AN HONEST difference of opinion is one thing. Exploiting a hot-button issue for short-term gain is another.
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.”
So, let me get this straight: Chris Gabrieli “wishes those kids would get the education,” but he “feels that they are caught between.” Caught between what? Their complete and total innocence from their parents’ decision to bring them here illegally and a political climate that wants to punish all illegal immigrants, regardless of their age and culpability? A political climate – ironically, I guess – now fueled by Chris Gabrieli himself. So what are you telling us, Chris: that you are only willing to go to bat for the politically favored? Really nice. . .
But there is more. Chris Gabrieli adds, “I never say that I’m actually against it” or that he would necessarily veto an in-state tuition bill as Governor. Gee, isn’t that nice? Gabrieli is willing to let other elected officials (I believe they call these types of people “leaders”) carry the water and do the right thing by these children and then, after much of the political capital has been expended and the issues is possibly “safer,” he may be willing to apply his John Hancock. What a guy!
I said it before and I’ll say it again now: NOBODY put more on the line than Tom Reilly, who not only supports in-state tution for immigrant children, but stuck his neck out by very publicly and aggressively lobbying the legislature to pass the bill. Deval Patrick also supports in-state tuition, so he is right on the issue. However, to my knowledge, Patrick’s support begins and ends at his stated position and he did not champion the issue in the same fashion as Tom Reilly. There is a major distinction between saying you are for something and actualling fighting for it. On this issue, I think we all know that by actually doing something on behalf of these politically-orphaned kids, Tom Reilly invited the type of heat that comes with genuine leadership.
So, I ask: WTF, Gabrieli? Are you for educating these kids because it is the right thing to do or are you against them because they are political baggage?
For those who are not sold on a candidate in this race, it is a question well-worth considering. As a Tom Reilly supporter, I’m am proud to know that, when the opposition is ready to unload, my guy is willing to stand up for and in front of the children and not behind them.
Does this apply to Community Colleges or just UMASS???
including the University of Massachusetts system, state colleges, and community colleges.
In state vs. out of state????
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.
If they have to cough up the money why not pay to become legal????
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.
Actually, under the bill we’re discussing, children who go to a state school and pay in-state rates would have to pursue legal status using whatever process is available (which is up to the federal government). If a process is available, and it costs money, well then, they have to pay both the tuition for school, and the fees for that process. Just as likely, a process may not be available for them yet at all.
<
p>
Either way, they’re more likely to get an education.
The trouble is that under current immigration law, they can’t seek a student visa because they’re current out-of-status so that only leaves 1) lottery (good luck for Mexicans; there’s practically no lottery slots) 2) spousal PE (Hey babe, wanta marry a starving student?) 3) some miscellaneous obscure visa, or 4) a pile of money to buy a visa.
<
p>
So, 4 years from now, absent any change, they can’t legally work. But, yeah, they got a cheaper education than they would have otherwise received. Texas is just now confronting the issue of graduating illegals.
<
p>
It all just shows how terribly screwed up are our Immigration Laws and enforcement.
I’m familiar with that clause, Cos. It was inserted at the insistence of some legislators who were relatively ignorant of the federal process. It says that the students must pledge to seek the avenues that can to become legal. And these students want little more but to be able to pursue such avenues–I can say this from personal relationships with many of them. But the fact remains that there currently is no path to legalization for those already in the country. Hopefully, the ffeds will soon provide one, but that looks ulikely to happen this year.
<
p>
In the meantime, young people are stuck in limbo, and opportunists like Gabrieli try to use them as pawns. A lovely situation, eh?
Mav. It takes time, but that’s different. If you are on the road to being here legally, then I would think common sense would lend itself to some kind of arrangement to help out.
<
p>
Best,
SSG
Legal and on the way to legal should be given in state tuition. Illegal should not. It is a matter of right and wrong. One is here legally and entitled to all the benefits of legal residents. The other unfortunately is not in the same position and should not be rewarded for their illegal behavior.
