Cross-posted locally.
I wholeheartedly support what Governor Patrick is trying to do here.
Patrick said it would be better to tackle the illegal immigration issue on a larger scale than dealing with smaller issues piecemeal. He vowed to work with Congress to pass an immigration overhaul and create a path to legal residency for illegal immigrants.
“I’m going to do everything I can within my power, because I think the recommendations are sound,” he said. “We need comprehensive immigration reform at the federal level. I hope that the Congress will take it up, and I look forward to working with them as they do.”
I’ve been talking about a liberal approach to the immigration debate, but the governor outsmarted me. He’s getting out in front of it.
He told the crowd that immigrants “walked through fire to make your way to this country” from countries such as China, Haiti, Ireland, Brazil, the Dominican Republic, and Pakistan. He pointed out that they are a widely diverse group that include PhDs, professional baseball players, cooks, and custodians, all attracted by the prospects of a better life.
“I know that embracing newcomers is out of fashion these days,” he said. “Concern over illegal immigration has become so shrill that all immigrants get swept up in that emotion. I want you to know that you are welcome here in this Commonwealth. This is your Commonwealth. This is your home. And we welcome you.”
We’ll see what happens — but it looks to me like the governor is looking beyond “these days” and thinking about the future. Bravo, governor. Bravo.
Don’t You Understand? They will be taking spots away from residents who have spent their lives here. Their mommys and daddys have paid taxes for decades. You are going to sgut out lifelong LEGAL taxpaying residents of our great commonwealth.
In-state commuter tuition for LEGAL state residents was 17% of the daytime commuter college bill package last I looked. Who’s going to pony up the other 83%?
So you don’t start calling me names in the typical democratic response to comments you don’t like, please allow me to say that the legal immigration process needs to be streamlined. If we can do that, perhaps we can reduce illegal immigration in a major way.
Do YOU not understand?
<
p>You would punish a child for choices THEY did NOT make?
<
p>You are sick, cruel and heartless if you do. Sorry if that hurts, but them’s the facts. You want to damage the future of innocent children – the top ones in their classes, typically – in your hunt to punish their parents. Thank GOD there are more sane people in the debate.
<
p>They do NOT take away spots here of other deserving students, and they DO NOT get state assistance of ANY sort – this would affect the very small percentage of immigrant children who can afford to pay outright for the tuition themselves, because even at the instate tuition rate, it’s not cheap. So get over your privileged self.
<
p>Poor you, the victim. Yeesh.
Are we talking about college age 18 year olds? I believe the Commonwealth considers them ADULTS. Colleges only accept so many students. Are you telling me sons and daughters of taxpayers should be shoved aside, so your bleeding blue heart can be soothed.
Please READ my post again. I do say that our immigration process needs to be streamlined.
But lets work within legal boundaries first. I’m not noticing any rush by our democratic state legislature to change things. Of course, they might want to be re-elected.
Funny, nobody CAMPAIGNED for this issue in the recent election.
Who is being shoved aside? And how?
That’s exactly who we’re talking about – sons and daughters of taxpayers. Your right-wing talking points have no power here.
The fact that they pay taxes is undeniable, but it’s the easiest talking point to grab onto and use for scapegoating.
<
p>More and more, on almost every issue, the right-wing talking points and the truth are growing further apart.
They and their parents have, in most cases, been paying state taxes that go toward public education. It’s surprising how many radio ranters have been going on about how they will be getting free education, not just paying the state resident rate for tuition. The question still remains how to reconcile the illegal presence in the country by their parents, and consequently in many cases, by them.
Who’s being shoved aside and Why are they being shoved aside.
The way I see it if the kids go to college, get their degree’s and a good job to go with it. Well that’s a good thing. We should be thankful they are going to contribute, because they’d be less expensive than the “gang banger’s” the people on the right fear. By continuing their education they can pay into the system rather than cost the system whatever it cost to arrest and imprison people gang bangers.
Besides it’s probably moot anyway because California just got a ruling about this very same problem. Naturally the ruling came down on the side of good rather than the egocentric ism that permeates the right.
