Democratic gubernatorial candidate Christopher F. Gabrieli, in some of his most extensive comments to date on immigration, blasted Governor Mitt Romney and Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly yesterday for allowing construction firms that employ illegal immigrants to win state contracts.
Gabrieli said people are outraged over a Globe story Sunday that detailed how contractors on several state-funded projects appear to have relied heavily on undocumented workers. Romney and Reilly both have said that immigration is largely a matter of federal law and that there is little they can do about it.
Of course, it does not matter that Tom Reilly had absolutely no role in selecting the firms that were awarded these contracts. You say the word “immigrant” and the ears of the politically-opportunistic perk up.
There are very real, very human reasons why Tom Reilly has not focused his energy on rounding up illegal immigrants. First, this is a national issue. The federal government has created an immigration policy that is completely unmanageable and to expect the states to compensate for their failures would be to create yet another unfunded mandate. The Commonwealth, and Tom Reilly’s office, have a finite amount of resources. I agree with Tom Reilly that they are better spent upholding the integrity of the state’s labor laws rather than trying to forge a piecemeal solution to a federal issue that demands a federal solution.
The second reason is precisely why I like and respect Tom Reilly. If the Attorney General focuses his energy on rounding up illegals, how many of these people are going to come forward when they are being wronged? When a female immigrant employee is raped by her boss, how will she approach law enforcement if it will lead to deportation? When a day worker is exploited by a businessman who wants his house painted cheaply and then renegs on the arrangement, leaving the worker without the means to feed his kids, how will he be expected to report the injustice if it results in a trip to INS? The fact that these people are immigrants, even if they are here illegally, does not validate their exploitation and degradation. They are fathers, mothers, sons, and daughters. They are people. I am proud of Tom Reilly for caring and making them a priority.
What galls me the most about Chris Gabrieli – and, frankly, this is becoming the hallmark of his candidacy as far as I’m concerned – is that he scores the cheap, Republican-style political points and then he offers NOTHING. Mr. Results is Mr. No Solution:
Gabrieli acknowledged that he didn’t know what the state could or couldn’t do differently under the law, but he said that there are “always creative ideas about how to get at issues like this” and that cracking down on such employers was not a priority for those in office.
“I absolutely don’t think there’s an excuse for the state of Massachusetts to say it’s fine to do business with people we know are exploiting exactly this opportunity,” he said.
Wow. That’s terrific. First of all, nobody has said that it is a good thing that the state has contracted with employers who are hiring undocumented workers, but that is what Chris Gabrieli wants you to believe. However, law enforcement officials, state and local, have to direct their resources in a manner that benefits the Commonwealth the most. Should the state re-consider its contracting policies? Sure. How does this involve the Attorney General? It doesn’t. How many solutions has Chris Gabrieli offered? Zero.
Chris Gabrieli and Kerry Healey should be taking George W. Bush to task, but Gabrieli isn’t running against George W. Bush, is he? Instead, he is playing the immigrant card. Well, I hope Gabrieli and Healey show the same type of outrage about the exploitation of real people, regardless of their immigration status, taking place in the brickstones on Beacon Hill, the country clubs of Beverly, and across the state under their very noses. Tom Reilly has stood up and expended political capital on behalf of immigrants rather than attempting to acquire it. In my opinion, that’s leadership.
All Tom Reilly has said is that he cares more about helping a vulnerable population and thinks it is best to devote his limited resources to thir safety and protection rather than trying to Band-Aid a federal problem. Apparently, Chris Gabrieli has a problem with that, but nothing to offer by way of solutions.
I had like Gabrieli for a while until the debate a few weeks ago when he seemed to try and stake out the right-wing anti-immigrant niche. Patrick and Reilly talked about specific state issue that relate to problems to and from illegal immigration: both agreed on in-state tuition for all in-state residents, and disagreed on the driver’s liscence issue, which is an admittedly tricky one due to homeland security issues, so I respect Tom’s position, (though I think the main issue the problems from relying on driver’s liscences as ID cards).
<
p>
Chris on the otherhand didn’t talk about the real issues, and just made the statement that there’s a difference between “legal and illegal immigrants”. Most of the time, this difference amounts to race and language, and allows racism to enter the debate without talking about it that way, and it’s sad to see a son of immigrants play into it that way. I am no way implying he is racist, but he is empowering coded racist arguments through the right wing language used while ignoring the issues and voices of “legal” immigrants and children of immigrants.
<
p>
Speaking as an immigrant and voting US citizen, if he wins the nomination, he’s going to have a lot of work to do to convince many of us to vote for him in November to convinve us he supports immigrant rights.
A la DailyKos. How else can I give a big fat ‘6’ to the author of a great diary? We can rate comments, but not the initial writing of an author… a tip jar would fix that.
<
p>
Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
… and if we like it, we’ll front page it, as we did.
<
p>
In a tip jar a la Kos, the author puts a comment below the post.