Just what does “on the way to legal” mean? What part of immigration law is that under?
You can’t just buy your way in to the country (unless you have A LOT of money, but that’s not really germain to this issue). These kids have no way to apply for permanent residency. They almost assuredly would not be eligible to apply for a student visa as they are out of status now (btw way in the immigration world you’re either “in status” or “out of status”, not “illegal”). The only other practicle way for these kids to change/adjust their status would be through some sort of kinship petition, i.e., a permanent resident or American citizen relative files for them. Even if they have a relative who can do this, the process can literally take years (when I did this work in the mid ninties our firm had clients who had been waiting for 5-6 years).
<
p>
Your comment I think misses the point. The kids (and lets be honest here, we’re talking about KIDS) who are affected by this legislation are here because their parents brought them. You want to punish somebody, punish the parents. Additionally, the number of kids this applies to is relatively small (200-400 kids was the estimate I saw). In the grand scheme of things not a lot of money. Finally, any argument that a promise of in state tuition would open the flood gates to an influx of education hungry Mexicans (because that’s who Gabrieli really wants to keep out) is rediculous. People come here because the money they can make is exponentially greater than what they could get at home.
<
p>
The problem of illegal immigration is, as a practical and legal matter, a Federal issue. We need to figure out what to do with the reality we have here on the ground. And as both Tom and Deval pointed out in the last debate, Gabrieli doesn’t do to well with the real world.
Wait a minute. Before we get too deep in the plight of the children of undocumented immigrants, what about the children of LEGAL immigrants.
<
p>
Kids who attend Massachusetts public schools, work hard, play by the rules, and do really well on the MCAS earn Adams scholarships to state schools. Of course, this convers only tuition, and the cowards in the administration don’t raise TUITION, they raise FEES, so the fees are more of a burden that tuition.
<
p>
Anyway, did you know that any immigrant child, legel or not, is INELIGIBLE for the Adams scholarship unless they are US CITIZENS! The papers were filled with reports of how many kids have earned the scholarships. How many kids who have earned the scholarships, who really NEED the scholarships, are ineligible.
<
p>
Please, see this diary for the facts. Spread the word. Then call your legislators to do something for deserving kids who are being hurt by this unfair and discriminatory policy.
It doesn’t work that way. There IS no straightforward route for undocumented people in the US to become legal. That’s why the federal-level immigration debate has had so much discussion of “a path to citizenship”–it’s about creating some way by which people who’ve built lives here could make their status legal and participate more fully in their communities.
Hey Mav,
<
p>
We’ll have to agree to disagree on this issue. I posted on this recently and pasted a portion of my thread here.
<
p>
I would classify Chris’ position distinguishing between legal and illegal behavior. If we just allow folks that are here illegally to receive benefits like in state tuition breaks funded with our tax $s, where is the incentive to become a legal citizen? In Deval’s (and Tom’s) world, a legal US citizen who lives one mile over the MA border has to pay a higher tuition bill than an illegal immigrant?
<
p>
Gabrieli is not making his distinction based upon race, it is based upon folks here via legal channels versus illegal means (i.e. Black, White, Hispanic, Asian, etc. It does not matter. If you are here legally and are a resident of our state, you get the in state tuition break. If you are not here legally, you should not get the break regardless of your ethnicity).
<
p>
The same goes for public housing lists and licenses. It’s about incentives to follow and adhere to the laws in place. It also could be thought of in terms of a security issue by some (e.g. do we know who is coming and going; Of course that could fall under the federal govt to a larger extent). In the end, however, why promote illegal behavior?
<
p>
Also, Gabrieli’s focus is much more on the companies who knowingly hire illegal immigrants. Enforce those laws and another incentive to be here illegally is removed at the same time an incentive to be here legally is created.
The “behavior” in question isn’t even directly theirs. So how about this far more fair proposal: Any Massachusetts public university student who gets caught speeding, must pay out of state rates. Not only is that “illegal behavior”, but it’s the student’s own illegal behavior.
