holding that an alien who entered this country illegally from Mexico could establish domicile
How later courts described this case
- holding that an alien who entered this country illegally from Mexico could establish domicile
- illegal alien entitled to compensation under state crime victims' statute
- compensation for victims of violent crime
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ALLPORT, J.
I dissent.
In section 13959 the Legislature declared it to be in the public interest to indemnify and assist in the rehabilitation of those “residents of the State of California” who suffered loss as a result of crime. In section 13961 such a “resident” may apply for assistance. The act does not define the term resident but does authorize the State Board of Control to “make all needful rules and regulations consistent with the law for *1018 the purposes of carrying into effect the provisions of this article.” (§ 13968 subd. (a).) Accordingly the board enacted regulation 649.12 which in effect by definition eliminates illegal aliens from benefits under the act. The majority would strike down the requirement of legal residence as adding a requirement for eligibility not required by the act. I do not agree. Legality of residency does not add a requirement but rather, in further defining eligible persons, simply recognizes and reiterates the self-evident fact that, to be a qualified resident, one must ordinarily be legally within the state. While it may be true that an illegal alien may be found to have a residence, that is to be living within the state, and in some situations be entitled to statutory benefits, 1 such residency, standing alone, does not qualify one as a resident of the state within the contemplation of this act. In my opinion the requirement of legality contained in the regulation under attack does not “[add] to the fundamental statutory requirement for eligibility for assistance under the act of residency” but is merely a needful rule or regulation consistent with the law contemplated by section 13968.
I would reverse the judgments.
Petitions for a rehearing were denied December 19 and 31, 1980, and appellant’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied February 4, 1981.
For example the workers’ compensation law expressly defines covered employees to include unlawfully employed aliens. (Lab. Code, § 3351.)