Utah committee OKs bill meant to end public benefits for immigrants in the country illegally

KEY TAKEAWAYS

Utah's HB88, meant to end access to taxpayer-funded benefits by immigrants in the country illegally, received a favorable committee recommendation on Tuesday.
The measure, sponsored by Rep. Trevor Lee, R-Layton, goes to the full Utah House for consideration.
Critics say the bill is cruel; supporters say it's unfair to use taxpayer money on immigrants in the country illegally.

SALT LAKE CITY — A measure that would end the ability of immigrants in the country illegally to tap into certain taxpayer-funded benefits has passed its first legislative test and moves forward for continued debate.

The Utah House Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Committee voted 7-3 to send HB88 to the full Utah House for consideration with a favorable recommendation. The measure, coming amid heated debate nationwide about immigration, would require proof of lawful presence in the country to tap into a range of public services, including immunizations for certain diseases, crisis counseling for domestic violence survivors, access to some food at food pantries, health care services for children in the country illegally and more.

If a charitable group wants to provide the services targeted by HB88, it can, said Rep. Trevor Lee, R-Layton, the HB88 sponsor. "But taxpayer money is designed for the American citizen, and it's our fiscal and moral responsibility to make sure that we are good stewards of that money. It is really hard to look Utah families that are struggling in the eye and tell them that I'm giving their money to someone who just broke the law and came here," he added.

Citing figures from the Federation for American Immigration Reform, focused on reducing immigration "to a more normal level," Lee said illegal immigration costs Utah taxpayers some $931 million a year in education, health care, law enforcement and other expenses.

His measure would prohibit use of state or local funds for "nonemergency medical health care, local- or state-administered health care or health insurance, housing assistance, food assistance, cash benefits, tuition assistance," and more. It wouldn't prohibit the provision of emergency medical health care or "temporary disaster shelter."

Rep. Andrew Stoddard, D-Sandy, one of the three lawmakers who opposed making a favorable recommendation, expressed concern about potential new costs the measure would create. One provision would allow the public to sue state employees who intentionally ignore HB88's requirement to present proof of lawful status to access certain services.

"I think this bill is fiscally irresponsible, and outside of that, I think this bill is cruel," Stoddard said, noting the impact on the provision of mental health services and domestic violence counseling to the impacted population. The purpose of government, he said, "is to help those people."

The measure drew mixed support and opposition from the public.

Foes noted the contributions of immigrants, the danger to overall public health of halting access to certain health benefits, potential legal challenges the measure could face and increased administrative costs for agencies to comply with the law, among other things. They said it negatively impacts those most in need.

Supporters variously said the measure represents a return to the rule of law, removes inducements that encourage immigrants to enter the country illegally and ends public funding for those in the country illegally.

The Key Takeaways for this article were generated with the assistance of large language models and reviewed by our editorial team. The article, itself, is solely human-written.