Chris Gabrieli has lately been making a lot of the (not that important in the grand scheme of things) issue of whether kids whose parents are undocumented immigrants should be allowed to pay in-state tuition at Massachusetts colleges. His stated goal: use in-state tuition as a wedge issue to separate himself from Deval Patrick and Tom Reilly, both of whom oppose punishing children for the misdeeds of their parents. Here’s the Globe article linked above:
On immigration, Gabrieli opposes offering reduced tuition at state colleges and universities to Massachusetts residents whose parents are in the United States without proper documentation.
Explaining Gabrieli’s closing thrust, [Gabrieli spokesman Joe] Ganley said: “We’re drawing distinctions on issues where we disagree with [Patrick,] and where we think he’s wrong.” …
Gabrieli, in the interview with the Globe, said, “If Deval Patrick has an electability problem it is because he is wrong on key issues.”
Turns out, though, that maybe Gabrieli isn’t as committed to the “anti” position as he’d lately led everyone to believe…
Just a month ago, on Aug. 15, Chris Gabrieli told Globe editors he did not feel strongly about the issue of giving favorable in-state tuitions to illegal immigrants seeking to attend UMass and other public colleges. While he wouldn’t propose it, Gabrieli said, “I never say I’m actually against it.” If the Legislature approved it, he added, “I have not said I’d veto it.”
His rationale: “I wish those kids would get the education, and I do feel they’re caught in between.” But there is a political problem for Democrats, he added. “Putting that out on our forehead is some kind of suicide impulse” suggesting that “our priority is to fund a group of kids whose parents are here illegally.”
Holy Toledo. Yes, Chris, there is a “political problem for Democrats.” It’s called “waffling.” It’s called “not being willing to take a position and stick to it.” It’s called “trying to have it both ways.” That, if nothing else, is the lesson Democrats should have learned from John Kerry’s disastrous “for it before I was against it” gaffe of 2004. I mean, what is he telling the Globe? That he’s against in-state tuition because he thinks it’s unpopular?
The Globe gets it exactly right:
[Gabrieli’s] recent campaign tactics could come from someone wanting to rebuild the Berlin Wall on this side of the Rio Grande. Educating young people and strengthening the economy are not out of the mainstream. There is another phrase for convincing the public that worthy children shouldn’t be caught in between: political leadership.
If Gabrieli (or anyone else) wants to be against in-state tuition for children of undocumented immigrants, fine – it’s a tough issue on which reasonable people can disagree (though I don’t ultimately think the arguments against in-state tuition are persuasive). But for God’s sake, be against it because you’re persuaded by the arguments, not by the polls.
I just wrote a diary on the same issue, but asked eschewed any effort to rationalize Gabrieli’s misquided attempt to exploit a politically-sensitive children’s issue, while taking stock of the three candidates’ records on the topic.
<
p>
I hope folks will take a moment to read it.
I can understand why the BMG editors would not want to place two diaries that address similar subject matter on the front page, but I did not want it to be lost on anybody just how much Tom Reilly put on the line for these immigrant children.
<
p>
Gabrieli is exploiting the issue for his political benefit.
<
p>
Patrick has the right position but did not undertake the politically-challenging, but necessary, lobbying that would obviously be needed to pass the bill.
<
p>
Tom Reilly stood tall, took the gutsy position, and then did the actual work of fighting for those kids, political baggage be damned.
Or does it also apply to Community COlleges???
How many people does this effect at UMASS??
The UMass system, state colleges, and community colleges.
Or is a State School the same as a Community College??
How many illegals does this effect??
Yes everyone should be educated! I agree
But aren’t these people that are going to these schools having to foot the entire bill themselves? So it is not the relatively impoverished illegals it is the ones that could probably afford to become legal. Is that correct?
<
p>
There is no opportunity for financial aid or scholarship for illegals right?? So the people that this will effect are able to afford to pay a lot of money correct???
in a couple of different threads. . .
<
p>
At Bunker Hill CC, the in-state tuition rate is $100/credit as compared to $306/credit for non-residents.
<
p>
At the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, the total estimated cost for Massachusetts residents for the 2005-2006 academic year is $15,795; for non-residents, it is $24,914. For someone who will likely have no other financial aid, the almost $10,000 difference is very significant.
