Posted on 01/31/2010 3:14:53 PM PST by AuntB
In a rare case for a state that has long offered illegal immigrants sanctuary, an appellate court in Oregon has ruled in favor of a state agency that denied an illegal alien costly public services based on her immigration status.
Oregon's largest regulatory agency, the Department of Consumer and Business Services (DCBS), rejected a claim to provide and illegal immigrant vocational assistance benefits after a 2005 work injury that resulted in a permanent impairment. The DCBS, which administers state workers' compensation and occupational safety laws, still awarded the illegal alien an undisclosed award for the impairment.
However, the woman (Carmen Carreon) wanted more taxpayer-financed perks in the form of vocational assistance. The agency determined that she was ineligible for the benefit because she was not authorized to work in the United States. Carreon had the audacity to sue the DCBS for denying her the services, claiming that the agency's director overreached by creating an eligibility requirement not granted by Oregon's legislature.
The Oregon Court of Appeals disagreed, ruling this week that state law grants the agency's director the authority to establish additional conditions for providing vocational assistance. Imposing a rule that requires a person to be legally authorized to work in the United States is a valid exercise of the authority granted to the director, the court said in its decision.
Public agencies seldom reject illegal immigrants in Oregon, which has a statewide sanctuary law prohibiting police agencies and local governments from using any resources to apprehend or report illegal aliens. The state's largest city-Portland-has its own official sanctuary ordinance aside from the blanket measure.
These sorts of protections have evidently emboldened illegal immigrants who are increasingly taking legal action against government agencies for denying their "rights." In the last few months alone, illegal aliens across the nation have sued various law enforcement agencies for violating their constitutional rights. Among them is an Ohio sheriff who helped deport a Mexican with false identification cards, a Maryland sheriff who arrested an illegal Salvadoran woman and federal agents who apprehended a group of illegal aliens in a Connecticut immigration raid.
Sundays - 9 PM Pacific Time KRLA - 870 AM - L.A. -- KDWN - 720 - Las Vegas KFNX - 1100 AM - Phoenix -- KCBQ - 1170 AM - San Diego "If You Ain't Mad, You Ain't Payin' Attention!" Call-In Number - (866) 870-5752 Listen Online via KRLA or on the RBN Network
http://www.theterryandersonshow.com/
Oregon gets one right!
“The Oregon Court of Appeals disagreed, ruling this week that state law grants the agency’s director the authority to establish additional conditions for providing vocational assistance. Imposing a rule that requires a person to be legally authorized to work in the United States is a valid exercise of the authority granted to the director, the court said in its decision.”
Isn’t it a federal law against coming into this country illegally - yet the politicians prevent local law enforcement from enforcing the law - setting up sanctuary cities? They stopped a girl going back into Canada one day after her visa expired and held her for three weeks in jail before her parents were able to get her out - she was from Australia ....
Hasn’t it already been established by the Supreme Court that immigrants are entitled to the same legal protections as citizens?
Is ‘Legal Protection’ the same as availability to gov’t services?
I would think that it is more related to due process rights rather than access to public services (outside, of course, a public defender in a court proceeding).
Carreon will file a hate crimes suit next.
When you say "immigrants", are you referring to legal immigrants or illegal aliens? Or both?
Thanks AuntB.
“When you say “immigrants”, are you referring to legal immigrants or illegal aliens? Or both? “
Supreme Court did not say. Depending on which side of the argument you are on it could be either one.
>> after a 2005 work injury that resulted in a permanent impairment.
This seems like a lopsided victory when so many other illegals receive an array of public services that have nothing to do with job related injuries.
The culpability spreads far and wide to all those that enable, and support the illegal workforce.
If the ‘nativists’ were smart, they’d assist the injured illegals in filing and prosecuting lawsuits against those operations ultimately responsible for the work related injuries. It’s not the responsibility of the taxpayer to cover these costs through public services - the cost should be covered by the operation breaking the law.
Situations like this underscore the necessity of voting the RINOs out of office. The mixed message D.C. sends regarding ‘undocumented’ workers is the primary enabler of the illegal work trade, and the complications that stem from it.
They don’t call them “illegal” aliens without cause.
Wow, about time.
Wasn’t this why California’s Proposition 187 was overturned some years ago?
**The Oregon Court of Appeals disagreed, ruling this week that state law grants the agency’s director the authority to establish additional conditions for providing vocational assistance. Imposing a rule that requires a person to be legally authorized to work in the United States is a valid exercise of the authority granted to the director, the court said in its decision.**
Wow!
 |
Please notify me via FReepmail if you would like to be added to or taken off the Oregon Ping List.
I’m shocked.
Next stop...OR Supreme Court?
Thank you, AuntB!
About time!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.