California providers see ‘chilling effect’ if Trump ban on immigrant benefits is upheld
If the Trump administration manages to prevent undocumented immigrants from the federal federal “public interest” programs, the vulnerable children and families in California will lose access to emergency shelters, vital health services, early education and life -saving nutritional support according to the state and local authorities who offer their opposition to changes in the federal court.
Authorities, new restrictions, will damage the undocumented immigrants, at the same time US citizens-US citizens-born children and documents deprived of mental illness and homelessness, including people suffering from people who harm the US citizens, and the state will create an intense stress on the emergency health system, he said.
Authorities, tens of thousands of children in the state, early education, health and nutrition support Head Start, California and other liberal leaderships based on the case of new rules, some programs may need to close some programs, he said.
In A A Declaration Filated AS Part of That Litigation, Maria Guadalupe Jaime-Milehan, Deputy Director of the Child Care and Developmental Division of the California Department of Social Services, Wrote that the restrictions. and mixed-Status Families Seeking Support, But Also Cause Broader “Ripple Effects”-Especially in Rural California Communities that Rly on Such Programs As “A Critical Safety Net”
“Children will lose education, nutrition and health services. Parents or parents may be forced to spend on other critical needs to fill the gaps and some may be forced to look at their children,” Jaime-Milehan said.
Rural communities will see the shutters of programs and family providers have lost their jobs.
Tony Thurmond, California’s Public Education Inspector, warned that such rules can eliminate talented educators who decide to seek other employment that do not participate in such policies and do not discriminate against children and families.
Thurmond and Jaime-Milehan were between the columbia region, which presented declarations supporting the case of these states, which challenged the new rules of the Trump administration in 20 states. Six other officials from California made a statement.
The case was followed by announcements from various federal institutions, including health and human services, labor, education and agriculture last month.
The announcements followed a executive order published by President Trump and said that the administration would “protect the rule of law, defend against the waste of difficult -earned taxpayers and maintain the benefits of American citizens in need, including disabled individuals and veterans,” he said.
Trump’s order 1996 Personal Responsibility and Business Opportunity Reconciliation LawPre -known as the welfare reform, which is commonly known as the Non -Calendars from participating in federal financed benefits programs, and past administrations for exemption for certain “life or security” programs, including those who are currently targeted for new restrictions.
The Emir required federal institutions to restrict access to benefit programs for unquestioned immigrants to in part in part to “prevent taxpayers from acting as a magnet and illegal migration to the United States”.
California and other states filed a lawsuit on July 21, claiming that new restrictions aim to violate federal laws of working mothers and children.
California Atty said, uz We are not talking about waste, fraud and abuse, we are talking about basic child care, health, nutrition and education aid, programs that have been open to everyone for decades ”. General Rob Bonda said.
In addition to programs such as Head Start, Bonda said that new restrictions threaten access to short -term shelters, survivors of domestic violence and young people at risk for homeless people; Emergency shelters for humans during excessive air; Soup kitchens for the elderly, community food banks and food support services; and health services for people with mental illness and substance addiction problems.
Notifications are part of the federal judge’s movement that controls the case.
San Francisco Public Health Department HIV Health Services Deputy Director Beth Neary, new restrictions, undocumented immigrants and US citizens, including a number of San Francisco residents will prevent health services, he wrote.
“Individuals who live in homelessness periodically, often lack of identity and other documents that will be needed to verify citizenship or immigration due to frequent movements and the risk of theft of their belongings,” he wrote.
San Mateo District Health Chief Colleen Chawla wrote that the organization has worked for years to create confidence in the “security network” maintenance provider-nomadic communities.
“However, if our customers are worried that our customers will not be entitled to care, or if they are worried that they are at risk of being detained or deported if they want to care if they want maintenance, Chawla wrote. “This will make the health conditions worse.”
Greta S. Hansen, Chief Officer of Santa Clara County, wrote that more than 40% of the residents of the district were born foreign and that at least one foreign -born parent among the highest rates in any part of the country.
The changes of the administration will threaten all of them, and at the same time it will threaten everyone else in the district.
Hansen, “Cumulative effect of patients who do not receive preventive care and necessary drugs will probably be a coercion on the emergency services of Santa Clara, which will increase the costs of Santa Clara and also cause the capacity for emergency maintenance throughout the community,” he wrote.
The Trump administration defended new rules, including the court.
In response to the movement of the states of the states, lawyers for the administration argued that the rule amendments were in accordance with the rights of the 1996 Welfare Reform Law and federal institutions.
He wrote that the notifications that explain the new rules sent by Federal Agencies accepted that the width of the benefits offered to unqualified foreigners is narrower than previously interpreted agencies ”and“ recycled the compliance with the federal laws and ensured that the programs funded by the taxpayer for the American people do not divide the inappropriate allies to subsidize.
The judge, who chaired the case, has not yet made a preliminary precautionary measure.
