Anderson
v.
Los Angeles County
Dept. of Health Services

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

	Title Page
I	Index
II	Introduction
III	Procedural Elements
IV	Legal Basis for Claim
	Constitutional
	Federal law
	Judicial authority
	State law
V	Petitioner's argument
VI	Prayer for Relief

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

IV. Legal Basis for Claim

A. Plenary power given to Congress

It is well established that the authority invested in Congress by the Constitution on immigration matters compels state law to give way before federal law. No state or political subdivision thereof may usurp congressional authority by pursuing policies conflicting with federal law.

It is the clear intent of Congress to bar immigrants from most means-tested public benefits.

1. Public charge immigrants inadmissible and/or deportable

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) asserts that "any alien who, in the opinion of the consular officer at the time of application for a visa, or in the opinion of the Attorney General at the time of application for admission or adjustment of status, is likely to become a public charge is inadmissible." 8 U.S.C. § 212(a)(4) (2003). The INA also states that any alien who, within five years after the date of entry, has become a public charge from causes not affirmatively shown to have arisen since entry is deportable." 8 U.S.C § 237(a)(5) (2003). These statutes serve as the foundation for public charge doctrine.

It can be inferred from the amendments to the INA that the goal of the statutes is to prevent abuse of the welfare system by aliens. This is inherent in the original language of the INA, which asserted that paupers and vagrants were ineligible to receive visas. Immigration and Nationality Act, ch. 477, § 66 Stat. 163 (1952). Subsequent amendments held that alien workers that were unable to sustain themselves weren't to be admitted to the United States. Immigration and Nationality Act, Pub. L. 89-236, § 79 Stat. 911, (1965). These stipulations existed up through and beyond the 1996 amendments and still exist despite the codification of the AOS and other additions to the INA.

2. "Affidavit of support" meant to enforce safeguards against immigrant public charges

In 1996, amendments to the INA introduced the "affidavit of support." The AOS is a legally binding contract between a citizen or legal permanent resident and the Attorney General, which states that the immigrant sponsor will provide support to maintain an immigrant at an annual income no less than 125 percent of the Federal poverty line. 8 USC 1183a.

By signing the AOS the sponsor agrees to support the immigrant and accept liability for the cost of any means-tested public benefit provided to the immigrant.

Congress has provided public entities with a variety of ways to compel sponsors to honor their agreements, the wide scope of which remedies makes clear the legislative intent to prevent use of public services by immigrants.

3. Means-tested public benefit defined

"Non-emergency medical assistance is a means-tested public benefit. Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-193, 110 Stat. 2105 (1996) (codified in scattered sections of 42 U.S.C. and 8 U.S.C.)"

B. Federal law enjoins local entities to assist in enforcement of ban on access

1. Public entities shall seek reimbursement

Federal statute requires that "[u]pon notification that a sponsored alien has received any means-tested public benefit, the appropriate nongovernmental entity which provided such benefit or the appropriate entity of the Federal Government, a State, or any political subdivision of a State shall request reimbursement by the sponsor in an amount which is equal to the unreimbursed costs of such benefit 8 U.S.C. 1183a (b)(1)(A)(2003).

C. Judicial authority

1. To compel local compliance with federal law

Judicial authority may compel state and local public entities to comply with federal law.

The Supreme Court in Jefferson Parish School Board v. Dandridge, 404 U.S. 1219 (1971) stated that inconvenience is not enough to prevent the enforcement of constitutional rights. Similarly, in Watson v. City of Memphis, 373 U.S. 526, 535-536(1963) the Court held that constitutional rights may not be denied by local government simply because of hostility to their assertion or exercise. In Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 339 at 347 (1960) the Court held that when a state exercises power wholly within the domain of state interest, it is insulated from federal judicial review. But such insulation is not carried over when state power is used as an instrument for circumventing a federally protected right.

congress has the authority over immigration law, LADHS cannot take that power away from it just because it doesnt want to enforce the law.

1183a(a)(1)(C) in which the sponsor agrees to submit to the jurisdiction of any Federal or State court for the purpose of actions brought under subsection (b)(2) of this section. (B). (if the state court has authority to compel enforcement of the AOS, and a part of the process of enforcement includes seeking reimbursement, which it does, then state court must also have jurisdiction or authority over the legal requirement to seek reimbursement

2. To enforce terms of affidavit of support

A. Certain aliens likely to become a public charge are given admission to the United States and legal immigration status only upon execution of INS Form I-864 (also called an Affidavit of Support) by a sponsor.

B. The execution of a Form I-864 creates a contract between the sponsor of a legal alien and the U.S. government for the benefit of any Federal, State, or local governmental agency or private entity that administers any means-tested public benefits program.

C. A legal alien's sponsor is responsible to the government for the reimbursement of any public benefit received by the sponsored alien. INA § 213A(b)(1)(A), 8 U.S.C.A. § 1183a(b)(1)(A).

D. By its own terms, Form I-864 gives all Federal, State, local and private entities that provide means-tested benefits to a sponsored alien a cause of action for breach of contract against the alien's sponsor. The sponsor who executes a Form I-864 submits to the jurisdiction of any U.S. District Court or any State court with jurisdiction of civil actions for breach of contract (Illegal Immigration and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-208, §551, 110 Stat. 3009, 3009-675 (1996)) and acknowledges that the affidavit is legally enforceable. 62 Fed. Reg. 54,349 (1997).

D. State law

(1) Statutory duty

In addition to the authority of those courts, the Controller has a statutory duty to collect monies to which the State is entitled.

California Government Code § 12418 provides that the Controller shall superintend the collection of all money due the State, and institute suits in its name against persons who by any means have become possessed of public money or property and fail to pay it over or deliver it, and against all debtors of the State.

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