<
p>
Illegal immigrant children cannot recieve federal or state financial aid.
<
p>
I’m not sure that I understand the remainder of your questions.
So for instance why not spend the 15K dollars and become legal??? They are coughing 15,000 real dollars to pay by themselves. So why not pay the money to become a legal resident???? Just a thought.
<
p>
Second I am not sure I understand the difference between a State College and a Community College do we have different ones here?
<
p>
Aren’t they all the same??
<
p>
I can see although I am not sure why UMass is different. Might be easier to just have one system as opposed to three???
In almost every case, they’re not paying $15,000 for out-of-state tuition. They’re just not going to college. They haven’t got that kind of money, and they’re not eligible for financial aid. Also, the MA bill requires students to swear either that they’ve initiated the citizenship process, or that they will when they’re eligible.
Your next position is a Federal issue. Irrelevant in the present context. Nothing can be done about that on a state basis so not worth discussing except to factor it into our analysis of the issue at hand. Whether or not ILLEGAL imigrants should recieve in state tuition.
…whether the (deserving) CHILDREN of illegal immigrants should receive in-state tuition, which would not, apparently, cost Mass residents a dime more than it would otherwise.
The issue, Coastal Dem, is the in-state tutition bill that was before the Massachusetts Legislature. It doesn’t get any more “state issue” than that.
<
p>
You were the one who asked about the eligibility for financial aid, which, yes, is a federal issue. I don’t see why you are jumping on us for answering your question.
Coastal Dem, that the vast majority of these children are trying to become legalized. However, it’s not like signing up for Sports Illustrated – you don’t just drop a check in the mail. It takes time – time that these kids could be receiving an education so that they will be more productive members of our state.
<
p>
The bill also requires the these students pursue lagalization.
By the time one is ready for college they are 18 years old at the youngest maybe 17. Why not start the process when they get here. Why not come here legally for that matter. I agree we should encourage legal imigration and we should encourage education.
Globe articles are not the standard bearer of truth. The Globe also say’s
that Patrick is against rolling back the income tax when his actual position is that he is not in favor of it now.
<
p>
That misrepresents Deval’s position just as you have misrepresented Gabrieli’s by excuding the fact that he has never said he opposes it. What he has said is that it’s not a priority.
<
p>
I believe Patrick just as I believe Gabrieli. Rolling back the income tax is not a priority for Deval but he has said there are conditions under which he might support it. Gabrieli has said that giving illegal immigrant’s children in-state tutition is not a priority for him but there are conditions under which he would support it. Same thing!
<
p>
The robocall I got and posted about said that Gabrieli “won’t spend your tax dollars” for in-state tuition. Also, his spokesman in the Globe article discussed above said they were drawing distinctions with Patrick when they thought he was “wrong” on an issue – including, specifically, in-state tuition.
<
p>
Let’s grant, for argument’s sake, that Gabs has never said, in public, precisely, in so many words, that he is “against” in-state tuition, or that he would “veto” the bill. So what? He clearly wants everyone to believe that he is – that’s why he keeps bringing it up as a wedge between himself on the one hand, and Patrick and Reilly on the other. He’s gotten himself into a “depends what the meaning of ‘is’ is” situation, and Kerry Healey is salivating over it.
I believe exactly what he said. It’s not a priority and it seems to be for Patrick and Reilly. It is a wedge issue, they have a difference of opinion on priorities.
<
p>
If you think Healey is salivating over Gabrieli’s position, what do you think she is doing over Patrick’s?
<
p>
“Oh no, Patrick is for in state tutition for illegal immigrant children. What ever will I do to counter that?”
this is exactly why I really do think Patrick is a bigger problem for Healey than Gabs is (regardless of what she or anyone else thinks right now). Of course she’ll campaign against Patrick’s favoring in-state tuition. And they can debate it, and Patrick can say it’s unfair to penalize children for the sins of their parents, etc. Both come out looking principled, and you agree with one or the other. But this is NOT a defining issue for most voters in this state, so the candidates’ views on the merits of the issue are not going to move that many voters either way.
