the school day by 2 additional hours. Natalie brought up Gabrilei’s parents’immigrant backround. Gabrieli stated that there is a diffrence between legal and illegal immigrants and that this difference should be recognized. Employers should not be allowed to hire illegals. These employers should be penalized and if these employers are doing business with the state, then their state contracts should be revoked. Additionally, Chris’ backround was discussed. Chris left medical school in order to help his parents’ failing business. He turned the family business around making it a very successful healthcare software company. He indicated that the decision to leave medical school was a tough one for him and his family as his parents had great hopes that he would be a doctor and it is always tougher for the older generation to ask a younger generation for help. Gabrieli said that the 2 most important things that he could teach his children are to stress the importance of love, support and commitment to family and that it is important to always stand up for what is right even when it is tough. Chris certainly showed his love, support and commitment to his own family by leaving Harvard Medical School when he was in his third year in order to help the family business. On a personal note, Gabrieli is a husband and father of 5 children, ages 12 through 5. If you haven’t already, you may want to take a closer look at Chris Gabrilei. I think that you will like what you see.
I’m just happy anytime a Democratic candidate for governor makes it through a Natalie Jacobsen interview without cursing her out. đŸ˜‰
Thanks for your report, and I’m always amused by sco’s sardonic comments!
<
p>
I know you are a Gabber acolyte, so perhaps this question is a waste of time, but do you agree with his position on immigration?
Also, maybe this subject has been done to death here, but what is an “illegal?”
<
p>
This seems to me like very right-wing framing. If you refer (as I assume you do) to undocumented workers, this statement strikes me as being simultaneously anti-business, anti-jobs, and anti-human rights.
<
p>
It’s not favorable for business because many businesses (at least in this area) would not be able to function without undocumented workers. I’m speaking of restaurants, house-painting contractors, motels, and innumberable other businesses. Is it your intention to drive these businesses out of business?
<
p>
It’s anti-job because the money these undocumented workers spend in the community (both directly through their purchases, and indirectly through the taxes they pay) have a tremendous ripple-effect in the local communities, creating jobs to meet the demand created by their purchases.
<
p>
It’s anti-human rights because it is singling out productive, law-abiding members of our society for disapproval.
<
p>
The “solution” you propose (or Gabrieli’s proposal, which you seem to endorse) would be a disaster for our economy, and create human tragedy on a wide scale.
<
p>
Instead, let’s welcome these people with open arms and give them the full rights and priveleges they so richly deserve.
but arguing illegal vs. undocumented is a Republican trap.
<
p>
I agree with most of your economic arguments however, I believe that most people (or I should say un-enrolled and Republican voters) tune out someone when they say illegal immigrants are not illegal but are undocumented. It is I believe a ridiculous attempt at trying to re-frame an issue that was not even framed by Republicans.
<
p>
This approach is why the left loosing. You can’t win an illegal vs. undocumented discussion and more importantly it diverts attention away from your goal, which I assume is to … “document” them?
Michael, normally I find your commentary to be very thoughtful and articulate. Though we’re backing different candidates, I give credit where credit is due.
<
p>
However, this most recent comment hit me as confusing. The definition of an illegal immigrant is one who has migrated into the United States and resides here without legally authorized permanent residence status as recognized and provided by the US government. So whether they crossed the border or entered with a visitor’s visa and decided to stay beyond expiration of the visa (two most common types of illegals), they are not approved to be here by the federal government. This definition does not consider whether they are gainfully or exploitatively employed, whether they are decent people or a societal threat, etc. They simply are not here with legal documentation. Perhaps that sounds cold, but that it what it is.
<
p>
You refer to illegal immigrants as “law-abiding”, but whether they haven’t committed a crime since committing their original crime of staying in the US without legal authority to do so is irrelevant.
<
p>
You argue that enforcing the laws outlawing the practice of hiring illegals to be anti-business, though you don’t seem to consider how the practice of hiring illegals gives those businesses an unfair competitive advantage over law-abiding businesses, nor does it seem to consider how the practice oftentimes exploits hired illegals by giving them disgustingly low wages, no benefits, and the ever-present threat of deportation should they dissent.
<
p>
You argue that enforcing the laws on the books would be anti-jobs, but don’t seem to consider the effect of hiring illegals in the trades has hurt law-abiding contractors and unions.
<
p>
While I feel for the plight many illegals endure and that a humane solution must be found, I believe that government must protect the interests of American citizens, immigrants who are here legally and those who seek to enter legally. Employers must be held accountable. As the son of a legal immigrant, I’d like to see businesses and individuals who play fair maintain the rights and benefits they richly earned by adhering to the law.