Are our tax dollars going to pay for their speeding ticket?
I should say, “limited tax dollars”. We can’t say yes to everything. Where and when do you want to say no to something? I’d love to fund everything myself, but the $s are not there to do everything. On this issue, it’s about incentives – and on this and almost everything else it’s about the priorities we have to allocate limited resources.
How exactly is Gabrieli saying “no” when he says that he affimratively states that he “never says he’s against it” and that he has not said he will veto it?
<
p>
Interesting, while you are focused on limited financial resources, Gabrieli was actually concerned with the political implications. If it was all about financial priorities, why not just veto it?
is that is just what he’d do if elected Governor and this came across his desk.
(“I have not said I’d veto it”) or your bet, SSG? 😉
make it so if any student’s parent is caught speeding then out-of-state tuition. or if anyone in your family committed a federal misdemenor then no state services. it makes just as much sense as all of this.
The Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation concluded that in-state tuition will make money.
<
p>
So let’s dispense of this illegal immigrants vs. your tax dollars canard.
<
p>
And I will further add that these children will be no more taking the seats away from MA children than the out of state children we already allow to matriculate at our public institutions of higher ed. The obvious difference being that these illegal kids actually live in MA and graduated from out high schools.
But the conclusion to that study was that 50 or so students wouldn’t cost anything. “Educators agree”.
<
p>
They shouldn’t have ask an educator, they should have ask the educator’s accountant. Adding students to a school doesn’t cost anything? They kidding?
No, adding students to a school does NOT cost anything–especially at colleges. The cost of the buildings are already there, the costs of professors is already there, and the chair that is empty in the classroom has already been paid for. I teach a class with 27 students but there are 29 seats in the room. What’s the added cost of having two non-citizens come in PAYING in-state tuition? Do they raise the temperature in the room and require more air conditioning? I mean, according to Schwartzenegger, many of “these people” are naturally “hot-blooded” so I guess I would have to concede that expense. But, sadly, I do not get to charge the institution more for teaching more students, it does not add to the cost of the class. The subways they take to get there? The dorms? Already built.
<
p>
So, no, they do not cost anymore in terms of capital costs. The only costs they add are what economists call “marginal” costs, and those are in micro-dollars far outweighed by the cash they pay in tuition and fees.
<
p>
Would individual institutions prefer out of staters? Yes, because of the financing rules of the system, that money gets to stay with the institution–vs. instate which goes to the central system.
<
p>
All of this economics talk is a sidebar and is BULL caca.
<
p>
The original point is the central point. Gabs is throwing children under the bus for political gain. Reilly should have reserved “you don’t get it” for this issue, where he has FAR more credibility: morally and fiscally, rather than waste it on the lame, recently resurrected tax cut issue.
<
p>
So, let’s just open the doors and let everyone else in free, since more students cost nothing.
<
p>
<
p>
My point is that the author(s) of the “study” concluded that the marginal cost of the additional students wouldn’t cost anything. “Educators agree.” No analysis; he just waived his magic twanger, said “Educators agree” and made the conclusion.
<
p>
No one’s throwing your strawkids under the bus.
Gabrieli’s position has not wavered on this. In one of his first debates upon entering this race in the spring(I want to say it was a Sunday with Keller on CBS4), he clearly said that it was important to distinguish between legal and illegal behavior. He has also always framed this issue as a matter of priorities as it pertains to tax-payers dollars and incentives to follow the law and work to become a legal citizen.
<
p>
that his position has not waved in light of his criticism of his opponents and simultaneous olive branch to proponents of the in-state tuition bill?
<
p>
Poltically-motivated nuance, anyone?
the issue isn’t whether these kids want to become citizens. The process of becoming a citizen takes years and years. First they must become a Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR). This allows them to remain in the US permanently. They enjoy all the rights of a US citzen except voting. If they would like to become a citizen they must wait (if my memory is correct 5 years if they became and LPR though another LPR or 3 years if their petition was filed by a citizen; I can’t remember the waiting time if they got their permanent residency through a work visa). The waiting times on all these petitions is over a year; that’s once they are filed you have to wait months and months to get an interview date (which will be months and months in the future).
