Wednesday, May 15, 1996
Florida case may hold implications for California suitBy John
Digrado
Daily Bruin Staff
In the latest of a recent flurry of decisions regarding illegal
immigration, federal Supreme Court justices denied the state of
Florida review of a case against the government for costs incurred
from illegal immigration.
Demanding that the federal government improve immigration
enforcement and repay the state’s cost of providing social services
to illegal immigrants, the state’s case was thrown out of court on
Monday, upholding a previous review by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court
of Appeals.
The dismissal may hold implications for California in its
continuing effort to recover funds from the national government for
the cost of illegal immigration.
"This particular lawsuit is a loser," said UCLA law Professor
Jonathan Varat. "The lawsuit (wrongly) asks the federal government
to pay money for not sufficiently protecting the border," Varat
said, which is the argument made by a similar suit brought against
the government by California.
Currently in the appeals process, the California lawsuit argues
that the state incurs additional costs in health and social
services, welfare and education due to illegal immigrants, said
Jesus Arredondo, Gov. Pete Wilson’s deputy spokesman.
California has been following the Florida suit closely as an
indication of what may happen to its own suits against the federal
government, he said.
While markedly similar to suits brought against the government
by California, Arredondo said that Florida’s case was poorly argued
and its brief was inadequately prepared.
"The state of Florida was unable to prove to the federal
government that illegal immigration in Florida has a significant
impact there," he said. "(The Florida case) was significantly
lacking by comparison to the action that the state of California
has brought against the government to recuperate costs associated
with illegal immigration."
According to Wilson’s office figures, California currently
houses more than 23,000 illegal immigrant inmates in its jails and
incurs $3.6 billion in costs to its social welfare and educational
systems due to illegal immigrants  figures that Arredondo
said would bolster the case in the high court.
By contrast, Florida was forced to rely on speculation on some
of their figures, which may have weakened its case, Arredondo said,
since the burden of proof of additional costs due to illegal
immigrants lies with the state.
However, while other experts believed the states’ cases are
valid, they speculated they won’t stand up in court.
The California case "(will) probably be thrown out," said Abel
Valenzuela, an assistant professor with the Cesar Chavez Center for
Chicana/o Studies.
"I think (the suits) make sense because we have immigration law
that is implemented and formulated at the federal level, so that
the inability to deal with immigration in some humane manner, not
to mention the cost and benefits that involve immigration," is at
the federal level as well, he said.
While the states’ claims may beg further debate, "On the face of
it, it seems to be a sound approach," Valenzuela said.
But government and voter efforts to curb illegal immigration are
nothing new.
Beginning with the 1986 Immigration Control Reform Act requiring
all employers to verify the citizenship status of their employees,
the federal government has taken an increasingly stronger stand
against the rising tide of illegal immigrants.
Voters resoundingly passed Proposition 187, the hotly contested
1994 initiative which would bar undocumented immigrants from
receiving state services, such as education and health care.
In recent weeks, the Senate passed a bill that would toughen
restrictions against illegal immigrants and double the number of
Border Patrol agents.
While restriction against illegal immigration is an ongoing
issue, Valenzuela said that suing to recuperate state money is a
relatively new idea.
"Suing the government for the costs that states incur is a new
thing that was, I think, instigated by (Gov.) Pete Wilson in
dealing with the cost benefit debate over undocumented immigrants,"
he said.
Experts said that the current economic conditions of the nation
in general have contributed to the recent spate of decisions,
saying that public concern for jobs has caused a backlash against
illegal immigrants.
"I think it’s connected to the kinds of economic conditions we
face in the United States," said Vilma Ortiz, a UCLA sociology
professor. "When economic conditions are worse off, they view
immigrants as threats to (citizens’ opportunities), so it increases
sentiment for legislation against immigration," she said.
But states may not view even this most recent backlash as
enough. "They’re going to want more in their relationship" with the
government, Valenzuela said.
"It revolves around this whole debate about the cost and
benefits that (illegal immigrants) bring to regions" most affected
by immigration. "To me, it’s clear that they bring more
benefits."