However. we strongly oppose your recent proposal to offset the costs of the National Drug Control Strategy by a $320 million reduction in State Legalization Impact Assistance Grants (SLIAG). Under this suggested proposal. you are asking a few states to carry the financial burden of the drug war. As representatives of states with large populations of newly legalized aliens. it is clear that any reduction in SIJAG would unfairly shift a disproportionate share of the cuts onto the shoulders of local governments and undermine the delicate compromise embodied in the amnesty provisions of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (Public Law 99603). As a cornerstone of that landmark legislation. over 3 million persons have come forward under the amnesty program. A key component of this compromise plan is an agreement with the states that their costs incurred due to the legalization program be reimbursed by the federal government. As you will recall. this new population of legalized aliens is barred from most federal programs. The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 established a fouryear program of State Legalization Impact Assistance Grants to offset the costs of providing public assistance. public health assistance. and educational services to newly legalized aliens. While this law appropriated $1 billion for each of fiscal years 1988 through 1991. the authorizing statute was clearly designed to allow states seven years in which to spend the funds. providing that any amount paid to a state and remaining unobligated at the end of a fiscal year shall remain available through September 30. 1994. Owing to this carryforward authority. states are assured of reimbursement when the financial burden is anticipated to be the greatestthe final years of the legalization program.
Keywords matched
Immigration