEES.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the retired or retainer pay of a member or former member of the Armed Forces of the United States or the annuity of a retired employee of the Federal Government who retired on or before January 1, 1986, shall not be reduced while such individual is temporarily employed by the Immigration and Naturalization Service for a period of not to exceed 18 months to perform duties in connection with the adjustment of status of aliens under this section. The Service shall not temporarily employ more than 300 individuals under this paragraph. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the annuity of a retired employee of the Federal Government shall not be increased or redetermined under chapter 83 or 84 of title 5, ‘‘5 USC 8301’’ United States Code, as a result of a period of temporary employment under this paragraph.

(Source: http://www.oig.lsc.gov/legis/irca86.htm)

Document 4: Proposition 187 of 1994—Arguments in Favor and Against

Significance: Divided Californians. While approved by voters, it was over- turned by the courts as infringement on federal government powers.

Chapter 9 • Mexico and the U.S. Immigration Debate

199

Co py

ri gh t © 2 00 9. G re en wo od P ub li sh in g Gr ou p. A ll r ig ht s re se rv ed . Ma y no t be r ep ro du ce d in a ny f or m wi th ou t pe rm is si on f ro

m th e pu bl is he r, e xc ep t fa ir u se s pe rm it te d un de r U. S. o r

ap pl

ic ab le c op yr ig ht l aw .

EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 6/9/2015 10:39 AM via SAINT LEO UNIV AN: 280845 ; Kalaitzidis, Akis, Felsen, David, Cieslik, Thomas.; Immigration : A Documentary and Reference Guide Account: stleocol

http://www.oig.lsc.gov/legis/irca86.htm

Official Title and Summary Prepared by the Attorney General

ILLEGAL ALIENS. INELIGIBILITY FOR PUBLIC SEEVICES. VERIFICATION AND REPORTING. INITIATIVE STATUTE.

Makes illegal aliens ineligible for public social services, public health care services (unless emergency under federal law), and public school education at elementary, secondary, and post-secondary levels.

Requires various state and local agencies to report persons who are suspected illegal aliens to the California Attorney General and the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service. Mandates California Attorney General to transmit reports to Immigration and Natu- ralization Service and maintain records of such reports. Makes it a felony to manufacture, distribute, sell, or use false citizenship or residence documents.

Argument in Favor of Proposition 187

California can strike a blow for the taxpayer that will be heard across America; in Ari- zona, in Texas and in Florida in the same way Proposition 13 was heard across the land.

Proposition 187 will go down in history as the voice of the people against arrogant bureaucracy.

WE CAN STOP ILLEGAL ALIENS, If the citizens and the taxpayers of our state wait for the politicians in Washington and

Sacramento to stop the incredible flow of ILLEGAL ALIENS, California will be in economic and social bankruptcy.

We have to act and ACT NOW! On our ballot, Proposition 187 will be the first giant stride in ultimately ending the ILLEGAL ALIEN invasion.

It has been estimated that ILLEGAL ALIENS are costing taxpayers in excess of 6 billion dollars a year,

While our own citizens and legal residents go wanting, those who choose to enter our country ILLEGALLY get royal treatment at the expense of the California taxpayer.

IT IS TIME THIS STOPS! Welfare, medical and educational benefits are the magnets that draw these ILLEGAL

ALIENS aeross our borders. Senator Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia), who voted against federal reimbursement for

state funds spent on ILLEGAL ALIENS, said ‘‘states must do what they can for themselves’’. PROPOSITION 187 IS CALIFORNIA’s WAY. Should those ILLEGALLY here receive taxpayer subsidized education including college? Should our children’s classrooms be over-crowded by those who are ILLEGALLY in our

country? Should our Senior Citizens be denied full service under Medi-Gal to subsidize the cost of

ILLEGAL ALIENS? Should those ILLEGALLY here be able to buy and sell forged documents without penalty? Should tax paid bureaucrats be able to give sanctuary to those ILLEGALLY in our country? If your answer to these questions is NO, then you should support Proposition 187. The federal government and the state government have been derelict in their duty to control

our borders. It is the role of our government to end the benefits that draw people from around the world who ILLEGALLY enter our country. Our government actually entices them.