<
p>
It’s not about being 18 now. It’s about that many of them have been here for years, came with a parent when they were too young to make their own decision, and for whom this IS home as far as they are concerned.
I’ve met some of these kids. And many of them are more “American” than some of the natural-born citizens with whom I went to high school.
<
p>This IS their home, and they’re PROUD to call it that.
MillburyMan, your post is supposed to be funny, right?
<
p>In-state tuition for these undocumented immigrants would only apply to a few hundred students, so this really is a very small issue – though it is a huge deal for those students.
<
p>The students also must have graduated from a MA high school (unless that requirement has changed) so they have most likely been here for a while, possibly their entire lives. A legal resident could move to MA, establish residency in a year or two and then qualify for in-state tuition rates.
<
p>How are they “taking spots away from residents”? Undocumented immigrants still have to apply and be accepted, regardless of whether they get in-state tuition rates. If a legal resident doesn’t get accepted, is it really the fault of the person who had better qualifications?
<
p>The most important thing is that undocumented immigrants living in Massachusetts PAY TAXES. They pay sales tax, property tax (likely through rent they pay), taxes on gasoline, they cover excise taxes on alcohol, the vast majority pay payroll taxes, and many pay income taxes (few pay federal income tax because most undocumented workers, like most American citizens, do not earn enough).
Doubleman, you said “The students also must have graduated from a MA high school (unless that requirement has changed)”
<
p>Can you show me where this is outlined. I’m a lot more open to this program if that’s the case.
When this idea first came about in the past, that was one of the requirements. Most of the reporting on the recent announcement does not seem to mention it, but I would be shocked if that was not a requirement.
<
p>This has it:
http://washingtonindependent.c…
<
p>
Helpful links. I feel okay about it if that’s in there.
A description of the in-state tuition legislation from the website of the Mass. Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition (MIRA), at whose event the Gov. spoke yesterday:
<
p>
A stronger Commonwealth for it, too.
<
p>Immigrants (undoc’ed or otherwise) are the hardest working people I know. And I know a lot! They start businesses, get educated like the dickens, and appreciate what bounty they can work for in our country.
<
p>The country with a stable birthrate (or especially decreasing – see Scandinavia) needs immigration to grow. Ask Detroit how well a decreasing population works for them…
I think it’s economic suicide for us to educate thousands of foreigners each year in universities, business schools, medical schools, and graduate schools, and then kick them out once they are done their education, even if they wanted to stay and work in the U.S.
<
p>We’re losing out on so much talent. We’re seeing and will continue to see so much innovation coming out of China and India made possible by people educated here.
<
p>Good for them, probably not so good for us.
I don’t think the vast majority of people who debate about illegal immigration know what the cap is on legal immigrants.
<
p>According to this page, it is 521,000. That’s in a country of over 300 million. Yes, that comes to 1/20th of a percent of our population. Why so low?
<
p>Why don’t we focus on attracting talented, professional, educated immigrants to this country? Surely that is a win for us — we get another talented, educated citizen without having to invest our country’s dollars. Someone else would have footed the bill for their birth, health care as a child, and education.
<
p>I don’t even think our current system gives preference to skilled people. According to the site, we offer:
<
p>- 226,000 “family based” green cards, given to immediate relatives and family preferences;
<
p>- 140,000 “employment based” green cards (not H1-B) mainly for those who are “Persons of extraordinary ability in the arts, sciences, business, education or athletics”, “Outstanding professors and researchers with at least three years experience in teaching or research, who are recognized internationally. “, or “Certain executives and managers of multinational companies who have been employed for at least one of the preceding three years. “
<
p>- 55,000 in a “green card lottery”.
<
p>- 90,000 for refugees.
<
p>- 10,000 for “special immigrant status” which are clergy, and some special and very specific exceptions such as “former employees of the Panama Canal Zone”.
