CA Bill May Prioritize Migrants for Disaster Relief

A new bill that would change how disaster funds are meted out is creating a buzz among the politicos and talking heads of California. AB 262, the California Individual Assistance Act, authored by Democrat Jessica Caloza of the Golden State’s 52nd district, would make it a requirement to “prioritize local agencies that are not eligible under [federal law] due to their inability to meet the minimum damages threshold.” To receive federal disaster funds, that threshold needs to be at $1 million or more, as The Center Square explained. But is this bill prioritizing illegal migrants as some suggest?

Prioritizing Migrants for Disaster Fund Relief

“You are carving out the authority for the state funding to go to illegal immigrants,” Republican Assemblymember Carl DeMario warned. “The bill would allow the director of emergency services to prioritize funds for people who are not here legally.”

According to the text, funding would be given to individuals who are described as “a person residing in California” and to families. There are no restrictions or guidelines preventing money from going to illegal migrants.

“Natural disaster does not discriminate whether or not it’s going to impact you and your community depending on your immigration status,” the bill’s author argued. She cited a report researched by UCLA that explained Latinos, who make up half of the Golden State’s population according to the US Census, do not have the resources needed when disaster strikes. “Latino households and small businesses often lack disaster plans or insurance coverage, leaving them financially unprepared,” the report noted. “Latinos are disproportionately employed in outdoor jobs such as agriculture, construction, and landscaping, where exposure to wildfire smoke poses significant health risks and often disrupts their ability to work, resulting in lost income.”

Furthermore, “At least 323,000 Angelenos have been affected by the wildfire, and among those, 74,000 were Latinos, or about 1 in 4.”

California has one of the highest numbers of illegal immigrants in the states, with 2.6 million. Texas was next with 2.1 million, and when adding the two states’ numbers together, they made up 42% of the 10.99 million illegal immigrants in the US in 2022.

A Migration Policy Institute report showed that 1 out of 9 people “living in the United States illegally reside in the four-county region most Southern Californians call home,” Los Angeles Daily News pointed out.

In another contentious regulation, the legislation would allow financial assistance to be dispersed even if the governor has not declared a state of emergency. If local agencies deem something an emergency, and the director of emergency services accepts it, then funds could technically start being allocated.

Those opposing the proposed bill argue that there’s not enough clarity, and that they’re concerned elected officials could declare minor issues as disasters so they can qualify for more state funding.

Humanity vs Legality

As the Trump administration continues the promise of a mass deportation of illegal migrants, debates about humanity vs legality swirl. The most heated topic today surrounds Kilmar Abrego Garcia, also known as the “Maryland Man,” who was deported to El Salvador, some say illegally. Despite documentation that the illegal immigrant has ties to the violent MS-13 gang, liberals are going out of their way to try and bring him back to the US. The courts and the president are battling over the legality of deporting an illegal immigrant.

The California legislation appears to be more about humanity than legality. Disasters happen, and they don’t bother to check a person’s beliefs, gender, or legal status. It is the right thing to do to help out a fellow human in such a need, but to what extent? The bill would “provide local agencies, community-based organizations, and individuals” with “housing assistance” and “financial assistance” that covers “income losses,” “costs to clean, repair, or replace essential personal property items,” and even “medical, dental, and funeral expenses resulting from the emergency,” The Center Square reported.

Replacing income losses that were gained while someone was committing a crime (being in the country illegally) may be stretching it a bit too far. There’s also the consideration of how providing such assistance may limit what can be allocated to legal citizens. Balancing humanity and legality can be tricky, but should illegal migrants be prioritized over citizens, regardless of the reasons? That seems to be the issue in a nutshell.