<
p>
So, you see, in state tution really doesn’t incent a path to citizenship. This just shows that Gabrieli doesn’t know what he’s talking about on this issue. Either that, or he really doesn’t care. And I thought he was supposed to be deep.
…You guys are missing the boat on what is wrong here. Forget the issue and examine the attitude.
<
p>
<
p>
Wow. The Reily supporter upthread was jsutified in being livid. Which side are you on, boy?
<
p>
It’s just like people think the Melanie’s bill issue is about drunk driving. The rehabbed law works, drunk driving arrests are down by 1/3 according to WBZ – but that’s NOT why Kerry Healey has it as a campaign isssue. The REAL issue is a legislature that would gut the bill and fly off to Portugal, confident that any Micky Mouse veto would be sustained. Would have happened, except the press got interested.
<
p>
Gabs is betraying a legalistic attitude that would hide a multitude of sins. Why is this important?
<
p>
Because if the House loses ONE MORE Republican (and 2 are retiring), there will not be twenty to rise to force a roll call vote. Even now with 21, God help us if somebody gets a cold! No accountability, everything just greased skids, on a tobacco auctioneer’s voice vote. If it works, I was for it. If it fails, gee whillikers, I only WISH I had the chance to vote against it.
<
p>
Roll calls will be reduced to show trials.
<
p>
If the cherry on this sundae is a Governor who says, “I didn’t SAY I would veto it…” – what kind of disaster do you see us headed for?
Mr. Porcupine, this is one of the best points I’ve seen brought up here in awhile. The current attitude within the Legislature can be borderline disgusting at times. You mention that 2 Republican legislators are leaving. Even more important is that one of them is Lees, who in addition to giving me hours of entertainment both in person and StateHouseNews transcripts actually acts as the closest thing to a check that the Legislature has. Outside of the funny, he is continually undeterred by the weakness that the Repubs have in the State House. He is also the poster child of the aspect that I respect from the remnants of what used to be a truly fiscally conservative right.
<
p>
Do I mention this because I think Healey will be the check on the Legislature and the guardian of the diminishing Repubs in power? No. I mention this because I think that all sides need to come to terms with the fact that, for now at least, there is going to be an overwhelming majority of Dems making decisions on Beacon Hill. I think that the last four years in particular have shown that a Republican governor is powerless to stop them, and therefore I think it is time to really assess what is best as a check on the Legislature. I invite anyone, but particularly Republicans and moderates, to consider that Deval Patrick as an outsider would be in a unique position to sustain credible vetoes. Gabs and Reilly could potentially do it, but they owe far too much to the power of the legislature to act upon the power.
<
p>
Look at the percentage of entrenched state legislators endorsing Deval, Gabs, and Reilly. It’s one of Deval’s weakest suits and I love it. Reilly was virtually coronated by them. When that didn’t work, they made it possible for Gabs to qualify. They’ve offered very little to Patrick. This should tell us all something.
Peter,
<
p>
That is a very good argument. An excellent one, and I mean it sincerely. I think you should turn it into a diary at some point. I’ve never picked a Republican over a Democrat, but what you say makes me pause.
<
p>
I’m less than thrilled with the Legislature right now, but this Legislature without roll calls would be scary indeed. I’m a “big D Democrat” in the blood, but I’d spill my own blood for “small d democracy”. I think I truly want 20 Republicans in the State House. I won’t vote for one, but I kinda want others to do so in the right places.
<
p>
Of course, I disagree completely with the rationalization that the best check on this would be Governor Patrick. Sal-n-Rob will have re-written the budget by the time Governor Patrick figures out which key opens his office door. A consequence of such an overmatched governor would be a GOP resurgence in 2008. I’d much rather Reilly or even Gabrieli, someone who at least will realize what’s going on and won’t spend their first year trying to find the restrooms and such.
