Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Comments

  2. The policies of the feel-good politicians is simply  astounding yet predictable. She seeks for illegal immigrants to vote, go to school on in-state tuitions, avoid ICE raids and deportation…in short, all the rights of a US citizens.  

    <

    p>Then, those same politicians say “oh by the way, you can’t work and we’ll bust those employers who try to hire you. Damn evil corporations”. Poor little brown people she says. Let them vote! Give them a flower! Maybe a smiley face would help. Just don’t let them work.  

    <

    p>She’s seeking policies that sound nice and kind, not considering that the reason the immigrants are here IS to work.  And sure enough, if someone is here, they will find work legally or illegally.  Government is powerless to stop such a broad economic force. So this large uncontrolled influx finds work and in doing so, the immigrants push down the labor rates: Notice work crews, laborers, cleaning crews, roofers, floor installers, kitchen workers, a mix of Hispanic, Brazilian, Vietnamese…. Green cards anyone?  

    <

    p>And then the same feel-good politicians lament that the poor US worker isn’t being paid enough.  They push for a higher mandatory living wage, and paid leave and latte at work. Then the same immigrants and non-immigrants, working under the table, illegally work for less and take jobs that a US citizens can’t take because it pays too little to be legal.

    <

    p>

    • I think the economy over there is worse than ours.  Sending them back seems rather cruel.

      • It’s fallen further, but from higher up: their unemployment rate is 9.2% to our 8.6%, but they count employable people not actively looking, while the US figure does not.

        • That particular aspect of US unemployment accounting has always bothered me.  People age out and voila “lower unemployment.”

          • if you aren’t looking for work?  Counting people who aren’t working and don’t want to (by the only objective measure available) seems designed simply to goose the unemployment for “OMG!  We need to increase benefits!” reasons.

            • There are those not looking who have gotten discouraged, but would still prefer to work.  You also can’t limit the count to those receiving unemployment benefits.  Then there’s the issue of underemployment (fewer hours, no benefits, etc.)  I’ve been a substitute teacher for a good chunk of my adult life.  I’ve been called most school days, but get no benefits and $70/day.  I have been looking for more permanent work, but have never applied for unemployment.  I suspect I’m not counted, but probably should be to get a more honest statistic.

            • Once your benefits run out, you’re no longer counted as unemployed.   Same with people who don’t qualify for benefits in the first place.

        • So stay at home moms are counted as unemployed in Ireland?

          <

          p>How does this differ significantly from US?

          <

          p>

          Data refer to persons who, in the week before the survey were without work and available for work and had taken specific steps, in the preceding four weeks, to find work.

      • Illegals are illegals no matter where they came from. And as I said before, these illegals are stealing American jobs. I have no horse in the race since there aren’t too many illegals going for professional jobs like mine.

        <

        p>In fat, I use a lot of cheap illegal labor for yard cleaning, stone work… so it actually benefits me personally. Think of the illegal Irish (my national origin) workers doing hardwood floors and taking American citizen’s jobs. I really don;t give a shot about the economy over there, down there or anywhere else regarding illegals.

          • some lefties want to let then vote, get driving licenses and in-state tuition rates. I would be glad to have these illegals arrested and deported… and then go on missions to find other illegals and have them arrested and deported. A quick trip to the local Dunkin Donuts would fill a large net.

            <

            p>Then maybe some of the unemployed US citizens (counted and uncounted) would get their jobs back. That would apply to DD workers, stone workers, laborers, lawn care, hardwood floors and many other unskilled labor positions. Until then I’ll reap the rewards of slave labor rates and bargain basement prices. I have a landscape architect coming out Saturday to lay out my entire yard so please don’t forward my arrest/deport message on until after I get my yard fixed up.

            • Amazing.  You’d think the illegal alien cops would be smart enough to avoid Dunkin Donuts.  Maybe they could hide out in Starbucks or something.

              <

              p>That said, I’m going to ignore any further ranting by you on the subject of illegals.  You’re an utter hypocrite.

            • Not only are we sending highly skilled jobs overseas, we’re actually training the recipients.

              • Sallie Mae gave some hope to the unemployed yesterday, saying it will bring 2,000 jobs to the United States within the next 18 months as it shifts call center and other operations from overseas.

            • You can’t just round ’em all up and send them back.  That ultimately solves nothing and would put at least some of them in very dangerous situations.  Besides is their presence really hurting you?  I suspect the vast majority are otherwise law-abiding and many even pay taxes.  Those who are not threats to public health and safety should be assisted toward legalization.  We ultimately need to reform our legal entry process so there will be no incentive to come illegally.  Also many came legally and have simply overstayed their visas, so that’s more an administrative rather than criminal matter.

            • “Maybe because I live in a state that is so fucked up that well beyond NOT arresting them…”

              <

              p>You need to see your shrink so that you are no longer in a fucked up state.

        • People immigrate to this country (along with other reasons)because there is a demand for low-skilled, low-paying labor.

