[media-credit name=’BRYAN FAUST/Herald Photo’ align=’alignnone’ width=’648′][/media-credit]The debate over immigrant rights continued Thursday, as state lawmakers considered a bill that would prevent non-citizens from receiving public benefits like state-funded health care.

In a public hearing, members of the Assembly Judiciary Committee listened to testimony from speakers registered both in favor of and against the controversial bill.

Known as Senate Bill 567, the measure most notably helped spark protests at the Capitol earlier this month, as immigrant-rights advocates rallied against it and other anti-immigration bills.

While the rally's advocates charged SB 567 is discriminatory to immigrants, Thursday's bill opponents expressed different concerns regarding the bill's effect on non-immigrants.

"We think this bill could be the poster child for the law of unintended consequences," said Jon Peacock, research director for the Wisconsin Council on Children and Families, who testified against the bill at Thursday's public hearing.

Although the bill's aim is to prevent illegal immigrants from abusing state resources, its actual effect would be to unfairly deny legal citizens the public benefits to which they are entitled, Peacock added.

According to the bill's language, any person applying for state assistance programs must provide documentary proof of citizenship. Bill opponents charge this requirement would disproportionately affect the poor, elderly and cognitively disabled, who may have difficulty presenting documentation records.

But the bill's chief author, Sen. Tom Reynolds, R-West Allis, defended the measure as simply a more stringent version of a federal mandate set to go into effect in July.

"To some extent, they're going to have to deal with this either way," Reynolds spokesperson Patrick Henneger said. "It's probably a good thing that people may be forced to get [documentation]."

By delaying the bill, Henneger added, SB 567 opponents actually could be doing a disservice to Wisconsin citizens who will not be able to dodge documentation requirements in the future.

Committee member Rep. Robert Turner, D-Racine, however, said he is more concerned by the bill's immediate effects, adding it could lead to profiling and other forms of discrimination.

The state Department of Health and Family Services also testified against the bill, questioning its necessity.

"We have not seen the problem with ineligible people receiving benefits," DHFS legislative director Ron Hermes said, adding the department has concerns that the "unnecessary burdens" created by the bill would discourage people from applying for benefits.

But Rep. Terri McCormick, R-Appleton, disagreed and said the burden of paperwork does not qualify as a valid argument.

She and other bill supporters said the inconvenience would be worthwhile in the end, as it would save taxpayer dollars by ensuring only documented citizens receive state assistance.

"The inconvenience to obtain these documents is justified, considering the hundreds of billions of dollars that the state pays out in public benefits," Henneger said.

Critics, however, doubted Henneger's claims, calling them over-exaggerated and most likely outweighed by the tremendous administrative costs involved.

The measure must be passed by both the committee and the Assembly before it will go to the governor's desk for review.

As committee members continued to debate the merits of SB 567, they were more unified on another measure — voting to pass a bill that would classify alcohol as an intoxicant in rape cases.

The measure, SB 526, aims to add alcoholic beverages to the list of incapacitating substances already recognized for their impairing effects.

SB 526 is expected to be approved by the Assembly when the body reconvenes later this month.