Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Georgetown Law School Sues U.S. for Not Providing Coronavirus Funds to Illegal Immigrant Families

Georgetown Law School Sues U.S. for Not Providing Coronavirus Funds to Illegal Immigrant Families

“U.S. citizen children of undocumented immigrants do not receive the $500 economic impact payments specifically intended for children.”

Do the folks at Georgetown have any idea how this appears to millions of Americans? Maybe they just don’t care.

Campus Reform reports:

Georgetown sues US for not giving money to illegal immigrant families

A Georgetown University Law School advocacy group filed a lawsuit alongside Villanova Law Professor Leslie Book against the United States over COVID-19 relief funding for children of illegal immigrants.

The Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection said in a press release that the complaint challenged the “intentional and discriminatory exclusion of U.S. citizen children” from receiving emergency assistance “based solely on the fact that one or both of their parents are undocumented immigrants.”

According to the complaint, individual relief payments made under the CARES Act are only available to those who pay taxes using a social security number. However, because illegal immigrants do not have social security numbers and instead use individual taxpayer-identification numbers, the complaint argues that “U.S. citizen children of undocumented immigrants do not receive the $500 economic impact payments specifically intended for children.”

However, Center for Immigration Studies Resident Fellow in Law and Policy Andrew Arthur argues that the complaint is misguided and that efforts should be directed at the legislative branch. In his opinion, Congress likely decided to limit individual payments to those with social security numbers in order to limit fraud. Making payments eligible to those without social security numbers “would be an invitation for fraud,” he explained.

Arthur also highlighted the fact that this matter was addressed during the congressional debates, as noted in the original complaint.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

He’d have a case if the payments were made to the children. But they’re not. Children incur no expenses, and need no assistance, so they don’t get any; parents get assistance because of the expenses they incur in raising their children. Therefore parents who are not eligible have no case just because their children would be eligible.

    Jack Klompus in reply to Milhouse. | May 10, 2020 at 10:39 am

    I don’t know what the world would do without MENSA members like you to explain these difficult concepts to us.

      Edward in reply to Jack Klompus. | May 10, 2020 at 12:00 pm

      When Milhouse is right, he’s right and shouldn’t be denigrated for that. There’s always a segment of the population which needs reinforcement through fact statement.

Yeah, good luck with that. Great use of resources at this time. Keep up that brilliant work, G-town!

healthguyfsu | May 8, 2020 at 2:57 pm

Great opportunity to pack up and head home!

Morning Sunshine | May 8, 2020 at 3:36 pm

don’t you have to have a case that you are the one being wronged in order to sue?

One more argument against automatic birthplace citizenship.

Do they have standing? As an advocacy group, will they be able to show that they were injured? I suppose they will be able to do the old, ‘we represent several unnamed plaintiffs thing’.

    Morning Sunshine in reply to Cogsys. | May 8, 2020 at 5:05 pm

    standing. That was the word I was looking for.

    Milhouse in reply to Cogsys. | May 8, 2020 at 7:00 pm

    The plaintiffs are:

    R.V., a minor, by and through his mother and next friend, N.R.; N.R.; E.V., a minor, by and through her mother and next friend, C.V.; C.V.; H.A.G., a minor, by and through his mother and next friend, H.G.T.; J.G., a minor, by and through her mother and next friend, H.G.T.; B.G., a minor, by and through her mother and next friend, H.G.T.; I.G., a minor, by and through her mother and next friend, H.G.T.; H.G.T.; R.R., a minor, by and through her parents and next friends, M.M. and J.R.; M.M.; and J.R., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated.(1)

    (1) Plaintiffs concurrently move to proceed under pseudonyms and to waive their obligations under Local Rule 102.2(a) to provide addresses and counties on the complaint.

    So yes, they have standing.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend