If the Trump administration manages to prohibit undocumented immigrants from the “public benefit” programs financed by the federal government, vulnerable children and families throughout California would suffer a lot, losing access to emergency shelters, vital medical care, early education and nutritional support that save life, according to state and local officials who presented their opposition to changes in federal courts.
The new restrictions would damage undocumented immigrants, but also to US citizens, including the children of immigrants born in the United States and people suffering from mental illnesses and homeless people who lack documentation, and put intense stress in the state's emergency health system, officials said.
Head Start, which provides tens of thousands of children in the state with early education, medical care and nutritional support, may have to close some of their programs if the new rules that happen to immigrants resist a lawsuit filed by California and other states led by liberals, officials said.
In a statement presented as part of that litigation, Maria Guadalupe Jaime-Milehan, deputy director of the Division of Child Care and Development of the California Social Services Department, wrote that the restrictions would have a “chilling effect” on immigrants and families of mixed states looking for support, but also cause “broader effects”, especially in the communities of California California as “a critical security network, but also the residents of critical security, but also the broader residents”, but also the residents of the broader waste, but also in the critical security networks, but also the critical security residents, but also the critical security networks, but also the residents of critical security, but also the residents of critical security, but also the residents of critical safety Criticism, but also critical security networks, but also critical security networks, but also critical security networks, but also cause critical waste, such as “. As main employers.
“Children would lose educational, nutritional and medical care services. Parents or guardians can be forced to reduce spending on other critical needs to fill the gaps, and some may even be forced to abandon work so they can take care of their children,” said Jaime-Milehan.
Rural communities would see programs that are closed and family suppliers lose their jobs, he wrote.
Tony Thurmond, Superintendent of Public Instruction of California, warned in a statement that the “chilling effect” of such rules could eliminate talented educators who do not agree with such policies and decide to “find another job that does not discriminate against children and families.”
Thurmond and Jaime-Milehan were among dozens of officials in 20 states and the Columbia district who presented statements in support of the demand of these states challenging the new rules of the Trump administration. Six other California officials also filed statements.
The demand followed the ads last month of several federal agencies, including health and human services, work, education and agriculture, which financing beneficiaries should begin to evaluate undocumented immigrants.
The ads followed an executive order issued by President Trump in which he said that his administration “would defend the rule of law, defend against the waste of taxpayers of taxpayers won with so much effort and protect the benefits for American citizens in need, including people with disabilities and veterans.”
Trump's order cited the Law on the Conciliation of Work Opportunities and Personal Responsibility of 1996, commonly known as the Welfare Reform, as prohibiting non -citizens from participating in benefits programs financed by the federal government, and criticized the previous administrations for providing exemptions to that law for certain “life or security” programs, including those who are now aimed at new restrictions.
The order demanded that federal agencies restrict access to benefit programs for undocumented immigrants, in part to “prevent taxpayers from acting as a magnet and feeds illegal immigration to the United States.”
California and the other states demanded on July 21, claiming that the new restrictions are directed to the mothers who work and their children in violation of the Federal Law.
“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,” California Atty. General Rob Bont said.
In addition to programs such as Head Start, Bonta said that new restrictions threatened access to short -term shelters for homeless people, survivors of domestic violence and young people at risk; Emergency shelters for people during extreme climate; Soup cachuelas, community food banks and food support services for the elderly; and medical care for people with mental illnesses and substance abuse problems.
The statements are part of a motion that asks the federal judge to supervise the case that issues a preliminary judicial order that prohibits the changes that take effect while the litigation develops.
Beth Neary, Deputy Director of HIV Health Services in the San Francisco Department of Public Health, wrote in his statement that the new restrictions would prevent medical care services for a variety of San Francisco residents who experience the lack of housing, including undocumented immigrants and US citizens.
“People who experience the lack of housing periodically lack identity and other documents that would be necessary to verify their citizenship or immigration state due to frequent movements and a greater risk of theft of their belongings,” he wrote.
Colleen Chawla, head of San Mateo County Health, wrote that his organization, the “Security Network” of County, has worked for years to increase confidence in immigrants communities.
“But if our customers are concerned that they cannot qualify for the attention they need, or that they or their family members face a risk of detention or deportation if they seek attention, they will stop coming,” Chawla wrote. “This will exacerbate their health conditions.”
Greta S. Hansen, director of Operations of Santa Clara County, wrote that more than 40% of the residents of her county are born abroad and more than 60% of the children of the County have at least one father born abroad, among the highest rates anywhere in the country.
The changes of the administration would threaten them all, but also to everyone else in the county, he wrote.
“The cumulative effect of patients who do not receive preventive care and the necessary medications would probably be a tension in Santa Clara's emergency services, which would result in greater costs for Santa Clara and could also lead to a decrease in emergency care capacity throughout the community,” Hansen wrote.
The Trump administration has defended the new rules, even in the Court.
In response to the motion of the states for a preliminary court order, administration lawyers argued that changes in the rules are directly in line with the 1996 Welfare Reform Law and the rights of federal agencies to enforce it.
They wrote that the notices that announce the new rules sent by federal agencies “simply recognize that the amplitude of the benefits available for unqualified aliens is narrower than the previously interpreted agencies and” restore compliance with the federal law and ensure that programs financed by taxpayers destined for the US people do not have fun to subsidize unqualified aliens. “
The judge who presides over the case has not yet ruled on the preliminary court order.