Was Scoop ever considered for the software behind BMG? I fully recognize that switching over may not be feasible — it may even be impossible. I just wonder about Scoop sometimes, for precisely this reason: if a story is liked enough, it’s automatically front-paged…
I thought the administrators (at Kos, or wherever) had to FP something, just like we do here. In any event, Scoop is not especially user-friendly and is well beyond the abilities of a non-techie like myself. We could suggest the auto-FP option to our tech guru, though.
DKos is not a good example of Scoop; they don’t use the capabilities to its fullest.
<
p>
I first learned of Scoop at the site that developed it, Kuro5hin(.org). The life cycle of a non-diary story there is: first the user puts it up for editing suggestions. Other users comment on ways it might be cleaner or get the point across more clearly. Then it goes up for voting. Each registered user can vote on whether the story is “approved”, and on whether it should be front-paged. I forget the algorithm involved, but the essence is that stories get automatically front-paged based on their votes.
<
p>
Now, the down-side is that cutting-edge news stories lose something of their relevance when they are finally front-paged three days after whatever-it-was actually happened. This, I suspect, is why DKos did away with the voting portion of the software…
<
p>
…and on reflection, it may not be great for this site either. Maybe you should just disregard this idea…
I hadn’t realized until this morning’s paper how far right of center Gabs is on this issue.
<
p>
I wonder if he’ll go see the new Superman movie. Superman is, after all, an illegal immigrant.
I was very disappointed to see this in the Globe today, particularly because I’d been going from not knowing much about Gabireli to liking him. But to take this stance, and to pop out with it at this time, strikes me as opportunism on people’s backs. How does Gabrieli propose to deal with employers who are exploiting immigrant workers, paying them below minimum wage, exposing them to hazardous conditions, etc? Enforcing those laws requires workers reporting. This is risky for any workers, but particularly so if they fear that they may end up fired or deported for bringing it up. Reilly’s policy makes good law-enforcement sense. Without it, employers will continue to hire undocumented immigrants–they’ll just mask it better and keep the potential union organizers or whistle-blowers quiet.
<
p>
I was also disappointed to read in the article that Gabrieli opposes in-state tuition for undocumented students. I’ve worked with manyh of the students leading this campaign. As the child of immigrants himself, I want to know if Gabrieli would sit them down, look them in the eye, and say that because he was lucky enough to have parents who came in a different age and with their papers, he doesn’t care about their situations. I’d also like to know why someone who has spoken much about improving the fiscal state of the Commonwealth is opposing a measure that the Boston Redevelopment Authority and the Mass Taxpayers Foundation have found would bring millions into state coffers.
<
p>
Very disappointing.
“I want to know if Gabrieli would sit them down, look them in the eye, and say that because he was lucky enough to have parents who came in a different age and with their papers, he doesn’t care about their situations.”
<
p>
It’s crazy you put it that way, because I was thinking the exact same thing. Takes a “real man” to take tuition money out of the hands of deserving kids, doesn’t it?
Great post, Maverick! I completely agree with all your points. Here we had a chance for some Democratic unity, standing up for the principles that have made this party great, sticking up for the little guy, and the Gabber has blown it. Big time!
<
p>
I think it’s outrageous that Gabrieli has portrayed himself as the “progressive” Democrat in the race, and then comes out with this right-wing knee-jerk “blame the victims” position on the treatment of undocumented workers.
<
p>
Firms should not be persecuted for USING such workers unless they are violating the wage and hour laws. I’m completely on the side of the AG here. And all of your points are the right ones. If people are not being paid minimum wage, how is that their fault? And how will offending companies, as you point out, be outed if the victims who complain are the ones punished? Jumpin’ Jehosephat!
It happened to me once, too. Even worse, I once agreed with bostonshepard. I am still getting over it. Perhaps a support group should be formed.
<
p>
Great post MavDem! You are right on. My assessment of Gabby is that he tries to take positions that the other two haven’t taken. In this case, he comes out the big bad loser.
if his comments were directed to the workers I may share some the the sentiments posted here. If they were directed to the companies which I suspect they were I am with CG on this one. When a company contracts with the commonwealthe they are bound by certain terms and conditions, hiring illegal or undocumented persons is a violation of those terms and conditions and the companies should be held accountable. If they entered into a cost rerimbursement contract I would be very interested if they paid the workers what you and I were charged through the PPA. Did they charge the state and us as taxpayers the prevailing wage and then pay the worker a substandard rate?
<
p>
As a contractor with the commonwealth I can tell you it is very difficult to compete with companies that do follow the rules and impossible to compete with those that hire workers at substandard rates and more often than not substandard work.
<
p>
Tom Reilly should investigate this it sounds like it could be breech of contract, false claims, fraud or all of them.