Passage of Proposition 18? will send a strong message that California will no longer toler- ate the dereliction of the duty by our politicians.

Vote YES on Proposition 187. The Save Our State Coalition is comprised of Democrats, Republicans and Independents.

It includes all races, colors and creeds with the same common denominator. We are Ameri- can, by birth or naturalization; we are Americans!

We were outraged when our State Legislature voted on July 5th to remove dental care as a medical option and force the increase of the cost of prescription drugs for Senior Citizens.

Immigration

200

Co py

ri gh t © 2 00 9. G re en wo od P ub li sh in g Gr ou p. A ll r ig ht s re se rv ed . Ma y no t be r ep ro du ce d in a ny f or m wi th ou t pe rm is si on f ro

m th e pu bl is he r, e xc ep t fa ir u se s pe rm it te d un de r U. S. o r

ap pl

ic ab le c op yr ig ht l aw .

Then, as a final slap in the face, they voted to continue free pre-natal care for ILLEGAL ALIENS!

Vote YES ON PROPOSITION 187. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! ASSEMBLYMAN DICK MOUNTJOY Author of Proposition 187 RONALD PRINCE Chairman of the ‘‘’Save Our State’’ Committee MAYOR BARBARA KILEY Co-Chair of the ‘‘Save Our State’’ Committee

Rebuttal to Argument in Favor of Proposition 187

Proposition 187 promoters claim their initiative would go down in history. We agree. PROPOSITION 187 IS ONE OF THE MOST POORLY DRAFTED INITIATIVES IN

CALIFORNIA’s HISTORY. ‘‘The initiative is filled with provisions that collide with state and federal laws, state and U.S.

constitutional protections and with state and federal court rulings.’’ California Senate Office of Research PROPOSITION 187 ALSO MAY SET A RECORD FOR COSTING TAXPAYERS $10

BILLION! ‘‘Because the requirements of the: S.O,S, initiative (187) violate federal Medi-Cal law, the

state’s entire Medi-Cal program would be in jeopardy of losing all regular Medicaid funding…’’ ‘‘To make up for the upwards of $7 billion in lost federal funds, state spending on Medi-Cal

would have to double.’’ National Health Law Program ‘‘…… school districts will most likely be required to disclose information from education records

in violation of FERPA (Family Ed.ucational Rights and Privacy Act) in order to comply with the prepared State law (Proposition 187).’’

As a result, ‘‘schools would no longer be able to receive Federal education funds.’’ U.S. Secretary of Education Richard Riley California’s Senate Office of Research estimates the loss to our public schools and colleges

could exceed $3 billion. Proposition 187 would go down in history, all right. If approved, 187 would be long

remembered as the initiative that TOOK A BAD SITUATION AND MADE IT MUCH WORSE—$10 BILLION WORSE!

Meanwhile, PROPOSITION 187 DOES ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO BEEF UP ENFORCEMENT AT THE BORDER or CRACK DOWN on EMPLOYERS WHO HIRE UNDOCUMENTED WORKERS.

VOTE NO on PROPOSITION 187! PAT DINGSDALE President, California State PTA MICHAEL B. HILL, M.D. President, American College of Emergency Physicians, California Chapter HOWARD L. OWENS Legislative Director, Congress of California Senior

Argument Against Proposition 187

Something must be done to stop the flow of illegal immigrants coming across the border.

Unfortunately, PROPOSITION 187 DOESN’T DO A THING TO BEEF UP ENFORCE- MENT AT THE BORDER. It doesn’t even, crack down on employers who hire illegal immigrants.

