California and a coalition of other states led by the liberals sued the Trump administration on Monday for the new rules that prohibit undocumented immigrants to access more than a dozen programs of “public benefit” financed by the federal government, arguing that the restrictions are addressed to working mothers and their children in violation of the federal law.
President Trump and others in his administration have defended the restrictions as necessary to protect the services of US citizens, including veterans, and reduce incentives for illegal immigration to the country.
One of the programs that face new restrictions is Head Start, which provided almost 700,000 low -income babies, young and preschool children with child care, nutrition and health assistance.
Others include short -term shelters for homeless people, survivors of domestic violence and young people at risk; Emergency shelters for people during extreme climate; Soup kitchens, community food banks and food support services for the elderly, such as wheel meals; Medical care services for those with mental illnesses and substance abuse problems; and other adult education programs.
California Atty. General Rob Bonta's office said that states have been allowed to extend such programs to undocumented immigrant families at least since 1997, and the “abrupt investment of the Trump administration of almost three decades of precedents” amounted to a “cruel” and expensive attack against some of the most vulnerable residents of the Nation.
“This last saves in the inhuman campaign against the president's immigration is going mainly after working mothers and their young children,” said Bonta. “We are not talking about waste, fraud and abuse, we are talking about programs that offer essential child care, medical care, nutrition and educational assistance, programs that for decades have been open to all.”
The lawsuit, which California presented along with 19 states and the district of Columbia, argues that the new restrictions not only began in a “arbitrary and capricious” way and without prior notice to the states, but will end up costing the states of hundreds of millions of dollars annually.
The Bronta office said that “to require programs to spend resources to implement systems and train staff to verify citizenship or immigration status will impose a load and resources load on the programs that already fight to operate on narrow financial margins.”
He also said that the impact of changes in California, which has a large immigrant population compared to other states, would be “devastating and immediate.”
Abigail Jackson, a White House spokeswoman, said in a statement on Monday that Trump “was chosen based on his promise to put the Americans first and that is exactly what this administration is committed to doing.”
“Many of our American colleagues trust the help of the government and the resources financed by the federal government to stand up,” Jackson said. “When illegal foreigners explode these resources, it is at the expense of Americans who need them desperately.”
The statements of the states go against Trump's arguments, their administration and other defenders of the anti -immigration that extending the benefits to undocumented immigrants encourages illegal immigration to the country, it costs money to US taxpayers and makes it difficult for US citizens to receive services.
Approximately one month after assuming the position, Trump issued an executive order entitled “Completion of the taxpayers of the open borders”, in which he said that his administration “would defend the rule of law, will defend against the waste of resources of the taxpayers won with so much effort and protect the benefits for the needy citizens in need, including people with disabilities and veterans.”
The order required that the heads of federal agencies carry out radical reviews of their benefit programs and move to restrict access to undocumented immigrants, in part to “prevent taxpayers' resources from acting as a magnet and feeding illegal immigration to the United States.”
Trump cited the Law of Reconciliation of Work Opportunities of 1996 as providing clear restrictions against non -citizens who participate in benefits programs financed by the federal government and accused the past administrations of undermining “the principles and limitations” of that law.
The previous administrations have provided exemptions to the law, namely, allowing immigrants to access certain “life or security” programs, including those that are now being attacked for new restrictions.
In response to Trump's order, several federal agencies, including health and human services, work, education and agriculture, issued notices earlier this month announcing their reinterpretation of the 1996 law as excluding the “non -citizens” of more programs, including those previously exempt.
“For too long, the government has diverted the tax workers of the Americans to encourage illegal immigration,” said the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., “today's action changes that: it restores integrity to federal social programs, applies the government of the law and protects vital resources for the US people.”
“Under the leadership of President Trump, US working taxpayers will no longer pay the bill for illegal foreigners to participate in our technical, technical or adult education programs or activities,” said the Secretary of Education, Linda McMahon.
“By guaranteeing that these programs comply with their planned purpose, we are protecting well-paid jobs for US workers and reaffirming the commitment of this administration to ensure our borders and end illegal immigration,” Labelist Secretary Lori Chavez-Deremer said.
The Agriculture Department also said that it would apply new restrictions to the benefits for undocumented immigrants, even under the supplementary nutritional assistance program, or SNAP. However, the demand of the states does not challenge the Department of Agriculture, and points out that “many USDA programs are subject to an independent legal requirement of providing certain benefit programs to all, regardless of citizenship”, that the department notice said it would continue to apply.
They joined in the presentation of the lawsuit, the Attorney General of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawai, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin, as well as the Columbia district.
Yasmina Vinci, executive director of the National Head Start Assn.
“Head Start has a history of more than 60 years of bipartisan support and success in the production of healthier children, safer neighborhoods, more parents who work and contribute, and less families who need public assistance,” said Vinci. “Since everything Head Start does for younger students in the country and their future, there is no good reason to make children access this opportunity that changes life.”
Times staff writer Jenny Gold contributed to this report.
