After reading today’s Globe I searched–in vain–for retractions or reconsiderations of the praise recently heaped on Tom Reilly for his brave stance on immigration: Reilly the Liberal. Seems that Reilly said yesterday that he’d be open to using State to arrest undocumented immigrants: Candidates on Immigration. What happened to his principled stand? Eventually, Reilly indicated that he was talking about detaining immigrants who’d broken the law, but that’s a fudge: he’d also said he would consider having state troopers “deputized to enforce federal immigration laws,” and one certainly doesn’t need to do that in order to arrest criminals. So he’s trying both to play both sides of this one. This isn’t nuance; it’s not complexity; it’s sheer contradiction. This kind of equivocation combined with professions of straight-shooting commitment to responsibility is not a first for him: check your files headed “tax rollbacks” and “gay marriage.” I am still waiting for those so taken with what appeared to be his stance earlier this week to express their disappointment that he has–again–trimmed his sails.
I liked Patrick’s point about enforcing wage laws. This is a much more productive, plausible, and humane solution. It takes away incentives to hire foreign workers because they are more easily exploited. That’s the problem with the state police thing. All these people after the workers provides a strong disincentive to reporting any violation of laws involving work conditions (and I consider violating those laws to be a more serious offense than violating laws designed to keep people who just want a better life out of the country.)
<
p>
Danny
I think the key to the illegal immigration problem is to make it a less attractive option for employers.
<
p>
Here’s what I’d propose.
<
p>
We fine companies that higher undocumented workers $20,000 per violation. When an undocumented worker turns in his employer, we work to give that worker legal status and earmark $5,000 of that fine towards expenses pertaining to said worker receiving his citizenship, giving said worker an incentive to becoming a whistleblower.
<
p>
What do you think?
Here’s what I’d propose.
<
p>
Let’s offer everyone who has a job, and their immediate family, the opportunity to become citizens.
<
p>
In other words, let’s get rid of “illegal” aliens by making them citizens.
Let’s not reward them for that unless they do something to warrant a reward. Holding a job doesn’t warrant such reward in my opinion. There are others that could use that job who are legal.
<
p>
… like paying taxes?
Not paying taxes does warrant further punishement however. You don’t reward people for what is required of them or expected.
If everyone in the world can be a US citizen just by showing up, won’t that have some pretty drastic effects on those who are here and are already struggling?
<
p>
If you do not support unlimited immigration, then the existence of a limit implies that there will always be someone eho tries to evade the limit– there will always be illegal immigration.
<
p>
I think that your solution is aplatitude that solves nothing. It would just mean that we have the same issue to confront in 5, 10, 20 years.
No, I do not support unlimited immigration. Yes, there are people who will break our laws. Just like in other cases, when you catch them, they should be punished.
If everyone in the world can be a US citizen just by showing up, won’t that have some pretty drastic effects on those who are here and are already struggling?
<
p>
If you do not support unlimited immigration, then the existence of a limit implies that there will always be someone eho tries to evade the limit– there will always be illegal immigration.
<
p>
I think that your solution is aplatitude that solves nothing. It would just mean that we have the same issue to confront in 5, 10, 20 years.
I’m trying to get a candidate elected (who happens to have the right views on this issue, so far as I’ve seen).
<
p>
You’ll have to wait for my book to come out.
<
p>
But since you asked twice, CMD, you must REALLY want an answer…
<
p>
Unlimited immigration is a whole nother issue. Your leaps would make Clark Kent proud. I was suggesting that people who have jobs here (and their families) should be offered citizenship. It’s an empirical test. They are working. They are paying taxes. NSB protests that they shouldn’t be “rewarded” for this. Since when is not being rewarded for hard work the American Way?
<
p>
As for the comment about “okay, if there is zero unemployment…” or something to that effect — wake up! We have no unemployment in this country (as a whole). Sure, you can find pockets of it, and there are plenty of people looking for work, but there are also plenty of job vacancies going unfilled.
<
p>
Economists have a phrase for it: “structural unemployment.” There are always people in between jobs for a variety of reasons. Whether the natural level for that is 3% or 5% or some other number is like arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. We are at full employment in this country, and our restrictive immigration policy is a drag on our economy.
<
p>
People (including my candidate) piss and moan about how Massachusetts is losing population, but I’ve never been convinced that’s a bad thing. And how much of it is a result of a low birthrate and a low immigration rate? Not to get off the subject…
“The state puts its trust in those that work with us to take great care with taxpayer money when providing services for the citizens of Massachusetts”
<
p>
I hope he applies this philosphy to those companies that hold state contracts and employee undocumented workers. I also ho[pe he remembers the citizens of Massachusetts puts trust in him and his office for doing so.
to those who very much want to emigrate from the place they are to the United States, and seek to do so in a legal manner.
<
p>
Those people are no less likely to want to work hard in the US and pay US taxes, and have actually demostrated a propensity to be law abiding.
<
p>
While they wait patiently, others who ignore the rules and jump the line would be hugely rewarded.
<
p>
If the incentives are such that there is a benefit to be gained by breaking the law, and a corresponding penalty to be paid for following it, what is the point of the enterprise? That is not, in my view, functionally different from unlimited immigartion, because the “limit” imposed is devoid of significance.
<
p>
It is as if the highway speed limit was set at 60, and if a motorist is caught driving in excess of the speed l;imit, the motorist gets paid. That would no longer be a speed limit in any meaningful sense.
a more accurate scenerio would be if one was caught driving over 60 without a license and was caught. They could be offered the pathway and opportunity to get a license……..or not.
I like the spirit of your comment, but I’d have to disagree with a couple of particulars.