<
p>
But Gabs says he doesn’t really care very much – he’s against it because in his estimation it’s a political liability. It’s “not a priority.” Well, sorry, but what the &*#$ does that mean? If he gets the bill, will he veto it, or won’t he?
<
p>
He ends up looking like he has no convictions. And if that’s what people think of him, he will lose to Healey. A lot of voters care about that.
<
p>
John Kerry lost not because most Americans agreed with George Bush on “the issues” (they don’t). Nor because Bush had better or more detailed ten-point plans than Kerry (he didn’t). I think Kerry lost because voters thought Bush was more of a stand-up guy, more honest, more committed, more willing to take a position and stick to it and believe in it, regardless of whether the voter agreed with it. Voters respect that, and they want it in their leaders. (Not unreasonably, IMHO.) Gabs has hurt himself with this.
First, you equated Gabs position to what you say a majority of the voters feel this isnt a priority. I dont see how thats all that bad.
<
p>
Second, there is a big difference between saying this is not a priority and Kerrys position on Iraq. Thats apples and oranges – to me at least
<
p>
Here is what I think (pure speculation) Gabs position is. Why give Healey ammunition on an issue that is not a priority to him? The reality is that the downside (diversion from big issues, a hard to defend emotional issue – IMHO) for standing up for this position far outweighs the upside (given as you say the low priority for voters on this issue). Pick your battles.
<
p>
As you pointed out, being right on issues doesnt mean you will get elected. But, picking your battles so you can focus on the big issues gives you a better chance.
We agree David. Healey could NAIL Gabrieli for something like this. That’s why I really, truly think those ads she put out were still reverse psychology.
because it isn’t the Globe that is trying to obscure Chris Gabrieli’s position, it’s Gabrieli himself.
<
p>
Read David’s post about Gabrieli’s robocall, complete with audio.
<
p>
In light of Gabrieli’s above statements and that robocall, do you honestly believe that Gabrieli is being fully-forthcoming about his position during the homestretch?
<
p>
Gabrieli is trying to be too-cute-by-half.
<
p>
Meanwhile, I will point out again: Tom Reilly has a crystal clear position on both issues that you raise: he supports the income tax rollback now and is the only candidate to support, and more importantly/impressively, fight for the in-state tuition rate.
I don’t see any inconsistency.
<
p>
Just because he doesn’t have a major ideological beef with in-state tuition, doesn’t mean he hasn’t said all along, I’m not interested in doing it.
<
p>
There’s a difference between pointing an issue out because it differentiates you from your opponent and coming out strongly in favor of it. People have been demanding differentiation. So you outline all the differences – some big issues, some small ones. Chris considers this a small one, but knows that for some people, it’s a big deal. So he lets them know that his position is different from his opponents’. They would try to push it through. He wouldn’t.
for saying that either Patrick or Reilly would “try to push it through”? I haven’t seen anyone say that. No one is running on this issue; people have just stated differing positions on it. And any reasonable, non-political junkie observer would say “Patrick and Reilly would sign the bill; Gabrieli would veto it.” Heck, that’s what I thought before I saw the Globe editorial.
<
p>
Furthermore, when Gabs says he’s not in favor of in-state tuition, the natural assumption is that he’s against it. That he’d veto the bill. I mean, for God’s sake, what is his view? IMHO, this is why Kerry lost. People don’t even care that much what your view is, as long as they know you have one, that you believe in it, that you’re committed to it. We CANNOT let this happen again.
I thought it was implied that you’d push for passage of something you think is important, especially since the legislature has voted against it. Reilly has sounded passionate about the issue. Patrick has gotten strong positive responses for it. From an account of the RCC event:
<
p>
<
p>
Does this sound like someone trying to be all things to all people?
that you would oppose the passage of something that you are criticizing your opponents for supporting, Cannoneo? Your logic runs in both directions.
<
p>
And let’s get back on track here, shall we: Reilly and Patrick have consistent positions on this issue. (Reilly especially, since he actually took a gutsy stand to work on behalf of the bill.)
<
p>
In fact, on this issue, Gabrieli has, indeed, tried to be all things to all people.
I think David’s post shows the lay of the land pretty clearly, and no amount of spinning can obscure it.
