Charlie Baker says homeless should show proof of residency. Uh, what? [updated! :D ]

Part of Charlie Baker’s “Baker’s Dozen” (PDF) package of “reforms” is the following:

7. Require proof of legal residency for state benefits – Between $10M to $25M in savings

Applicants applying for state services should be required to verify their legal status in this country. It is only fair that recipients of state services should be required to prove to state agencies they are in this country legally before obtaining government benefits. Currently, there is no uniform policy that requires the state to verify the legal status for those applying for all state services including public housing, unemployment benefits, workers compensation, and welfare. Although conservative estimates were used for this purpose because the data does not exist, this new requirement could produce significant savings considering the amount of money the state spends each year on these programs.

Asked to clarify, according to State House News,

Baker said he thought people who come to the Pine Street Inn for shelter should have to show proof of residency. “I think we should require it for everything,” said Baker, a former budget chief under GOP Govs. Bill Weld and Paul Cellucci. “I mean, I don’t think it’s appropriate for people who are residents of Massachusetts to be on waiting lists when people who aren’t residents and citizens are taking advantage of services.”

Now, there is something vaguely hilarious about requiring someone seeking shelter at the Pine Street Inn to show proof of residency.  Presumably, such a person is homeless and therefore has no formal “residence.”  We look forward to Baker walking this one back and explaining how he didn’t actually mean that homeless people should have to prove residency.

UPDATE: And, hilariously, here’s Baker’s walkback, right on schedule.  T&G today:

Mr. Patrick called a proposal to turn people away from homeless shelters if they can’t produce proof of residency “inhumane.” But Mr. Baker said that emergency services such as people showing up at a homeless shelter would be exempt from a crackdown on recipients of longer-term state services.

Funny, that doesn’t appear in the “Baker’s Dozen” document that was made publicly available, nor is it consistent with what he said yesterday when he was asked basically the same question point-blank.  Here’s the amusing view of one commentator on the T&G website:

Baker just flip-flopped on his proposal to ban homeless people without ID from checking in to shelters!!! One day and he flip-flops!

Here’s the Gov on this proposal:

Baker’s proposal to require homeless shelters to turn away people, including veterans and even families with children, if they can’t produce proof a residency is inhumane and wrong…. I understand fully the importance of enforcing existing rules so that only people entitled to benefits actually receive them.  But government ought to reflect our highest values.  And government that would turn a homeless child out into a cold night or deny a poor person a meal because they could not find a utility bill is not the kind of government that reflects the values of Massachusetts.

The point about “enforcing existing rules so that only people entitled to benefits actually receive them” is an interesting one.  Recently, there’s been a fair bit of chatter over Republican state rep. and congressional candidate Jeff Perry’s proposal to require verification of immigration status before receiving certain state benefits.  The proposal failed (technically, it was sent to a study) by a fairly close 75-82 vote, with some progressives crossing over to support it (D’Amico, Ehrlich and Patrick are the ones who jumped out at me, and there may be more).  Clearly, there is bipartisan support for a measure like this one.  I haven’t studied the details of Perry’s proposal, but I certainly wouldn’t dismiss it out of hand.

But what’s fairly clear is that it carves out some common-sense exceptions that, apparently, Baker would reject.  Here’s part of Perry’s proposal:

Verification of lawful presences in the United States shall not be required:

For any purpose for which lawful presence in the United States is not required by law, ordinance, or rule;

For obtaining health care items and services that are necessary for the treatment of an emergency medical condition of the person involved and are not related to an organ transplant procedure;

For short-term, non-cash, in-kind emergency disaster relief;

For public health assistance for immunization with respect to diseases and for testing and treatment of symptoms of communicable diseases;

For programs, services, or assistance, such as soup kitchens, crisis counseling and intervention, and short-term shelter specified by Federal laws or regulations that:

- Deliver in-kind services at the community level, including services through public or private nonprofit agencies;

- Do not condition the provision of assistance, the amount of assistance provided, or the cost of assistance provided on the individual recipient’s income or resources; and

- Are necessary for the protection of life or safety or;

For parental care.

Are these exemptions enough to make it a good bill?  I don’t know – apparently, plenty of State House Democrats thought so.  But regardless, they seem to be way beyond what Baker was willing even to consider, since he told State House News, “I think we should require it for everything.”