…who can prescribe some Prozac for you. Cheap.
on illegal immigrants – key word being illegal. And it’s a tad offensive to just call those concerns “racist” without understanding the complexity of the problem. This is a complex issue that deserves to have a comprehensive policy which addresses the concerns of the host cities and towns, as well as the humanitarian issues at stake.
<
p>
This is what I see happening; illegal immigrants, because of their status, are exploited by businesses for their cheap labor and willingness to work without healthcare. Their presence in the market deflates unskilled labor wages and inflates rents, as many of them will cohabitate with relatives and friends in an effort to make the rent cost-effecitve, but will do so beyond the capacity of the apartment, creating crowding and health issues. This is happening is many urban communities, and some cities and towns are taking steps to create ordinances to address these conditions.
<
p>
There is also the little problem of educating their children. While the federal government is the entity that is supposed to monitor our borders, it also requires municipalities to educate all children regardless of status – the government does not provide extra funding to cover their expenses. These children can cost a city 35-40% than a native born child. What is also disturbing is that in terms of real population – these families aren’t even counted in our census, which drives state and federal grants. How can these cities have a reduction in population the school census is rising each year? Boston Mayor Tom Menino is finally taking the federal Census Bureau to task on this problem, as it affects so many programs.
<
p>
Cities and towns are also faced with mounting costs related to the lack of healthcare, as these populations will either wait until they are quite sick and require emergency services (which could have been avoided with proper healthcare) or they use emergency services because that’s the only kind of healthcare they know about. It’s a great concern for many cities and towns.
<
p>
You’ve also raised the issue about in-state tuition for illegal immigrants. I’ll admit to being conflicted about that, particularly with the limited resources that the state sets aside for secondary education. While it makes sense to have an educated population regardless of immigration status -the resources are still limited and costs at state colleges and universities are among the highest in the country. There are some in my working class neighborhood who believe that giving instate tuition to illegal immigrants is tantamount to rewarding illegal behavior. It’s a hard nut to crack when so many people are struggling.
<
p>
So pile on, shoot the messenger…give me all the 3s you want. It won’t mean a thing at the polls.
Um, CentristDem? Who’s piling on or giving you 3’s? You’re not being oppressed here. In fact, a quick spin over your past comments shows a few with low ratings, but far more with 5’s and 6’s. No attack here. 🙂
<
p>
I would like to respond to some of your assertions; not to pile on, but to respond. This is indeed a complex issue, and I wonder about where some of your comments come from.
<
p>
For instance, you wrote:
many of them will cohabitate with relatives and friends in an effort to make the rent cost-effecitve, but will do so beyond the capacity of the apartment, creating crowding and health issues.
<
p>
I would say that this is true of many low-income communities, as well as those who aren’t necessarily poor but are currently low on money, like students and recent grads. It’s part of a larger housing crisis. Is the appropriate answer to crack down on immigrants who are crammed into housing without mentioning others? personally, I’d rather address the housing crisis!
<
p>
You wrote: it also requires municipalities to educate all children regardless of status – the government does not provide extra funding to cover their expenses.
<
p>
I’m not an education policy expert, but my understandign is that state and federal aid to schools is not based on a student’s immigrant status. School administrators report numbers of enrolled students–I don’t know of any asterisks based on legal status–that would be a bureaucratic nightmare. Indeed, I doubt that most schools KNOW students’ legal status. So what’s this assertion based on? Any teachers here want to weigh in?
<
p>
These children can cost a city 35-40% than a native born child.
<
p>
Where does that number come from? Why would undocumnted children cost more to have in a classroom that documented students? I’d guess that overall, it’s less, because they have access to far fewer services.
<
p>
What is also disturbing is that in terms of real population – these families aren’t even counted in our census, which drives state and federal grants.
<
p>
This is certainly contrary to my understanding. I know a few people who worked for the 2000 census, including one woman I was dating at the time. They were instructed to count everyone, and there were big assurances to the public that the census numbers wouldn’t report immigration status.
<
p>
Now, it’s true that undocumented immigrants are undercounted because many are less likely to answer the door. Tehre are similar undercounting problems among the poor in general, particularly the homeless, and among linguistic minorities. But the answer to that is to improve census counting procedures and to use statistical sampling.
<
p>
This is long, so I’ll continue in another comment.
FCG, the housing crisis is not being addressed – not at all. And the more affordable (think poorer and urban) communties are being squeezed by this overcrowding. We have illegal defacto rooming housing cropping up, because a landlord will rent to a couple, and then eight – ten people will wind up living there. Do you know what we’re seeing? Three or four people to a room, with sheets hanging from a ceiling defining their space. And they’ll be crammed in the living room, dining room, etc. Do you think this is healthy? It’s not. This is what our fire/police/EMS are telling us. And to say graduate students “do this” doesn’t diminish this problem one bit. Do you not think that their presence is adding to the crisis? Your blythe suggestion to “address the housing crisis” suggest that communties are supposed to tread water until legislators decide to do something? What are we supposed to do in the mean time – just let it happen?