Chapter 9 • Mexico and the U.S. Immigration Debate

201

Co py

ri gh t © 2 00 9. G re en wo od P ub li sh in g Gr ou p. A ll r ig ht s re se rv ed . Ma y no t be r ep ro du ce d in a ny f or m wi th ou t pe rm is si on f ro

m th e pu bl is he r, e xc ep t fa ir u se s pe rm it te d un de r U. S. o r

ap pl

ic ab le c op yr ig ht l aw .

illegal immigration is a REAL problem, but Proposition 187 is NOT A REAL SOLU- TION. It’s not even a start in the right direction.

Proposition 187 would only COMPOUND EXISTING PROBLEMS and cause a host of new ones—EXPENSIVE ones!

PROPOSITION 187 COULD END UP COSTING TAXPAYERS $1.0 BILLION. Education, health care and legal analysts all come to the same conclusion. Because Propo-

sition 187 is POORLY DRAFTED, it directly conflicts with several important federal laws. As a result, CALIFORNIA COULD LOSE BILLIONS in FEDERAL FUNDING.

Even the U.S. Secretary of Education has concluded Proposition 187 could cause Califor- nia schools to lose federal funds. Our schools could lose more than $3 BILLION.

Health care experts have further determined Proposition 187 could cost California $7 BILLION in lost federal funding for Medi-Cal for seniors and other legal residents.

PROPOSITION 187 WOULD TURN OUR SCHOOLS INTO IMMIGRATION OFFICES, It requires public school officials to thoroughly verify the citizenship of EVERY child and

EVERY parent—more than 10 MILLION people. The costs and time involved in undertaking this PAPERWORK NIGHTMARE is impos-

sible to calculate. Schools already are hurting from budget cuts. Proposition 187 would divert even more funds away from classrooms.

PROPOSITION 187 WOULD KICK 400,000 KIDS OUT OF SCHOOL AND ONTO THE STREETS.

An estimated 400,000 KIDS would be kicked out of school» but Proposition 187 WONT result in their deportation. Just what we need—400,000 kids hanging out on street corners. We all know what happens to kids who don’t finish school.

Is this supposed to reduce CRIME and GRAFFITI? PROPOSITION 187 CREATES A POLICE STATE MENTALITY. It forces public officials to deny vital services to anyone they SUSPECT might not be a

legal resident. But Proposition 187 doesn’t define the basis for such suspicion. Is it the way you speak? The sound of your last name? The shade of your skin?

PROPOSITION 187 THREATENS THE HEALTH OF ALL CALIFORNIANS. It would forbid doctors and nurses from giving immunizations or basic medical care to

anyone SUSPECTED of being an illegal immigrant. Every day, hundreds of thousands of undocumented workers HANDLE OUR FOOD SUPPLY

in the fields and restaurants. Denying them basic health care would only SPREAD COMMUNI- CABLE DISEASES THROUGHOUT OUR COMMUNITIES and place us ALL at risk.

PROPOSITION 187 COULD COST TAXPAYERS $10 BILLION, BUT IT WONT STOP THE FLOW OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS OVER THE BORDER.

Illegal immigration is ILLEGAL. Isn’t it time we enforce the law? Proposition 187 doesn’t beef up enforcement at the border or crack down on the employ-

ers who continue to hire illegal immigrants. Send the politicians a message. Tell them to start enforcing the law. VOTE NO on

PROPOSITION 187. SHERMAN BLOCK Sheriff, Lot Angeles County D. A. (‘‘DEL’’) WEBER President, California Teachers Association RALPH R. OCAMPO, M.D. President, California Medical Association

Rebuttal to Argument Against Proposition 187

The argument against Proposition 187 is emotional, thoughtless and pure mindless babble. The real opponents of Proposition 187, the special interests who have pledged millions of

dollars to defeat our initiative, have a deep financial interest in continuing the present