Can’t figure out how to open the door to his office?
Lost looking for a restroom?
A couple weeks back you proffered a rather comical bit of research to determine which candidate would have the most success with the legislature. Until this post I kinda thought you were joking with us. Nevertheless, you plod on. This time you seem to ignore the well-known history of Patrick’s experience in the Clinton Justice Department while you instruct your dear reader that poor Deval will be so overwhelmed by the machinations of the leadership of the House and Senate that he won’t find his way to the budget.
Maybe your candidate’s tailspin has you on the ledge and clawing the air. Or maybe you really believe Cliff’s Notes are novels. Let’s just agree that Tom Reilly has had the keys to his office and knows how to use ’em. But finding a leak in the Big Dig, or someone responsible (oops, $75 million out of $15 billion ain’t peanuts. IT’S THE SHELLS!!) for the waste, inefficiency and illegalities hasn’t quite been so easy. I’ll agree that he does some things very well. Like after Romney has dragged Billy Bulger out of UMASS, shot him three times, run him over with a cement mixer and had Murph grind her pumps into his face, TR then dashes over to the carcass a exclaim “I killed Bulger. No one but me had the guts to do it.” Yeah, that’s leadership the State House really needs.
this is not an issue that really matters to him or any other candidate. It would have virtually no effect on the vast majority of voters. All bringing the issue up does is win over the “you’re in American, speak American” crowd that may just nudge him over the top.
<
p>
I really hope Gabs loses.
I’m no expert, but I truly doubt that this will be the deciding factor of the primary.
I completely agree with you on this issue. Thank you for your articulate defense of children who need to be treated with respect, and given every break so that they can become future and productive citizens. We, right here in Massachusetts, NEED educated workers in this highly competitive world. How can this hurt any of us? No, it can only help our society.
<
p>
Tom Reilly gets that. Deval Patrick gets that. The xenophobic Republicans don’t get that. I used to think that Chris Gabrieli was a progressive. I don’t think that any longer.
<
p>
I know I’ve said nice things about you before, but they’ve always (to my memory) been of the variety, “I admire your passion, BUT I disagree with…” This time, we’re completely on the same page, and I really do appreciate your advocacy on this issue.
with only 4 days left until the Primary, it was bound to happen sometime! 😉
<
p>
Thank you.
MavDem, I’ve disagreed with you on plenty, but I’m very glad that you’ve called out Gabrieli for this. And while I voted (yes, past tense–absentee) for Patrick, I agree that on thisw issue, Reilly has been the leader of the pack.
I’d just like to chime in and say…Well, say that MavDem is absolutely on point, and MFW is great for pointing it out.
<
p>
There will be no throwing under the bus regarding teenage children of undocumented workers in the Dem party. At least there will be none that isn’t roundly criticized, I hope.
<
p>
‘Healey Endorses Gabrieli’ pretty much sums it up.
I voted absentee last week, and I voted for Patrick. When I did, though, I commented on a friend’s blog that I wasn’t that excited about hiim, particularly due to his corporate ties, and felt that Gabrieli was pretty progressive as well. When i heard that in the debate last week, patrick said that he wouldn’t support the Mass Nurses Association’s safe staffing levels bill, I was upset with what I’d done, wondering if I should have voted for Gabrieli instead. I relaxed on that somewhat today when I read that Patrick had put out a statement supporting the compromise bill on nurse staffing levels now on Beacon Hill.
<
p>
But when I logged onto BMG today for the first time in a while, and learned about Gabrieli’s effort to use immigrant kids as scapegoats in order to advance his standing in the polls, I was disgusted.
<
p>
If this is Chris Gabrieli’s idea of legitimate political tactics, I want nothing to do with him. If, after Gabrieli’s many years of deep involvement in the Democratic Party, he thinks that it is a home for scapegoating based on false fears of lost tax dollars, then it only confirms my distrust of the internal culture of the Party.
There’s a real left-wing candidate in this race. You don’t have to choose between two millionaire corporate stooges.