<
p>
I did state that federal law requires cities and towns to educate children regardless of status. You’re right; grant programs are based on school census, but these children do cost more do educate them – hence my remark that while the feds insist we educate non-citizens, they don’t provide any extra funding. Bilingual education and special education can cost significantly more per capita and you only need to head out to the DOE website and look at the per capita spend data. Once these kids are in the school system, that have access to any services that native born children are entitled to…so the costs are not less, as you seem to have assumed.
<
p>
You may have known a few people who worked on the 2000 census..but that does NOT mean that all people are being counted. Additionally, Mayor Menino has expressed his skepticism with the Federal Census bureau because their metrics of estimating populations between the big census years does a huge disservice to communities with surging illegal immigrant populations. Did you know that serious grant money opens up to communities greater than 50K. But what if 10-15% of your community is “hidden” in plain sight, and you can’t access those funds? That’s what’s happening in some Massachusetts communities. One of the clues that we use is that our trash tonnage has gone through the roof, while recycling has stayed static, not to mention our escalating school population. Oh sure – “improve the census counting procedures” while these cities are just struggling to keep their heads above water.
<
p>
Not hold people accountable…just make the census better. Oye.
Sorry this is long, but, well, you said a lot!
<
p>
these populations will either wait until they are quite sick and require emergency services (which could have been avoided with proper healthcare) or they use emergency services because that’s the only kind of healthcare they know about.
<
p>
It’s not about not “knowing” about other kinds of healthcare; it’s about not having insurance from work, not being eligible for MassHealth, and being afriad of being reported by medical workers (fortunately, that doesn’t happen, but the fear remains). If you want to change that, let’s improve people’s access to care–like by offering legal status!
<
p>
While it makes sense to have an educated population regardless of immigration status -the resources are still limited and costs at state colleges and universities are among the highest in the country.
<
p>
As I mentioned in my comment above, this would NOT actually cost the state money. Sevearl studies have come to the same conclusion. Without in-state tuition, these students genreally can’t afford to go to school, so they pay no tuition. If they can pay in-state, that’s thousands each year that they’re paying. Increasing enrollment increases revenues.
<
p>
I’m sorry that this is long, but I have real questions about many things you said. If you have stuff to back up your assertions, I’d love to see it. And if not, well, I hope that you’ll reconsider any position that’s based on misconceptions.
FSG – illegal immigration does have a cost and it is costing cities and towns a bundle while the federal government dithers with a comprehensive policy that addresses all concerns. That’s what I advocated in my post; that it is a complex issue that deserves a comprehensive policy. I’m not getting an sense of concern for this problem from you – you just want to make them legal. Nice pat answer. Here’s an article from the Houston Chronicle, which was posted on Free Republic. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1651237/posts and here’s another study, from the Center for Immigration Studies.
http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html
<
p>
Sorry, FCG, but relative to in-state tuition benefits; the bottom line is that state resources are limited. If more people obtain in-state tuition – then the slice is smaller for everyone. While your study may look at the impact of tuition costs on immigrants, unless there is a corresponding decrease in enrollment that is impacting the university – then the argument doesn’t have legs. I have also seen studies that have indicted that the high cost of college tuition in general is forcing families who might have put their children in private colleges into state schools. The high cost of state schools is also forcing the children of native born working class citizens into alternatives like the military or directly to work; it will be difficult for them to understand the push for instate tuition for illegal immigrants.
<
p>
Additionally – we’re talking about fundamental fairness. State resources are for a state’s citizens. We routinely charge higher rates to U.S. citizens from out-of-state. Yet, we have people living illegally in Massachusetts, and ywe want to give them in-state benefits? Congress enacted a law against this already, although some states ignore it. What about the U.S. citizens from out of state? They’re Americans, after all…it just doesn’t make sense.
Other US citizens from out of state can get in-state tuition after residing in Mass for one year. The in-state tuition bill would have required that non-resident students (which includes undocumented students but by the way, also includes [b]people who are here fully legally[/b] but their paperwork hasn’t come through yet) live here at least 3 years and attend and graduate a Massachusetts high school. This is why the court in Texas threw out a challenge against non-Texas students who sued the state because they couldn’t get in-state tuition while non-resident students could. Guess what, the court said: you can, you just have to actually live in Texas.
<
p>
Most of our state colleges are actually [b]under-enrolled[/b]. This is why Romney’s own Board of Higher Education endorsed the in-state tuition bill and said that they believed it would bring in about $1 million a year to the public university system.
<
p>
Lastly, do you know that we are talking about an estimated 400 kids eligible every year for in-state tuition? 400 kids [b]e-l-i-g-i-b-l-e[/b]. Then they would have to pay the tuition, fees, and cost of living out of pocket without the help of loans or scholarships. How many of those 400 do you think would actually take advantage of this? The in-state tuition bill unfortunately was only going to help a very small minority of dedicated students who can work full time while attending school (some legally, because like I said, some are here fully legally, but they aren’t considered “residents” in the law).