<
p>Again, why so low? Our country has absorbed far more immigrants as a percentage of our total population in the past. I can appreciate that we may no longer need immigrant factory workers, but why not completely open immigration for highly skilled workers instead of capping it at such low levels? When the shackles of their former countries are released, I would expect these people to become an important source of entrepreneurialism.
is based on bringing in low-wage employees who aren’t able to protect themselves. High skilled workers are not really in demand and many of those visas available for high skilled workers aren’t even used.
<
p>On the other hand, the need for family-based visas is very high. So high that if I – as a US Citizen – were to apply for a visa for a sibling living in the Phillipines, s/he would have to wait for almost 20 years before a visa became available.
While I agree that children should not be punished for their parents mistakes, I don’t see how this makes sense. Without guaranteeing some path to citizenship, all you’re doing is educating people that still aren’t legally allowed to work here.
<
p>Furthermore, the in-state tuition program is inherently preferential to legal MA citizens. That’s what it’s for. Illegal immigrants don’t qualify for it any more than an American citizen from Texas does.
<
p>If this were enacted, what would stop foreign-born nationals from all over the world from moving to MA illegally for a year and then going to school here on the government’s dime.
<
p>In-state tuition is subsidized, and doesn’t cover costs of schooling. The state school system is also painfully overextended. This just doesn’t seem reasonable to me. It’s not a “kick’m out of the country” thing. It’s a “this half measure doesn’t make sense” thing.
As I recall, the proposal was always that the student had to have attended for at least 3 years, and graduated from, a MA high school.
Since as far as I can tell, noses and camels have zero to do with this issue.
I think many people, including myself, believe that these kind of programs start out neat and clean, with restrictions galour. And then one-by-one, beaurocrats peel the restirctions away. We have so many track records of programs starting under certain rules but changing after the green light. Do you think public Housing was originally built to house illegal immigrants while American citizens live on the streets? i think this program could start with requirements about graduating from a MA HS… and before long we’ll hear “So why should the fact that this child graduated from a HS in CT matter? His parents moved him here without asking him, so why should we punish this young child…?”
<
p>
The tax code is a prime example.
Probably never will pass. The voting public won’t even consider it in fact I’m guessing we’ll be seeing the Senate try to resurrect the bill which passed 28-10 in the Senate but failed in the House ( a House which has more Republicans in it now). Key components of the bill…
<
p>
<
p>Unscientific polls in the Globe and the Herald today show overwhelming lack of support for it (85%+ against it).
is that it’s being framed really poorly. I was asking around about it (as I did here, and got a great response!) within my own social community, and was pretty much told my a lot of people, including a union leader, that I’m an ignorant bigot and a racist to even ask about it.
<
p>Framed as it is in comments above, I’m not as apprehensive, but the left needs to be willing to patiently explain policy to people who want to know in clear, concise language, or they’re not going to get anywhere.
but why do people on the left get so angry about this one? Look what happened when you even asked the question, you were called a bigot, a racist… Why can’t we have some dialogue about controversial subjects without name calling and personal attacks?
that rhetoric and name-calling when it comes to immigration are problems on both sides, and that the issue and the country would be better served if everyone could tone it down a bit. Calling people racists because they oppose in-state tuition doesn’t help things much; neither does “WHAT PART OF ILLEGAL DON’T YOU UNDERSTAND??”
It’s totally crazy. Plus, the left tends to have a smugness in their insults that turns people off even more. I’m a card carrying Democrat, a march on Washington, write constant letters and make constant phone calls activist, and was a delegate in the 2006 DSC. If I’m having trouble understanding the issue, that means it isn’t being communicated properly, or if it is, it isn’t an issue you’re going to get the middle with.
<
p>I thought the Dream Act was a great idea, but this idea, framed as it was on Boston.com, and with no one on the left, prominent or otherwise, doing any clarifying work, is almost guaranteed to fail. I mean, it sounds like a piece of legislation that Republicans could only dream of having to throw an Democrats in the papers.
<
p>Give it to the right, they’re clear about what they want. Unfortunately, what they want is crazy.
See, you can frame a question any way you want depending on what results you want. But some issues are clear from the beginning.
