This amendment will maintain our commitment to all aliens already eligible for legal services benefits. That causes two problems. First. it would mean that we are giving legal assistance to illegal aliens. To me. there is no Justification for diverting funds away from legal immigrants and citizens to pay the legal costs of illegal aliens. Second. the language in the bill would generate litigation to determine the definition of permanently residing under color of law. Why would we want to create more litigation in a bill designed to make the legal system more accessible? My amendment would eliminate the reference to PRUCOL aliens. Instead. it would have a specific reference to two types of aliens who would qualify as PRUCOL aliens and who should be eligible for LSC benefits. The other types of aliens who need to be covered. such as refugees. are already specifically mentioned in the bill. And it will also avoid the mountain of litigation sure to come if vague language about aliens permanently residing under color of law is enacted. American citizens and legal immigrants. not illegal aliens and temporary residents. should receive priority when it comes to free legal services. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to set realistic priorities for legal services benefits. And I again thank my colleague. the gentleman from California . for his cooperation in devising this amendment.
Keywords matched
refugees immigrants illegal aliens