<
p>
Finally, to address the issue of whether educating immigrants costs “more money” than educating people who were born here: that is already included in the Chapter 70 formula. Call the Ways and Means and ask to talk to their education person: cities and towns with more language-minority kids (because that’s what we’re talking about here) get more money under Chapter 70 to be able to educate those kids.
“Sorry, FCG, but relative to in-state tuition benefits; the bottom line is that state resources are limited.”
<
p>
Wait, weren’t you one of the people on here pointing out that we had a budget surplus while we were talking about pushing for tax decreases? Maybe it was someone else.
Gabrieli’s position on ILLEGAL immigration comes from his own life experience. Gabrieli is the son of LEGAL immigrants. His parents left Hungary and came to America legally. All of their relatives and friends remained in Europe. They knew no one in America. In spite of that fact, they learned English, became American citizens, started their own business, worked hard and raised 2 very successful sons. Coming from this immigrant backround, it is not surprising that Chris sees a real distinction between those who come to America LEGALLY vs. those who come to America ILLEGALLY. I agree with Chris that Governor Romney and the chief law enforcement officer in the state, Attorney General Tom Reilly, should have done more to make sure that companies that are awarded state contracts do not hire ILLEGAL immigrants. In fact, Martha Coakley said that she “believes the state DOES have legal latitude to go after companies that hire illegal immigrants. She said that all employers should be on a level playing field and that, unlike Reilly, she would investigate alleged law breakers.” The companies that were primarily called into question in the Globe’s story on Sunday were construction companies and contractors who were awarded state-funded projects(eg: the Big Dig). According to the Globe these companies and contractors have relied heavily on undocumented workers. The jobs in question here are “good jobs at good wages”. Shouldn’t these jobs go to American citizens and documented workers? Hiring undocumented workers undoubtedly hurts union workers as well. Gabrieli’s position on this issue is correct. If immigration laws will not be enforced against the offending companies who hire these undocumented workers, what incentive is there for immigrants to abide by our laws and legally come to America? Offending companies are not part of the “vulnerable population” that you say Tom Reilly seeks to protect but rather are they are greedy. Their practice of hiring undocumented workers hurts those that play by the rules: American citizens, union workers and documented workers and should not be subsidized by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
I agree with this and with what CentristDem had to say. As the child of a mother who immigrated with her family LEGALLY for economic and educational opportunity, I have to say it’s wrong for the far left to lump illegal immigrants into the same category as LEGAL immigrants. The far left has to stop playing the victim card on anybody who dares to say that somebody who is here illegally should not have the same rights and opportunities as one who came into our country through legal channels and has abided by our laws. The far left has to stop branding those who disagree with them as, in so many words, prejudiced against all immigrants when the problem is that of ILLEGAL immigration.
Who’s playing the victim card, CMG? And who’s this “far left” you speak of? You write that this far left is calling people prejudiced, and CentristDem says that it’s offensive for concerns to be called racist.
<
p>
But do a search for the word “racist” on this page. It only occurs a few times, largely in the context of Alexwill’s initial comment. And in that, he talks about the fact that race and lanugage are part of the debate. I trust that you’ll agree that racism is in the public discourse around this issue–if not, there are many sources you can find throughout the media and blogosphere that demonstrate it clearly. But alexwill also clearly says that he is NOT calling Gabrieli a racist.
<
p>
So I’d watch your own playing of that victim card–no one is making any accusations against you. But what people including myself ARE doing is raising real questions about the stance that Gabrielihas taken and that you appear to back. I haven’t seen anyone respond with justifications for those positions yet. If you care to, please do. But don’t just talk about how it’s unfair for people to call you names when they aren’t actually doing so.
If CG is referring to contractors that hold state contracts and have breeched those contracts by employing un documented workers, he is 100% right. Incidentally how can you (FCG) justify contractors exploiting any workers and not being held accountable?
I’m not justifying contractors exploiting workers at all, leftisright! That’s a major distortion of my words. Where do you think I say that? Can you find me a quote? check my comments page and read what I’ve written.
<
p>
To the contrary, I’ve said that Reilly’s position of allowing immigrant workers to report exploitation (such as the wage and hour violations, unsafe conditions, sexual harassment, etc. that are rife among undocumented workers) without investigating these workers’ immigration status. If the AG had a policy of using those complaints to pursue the contractors for employing undocumented workers, they would be far less likely to come forward. So the reality would be far more exploitation further under the radar.