I don’t think that many people seriously advocate making state benefits routinely available to people not present in the U.S. legally.  But the devil is in the details in these things.  Perry, to his credit, has made some effort to recognize that, and he was almost rewarded for doing so by getting his proposal through an overwhelmingly Democratic legislature.  Baker, to his discredit, doesn’t seem interested in that; rather, his interest seems to be Limbaugh-esque talking points about “illegals.”  Great.

This post was originally published with Soapblox and contains additional formatting and metadata.
View archived version of this post


16 Comments . Leave a comment below.
  1. Two things we've learned about Baker

    on the campaign trail so far:

    (1) The guy can raise a boatload of cash.

    (2) He is a absolutely terrible, politically tone-deaf campaigner.

    An interesting question for the fall is which of these facts eventually wins out over the other.

    • True

      I would say point #2 makes #1 completely useless. Just look at Steve 'moneybags' Pagliuca. Also it seems that the only ads he has run on tv so far are negative against Cahill and funded by the RGA. For a guy with almost no name recognition does it really make sense to increase the name recognition or the opponent you most want people to forget exists while doing nothing to increase yours? It was also a lame attack ad that gave some free media to Cahill's talking points regarding health care reform in a really poorly executed way to portray him as a flip flopper.  

      • Well,

        the ads are produced and run by the RGA, not the Baker campaign, which legally could not have had anything to do with them.  I think the RGA ads were a terrible idea for the reasons you state, but it's inaccurate to blame Baker for them.

        • Why must we assume that the RGA came in here,

          uninvited, and without consulting the Baker campaign? Laws or not, I don't believe it.

          • Sir, I am shocked! shocked!

            that you would level such an allegation of skullduggery against the Baker campaign!  For shame, good sir, for shame!  Have you, at last, no decency?

        • The ads are still running

          So it is perfectly fair to blame Baker. He could stop them if he wanted to.

  2. Jesus, Mary and Joseph

    Turned away by Charlie Baker because they couldn't produce a Bethlehem utility bill.

    At least the candidate is making his sympathies plain.

  3. Oh, the millionaire insurance CEO resents it

    when a homeless person gets a cot for the night and hot meal without producing papers?

    A homeless shelter is not like the five-star hotels Mr. Baker is accustomed to.

    Being homeless is not a vacation.

  4. Scorecard

    Baker 13 - Deval 0

    • Sure, if you're counting eggs laid. ;-)

    • Brought a smile to my face

      The operative reply is a paraphrase of Johnson. A Republican devotee attempting to defend Baker on this one is "like a dog's walking on his hind legs. It is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all."

  5. This is utter nonsense

    My office prepares MassHealth applications. The application specifically requires that anyone who does not have a birth certificate showing birth in the US provide prove of lawful residency in the form of immigration papers or US passport. If I did not provide that paperwork, the application would be automatically rejected per regulation.  

    Further, did Baker even consider the cost of obtaining verification for locally-provided services? As my state rep, Carolyn Dykema, noted in her e-blast explaining why she was voting against it, in a time where local government agencies are laying off people, they do not need some new unfunded state mandate added to the workload..

  6. Baker or Patrick

    I can't figure out who is the worst here.

    Patrick has more nerve than a bum tooth. Calling Baker's proposal inhumane (IT IS) as he is evicting elderly, severely mentally & physically disabled people from their homes in our developmental centers and slashing budgets to the severely disabled across the board. I don't think he is going to win any humanitarian awards for his treatment of those who truly can not care for themselves.

    As for Baker to suggest that a homeless person showing up at homeless shelter should provide proof of residency is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

    You tell me....I can't decide?

  7. The deserving poor and the undeserving poor

    In some kind of hokey world, the poor would be virtuous and innocent. Alms would elicit heart-rending exclamations of gratitude.

    Baker seems to be responding to an often-expressed resentment. (How dare someone be poor and obese! How dare someone receive assistance and have a better time than me!) That resentment is assuredly there — it's appeared here on BMG. Apparently, he imagined he could transform it into a policy proposal that would make everyone love him.

    • If millionaires think the poor have it too good,

      they can write one big check to a charity and become poor themselves to enjoy all the wonderful benefits of poverty:  the thrill of not knowing if you can pay the light bill this month!  the challenge of never seeing a doctor about that nagging foot pain!  the luxurious comfort of padded seats on the bus!

« Blue Mass Group Front Page

Add Your Comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Thu 18 Dec 10:20 AM