<
p>
Look, I’ll work for Gabrieli if he wins, but using immigrants and their children as a wedge issue is the most distasteful form or Republican-style politics. Maybe you feel differently; maybe you believe strongly, on principle, that we shouldn’t accomodate students in this way, and you even think this really should be one of the signal issues of the campaign. But what David’s post shows is that this is not a principled commitment of Chris’s, it’s an opportunistic move designed to mobilize passions he doesn’t really share in order to get something he wants. I understand: every politician makes some opportunistic choices or soon ends up in another walk of life. It’s an ineliminable part of of the business of politics. But this particular choice (not simply to cave to the xenophobic pressure but to exploit it, attacking the other candidates–and, in one case, that candidate’s supporters–over this) is shameful. On this point, the contrast with his two opponents is very much to his discredit. And all this from Mr. Educational Opportunity, no less, and from a child of immigrants who was able to afford the best private schooling that money can buy! He may be 6’4”, but, morally, he looks a bit smaller than he did a couple of weeks ago.
You say you’re okay with low-priority issues being played opportunistically, but that this particular one is morally reprehensible. But the only basis for that characterization is your definition of the anti-in-state position as xenophobic. I’m sure xenophobes oppose in-state tuition, but that doesn’t mean everyone who opposes it is xenophobic. There are principled people who want state law to consistently recognize the legal/illegal distinction.
<
p>
David’s case is electability — a soft or ambiguous position is weak. But if it’s such a wedge issue, I don’t see how soft opposition to in-state tuition is more vulnerable than strong support for it.
I respect your zealous advocacy for your candidate, but this is nonsense.
<
p>
Gabrieli is actively campaigning against this issue, while talking out the other side of his mouth about his concern for the children and a willingness to maybe sign a bill. He decided that it was a campaign issue, not them.
<
p>
With all due respect to Mr. Gabrieli, he needs to strap on a pair and take a position. It’s OK to offend either the pro-tuititon crowd or the anti-illegal immigrant children crowd, but pick a side.
<
p>
If he’s feeling uncomfortable today, perhaps he should look down and ask how that fence got between his legs.
Well, help me out here. In-state v. out-of-state was a difficult issue for me to personally resolve an opinion.
<
p>
How do you personally distinguish endorsing a policy for an illegal kid to pay in-state tuition, then in turn, endorse a policy that punishes an illegal kid for working in the US, or his employer for hiring him?
I use the same rational the Supreme Court used when it heard a (texas?) case that said children of illegal immigrants had the same right to public education as children of citizens. There was a fairness argument made, but also a common-sense argument: Denying children the opportunity to be educated just about guaranteed they would eventually burden the social welfare system, and at the same time be less economically productive, representing a huge opportunity cost to the country.
<
p>
I think it’s more or less the same thing here.
<
p>
There are different public policy reasons for not wanting to provide employment to illegal immigrants (as distinguished from CHILDREN of illegal immigrants) – and that is, the government would rather not entice illegal immigrants to come work in Massachusetts. But I don’t think anyone can rationally say that the students who wanted in-state tuition encourage their parents to illegally immigrate here, either through shark infested waters, or through underground tunnels, so they could get a tuition break at UMass.
Here it is.
<
p>
‘course dodging my question is your perogative, but, you’re advocating for a tuition break for someone illegally in the US. How do you square that position, personally, when it comes time for that same person to work.
<
p>
Because, somehow, in your world, illegals working differs from illegals learning. I’m just trying to see the differnce. I’m not being flip or trying to bait you; I’d just like to understand the distinction.
<
p>
***HOLY CRAP…you won’t believe what just happened. A snapping turtle just walked down the hallway outside my office!
…maybe I just don’t understand what you’re getting at. To me, that Supreme Court decision IS how I personally distinguish these things. I just happen to agree with their rational.
<
p>
But, in case you’re looking for a personal tale, here’s one. I have a buddy who happened to be a child of illegal immigrants. His parents, luckily, ended up doing really well when they came to the US. We both ended up at college together, and went to law school in Boston around the same time. He’s now a lawyer, has become an american citizen, and is great member of his community.
<
p>
If his parents hadn’t done as well, and the difference between him going to college and not going to college was in vs. out of state tuition, there would be no one better off today if he hadn’t gone to college. I’d be out one good friend, and Boston would be out one great lawyer.