Im misunderstanding this ” How does Gabrieli propose to deal with employers who are exploiting immigrant workers, paying them below minimum wage, exposing them to hazardous conditions, etc? Enforcing those laws requires workers reporting. This is risky for any workers, but particularly so if they fear that they may end up fired or deported for bringing it up. Reilly’s policy makes good law-enforcement sense. Without it, employers will continue to hire undocumented immigrants–they’ll just mask it better and keep the potential union organizers or whistle-blowers quiet”
<
p>
It requires no whistle blowing at all it requires oversight from the state. Companies that contract with the state have an overabundance of rules and regulations, these companies cam be held accountable on breech of contract, false claims and fraud. Right now the SAO should be auditing these firms and the AG shouyld be nailing them. Tom Reilly can and I am sure he will step in just like he did with the big dig and be a leader on this and he should.
<
p>
This is more about the big guys than the workers lets not forget who is committing fraud and exploting humans. OIn adition there are legit companies that did not get these contracts that would have employed documented Massachusets’ residents.
CentralMassGuy, I absolutely agree with you on this. The conflation of illegal with legal (and the attempts to redefine “illegal” as undocumented, temporary, etc) causes discussions of this issue to deteriorate quickly into denunciations.
<
p>
That said, there is a small, hard to quantify, but (I think) significant portion of the groups who are most vocally opposed to illegal immigration who seem to be generally opposed to all immigration, and most particularly to the immigration of people who have more melanin. This requires that we tread carefully with respect to this issue.
<
p>
I agree that it would help if the pro-amnesty side would refrain from denouncing all who oppose them, either directly or indirectly through code words, as crypto-racists.
<
p>
It seems to me that, unless you are in favor of completely open borders–that is, unlimited legal immigration– you have to contend with the probelm of illegal immigrants. And any benefit bestowed upon the population of illgeal immigrants– whether for “human rights” or utilitarian purposes– is unfair to those who want to immigrate, but are waiting for the opportunity to do so illegally.
I als have met some very vocal citizens that are offended that they took the time and made the efort to become US citizens.
And for the record, I never wrote the word “racist” or referred to any particular blogger as having called anybody “racist”. That came out of nowhere.
<
p>
I did write that there is an implication that if a view is taken that is anything but 100% amnesty for illegals that the person expressing that view is considered by many of a particular political ilk to be picking on ALL immigrants and foreigners.
<
p>
After all, this was at the top of the original post:
<
p>
“According to this morning’s Boston Globe story, Chris Gabrieli has joined the anti-immigrant pile on by criticizing Tom Reilly for not deploying limited state resources to combat the hiring of illegal immigrants on state projects”
<
p>
Those were not my words!
it’s not lumping illegal immigrants in with the rest of us, it’s the rest of us standing in solidarity with those who couldn’t get in legally but came anyway. the immigration laws are prejudiced against certain countries, so those who enter illegally are likely to be from those countries restricted by the law, and so in many cases, especially along the southern border, “illegal” is used to replace racial language and make it about “the law” instead. also, i don’t know when your family immigrated or became citizens, but my families experience throughout the 90s until we became citizens in summer 01 was that we were given special treatment at nearly every step for being white and native speakers of english, and it still took over a decade all together.
<
p>
as i’ve said, uniformity of opinion is not what the problem is. as I said in my initial post, Reilly’s position against driver’s licenses is a reasonable position though i disagree with it. on the other, Gabrieli’s rhetoric is playing into anti-immigrant fears and is not constructive in coming up with solutions for integrating immigrant members of our community safely or moving forward the debate towards real immigration reform federally. i once again reiterate that i am not calling CG a racist in anyway, or saying that anyone who talks about “legals” and “illegals” is either, but that doing so divides the communities and pushes the debate to the right.
Odd pattern emerging here. Gabrieli takes a nuanced or independent stance on an issue, and supporters of rival candidates try to blow it up into a major ideological rift in which he’s on the side of the demons.
<
p>
Thinks the tax rollback can be done on conditions? He’s a Republican-framing panderer.
<
p>
Not interested in declaring war on the legislature over a single ex-lawmaker’s pension? He’s a business-as-usual insider.
<
p>
Willing to distinguish between legal and illegal immigrants? He’s a race-baiting right-winger.
<
p>
These attacks prove he’s the perceived frontrunner, at least.
Cannoneo, who called Gabrieli “race-baiting right-winger”? Maybe someone did, but I sure didn’t. Nor am I a supporter of the other candidates–I wrote above that I was going from not knowing about Gabrieli to living him, and I’ve written in several posts that I’m not especially fond of any of the candidates.
<
p>
To just dismiss real criticisms as sour-graping from other candidates because Gabs is a front-runner (is he? i haven’t seen polls saying that, though i know he’s surging) is not a real answer to any of the concerns raised here. As I said, I want to know how Gabrieli will ensure that abuses of immigrant worers are reported under this policy. I want to know why he rejects in-state tuition when it will acutally bring money into the state’s coffers. And I want to know if he is willing to look graduating seniors who can’t afford to pay out-of-state tuition rates but who’ve lived and contributed to their communities in Massachusetts for years that he opposes a bill that would allow them to afford college. The latter of those are questions that I’ve written about wnating to hear from Romney and healey about. I’m disappointed to ask them of an otherwise progressive Democrat.
