BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE COMMITTEE ON VETERANS AFFAIRS
LOU CORREA, CHAIRMAN
Bill No: SB 842
Author: Rubio
Version: As amended March 24, 2011
Hearing Date: April 12, 2011
Fiscal: Yes
Consultant: Donald E. Wilson
SUBJECT OF BILL
California residency for family members of immigrant
members of the United States' Armed Forces.
PROPOSED LAW
1. To allow family members of immigrant members of the
United States Armed Forces to be-
a) classified as California residents for purposes of
tuition at a California institution of higher learning
b) eligible for California social services
2. Would require the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to
a) "develop and maintain a program for the issuance of
identification cards".
b) consult with the California Department of Veterans
Affairs (CDVA) in developing an application form
3. Each office of the DMV would be required to
a) provide applications for the program
b) receive and process those applications
c) transmit completed applications to CDVA
d) issue identification cards to those deemed eligible
EXISTING LAW AND BACKGROUND
1. The theory of republicanism as explained in Scottish
Whig Theory and its greatest accomplishment -the compacted
republic today known as the United States of America-has
always placed the highest honor on citizenship, the dutiful
requirements of citizenship, and the importance of citizens
making their own decisions about their own lives. The
United States' Constitution opens with this very sentiment
"WE the people."
2. The one exception to the rule of a society of citizens
has been in times of war when loyal aliens of common cause
to the United States have been willing to fight by our
sides.
The earliest and probably best known example would be that
of the Marquis de Lafayette of France, who came to the
United States to help command The Colonial Army and became
an American hero. Today Fayettvilles dot the map of the
United States including in North Carolina where
Fayetteville is home to Fort Bragg and the 82nd Airborne.
The Polish Officer Casimir Pulaski was another
Revolutionary War example but is less well known since he
died at the battle of Savannah. In 2009, Brigadier General
Pulaski became only the 7th person in the history of the
United States to attain American citizenship posthumously.
3. The California Military and Veterans Code (MVC) still
reflects the old republican opinion in MVC section 122
declaring that able-bodied citizens are eligible for
service in the state militia as well as those who are
residents of California and "who have declared their
intention to become citizens of the United States."
4. The military forces of the United States still today
accepts legal aliens who are in country and, in some cases,
foreign nationals from their home countries. The United
States Navy has long been an opportunity for Filipinos to
attain US citizenship because of the relationship between
the two countries dating to the days before World War II.
5. Depending on the WWII unit in question, Philippine
nationals and their dependents have access to veterans'
benefits.
6. According to the author's office, the Pentagon says
Page 2
8,000 legal immigrants join the US Military every year.
7. Foreign nationals in the United States Illegally are
prohibited from enlisting or gaining commissions in US
Military Forces.
COMMENT
1. For many years the California legislature has refused
to grant residency status for purposes of enrollment to
active duty military stationed in the State of California-
SB 371 of 2004 (Hollingsworth), SB 1040 of 2005
(Hollingsworth), AB 38 of 2009 (Salas), and AB 63 of 2011
(Donnelly).
It is unclear why the legislature would grant residency
status to the dependents of active duty men and women but
not to those individuals actually putting their lives on
the line. �Active duty graduate students are allowed two
years of residency status for graduate programs. AB 950 of
2007 (Salas)]
2. While the precedent set with the Philippine units is
that foreign nationals are eligible for benefits, that
precedent is with veterans' benefits after service-not
civilian welfare payments. Although it does raise the
question of why are our service members so poorly taken
care of that their families qualify for welfare in the
first place?
3. Section 3 of the bill does state, "Notwithstanding any
other law" dependents "shall be eligible to apply for and
receive state and local public social services, to the same
extent as any other applicant or recipient, regardless of
that individual's immigration status." There is some
concern that this then opens a door on other issues beyond
veterans issues.
4. Should dependent benefits be limited to those who were
dependents at the time of military service? If a service
member remarries after separating from the service, a
subsequent spouse never made any of the sacrifices that a
Page 3
military family member does; so, why the benefit?
5. Can CDVA administer this database? CDVA has only begun
assembling a database of California veterans within the
last two years with the hopes of compiling 30,000 names per
annum. During that time as we continue to lose the World
War II generation, the number of veterans in California has
dropped from 2.1 million to 1.9 million. This bill will
deal largely with active duty personnel - not veterans.
Will CDVA has either the database or the manpower, not to
mention the cooperation of the Federal Government, for
assembling a database of active duty personnel and their
families?
6. Sections 1(b) and 3 (b)(1) of the bill contain the
definition of Armed Forces of the United States for the
purposes of this bill. The definition should be rewritten
for clarity. It appears the bill was written as a
comprehensive list with all services placed in alphabetical
order with a listing at the end of "reserve components of
all of those forces,". Neither the Naval Militia nor the
National Guard has a reserve component. In addition, the
Naval Militia is not an Armed Force of The United States;
it is an armed force of The State of California.
6. Legislative Counsel has advised that this bill is in
conflict with AB 63 (Donnelly) and AB 853 (Blumenfeld). AB
63, like the aforementioned SB 371 of 2004 (Hollingsworth),
SB 1040 of 2005 (Hollingsworth), and AB 38 of 2009 (Salas),
seeks to give residency status to the service member. AB
63 also gives residency status to dependents of service
members.
SUPPORT
None received
OPPOSE
None received
Page 4
Page 5