Anderson
v.
Los Angeles County
Dept. of Health Services

[a layperson's guide to the suit and the issue]

	Layperson's Guide
I	Index
II	Introduction
III	Procedural Elements
IV	Legal Basis for Claim
V	Petitioner's Argument
VI	Prayer for Relief

TEXT OF
OPENING BRIEF
AS FILED
CAL SUPERIOR COURT
LOS ANGELES
JULY 19, 2002
(PRINT)

II. Introduction

Americans are by tradition a welcoming people. Historically, we have held a positive view of immigrants and immigration. Part of that acceptance and good will, no doubt, can be attributed to our general perception that immigrants who come to the United States are willing to work hard for a chance at a better life, and to enrich all of us by contributing in positive ways to their new country.

Our immigration laws work to protect this view -- and to protect our immigration tradition -- by barring from admittance to the country those who might not pull their own weight, who would become a burden on the community, or who may be drawn to the United States only to take advantage of our public services.

Indeed, our laws have recognized that public services should not serve as a magnet to new immigrants since before the United States was even a country. As early as 1645, the English colony of Massachusetts enacted the earliest American "public charge" laws forbidding newcomers from becoming a burden to the community [FN 1].

In 1996, concerned that too many immigrants were no longer respecting our tradition of immigrants pulling their own weight, Congress passed legislation requiring legal immigrants, as a condition of admittance, to provide certain guarantees that their presence in the country would not be a burden to taxpayers.

One way the would-be immigrant may provide the guarantee required by Congress is by submitting an "affidavit of support" (AOS) to the Attorney General or a U.S. consular officer. The AOS, a legally binding contract between an immigrant's sponsor in the United States and the U.S. Attorney General, is a promise by which the sponsor agrees to, among other things, pay for certain means-tested public services the immigrant might access.

Congress also gave public service providers a role in the effort to maintain the integrity of the U.S. system of social services. In addition to providing public entities with a wide variety of enforcement mechanisms to recoup costs from the sponsors of legal immigrants, Congress also required service providers to seek reimbursement. 8 U.S.C. 1183a(b).

Unfortunately, some public service providers, including Respondent, have ignored this congressional mandate.

Rather than send a bill for public services to those who have already agreed to pay for them, and who are legally bound to honor their agreements, Respondents have chosen instead to force Los Angeles County taxpayers to shoulder this enormous and unnecessary cost.

Therefore,

to provide relief for the taxpayers of Los Angeles County,

to ensure faithfulness to the American tradition of immigration, and

to prevent damage to the positive public perception of immigrants and immigration,

petitioner, exercising his right under California law, seeks mandate relief compelling respondent and others acting under his authority to send a bill to the sponsors of legal immigrants requesting payment for public services in compliance with 8 U.S.C. §1183a(b)(1)(A).

Friends of Immigration Law Enforcement
copyright 2002, 2003, 2004 all rights reserved
home about us departments supporters associates contact legal help