<
p>
So, when people talk about these kids, I think of him. He’s not a guy in the back of a van looking to get a job at a farm outside of San Diego. He was a kid who was born here, who had a dream and really made it. All these kids should have that chance.
not to pick nits (well, maybe just a little), but was your friend born here? If so, hasn’t he always been a citizen and so wouldn’t have had to worry about in-state vs. out-of-state tuition? I thought this issue arises only for undocumented immigrants who bring their kids in with them. But maybe I’m wrong…
See the first sentence.
Nope. My familiarity with my buddy lead me astray. He was brought here as an infant. So by “born here” I actually didn’t mean “born here.” Lol. I meant here since he was an infant.
<
p>
Hey, its been a long week.
And paid for him to college. Where did you go to College? UMass??? Did they have to pay in State or Out of State???
Hard to pin you down.
<
p>
Supreme court case said nothing, not one word about in-state versus out-of-state tuition.
<
p>
The Court said that public education is a Constitutional right.
<
p>
It has never said that employment is a Constitutional right.
<
p>
If your only distinction is that “Education” is a Constitutional right and the “Right to Employment” isn’t, then this thread ends for me.
<
p>
The Supreme Court said:
<
p>
<
p>
Now, let’s substitute the words “work” for “education” and let me know if you disagree with any of the statements:
<
p>
<
p>
My way of thinking, education is important to society. The ability and freedom to work also important. And, I don’t need a Court decision to tell me that either is a right, a privilege, or whatever.
<
p>
But, from you I’m hearing a distinction. Maybe I’m mistaken, so let me know.
<
p>
I’m hearing that the State should encourage higher education by making it cheaper for illegal resident aliens, but should discourage work by imposing fines on the employers who hire those same illegal resident aliens.
<
p>
I just want to know, why the difference?
And the answer to your question lies in the subtle complexities of the issue. We have people that come here, legally and illegally. once here, they meld into the fabric of society. Some being productive members, others not as much.
<
p>
We’ve decided, for better or worse, that it’s fair that the children of illegal immigrants receive public education, but that their parents shouldn’t be hired. Does it make sense? I don’t know. Probably not. But it makes more sense to more people than not hiring the parents AND not sending their kids to school, or, hiring all the illegal immigrants you can, and sending their kids to school.
<
p>
That’s the great american compromise. If you’ve got a better idea, I’m all ears.
<
p>
In the meantime, my gut tells me that if a kid has potential, it would be a sin to turn him away from college because of a decision his parents made.
I think (but am not sure) that the Court relied in part on the lack of fault of the kids.
<
p>
With employers, I suppose you could still say that it’s not the now working-age kids’ fault that their parents brought them here illegally, but the argument is a lot stronger for a 6-year-old. Also, while (at least in one theoretical world) a job held by an undocumented immigrant is a job not held by a citizen, you can’t really say the same for education.
You are clearly misunderstanding the issue. Primary Education which is free in Mass. is the not the issue. THe issue is college.
<
p>
Why go to college if you are not going to work??? If you can’t work in the US why go to college here???
<
p>
We can educate you here with our resources and then what you leave and go back to your nation of origin???
To apply for residence in the US, persons must be at least 18. Children younger than that acquire citizenship at the time their parents do; they are not subject to the five year waiting period. This is called derivative citizenship. According to INA §334(b)(1).
<
p>
So, obviously, that makes it impossible for someone in high school to aply for citizenship so he or she can get in-state rates.
I have a tough time separating the two policies. Either we should endorse higher education for illegal aliens and also promote policies to let them work, or else discourage both.
<
p>
I don’t understand a candidate’s rational for supporting in-state tuition while seeking to enforce wage and hour laws against those companies who hire those very same people. i.e. a kid goes to college, yet the company who hires that same kid, risks punishment.
<
p>
My idea, unfortunately, isn’t very mainstream.
the only issue about undocumented workers that matters is employers who hire people under implicit threat of retribution by revealing their status in order to get around minimum wage and worker safety laws. i would never endorse a policy such as you describe.
<
p>
the only other real issue with undocumented immigrants is the homeland security issue of border security, which can’t be solved until we make it easier for people to enter the country legally.
I don’t remember describing a policy.