<
p>
You say Patrick’s solution
<
p>
Well, not exactly. It reduces the temptation to exploit foreign workers who don’t have green cards, but it shouldn’t remove the incentive to hire them.
<
p>
And, you mention
<
p>
Again, not exactly my interpretation. What makes you think along those lines? My take on it is that the immigration quotas are designed to limit the number of new citizens and to allocate those scarce allotments according to some arbitrary system of desirability. It’s a good example of how those who worship at the alter of the Market As God are willing to overthrow their sacred principle in order to shape social policy.
<
p>
Let’s keep in mind in all of this that our economy would absolutely collapse if wrong-headed plans like Mitt’s “Great Round-Up” became de rigueur. That’s certainly true here in the Berkshires, and it has nothing to do with how much (or little) people are paid, but everything to do with having enough bodies to fill available jobs.
<
p>
Can you imagine the state of this country if 10 to 20 million working non-citizens and their dependents were rounded up and deported?
our unemployment rate were zero.
<
p>
As long as there are citizens who are in need of work, I strongly beleive that many of these undocumented workers could be replaced by a citizen labor force.
<
p>
If the companies were forced to pay a prevailing wage, they might not hire as many citizens, and the cost of goods would increase, but I think it is nowhere near what so many people fear. For example, the labor cost in harvesting produce is pennies per unit. Is it really going to kill us if that labor cost doubles?
<
p>
like all those “citizens” being denied jobs apple picking?
Well, you seem to “search in vain” for those retractions pretty quickly–I tend to do my blogging after work. đŸ™‚
<
p>
But definitely count me among those disappointed with Reilly. Not only is this draconian, but it’s bad policing. When a federal law (the CLEAR Act) attempted to make all local police enforcement responsible for immigration enforcement, police chiefs across the country opposed it. If you want to have any chance of enforcing the law in immigrant communities, then you can’t have those who violated immigration laws (a civil, not criminal offense, incidentally) afraid to call the cops if they’re robbed, assaulted, etc.
<
p>
John Daley, a blogging Boston plice officer, made a similar point after Romney made his proposal yesterday (though he makes clear that he’s not speaking in an official capacity or on behalf of his employer). It’s a shame that a Democrat, and one who had done some good things on immigration, is now lending legitimacy to Romney’s pandering.
<
p>
So in a few days, Romney and Gabrieli have both lost my vote. Let’s see if Deval will manage to disgust me with someothing tomorrow.
Contrary to the assertions of this post’s author, Tom Reilly did make it abundantly clear that he was only supportive of a state police role in detaining illegal immigrants who had committed crimes. Reilly was unwilling to commit to any broader role for the state police absent details. This is all pretty clear if you read the Boston Globe story:
<
p>
<
p>
The entire story can be found here if you would prefer to read an impartial account.
Thank you for clearing up the record by posting the more pertinent quotes and analysis.
In my original post, I linked to the same complete story you do here, and I did so because it supports my original contention: Reilly’s position is, as I said, “a fudge.” He at once says that he’s open to Mitt’s proposal and adds a qualification that obfuscates the issue through a non sequitur (a non sequitur, again, because it takes no special “deputization” to have non-federal troops arrest people who are committing assorted crime). It’s very clear that Reilly is trying to send signals on both sides of the issue. If it is not fair to paint his statements yesterday as less than firmly opposed to going after undocumented workers seems unfair, then his campaign should lodge a complaint with the Globe, which in both its headline and its story suggest that there’s a big difference between Patrick’s dismissal of Romney’s proposal and Reilly’s response. But I’d not hold my breath waiting for that complaint, since I think the candidate got just what he wanted out of the coverage.
If Reilly “wanted” the coverage, he would have issued a statement or made a point of raising the issue during the debate. As the story points out, all of the candidates’ statements on this issue were the product of questions from the media after the debate. The facts don’t support a strategic effort to straddle the issue.
But MavDem, the state police already have authority to detain those who’ve committed crimes, regardless of their immigration status. It’s the basic power to arrest. Is that all that Reilly is proposing?
<
p>
I don’t think taht one makes a statement like that–while also being “noncommittal” about Romney’s proposal–if one isn’t trying to test the waters and appease the right. And that gives legitimacy to Romney’s proposal, which i find crass and disappointing.
What’s the point of saying you’d hold illegal immigrants who commit crimes? If someone has committed a crime, it’s kind of obvious they’d be held, no?
Am I missing something?
(Note, the above should read “immigrants who commit non-immigration crimes”; I didn’t include the phrase to avoid fuzzying the issue that I think we are talking about, which is, an illegal immigrant who commits a crime such as shop-lifting, and according to Reilly would then “held”. Duh!!)
It’s clear that, nationally, voters want:
<
p>
(1) effective border control
(2) illegals to return home and apply for citizenship, if that’s what they want
(3) a secure guest worker ID program
(4) taxes paid like everyone else
(5) stop using welfare, emergency room and other social services (if not paying taxes)
(5) no automatic citizenship to illegals’ babies born here.
<
p>
What doesn’t fly (30/70) is a pro-active deportation plan.
<
p>
In other words, America wants a big fence-big gate policy.
<
p>
These sentiments differ wildly from what many posts on BMG recommend. You can Google for national poll results — there are many — but it is safe to say that these polls in a range from the low 80’s — off the chart — to lows in the high 50’s. Without doing the weighted-avergae math, my rough calc is an average combined score in the high 60’s.
<
p>
In MA, according to the Rasmussen poll, strict border enforcement get’s 58%. Even the anchor-baby issue is in the 50’s.
<
p>
That would seem to make BMG recommendations politcal non-starters, certainly at the national level but also at the local level.
<
p>
Reilly’s certainly painted himself into a corner. We’ll see if Patrick and Gabrielli do the same.