<
p>
If you want to answer them, I’d love to hear it. But don’t just wish it away by saying that it’s all because I support other candidates.
What? We can’t comment on a candidate when we think he is wrong, or worse, pandering, unless he is the frontrunner? Talk about making a silk purse from a sow’s ear. The worst part about this is that Gabrieli really knows better. He’s a better person than this. But this stuff happens when you run for Governor.
is not as important an issue here as it is being depicted in the press. A recent rasmussen poll
portrays our attitude toward the entire problem as generally more liberal in Ma. than other states.
From a political standpoint Reilly’s instant, first response, non apologetic position picks up a lot of support from liberals and seems to be a neutral with the independents. I think most Republicans are indifferent to the problem.
<
p>
The positive response here to Reilly from those who have bashed him in the past is even more interesting to me. I wonder if the kool aid buzz is starting to wear off?
According to the Rasmussen poll cited by rightmiddleleft, 58% of MA respondents want enforcement of our existing immigration laws first before any guest worker legislation. I’m assuming that they mean this to apply to their own state’s laws.
<
p>
A politician cannot be blind to the will of the people. What you call “playing the immigrant card,” itself a misnomer (try “illegal immigrant” card,) perhaps reflects Gabrieliâs heartfelt position on the issue and not the craven political tactic you think it is.
<
p>
Certainly the in-state tuition bill was shot down because of the furor raised by MA voters, an attitude reinforced by the sentiments revealed in the Rasmussen poll.
<
p>
And, why, as the 2 “centralmass” guys correctly point out, is the debate being twisted into one of immigration, without the “illegal.”
<
p>
There’s another aspect which, if true, spells trouble for Tom Reilly, and that is whether MA has laws against hiring illegals, and, if so, why Reilly is not enforcing these laws. (The Globe and Herald articles this AM certainly identify the problem as significant.)
<
p>
A recent Globe article suggests we indeed have state laws prohibiting the hiring of illegals: (“Reilly Reiterates Stance on Workers,” June 20, 2006, by Yvonne Abraham and Jonathan Saltzman,) “Massachusetts law states, in part: ‘It shall be unlawful for any employer knowingly to employ any alien in the Commonwealth . . . who has not been admitted to the United States for permanent residence, except those who are admitted under a work permit.’
<
p>
If this is true, it seems to me that Tom Reilly has no latitude in enforcing laws against employing illegals because it’s a “federal matter.” If it’s state law, too, it’s his job to enforce it.
<
p>
It’s one thing for our state’s attorney general to claim it’s too complicated or too expensive to enforce these laws. It’s another to claim he finds them unjust or unfair which is the jist of how I perceive Reilly’s position.
<
p>
If voters also perceive this, Reilly’s toast. You can’t, as AG, pick and choose what laws to enforce. Is this how he’d act as govenor? And, as a politician, you can’t poke your finger in the eye of 58% of the people and expect to be elected governor.
<
p>
Kudos to Gabrieli for standing up for the law of the land. And kudos to Gabrieli for slamming Reilly’s dereliction of duty.
I know most of you do not listen to WRKO but there were a number of callers this morning to Scott Allen Miller’s show with first hand knowledge of the “techniques” used by employers to avoid paying wages, taxes and benefits.
<
p>
One caller, who was a carpenter’s union shop steward, claimed one out-of-state contractor, with the blessing of his union’s management, imported hundreds of illegal workers into MA. He claimed the contractor was taking back wages and benefits and avoiding worker’s comp and unemployment taxes.
<
p>
He kicked around fantastic numbers: $250,000 a week in wage savings and take-backs plus who knows what in non-payment of benefits and employment taxes.
<
p>
I know this is talk-radio talk, and perhaps it’s exaggerated or total BS. I can’t say. The facts need to be investigated, especially in light of the Globe and Herald articles this morning.
<
p>
I’d be demanding an investigation, but that responsibility falls on Tom Reilly so I’ll save my breath.
<
p>
Memo to progressives: this is what your policy of promoting, encouraging, enabling and allowing illegal immigration has wrought. Thousands of well-paying jobs which could go to MA residents instead are being filled by non-taxpaying illegal immigrants.
<
p>
Your progressive orthodoxy in support of “immigration” — that’s illegal immigration — has actually had the unintended consequence of further driving the truly at risk â- the abused, battered and physically exploited â- underground because you support policies which encourage illegal immigration in the first place. Are not the $10 an hour laborers exploited? Yet you welcome illegals with open arms.
<
p>
You worry how “people [meaning illegals] are going to come forward when they are being wronged?” Well, they’re being wronged RIGHT NOW and you applaud Tom Reilly for sticking his head in the sand about it.
