|
Rep. Dykema Elaborates On Immigrant Benefits Vote
Last week, I voted against an amendment that would have dramatically expanded state-wide legal residency screening for those applying for public benefits. The intent of the amendment was to further ensure that recipients of taxpayer-funded benefits are in the country legally. I opposed the legislation because it would have meant excessive and costly new requirements for our towns and the state at a time when we can least afford them. Numerous constituents have contacted me about this vote and I appreciate this opportunity to respond.
With many of our citizens facing job and income loss, it's important for the legislature to ensure tax dollars are benefiting those who play by the rules. This amendment however, was not the answer.
If the amendment had passed, it would have required additional administrative requirements for our cash-strapped towns. For the state, it would have only served to duplicate what is already required under current law. Today, when one applies for TAFDC (welfare), unemployment or worker's compensation, legal residency is already verified.
With local and state budgets shrinking, we need to focus more than ever on getting the most value from every dollar we spend. The return on this investment would have been very low. The amendment's proponent quoted a cost of $6 per individual screened. In Colorado, a state with far fewer residents than the Commonwealth, this program had a price-tag of $2 million and yielded virtually no savings. There is nothing to suggest that savings in Massachusetts would have been any greater.
The public is concerned about this issue and the legislature must respond, but with a more practical approach. A more appropriate course of action is to assess the existing screening processes so that shortcomings can be identified and sensible and cost-effective fixes put in place.
|
ss