Speech #920296847

State laws that restrict the eligibility of aliens for welfare benefits merely because of their alienage conflict with these overriding national policies in an area constitutionally entrusted to the Federal Government. In Hines v. Davidowitz. 312 U.S.. at 6667. where this Court struck down a Pennsylvania alien registration statute (enacted in 1939. as was the statute under challenge in No. 727) on grounds of federal preemption. it was observed that ". . . where the federal government. in the exercise of its superior authority in this field. has enacted a complete scheme of regulation . . . states cannot. inconsistently with the purpose of Congress. conflict or interfere with. curtail or complement. the federal law. or enforce additional or auxiliary regulations." And in Takahashi it was said that the States: "can neither add to nor take from the conditions lawfully imposed by Congress upon admission. naturalization and residence of aliens in the United States or the several states. State laws which impose discriminatory burdens upon the entrance or residence of aliens lawfully within the United States conflict with this constitutionally derived federal power to regulate immigration. and have accordingly been held invalid." 334 U.S.. at 419. Congress has broadly declared as federal policy that lawfully admitted resident aliens who become public charges for causes arising after their entry are not subject to deportation. and that as long as they are here they are entitled to the full and equal benefit of all state laws for the security of persons and property. The state statutes at issue in the instant cases impose auxiliary burdens upon the entrance or residence of aliens who suffer the distress. after entry. of economic dependency on public assistance. Alien residency requirements for welfare benefits necessarily operate. as did the residency requirements in Shapiro. to discourage entry into or continued residency in the State. Indeed. in No. 727 the parties stipulated that this was so. In Traux the Court considered the "reasonableness" of a state restriction on the employment of aliens in terms of its effect on the right of a lawfully admitted alien to live where he chooses: "It must also be said that reasonable classification implies action consistent with the legitimate interests of the State. and it will not be disputed that these cannot be so broadly conceived as to bring them into hostility to exclusive Federal power. The authority to control immigrationto admit or exclude aliensis vested solely in the Federal Government. . . . The assertion of an authority to deny to aliens the opportunity of earning a livelihood when lawfully admitted to the State would be tantamount to the assertion of the right to deny them entrance and abode. for in ordinary cases they cannot Jlive where they cannot work. And. If such a policy were permissible. the practical result would be that those lawfully admitted to the country under the authority of the acts of Congress. instead of enjoying in a substantial sense and in their full scope the privileges conferred by the admission. would be segregated in such of the States as chose to offer hospitality." 239 U.S.. at The same is true here. for the ordinary case an alien. becoming indigent and unable to work. will be unable to live where. because of discriminatory denial of public assistance. he cannot "secure the necessities of life. including food. clothing and shelter." State alien residency requirements. that either deny welfare benefits to noncitizens or condition them on longtime residency. equate with the assertion of a right. inconsistent with federal policy. to deny entrance and abode. Since such laws encroach upon exclusive federal power. they are constitutionally impermissible. IV Arizona suggests. finally. that its 15year durational residency requirement for aliens is actually authorized by federal law.