<
p>
Furthermore, you don’t think the average MA taxpayer is going to be furious over this issue? They’re paying their taxes yet thousands of illegals don’t pay theirs. Plus what about all the fraudulent Social Security Numbers being used? The fake employee tax ID numbers? When was the last time you visited an hospital emergency room? Itâs where illegals go for health care (until they get universal access to MassHealthâ¦without having to pay taxes!) And to think in-state tuition was even contemplated. No wonder the state house phones rang off the hook.
<
p>
Illegal immigration is costing the honest, taxpaying residents of MA jobs and money, and they have every right to blow their lids. Chris Gabrieli may have just increased his chance to become governor by a factor of 10.
and what do you think the minimum wage should be?
$20 an hour. What about you?
How come I think you are setting me up!!!!!
I meant to say zero.
Based on today’s Boston Herald article: Patrick says AG ‘Shirking responsibility’, it appears that Patrick’s position regarding illegal immigration has evolved and is now closer to Gabrieli’s than Reilly’s. Today, Patrick indicated that “…there are state laws, wage and hour laws that are your(Reilly’s) responsibilty. And the failure to enforce those laws have cost the state $150 million year after year.” In this same article, Gabrieli stated “I think the focus should be on employers who are clearly exploiting these people.” Moreover, in yesterday’s Boston Globe Gabrieli stated that he doesn’t think there’s an excuse for the state of Massachusetts to say it’s fine to do business with companies that knowingly hire ILLEGAL immigrants. Furthermore,in the Herald article union officials claim that this practice of hiring ILLEGAL immigrants “is used to avoid paying taxes and workers compensation insurance and is illegal under the state’s independent contractor law.”
<
p> How can anyone possibly justify Reilly’s do nothing approach?
<
p>
Reilly’s position would certainly make the democrats very vulnerable in the general election. After all, no one can deny that Chris Gabrieli is a huge proponent of LEGAL immigration having been its product but he sees a distiction between LEGAL and ILLEGAL immigration as do most voters. The companies that take advantage of illegals at the expense of fellow American citizens and union workers are indefensible and should be punished.
But that may be intentional.
<
p>
Patrick is saying (in my view) that everyone deserves the same protection afforded by the wage and hour laws.
<
p>
Please explain to me how that makes his position equally anti-immigrant as the Gabbers?
…yet so far.
<
p>
“Memo to progressives: this is what your policy of promoting, encouraging, enabling and allowing illegal immigration has wrought. Thousands of well-paying jobs which could go to MA residents instead are being filled by non-taxpaying illegal immigrants.”
<
p>
You know, you had me and you lost me. We have laws and its right that we enforce them. But just because I’m progressive doesn’t mean I support or “enable” illegal immigration. We progressives just have a different approach. While the troglodite GOP wants to station one guardsman for every mile of the US-Mexico border, we lobby for debt relief and increased trade support for Mexico so maybe Mexicans won’t WANT to leave their country to begin with. The same goes for other third world countries.
Fanciful? Not so much as forming the human chain over thousands of miles of desert.
<
p>
The difference between you and me is what to do with these people once they’re here. While you and Mitt Romney would waste state police trooper time and money scouring under every park bench for illegal immigrants, and apparently not have them work, I’d rather see them get jobs, had homes, and sent their children to school, instead of collect welfare with fraudulent tax ID numbers. Does that mean amnesty? Yeah, maybe.
<
p>
And about the in-state tuition. That one really gets me, because this is one that we progressives just coffed up the ball on. You take a kid in any public school, the child of illegal immigrant parents, or an illegal herself. She goes on and becomes valedictorian of her high school class, and then goes, god forbid, to a Massachusetts state college – are you really going to look that kid in the eye and say “You can’t get in-state tuition or scholarships?” Really? Because that’s just cruel and mean spirited (but then that’s just being in the GOP). Here’s someone that could be a doctor or an engineer, and make a contribution to society. Instead, you’re kicking her back down to the bottom rung of the economic ladder.
<
p>
Nice work.
<
p>
PS – Enjoy Superman Returns. He’s an illegal.
…REALLY surprised???
<
p>
The guy has been an opportunist from the start.
TrueBlueDem are you saying Gabrieli is opportunistic? PLEASE. His position on ILLEGAL immigration has not changed. In fact,it has been very consistent: as democrats we have to make a distiction between legal and illegal immigration and since his parents are legal immigrants I think he speaks from a wealth of experience. Reilly’s position of: do nothing about the employers who employ them is extremely harmful to American workers. Patrick’s position also appears to be evolving to one closer to Chris’ and I am glad to see that evolution taking place. When Patrick said in the debate that he credits Chris with making him more thoughtful, I guess he meant it.
<
p>
yes.
If you’re Chris Gabrieli, why even play this card and risk not only losing your liberal base, but the vote of the hispanic population (increasingly large) that IS eligible to vote because you came out against their friends? Is this REALLY the issue that’s going to vault him past Reilly with the centrists? Seems kind of dumb to me.
How about we talk about what’s right and wrong instead of what wins elections?