          <

          p>What if instead of going after the labor supply (illegal immigrants) we focused more on the demand side (people like JohnD to take advantage of these people and pay them in cash under the table?)

          <

          p>What if instead of focusing on theri driver’s license, we boycott any and all business that employ illegal immigrant labor? What if we stopped going to Home Depot because they allow contractors to pick up illegal immigrants in their parking lots? What if landscapers couldn’t get jobs unless they hired people to pay taxes?

          • People are way too selfish in this country. If everyone felt like you mentioned Wal-Mart would have gone out of business years ago… but they don’t. People want the best deal they can get and don’t care what is does to fellow American workers. Remember the “buy American” movements… went nowhere. Cheap stuff at Wal-Mart made by slave-labor in other countries in just nifty with Americans. Same with illegals working in yards…

            <

            p>I would absolutely support heavy enforcement for hiring illegals for any company (or individual citizens). My illegals show up working for legit companies so I don’t actually “pay them under the table”… they can’t speak english, barely got a head nod when I gave them some water last summer but it could have been the 100 degree heat.

            <

            p>Wonder how the rest of the lefties would feel about enforcement on companies? The net result would be the same as arrest/deport since with no work the illegals couldn’t survive. So ya I’m good with your suggestion.

  4. For that matter neither should legal non-citizen immigrants.  To me citizenship and voting go hand-in-hand, although at the local level I would be open to allowing legal immigrants to vote for school committee if their children attend public schools.

    <

    p>They should, however, be able to get licenses and children should be able to attend state universities at in-state rates.  The federal government needs to come up with a system to ID citizens as citizens.  Licenses should be used to prove you can drive.  Immigration is a federal issue and the only question the state should be asking is whether the applicant passed a driving test.  As for in-state rates we need to remember that for many of these kids this IS home.  If they came with their parents when they were two and have grown up here, gone through school, and played by the rules they absolutely should qualify for in-state rates.

  6. Pasted below is the text of the Oath of Office that State Representatives in Massachusetts take when they’re sworn into office.

    <

    p>BIG QUESTION:  Does the statement made by Representative Richardson violate the Oath of Office and, if so, what happens next?

    <

    p>OATHS AND SUBSCRIPTIONS; INCOMPATIBILITY OF AND EXCLUSION FROM OFFICES; PECUNIARY QUALIFICATIONS; COMMISSIONS; WRITS; CONFIRMATION OF LAWS; HABEAS CORPUS; THE ENACTING STYLE; CONTINUANCE OF OFFICERS; PROVISION FOR A FUTURE REVISAL OF THE CONSTITUTION, ETC.

    <

    p>[Any person chosen governor, lieutenant governor, councillor, senator or representative, and accepting the trust, shall before he proceed to execute the duties of his place or office, make and subscribe the following declaration, viz.–

    <

    p>“I, A. B., do declare, that I believe the Christian religion, and have a firm persuasion of its truth; and that I am seised and possessed, in my own right, of the property required by the constitution as one qualification for the office or place to which I am elected.”

    <

    p>And the governor, lieutenant governor, and councillors shall make and subscribe the said declaration, in the presence of the two houses of assembly; and the senators and representatives first elected under this constitution, before the president and five of the council of the former constitution, and forever afterwards before the governor and council for the time being.]

    <

    p>And every person chosen to either of the places or offices aforesaid, as also any person appointed or commissioned to any judicial, executive, military, or other office under the government, shall, before he enters on the discharge of the business of his place or office, take and subscribe the following declaration, and oaths or affirmations, viz.–

    <

    p>[“I, A. B., do truly and sincerely acknowledge, profess, testify and declare, that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is, and of right ought to be, a free, sovereign and independent state; and I do swear, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the said commonwealth, and that I will defend the same against traitorous conspiracies and all hostile attempts whatsoever: and that I do renounce and abjure all allegiance, subjection and obedience to the king, queen, or government of Great Britain, (as the case may be) and every other foreign power whatsoever: and that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate, hath, or ought to have, any jurisdiction, superiority, pre-eminence, authority, dispensing or other power, in any matter, civil, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this commonwealth, except the authority and power which is or may be vested by their constituents in the congress of the United States: and I do further testify and declare, that no man or body of men hath or can have any right to absolve or discharge me from the obligation of this oath, declaration, or affirmation; and that I do make this acknowledgment, profession, testimony, declaration, denial, renunciation and abjuration, heartily and truly, according to the common meaning and acceptation of the foregoing words, without any equivocation, mental evasion, or secret reservation whatsoever — So help me, God.”]

    <

    p>“I, A. B., do solemnly swear and affirm, that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent on me as : according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably, to the rules and regulations of the constitution, and the laws of this commonwealth — So help me, God.”

