As a way to foot the bill for his record-breaking $37.4 billion budget, New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy plans to raise taxes on virtually everything under the Garden State sun, including retail sales, Airbnb, Uber, and Internet transactions. Murphy took a break from hiking taxpayers’ financial burden to create a $2.1 million legal defense fund for illegal aliens.
Quaintly included under the header of “Ensuring Social Justice,” the Democratic governor directs millions to “support non-profit groups providing legal assistance to those facing detention or deportation.”
The taxpayer-supported (il)legal aid is the latest on a growing list of actions Murphy has taken since taking office in January to benefit the estimated 500,000 illegal aliens in New Jersey.
Although a 1996 federal statute prohibits illegal aliens from receiving certain professional licenses, such as permits to practice law, states may affirmatively opt out of that prohibition. By doing so, Murphy paved the way for the first illegal alien to be sworn in as a member of the state bar.
New Jersey Attorney General Gurbir Grewal chose a January press conference announcing the state was joining a lawsuit challenging President Trump’s decision to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), to officially swear in Parthiv Patel, a 27-year-old DACA beneficiary.
The Murphy administration is not alone in pouring taxpayer money into the hands of illegal aliens.
Today, New Jersey Senate is scheduled to vote on S699, a measure to allow illegal aliens to apply for and receive student financial aid. A similar bill was approved by the legislature five years ago, but was vetoed by then-Gov. Chris Christie (R).
On Monday, the New Jersey Senate voted 26-10 to pass S699, a measure to allow illegal aliens to apply for and receive student financial aid. A similar bill was approved by the legislature five years ago, but was vetoed by then-Gov. Chris Christie (R). The state Assembly now has to vote on the bill.
OLS concedes the measure “may result in an indeterminate increase in State expenditures,” but contends the magnitude of the increase would be determined by “the extent to which this availability causes additional students to enroll in institutions of higher education.”