1 / 7

State Governments

Explore the impact of immigration reform on state governments in California, Arizona, Texas, and Colorado. Learn about the different propositions and laws that have been passed to address immigration issues. Discover the economic, fiscal, and social implications of immigration policies.

jmae
Download Presentation

State Governments

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. State Governments Immigration Reform Amanda Williams Madelynn Montoya Andrew Davis

  2. California • California Proposition 187 (1994) • To prohibit illegal immigrants from using social services, healthcare, and public education in California • Initially passed by voters, and later overturned by the federal court • California AB 335 (Signed 10/14/2007) • This law prohibits an alien who does not verify his or her “eligible alien status” from receiving temporary homeless relief shelter.

  3. California • Main Issue: economic and fiscal impact due to immigration • California Regional Economies Project • 1 in 4 California residents are foreign born • 7% of those are undocumented • Immigration provides net economic benefits and negative fiscal impact • Many immigrants hope for a better education for their children, but it becomes a larger burden to tax payers

  4. Arizona • In 2004, voters passed Proposition 200 • Requires that in order to vote, residents must present proof of U.S. citizenship • Applicants for certain public benefits must be verified as being lawfully present in the U.S. • Requires state and local agencies to report to U.S. immigration authorities benefits applicants who fail to prove they are lawfully present • In 2006, voters passed Proposition 300 • Makes anyone without lawful immigration status ineligible to be classified as an in-state student for purposes of tuition, grants, scholarship assistance, and financial aid • Restricts access to family literacy programs, adult education courses, and child care subsidies for undocumented immigrants

  5. Arizona Continued… • Voters passed three additional anti-immigrant propositions and one “English only” proposition on Nov.7, 2006 • Proposition 100 • Denies bail for any person charges with a serious felony offense is the person charged entered or remained in the U.S. illegally • Proposition 102 • Prohibits a person who wins a civil lawsuit from receiving punitive damages if the person is present in the state in violation of immigration law • Proposition 103 • Require that “to the greatest extent possible,” official actions, services, programs, publications, documents, and materials be provided in English

  6. Texas • Texas has the highest number of criminal immigration cases than any of theother border districts. • Approximately 240,000 illegal sex offenders • Cost of illegal immigration to Texas taxpayers • Health Care - $573 million • Education – $3.746 billion • Criminal Justice - $190 million •   Total cost burden - $4.5 billion • House Bill 47 (2008) • Requiring voter identification at the voting booth so that non citizens cannot vote • House Bill 48 • Creates penalties for employing illegal immigrants • House Bill 49 • Allows law enforcement to arrest illegal immigrants • House Bill 50 • Stipulates that illegal aliens are not eligible for in-state tuition atstate universities

  7. Colorado • Two referendums approved by voters on Nov.7, 2006 • Referendum H • Provides for punishing Colorado employers who hire unauthorized workers by prohibiting them from deducting wages paid to unauthorized workers as a business expense • Religious groups, immigrant advocacy groups, and others opposed the measure • Referendum K • Requires the state of Colorado to sue the federal government to demand enforcement of existing federal immigration laws • Courts ruled that they have no legal authority to settle what is essentially a political question regarding how much federal funding should go to the states to pay for federal mandates

More Related