What Does This Mean To You?

[WillowTree]

In Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365, 372 (1971), the U.S. Supreme Court held that classifications by a State that are based on alienage are "inherently suspect and subject to close judicial scrutiny."

The Court held that a State may not withhold welfare benefits from resident aliens "merely because of their alienage." Id. at 378. Such discrimination, the Court concluded, would not only violate the Equal Protection Clause, but would also encroach upon federal authority over lawfully admitted aliens. In support of the latter conclusion, the Court noted that Congress had "not seen fit to impose any burden or restriction on aliens who become indigent after their entry into the United States," id. at 377, but rather had chosen to afford "lawfully admitted resident aliens ... the full and equal benefit of all state laws for the security of persons and property," id. at 378. The States had thus imposed an "auxiliary [burden] upon the entrance or residence of aliens" that was never contemplated by Congress. Id. at 379.


http://www.conservapedia.com/Graham_v._Richardson

 

[Luissa]

Nothing.
But I do take care of a lady who recieves SS and assistance from the state as a legal alien. Of course she worked in the US for over 30 years. Everything isn't black and white, Willow.

 

[SFC Ollie]

I don't speak lawyerese very well, but it seems to say that the individual states cannot discriminate against legal aliens.

 

[Wry Catcher]

In Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365, 372 (1971), the U.S. Supreme Court held that classifications by a State that are based on alienage are "inherently suspect and subject to close judicial scrutiny."

The Court held that a State may not withhold welfare benefits from resident aliens "merely because of their alienage." Id. at 378. Such discrimination, the Court concluded, would not only violate the Equal Protection Clause, but would also encroach upon federal authority over lawfully admitted aliens. In support of the latter conclusion, the Court noted that Congress had "not seen fit to impose any burden or restriction on aliens who become indigent after their entry into the United States," id. at 377, but rather had chosen to afford "lawfully admitted resident aliens ... the full and equal benefit of all state laws for the security of persons and property," id. at 378. The States had thus imposed an "auxiliary [burden] upon the entrance or residence of aliens" that was never contemplated by Congress. Id. (b at 379.

What is your point (be honest now)?

 

[WillowTree]

Nothing.
But I do take care of a lady who recieves SS and assistance from the state as a legal alien. Of course she worked in the US for over 30 years. Everything isn't black and white, Willow.

you are as retarded as arty farty, where did I mention anything? I asked what does this mean to you.

 

[WillowTree]

a court is discussing the issue on c span. I just wondered what your take on it was.. you libruls freaking nutz.

 

[WillowTree]

http://www.constitutioncenter.org/Files/pjpmootcourt2010.pdf



When a massive, global outbreak of a deadly form of “Simian” flu hits the United States in the summer of 2020, a shortfall of vaccine puts the country in a panic, compelling Congress to pass a law giving priority to individuals at risk without reference to citizenship. The Arizona state legislature interprets this silence as a grant to impose its own citizenship-based priority scheme, restricting access to vaccines for non-citizens. A group—consisting of non-citizen pregnant women, parents with young children, and resident aliens—brings a class action lawsuit challenging the law. This hypothetical Supreme Court case testing the constitutionality of rationing health care will be argued by distinguished legal scholars Nina Pillard, Professor of Law at Georgetown Law, and Kenneth W. Starr, Dean of the Pepperdine University School

 

[Wry Catcher]

Nothing.
But I do take care of a lady who recieves SS and assistance from the state as a legal alien. Of course she worked in the US for over 30 years. Everything isn't black and white, Willow.

you are as retarded as arty farty, where did I mention anything? I asked what does this mean to you.

I'm not retarded, and you're not very bright. You copied and pasted something, what is your point?

 

[NYcarbineer]

What does it mean to me?

Hmmm...to me it means that someone doesn't know there's a subforum for legal issues.

 

[WillowTree]

Nothing.
But I do take care of a lady who recieves SS and assistance from the state as a legal alien. Of course she worked in the US for over 30 years. Everything isn't black and white, Willow.

you are as retarded as arty farty, where did I mention anything? I asked what does this mean to you.

I'm not retarded, and you're not very bright. You copied and pasted something, what is your point?

fuck you!

 

[goldcatt]

Here Willow:

State statutes, like the Arizona and Pennsylvania statutes here involved, that deny welfare benefits to resident aliens or to aliens who have not resided in the United States for a specified number of years are violative of the Equal Protection Clause and encroach upon the exclusive federal power over the entrance and residence of aliens; and there is no authorization for Arizona's 15-year durational residency requirement in 1402 (b) of the Social Security Act. Pp. 370-383.

And the rest of the summary, plus full case

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

In other words, the Court held immigration and alien status as well as State residency is a purely Federal matter, and the States cannot make rules denying benefits based on those things without running afoul of Equal Protection. Only the Federal government can do that, and it had chosen not to.

 

[kyzr]

Aliens who overstay their visas need to be booted out, not given welfare.

 

[goldcatt]

Back up and look at the bigger picture.

There were basically 2 issues in the case Willow asked about, and that's what I'm addressing - nothing else.

First, should the States be able to withhold benefits given to the rest of the population based on lack of citizenship (whether legal or illegal alien didn't matter) or if a citizen, by the amount of time the person has lived in the State? This case said No, the constitution is clear - immigration and alien status is solely Federal jurisdiction, and non-citizens as well as short term State residents fall under Equal Protection. The 14th is the law of the land and all within its sovereignty, not just of its citizens.

Second, should the States be able to place restrictions on Federal programs, in this case Social Security, based on length of residency in the State or country? Again, this case said No as it was not authorized by the Federal Social Security Act.

Not going to give my opinion whether I think it's "right" or not on this thread, I'm just answering Willow's question. But these specific issues aren't about welfare, it's about two steps up the ladder from the specific law they were looking at.

 

[Luissa]

Nothing.
But I do take care of a lady who recieves SS and assistance from the state as a legal alien. Of course she worked in the US for over 30 years. Everything isn't black and white, Willow.

you are as retarded as arty farty, where did I mention anything? I asked what does this mean to you.

Don't pretend like EVERYONE doesn't know how you feel about this subject.

 

[Wry Catcher]

you are as retarded as arty farty, where did I mention anything? I asked what does this mean to you.

I'm not retarded, and you're not very bright. You copied and pasted something, what is your point?

fuck you!

Thank but no thanks; I'm sure crusaderfrank will accomodate you (he has no standards).