Immigration

202

Co py

ri gh t © 2 00 9. G re en wo od P ub li sh in g Gr ou p. A ll r ig ht s re se rv ed . Ma y no t be r ep ro du ce d in a ny f or m wi th ou t pe rm is si on f ro

m th e pu bl is he r, e xc ep t fa ir u se s pe rm it te d un de r U. S. o r

ap pl

ic ab le c op yr ig ht l aw .

policy. Remember: Illegal aliens are a big business for public unions and well connected medical clinics. You pay the bills, they reap the benefits,

These monied interests have the unmitigated gall to tell the California voter that by end- ing illegal immigration the cost to the taxpayer will skyrocket! Are they out of their minds?

Their argument states that passage of Proposition 187: ‘‘Doesn’t crack down on employers.’’ FEDERAL LAW ALREADY PROHIBITS HIRING ILLEGALS. ‘‘187 could end up costing taxpayers $10 billion. NONSENSE, HOW CAN GETTING RID OF THE PRESENT COSTS END UP

COSTING MORE? They say, ‘‘187 is badly written.’’ NONSENSE. THE SPECIAL INTERESTS ATTACKING PROPOSITION 187 INCLUDE THE CAL-

IFORNIA TEACHERS ASSOCIATION AND THE CALIFORNIA MEDICAL ASSOCI- ATION. BOTH CONSTITUTE THE STATE’S BIGGEST LOBBYING GROUPS WHO OPPOSE US, THEY PROTECT THEIR OWN INTERESTS—NOT YOURS.

Don’t be deceived by greedy, special interests that benefit from the failures in our immi- gration policies.

Why should we give more comfort and consideration to illegal aliens than to our needy American citizens? Many aged and mentally impaired Americans go without government lar- gesse. Isn’t it time to consider our citizens?

The groups spending millions to maintain the failures of the status quo only do so for their own selfishness. VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 187.

ASSEMBLYMAN DICK MOUNTJ0Y Author, Proposition 187/S.O.S. CONGRESSMAN JAY KIM Advisor, Proposition 187/S.O.S. JESSE LAGUNA Chairman, Border Solution Task Force

Document 5: Congressional Research Service Document

When: 2001

Significance: Commitment by Presidents Bush and Fox to work together on immigration issues in the pre-9/11 period.

Order Code RL32735 Congressional Research Service-Library of Congress, Report for Congress—Received through CRS Web Mexico-United States Dialogue on Migration and Border Issues, 2001-2005 ‘‘President Bush’s February 2001 Visit to Guanajuato, Mexico Launches Bilateral Migra-

tion Talks. When President Bush met with President Fox in mid-February 2001, migration issues were among the main topics, with Mexican officials expressing concern about the num- ber of migrants who die each year while seeking entry into the United States. President Fox has been pressing proposals for legalizing undocumented Mexican workers in the United States through amnesty or guest worker arrangements as a way of protecting their human rights. In the Joint Communique following the Bush-Fox meeting, the two presidents agreed to instruct appropriate officials ‘‘to engage, at the earliest opportunity, in formal high level negotiations aimed at achieving short and long-term agreements that will allow us to constructively address migration and labor issues between our two countries.’’ During the joint press conference, Presi- dent Bush indicated that there was a movement in Congress to review the drug certification requirements, and he expressed confidence in President Fox’s efforts to combat drug trafficking.

Several months later, on May 25, 2001, President Bush telephoned President Fox to express condolences for the recent deaths of 14 Mexican migrants in the Arizona desert, and both

Chapter 9 • Mexico and the U.S. Immigration Debate

203

Co py

ri gh t © 2 00 9. G re en wo od P ub li sh in g Gr ou p. A ll r ig ht s re se rv ed . Ma y no t be r ep ro du ce d in a ny f or m wi th ou t pe rm is si on f ro

m th e pu bl is he r, e xc ep t fa ir u se s pe rm it te d un de r U. S. o r

ap pl

ic ab le c op yr ig ht l aw .