Massachusetts Senate passes bill to crackdown on illegal immigrants
Oh what difference a car accident can make!
Shortly after the Perry amendment– an amendment that would require immigrants to prove they were in the country legally before they were eligible for welfare–was defeated in Massachusetts, State Representative Moran (who voted against the Perry amendment) was hurt in a car accident that involved an illegal immigrant. And now today, out of the blue (pardon the pun), the Massachusetts senate easily passed a bill that was much tougher than the bill that the house voted down before the infamous car accident.
I am being just a little cynical here, it wasn’t just the car accident that prodded the Massachusetts senate to pass this bill, earlier this week a poll was released that showed even in one of the bluest states in America, 84% of residents favored requiring immigrants to prove they were here legally before they were able to collect welfare. I am sure this poll played into the senate vote just a little bit.
This vote comes just two weeks after the Boston city council voted to boycott Arizona for their new controversial immigration law.
According to the law the Massachusetts senate just passed:
would bar the state from doing business with any company found to break federal laws barring illegal immigrant hiring. It would also toughen penalties for creating or using fake identification documents, and explicitly deny in-state college tuition for illegal immigrants.
The amendment would also require the state’s public health insurance program to verify residency through the Department of Homeland Security, and would require the state to give legal residents priority for subsidized housing.
Verify residency? That sounds an awful lot like the Arizona law that the Boston city council voted to boycott not too long ago. This is a stunning turn of events when you consider that just last year Massachusetts was considering giving driver’s licences and in-state tuition to illegal aliens.
This bill still has a long way to go before it becomes law; the house has to pass this bill, and the governor has to sign it. the likelihood of this happening is next to zero. But it does provide us with some insight as to how people in the country feel towards illegal immigration and amnesty.
If the people of Massachusetts are so strongly opposed to these ideas that the Massachusetts senate would pass such a bill, that on most occasions they would have called a racist bill, it shows that the American people can still be heard once in awhile. This is why people all across America have got to call, write, and email their senators, representatives, governors, and even the president to voice displeasure at the notion of amnesty for illegal aliens.
On a side note– if Massachusetts ever did pass this legislation would the Boston city council vote to boycott Massachusetts?
America's Watchtower 
Now that is an interesting thought. Would Boston put their money where their mouth is and boycott their own state? You are right, though. There isn’t much of a chance of this legislation becoming law in Massachusetts.
LikeLike
I don’t see the governor signing it, but can he afford not to in an election year?
LikeLike
I disagree a little with LD here (very rare) in that I believe this will become a law in Mass. I say this for a couple of reasons:
1. Patrick is in an election year in a tough 3-way battle. Vetoing this after the Moron (I mean Moran) accident would really give his opponents something to talk about in media.
2. Politicians — especially Democrats — are poll sensitive. With the reps and governor up for election, doing something that disagrees with 84% of the people would be suicide and they know it.
However, Mass politicians seem to be among the top in lacking proper judgment and logic. You may just prove me wrong yet!
LikeLike
I hope you are right, but Cahill is the spoiler here. He is splitting the vote against Patrick and this may give Patrick enough for re-election. So he may feel confident he can veto it and still win. However, if he does veto it he will have Cahill and Baker slamming him. It will be interesting, I hope that this bill makes it to his desk just to see what he does.
LikeLike
I can only hope that Howie Carr will pick a side and have some influence, here. I find it hard to believe that Patrick will be re-elected, but if he ends up being the lesser of the evils, WOW.
LikeLike
I would have to think that Howie is voting for Baker. Nobody really trusts Cahill do they? I think the former Democrat may just be in this race to help get Patrick re-elected.
LikeLike
This is a step in the right direction for Massachusetts, but it is VERY different from the Arizona law. There is a big difference between requiring someone to prove their citizenship before getting state benefits and requiring someone to prove their citizenship because they are acting suspicious.
LikeLike
I thinnk that you are mischaracterizing the Arizona law. You can’t ask for papers just because of the way a person is acting, there has to be probable cause. IE, he gets pulled over for speeding and doesn’t have a driver’s license.
LikeLike
Go MASS! Also, Steve is correct in his assertions about the AZ law-it merely mirrors the Federal laws ALREADY in place-they merely are the only ones, well, the first ones to step up to the plate-forget pc bologna, its time to take care of business!!I, as well as the majority of America are in favor of AZ’s new law-and 13 other states are looking to add it to their laws as well(enforcing federal law)! Tides are shifting against liberals-the democratic congress which destroyed this country since the bush administration and this current one, along with your “messiah,your chosen one” are getting voted OUT! In november, we will remember!
The liberal hordes scream racism because doing so is a manipulative tactic designed to get the conversation off topic so that instead of dealing with the central issue, people become bogged down in all their nonsense- that way, they can prevent any logical, sensible discussion and therefore any logical, sensible solutions.
The tactic is known as “irrelevant argumentative side-baiting” and is designed to be manipulative and disruptive. Primarily, they seek to create a highly emotionally charged atmosphere wherein their opponents find themselves on the defensive- defending themselves against the slanderous and defamatory charge of racism.
I’ve had people such as that denounce me as a racist a number of times and you know what? When you tell them that you’ll sue for slander and defamation and they’ll be standing in front of a judge explaining themselves and offering their “evidence”….well, it’s amazing how quickly they shut up when they find out that instead of having something to gain by screaming racism, they have something to lose!
People are angry that the US might protect its own borders, might make it harder to sneak into this country and, once here, to stay indefinitely.
Let me see if I correctly understand the thinking behind these protests.
Let’s say I break into your house.
Let’s say that when you discover me in your house, you insist that I leave.
But I say, ‘No! I like it here. It’s better than my house. I’ve made all the beds and washed the dishes and did the laundry and swept the floors. I’ve done all the things you don’t like to do. I’m hard-working and honest (except for when I broke into your house).
According to the protesters:
You are Required to let me stay in your house
You are Required to feed me
You are Required to add me to your family’s insurance plan
You are Required to Educate my kids
You are Required to Provide other benefits to me &to my family
My husband will do all of your yard work because he is also hard-working and honest. (except for that breaking in part).
If you try to call the police or force me out, I will call my friends who will picket your house carrying signs that proclaim my RIGHT to be there.
It’s only fair, after all, because you have a nicer house than I do, and I’m just trying to better myself. I’m a hard-working and honest, person, except for well, you know, I did break into your house
And what a deal it is for me!!!
I live in your house, contributing only a fraction of the cost of my keep, and there is nothing you can do about it without being accused of cold, uncaring, selfish, prejudiced, and bigoted behavior.
Oh yeah, and I DEMAND that you learn MY LANGUAGE!!! so that you can communicate with me.
Why can’t people see how ridiculous this is?!
LikeLike
Great analogy, Attila. Love it!
LikeLike
As sirrahc stated, great analogy! I also think you are sopt on in your description of the tactics the left use during debate. I have never heard the term “irrelevant argumentative side-baiting,” but that is exactly what they are doing. They are trying to change the argument by attacking their opponents, putting them on the defensive, and controlling the debate.
LikeLike