Braude-“Jim, the centerpiece of your campaign has been opposition to the McCain, Bush, Kennedy immigration bill. You call it an amnesty bill, and your belief that all illegal immigrants must go home. Two questions. One, how do you deport 12 million people? And two, would raids like the one conducted at the Michael Bianco Leather Plant in New Bedford in which 350 illegal immigrants were grabbed, with many of them separated from kids who are citizens, by the way, would that be part of an Ogonowski plan?
Ogonowski (C)-Obviously he has no sensibilities, nor it seems, ideas. “National security,” “breaking our laws,” are the phrases he has evidently memorized. Does he really have this “us vs. them” mentality? Or is he feeding us what he thinks we want to hear? Advocates a very costly program to patrol our borders, as well as separating illegal immigrants from their US citizen children.
Braude-“How do you deport 12 million people? And would the Bianco raid be part of the thing you do?”
Ogonowski (B)-he advocates 12 million cases, adjudicated one by one. Legally, it’s the way to go, though costly and an administrative nightmare. He articulates his position well though.
Braude-“Niki Tsongas? Immigration reform, what do we do?”
Tsongas (C)-a wishy-washy position poorly articulated, though she specifically comes out in favor of the McCain, Bush, Kennedy bill (which, in the interests of full disclosure, is a position I support).
Braude-“If it becomes law, Niki Tsongas, if it were to become law, and there continues to be, lets say, a million illegal immigrants who don’t comply with the elements of the McCain, Bush Kennedy immigration bill, do they get deported, those million people?”
Tsongas (B)-again, poorly answered. But “public policy at its worst” – the separation of US born children from their parents, shows her humanity.
Hayes (A)-nothing original, he takes a law-and-order stand, but admits sensitivity is needed.
Murphy (B)-again, a well thought out answer. Advocates greater economic development efforts overseas to eliminate the need to migrate here. I’m not sure, but he may also advocate a relaxation of labor and environmental stipulations in our trade agreements with other countries in order to make overseas startups more attractive.
Thompson (F)-advocates strict enforcement of laws already enacted regardless of the human costs.
Braude (to Thompson)-“Should English be the official language of the United States?”
Thompson (F)-strange to see a “Constitutional Party” candidate vehemently speak out against the 1st amendment, but then Kevin Thompson is nothing if not vehement.
Murphy (B)-good answer, though he stumbles badly in his delivery. An effectiveness issue for him.
Hayes (D)-supports it.
Tsongas (A)-opposes the notion, thinks it’s unnecessary. She speaks well to the effects of speaking English.
Ogonowski (A)-good answer, and well spoken, though I disagree with the premise.
Braude-“?And even though this is an in-state issue, there is a obviously a bully pulpit on the part of members of Congress, we’re going to go quickly in this direction [motioning right to left, from Thompson to Ogonowski]. Big battle in the state in the last couple of years, about whether the children of illegal immigrants, who meet a number of standards, who are not here illegally themselves, should qualify for in-state tuition rates at the state’s universities. Should they? Or should they not?”
Thompson (D)-again, what’s the constitutionality of holding one individual responsible for the illegal status of another? The constitution party?
Murphy (F)-bad position and he forgot the question.
Hayes (C)-another no
Tsongas (A)-right position, though for “economic reasons.” She goes on at length about the benefits.
Ogonowski (D)-An uninformed answer. He ignores the fact that he denies equal benefits to individuals who are both US citizens and residents of the Commonwealth. This may be patently illegal.
