California and a coalition of other states led by Liberals continued the Trump administration on Monday for new rules prohibiting undocumented immigrants from accessing more than a dozen “public benefits” programs funded by the federal government, arguing that restrictions target the working mothers and their children in violation of federal law.
President Trump and other members of his administration defended restrictions as necessary to protect services from American citizens – including veterans – and reduce incentives to illegal immigration to the country.
One of Programs faced with new restrictions are head startwhich has provided nearly 700,000 low-income, toddlers and preschool children with child care, nutrition and health aid.
Others include short-term shelters for homeless people, survivors of domestic violence and young people at risk; Emergency shelters for people in extreme weather; Popular soups, community food banks and food support services for the elderly, such as wheels on wheels; health services for people with mental illness and drug addiction problems; and other adult education programs.
California Atty. General Rob Bonta’s office said the states have been allowed to extend these programs to families of undocumented immigrants at least since 1997, and that the “steep reversal of the Trump administration of almost three decades of previous ones” was equivalent to a “cruel attack” and costly against some of the country’s most vulnerable residents.
“This last salvo of the inhuman anti-immigration campaign of the president is mainly after the mothers and their young children who work,” said Bonta. “We are not talking about waste, fraud and mistreatment, we are talking about programs that offer child care, health, health care, nutrition and education, programs that have been open to everyone.”
The trial – that California brought with 19 other states and the District of Columbia – maintains that the new restrictions have not only been initiated in an “arbitrary and capricious” manner and without notice for the States, but will end up costing the states of hundreds of millions of dollars per year.
The Bonta office said that “the obligation of programs to spend resources to implement systems and train staff to verify citizenship or immigration status will impose a long -time and resource burden on programs that already have trouble operating on narrow financial margins.”
He also said that the impact of changes in California, which has a huge immigrant population compared to other states, would be “devastating – and immediate”.
Abigail Jackson, a White House spokesperson, said in a statement on Monday that Trump “was elected on the basis of his promise to put the Americans first and that this is exactly what this administration is determined to do.”
“Many of our American colleagues are counting on government assistance and the resources funded by the federal government to get back on their feet,” said Jackson. “When illegal foreigners exploit these resources, it is to the detriment of Americans in desperate needs.”
States complaints are contrary to the arguments of Trump, its administration and other anti-immigration defenders that prolonging the advantages of undocumented immigrants encourages illegal immigration to the country, costs American taxpayers money and makes it more difficult for American citizens to receive services.
About a month after his entry into office, Trump published a decree entitled “putting an end to the subsidy of taxpayers of open borders”, in which he declared that his administration “would confirm the rule of law, defended against the waste of the resources of the hard -won taxpayer, and would protect the advantages for American citizens in need, including disabled and veterans.”
The ordinance required that the heads of federal agencies carry out radical examinations of their benefits programs and move to restrict access to undocumented immigrants, in part to “prevent the resources of taxpayers from acting as a magnet and fuel illegal immigration to the United States”.
Trump quoted the Personal Response and Work Opportunities Reconciliation Act of 1996 As ensuring clear restrictions on non-citizens participating in programs of advantages funded by the federal government and accused previous administrations of undermining “the principles and limits” of this law.
Previous administrations have provided exemptions to the law, namely by allowing immigrants to access certain “life or security” programs – including those which are now targeted for new restrictions.
In response to the order of Trump, various federal agencies – including health and social services, work, education and agriculture – have published opinions earlier this month announcing their reinterpretation of the 1996 law by excluding the “non -citizens” of more programs, including those which were previously exempt.
“For too long, the government has diverted the taxes of Americans who have worked hard to encourage illegal immigration,” said secretary for health and social services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. “today’s changes in action – he restores the integrity of federal social programs, applies the primacy of law and protects vital resources for the American people.”
“Under the leadership of President Trump, American workers taxpayers will no longer be established in the bill for illegal foreigners to participate in our career, technique or adult education programs or activities,” said education secretary Linda McMahon.
“By ensuring that these programs serve their objective, we protect well-paid jobs for American workers and reaffirm the commitment of this administration to ensure our borders and to end illegal immigration,” said Lori Chavez-Deremer.
The Ministry of Agriculture also said that it would apply new restrictions on the benefits for undocumented immigrants, including as part of the additional nutrition aid program, or SNAP. However, the States trial does not dispute the Ministry of Agriculture, noting that “many USDA programs are subject to an independent legal requirement to provide certain programs of benefits to everyone independently of citizenship”, which, according to the opinion of the ministry, would continue to apply.
The attorney general of Arizona, Massachusetts, Massachusetts, Massachusetts, Massachusetts, Massachusetts, Massachusetts, Massachuset, Massachuset, du Massachuset, Massachuset, Massachuset, Massachuset, Massachuset, Massachuset, Massachuset, Massachuset, Massachuset, Massachuset, Massachuset, New York, Rhode, New York, Rhode.
Yasmina Vinci, executive director of the Head Start Assn., Said that her organization was not involved in the dispute, but “would follow it with interest”.
“Head Start has a history of more than 60 years of bipartite and success in the production of healthier children, safer neighborhoods, more parents working and contributing, and fewer families who need public aid,” said Vinci. “Given everything that the start does for the youngest learners in the country and their future, there is no good reason to make children more difficult for access to this opportunity that changes their life.”
The staff writer Jenny Gold contributed to this report.
