Prop. 200: Not good for Arizonans

DENA R. EPSTEIN

Although supporters of Prop-osition 200, the "Protect Arizona Now" initiative on the Nov. 2 ballot, claim it will discourage illegal immigration and reduce welfare fraud by undocumented immi-grants, its risks far outweigh any possible benefits.

Proposition 200 should be con-sidered carefully because, like any voter-approved initiative, it can be changed only through another initiative.

While the Arizona State Legi-slature can and frequently does change laws to address unforeseen problems, it cannot amend voter-approved initiatives unless its amendments further the purpose of the measure and pass by a super-majority three-fourths vote in the Legislature.

So if Proposition 200 proves un-workable, there is little we can do to fix it.

Proposition 200 would require state and local agencies to verify the immigration status of anyone seeking "public benefits that are not federally mandated" and to report immi-gration-law violations to federal authorities. Failure to comply would be a crime.

The initiative also would allow any resident to sue any state or local official or agency for any alleged violation of the new laws.

What's more, Proposition 200 cases would take priority over all other civil actions. If the initiative passes, courts must put aside child custody disputes, wrongful death suits, estate actions and business disputes to resolve Proposition 200 cases.

While Proposition 200 would impose harsh consequences for not complying with its requirements, the initiative fails to define its key term: "public benefits." Because a "public benefit" could include virtually any service provided by state or local government, state agencies estimate that complying with the measure would cost approximately $27 million, including the costs of verifying eligibility for roadside services, emissions testing and various state licenses.

Further, Arizona could lose up to $250 million for health and child welfare programs because complying with Proposition 200 conflicts with some federal grants. These estimates do not include the costs counties and cities throughout the state would incur in order to comply with the initiative.

Proposition 200 would also under-mine the quality of government services. Efforts by health de-partments to track and contain communicable diseases could be jeopardized if people cannot establish citizenship. American children of unauthorized immi-grants may not receive needed social services if their parents must risk reporting to the federal authorities in order to obtain them.

Paramedics and government hospital workers may be forced to verify the immigration status of individuals needing "non-federally mandated" health care, whatever that may include. Protective services for endangered children could be delayed while immigration status is verified.

Although less weighty, there is also the hassle of living in a post-Proposition 200 state. We would need to carry proof of citizenship status with us at all times, in case we need to establish eligibility for library services, emissions testing or social services. And then there is the inconvenience of waiting in lines or not receiving services promptly while government workers verify immigration status and submit required reports.

Supporters claim that such scenarios exaggerate the likely impact of Proposition 200 because "public benefits" only refers to welfare benefits. If that is so, then the need for Proposition 200 is questionable since current law requires welfare workers to report possible fraud to the state or else lose their jobs and face jail time.

In any event, what counts if Proposition 200 passes is not what supporters believe but the language of the initiative and how courts construe it. Given the uncertainty of future litigation, we shouldn't experiment with an initiative that cannot be fixed, especially in the middle of our current state budget crisis.

Supporters of Proposition 200 do have one thing right: The issues surrounding illegal immigration and border security need to be addressed. But not even the most ardent backers of the initiative claim it would stop illegal immigration. Immigration issues should be addressed at the federal level, and their solutions paid for with federal dollars.

So let's allow Arizona's Con-gressional representatives - all of whom oppose Proposition 200 - to do the job we elected them for, and advance meaningful immigration reform. And let's do our part by voting "no" on Proposition 200.

Dena R. Epstein is a lawyer living in Phoenix.

Home