    <

    p>Provided always, that when any person chosen or appointed as aforesaid, shall be of the denomination of the people called Quakers, and shall decline taking the said oath[s], he shall make his affirmation in the foregoing form, and subscribe the same, omitting the words [“I do swear,” “and abjure,” “oath or,” “and abjuration” in the first oath; and in the second oath, the words] “swear and,” and [in each of them] the words “So help me, God;” subjoining instead thereof, “This I do under the pains and penalties of perjury.”] [See Amendments, Art. VI .]

    • Amended by Article VI:

      Article VI. Instead of the oath of allegiance prescribed by the constitution, the following oath shall be taken and subscribed by every person chosen or appointed to any office, civil or military under the government of this commonwealth, before he shall enter on the duties of his office, to wit:

      “I, A. B., do solemnly swear, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and will support the constitution thereof. So help me God.”

      If saying dumb things was a violation of the Oath of Office, you’d have to try and impeach the lot of them.

    • Plus I see nothing in the original oaths that her proposals would violate anyway.  I don’t believe a legislator can be expelled so the only consequences can be at the ballot box.

    • … of the oath for a legislator to consider legislation.  It is within their power to change rules.  If someone want’s to highlight a conflict with current rules, then that’s a point for debate, not an automatic fail.  If it get’s past debate, we have procedures when new rules violate old rules and they have nothing to do with any oath.

  7. Representative Richardson should be applauded for standing up for her convictions and supporting the people of her district. The same people who criticize Richardson now are the same people who complain about the lack of honesty in politics.

    <

    p>On all of the topics she covers in her speech, Richardson has obviously considered the facts before coming to her conclusion. Contrary to popular belief, immigrants-both legal and undocumented-pay millions in taxes in MA and billions in the US (Don’t believe that undocumented immigrants pay taxes, check out the IRS website on Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers). Yet, both groups have no right to vote in elections. If there is ever a case of taxation without representation this is it. If you were being taxed at the same rate as U.S. citizens, wouldn’t you want to at least be able to vote and help dictate where your money went at the local level? That is what Richardson is discussing: voting rights in local elections.

    <

    p>On the subject of in-state tuition rates, it is surprising that this is even up for debate at a time of such economic challenges. The MA Taxpayers Foundation did a study in 2006 that found that providing in-state tuition rates to undocumented students in MA would bring in $2.5 million to the state in tuition fees. This doesn’t even count the additional tax revenue generated by the higher income associated with the completion of a college degree. When you combine the economic arguments for making in-state tuition a reality with the humanitarian reasons, the only reason to logically keep undocumented students from accessing in-state tuition rates, and with it higher education and increased taxes, is spite. Many of these students know no other home than the US and had no choice in coming here. After investing in these students in K-12, why stop after that? Why watch these talented and high-achieving students leave for other states where opportunities exist, instead of helping them lay their roots and skills in MA. 9 states have passed similar legislation, including liberal havens like Kansas and Nebraska and Texas (which actively recruits undocumented immigrants because the state knows how much revenue their tuition generates.).

    <

    p>There is so much misinformation about in-state tuition rate it is difficult to know where to start when dispelling the myths. First, students are required to live in MA for three years.  There goes the argument for having undocumented students (or citizen students) from all over the country flocking to MA to go to college. They are also required to graduate from a MA high school (including passing the MCAS) and sign an affidavit saying they will follow a path to U.S. citizenship. Undocumented students will not get to attend schools for free, as many folks have actually claimed, but pay the same rates as their peers, the same peers they have grown up with and studied with in school.

    <

    p>Legally, can you name another precedent where a child is punished for the actions of their parents? Would allowing undocumented students access to higher education reward the parents for the civil violation of entering the country without appropriate documentation? For most undocumented families, having their children grow up in the U.S. is reward enough, as a low-wage job here is often much better than the opportunities available in their native country. If not, why would they have come?

    <

    p>Much of the debate over immigration is controlled by those who choose to scapegoat an entire population, and flippantly refer to “deporting them all back to where they came from.” These same people fail to mention the taxes and skills brought into the economy, the fact that the MA economy and population both would have shrunk without immigrants in the past 10 years. Here’s hoping we can begin to recognize the valuable contribution of all immigrants to the Commonwealth and invest in our state’s future, instead of wasting valuable revenue opportunities and easily accessible reserves of current and talent.  Here’s hoping that more politicians have the courage and the sensibility to stand up, not only for what they believe in but also what is just.

    <

    p>MIRA Coalition

  8. Might be to allow, in very short order, a very large amount of legal immigration. Like, millions.  This would inject a little demand into the oversupplied housing market, and would create enough cheap labor to, perhaps, make it worthwhile to do manufacturing here again.  

  9. She can kiss her strongly supportive base “goodbye” because she’s alarmed and annoyed her entire base of constituents with her crazy comments.

    <

    p>THIS ONE’S GOTTA GO.

    <

    p>She’ll never serve enough time in the House to get a pension.  

    <

    p>Stick a fork in her.  She’s done.  She’s toast.  She’ll never get re-elected.

Archives