Politicsobama immigrationPoliticsjan brewer arizona

Jan Brewer Defends Executive Order Denying Benefits To Young Undocumented Immigrants

Brewer: Young Undocumented Immigrants Are 'Not Our Responsibility'
Open Image Modal
By 

Managing Editor, Breaking News, HuffPost

|

Gov. Jan Brewer (R-Ariz.) said Tuesday that her decision to deny benefits to undocumented immigrants was justified, claiming that federal law is at fault in the immigration debate.

"I think everybody in Arizona [and] across the country has compassion for those children that have been brought here illegally by their parents," Brewer said. "But it is not our responsibility. It is their parents' responsibility. They need to follow the law."

Last week, Brewer signed an executive order denying state and local benefits to undocumented immigrants applying under President Obama's new deferred action program. Brewer's order also barred immigrants from applying for driver's licenses and state-issued identification cards.

Brewer's order, signed on the same day that the federal deferred action program went into effect, was immediately met with massive backlash. DREAM Act supporters organized protests at Brewer's office, while organizations like the ACLU blasted the governor for "distorting federal law." However, she was unfazed by the criticism, instead doubling down on her crusade against undocumented immigration.

"It's an unfortunate situation, but certainly something that needs to be addressed, and I believe it's the federal government that needs to address that, and they need to do it by changing the law, and they need to work through the Congress and do what they need to do in order to rectify what has taken place," Brewer said.

She continued: "I believe people ought to be here legally and they ought to be here with a lawful presence."

The deferred action program, which Obama announced during a June 15 press conference, allows the children of undocumented immigrants to apply for work authorization and reprieve from deportation. About 1.7 million individuals are estimated to be eligible for the program.

Support HuffPost

At HuffPost, we believe that everyone needs high-quality journalism, but we understand that not everyone can afford to pay for expensive news subscriptions. That is why we are committed to providing deeply reported, carefully fact-checked news that is freely accessible to everyone.

Whether you come to HuffPost for updates on the 2024 presidential race, hard-hitting investigations into critical issues facing our country today, or trending stories that make you laugh, we appreciate you. The truth is, news costs money to produce, and we are proud that we have never put our stories behind an expensive paywall.

Would you join us to help keep our stories free for all? Your will go a long way.

Support HuffPost

Before You Go

Controversial Immigration Laws
The Template: California Proposition 187 (1994)(01 of07)
Open Image Modal
California's Proposition 187 was submitted to the voters with the full support of then Republican governor Pete Wilson. It essentially blamed undocumented immigrants for the poor performance of the state economy in the early 1990s. The law called for cutting off benefits to undocumented immigrants: prohibiting their access to health care, public education, and other social services in California. It also required state authorities to report anyone who they suspected was undocumented. Status: The law passed with the support of 55 percent of the voters in 1994 but declared unconstitutional 1997. The law was killed in 1999 when a new governor, Democrat Gray Davis, refused to appeal a judicial decision that struck down most of the law. Even though short-lived, the legislation paved the way for harsher immigration laws to come. On the other hand, the strong reaction from the Hispanic community and immigration advocates propelled a drive for naturalization of legal residents and created as many as one million new voters. (credit:alamy)
The Worst: Arizona SB 1070 (02 of07)
Open Image Modal
The Arizona Act made it a misdemeanor for an undocumented immigrant to be within the state lines of Arizona without legal documents allowing their presence in the U.S. This law has been widely criticized as xenophobic and for encouraging racial profiling. It requires state authorities to inquire about an individual's immigration status during an arrest when there is "reasonable suspicion" that the individual is undocumented. The law would allow police to detain anyone who they believe was in the country illegally. Status: The law was signed into law by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer on April 23, 2010. But it has generated a swirl of controversy and questions about its constitutionality. A federal judge issued a ruling that blocked what critics saw as some of the law's harshest provisions. House: 35-31 (4/12/2011) (credit:MARK RALSTON/AFP/Getty Images)
Following Arizona's Footsteps: Georgia HB 87(03 of07)
Open Image Modal
The controversy over Arizona's immigration law was followed by heated debate over Georgia's own law. HB 87 required government agencies and private companies to check the immigration status of applicants. This law also limited some government benefits to people who could prove their legal status. Status: Although a federal judge temporarily blocked parts of the law considered too extreme, it went into effect on July 1st. 2011.House: 113-56 Senate: 39-17 (credit:AP)
Verifying Authorized Workers: Pennsylvania HB 1502 (04 of07)
Open Image Modal
This bill, which was approved in 2010, bans contractors and subcontractors employ undocumented workers from having state construction contracts. The bill also protects employees who report construction sites that hire illegal workers. To ensure that contractors hire legal workers, the law requires employers to use the identification verification system E-verify, based on a compilation of legally issued Social Security numbers.Status: Approved on June 8th 2010. House: 188-6 (07/08/2010)Flickr photo by DonkeyHotey (credit:Flickr:DonkeyHotey)
A Spin Off of Arizona: Utah HB 497(05 of07)
Open Image Modal
Many states tried to emulate Arizona's SB 1070 law. However, most state legislatures voted against the proposals. Utah's legislature managed to approve an immigration law based on a different argument. Taking into consideration the criticism of racial profiling in Arizona, Utah required ID cards for "guest workers" and their families. In order to get such a card workers must pay a fee and have clean records. The fees go up to $2,500 for immigrants who entered the country illegally and $1,000 for immigrants who entered the country legally but were not complying with federal immigration law, according to the LA Times.Status: Law went into effect on 03/15/2011House: 59-15 (03/04/2011)Senate: 22-5 (03/04/2011) (credit:AP)
The Most Comprehensive: Florida HB-1C (06 of07)
Open Image Modal
Florida's immigration law prohibits any restrictions on the enforcement of federal immigration law. It makes it unlawful for undocumented immigrants within the state to apply for work or work as an independent contractor. It forbids employers from hiring immigrants if they are aware of their illegal status and requires work applicants to go through the E-verify system in order to check their Social Security number. Status: effective since October 1st, 2010 (credit:Getty)
The Hot Seat: Alabama HB 56(07 of07)
Open Image Modal
The new immigration law in Alabama is considered the toughest in the land, even harder than Arizona's SB 1070. It prohibits law enforcement officers from releasing an arrested person before his or her immigration status is determined. It does not allow undocumented immigrants to receive any state benefit, and prohibits them from enrolling in public colleges, applying for work or soliciting work in a public space. The law also prohibits landlords from renting property to undocumented immigrants, and employers from hiring them. It requires residents to prove they are citizens before they become eligible to vote. The law asked every school in the state to submit an annual report with the number of presumed undocumented students, but this part, along with others, were suspended by federal courts. Status: Approved June 2nd, 2011 House: 73-28 (04/05/2011)Senate: 23-11 (05/05/2011)Flickr photo by longislandwins (credit:Flickr:longislandwins)
Suggest a correction
|
Submit a tip