Pennsylvania state senator Joe Scarnati is the author of state Senate Bill 9, about which he writes (link):

Illegal aliens who live in Pennsylvania would be unable to obtain public benefits, including Medicaid, welfare and in-state college tuition, under legislation sponsored by Senate President Pro Tempore Joe Scarnati that was approved [April 1] by the Senate with a bi-partisan vote of 41 to 9... Scarnati's bill would require anyone requesting public benefits in the Commonwealth to provide identification proving they are legal residents. Additionally, they would be required to sign an affidavit stating they are a U.S. citizen or an alien lawfully present in the United States...

Sounds good so far. Of course, some aren't entirely happy, and those include Samuel Brooks (staff attorney at Community Legal Services of Philadelphia) and Marissa Harris of the Lutheran Advocacy Ministry of Pennsylvania who offer "Anti-immigrant myths foster costly ID bill in Pennsylvania" (link). Their article is highly similar to one written by Michael Froehlich of Brooks' organization (clsphila.org/NewsItem.aspx?id=148), with the exception that the first starts with an edge case designed to scaremonger this issue. If they're really concerned about U.S. citizens who don't have government-issued ID (of which they say there are around 800,000 in PA), then their better course of action would be to suggest a change to the bill in order to make solving problems with the identification process easier. And, if there are such problems, then they can rest assured that the mainstream media will be eager to take the side of those citizens negatively affected.

So, why aren't they doing that? Why are they only concentrating on unemployment benefits and not mentioning all the other forms of benefits involved, including those that involve a zero sum game such as the fact that any college discount given to an illegal alien is one taken from a U.S. citizen? Why do they complain about the bill supposedly making it difficult to get unemployment benefits at the same time as they complain about "requir[ing] the state to hire hundreds of new workers to check identification and store records"? Why, when claiming that the bill won't save Pennsylvanians any money, don't they mention things like all the costs associated with providing in-state tuition? Why don't they acknowledge the fact that the bill would discourage illegal aliens from moving to their state? Why don't they acknowledge the fact that the U.S. citizen children of illegal aliens might be eligible for various welfare programs to which their parents aren't entitled? Why their argument is internally inconsistent and why they didn't mention everything involved is all a big mystery, a great big mystifying mystery.