<
p>If somebody is Pro-life, then they consider abortion murder. But then people say “what about rape or incest…” and the question gets complicated but Pro-lifers will stick to their premise, abortion is murder. Then people against the death penalty believe “that” is murder but throw in the murderer kidnapped children and cut off their heads… but advocates will still believe it is murder. Water-boarding KSM was torture, but tell someone it saved the lives of an auditorium full of school children… so there are extenuating circumstances used by the opponents of any issue to make their points.
<
p>Many people in MA believe we should not be supplementing the tuition payments of illegal immigrants… period. They think US citizens deserve breaks before people who are here illegally. You can tell them that it’s not heir fault… but they fundamentally believe an illegal immigrant should not be getting any break from the government (and their taxes) that even a NH resident doesn’t get. This doesn’t make them crazy!
Part of the problem is that right wing talk hosts keep calling this “free tuition for illegal immigrants”. That is what the public thinks it is — they picture some grown man slipping over the border in order to get a free college education here.
<
p>It never occurs to people that this is aimed at children who were brought here very young, who have resided in this state for many years, who want to attend college here and be a part of this state, but are being told “sorry, you have to pay a tuition equivalent to a private school because even though you’re a long-time resident, you weren’t born here and your parents aren’t here legally”.
<
p>Throwing away kids who desire a college education to make a better life for themselves in this state seems like stupid policy to me. But it isn’t about policy, it’s about the fear that “those that are not like you” are taking things from the you, things that you deserve but they don’t. That’s the Republican frame in full force.
they are still here illegally. They are not American citizens and are not suppose to be here. That is a fact. I’d love to send my kids to college int he CA college system but I don’t live there, I am not a legal resident of CA so I hdon’t get the rate of being a legel resident of CA. Same is true with MA.
<
p>You have gone out of your way to say the Republicans are “framing” and yet you are guilty of the same crime. Where do you get off by saying…
<
p>
<
p>Why do you demonize someone simply because they don’t agree with you? I happen to believe that people from NH or CT should not be able to get in-state tuition rates in MA. These people are “like me” but I don’t want them to get something they don’t deserve. There are also people in MA who are nothing like me, Chinese, black, hispanic, Italian, Russian… but they are here legally and I would hope they would get in-state tuition since they deserve it. Please don’t demonize people with broad statements like “those that are not like you” because that has nothing to do with it.
Do you live and pay taxes in California? No. Did your kids graduate High School in California? No.
<
p>If you do, you should be considered a resident as far as state education benefits go. Same thing in Massachusetts.
My opinion is people who are here legally should get benefits which people who are here illegally do not get. That is a tenet which I believe strongly in. I’m not saying your a bad person for believing what you do, I just disagree.
<
p>You could argue that a person who has lived in the US for 42 years, paid taxes, contributed to the economy… should be able to run for President, even if they are not an American citizen. But unfortunately for them, we have a law that says a person running for POTUS has to be a native born American. That is our law and so is law about people who are here illegally!
Why? Let’s assume, as is almost universally the case, that the immigration status of the students in question is not their fault. Normally, punishment, or disqualification from benefits, or other negative consequences, are associated with something that the person in question did wrong. Indeed, that seems to me a pretty basic requirement of a just legal system. That’s not the case here. So why punish these kids for something they didn’t do? Can you think of another instance where we do such a thing in America?
It’s not “their fault” that I chose to live in MA. Why are they being disqualified from benefits? How about MA residents who apply for financial aid but they don’t get it because their parents make too much money (but they don’t give their kids any money for tuition), so they get punished by not getting financial aid even though “it is not their fault”.
…when I hear that certain of our fellow human beings are looked upon as less worthy, especially through no fault of their own. Selfishness and unwillingness to be inclusive of all persons makes me angry as well.
How would the country handle it if 6 billion people from around the world decided to live here. We have poverty, homeless people, illiteracy, people with poor healthcare… and that’s with our existing American citizens. Why do you want to bring more people into the mix. We have an immigration program which allows people to come here every year.
<
p>Fenway Park and all the other sports centers in Boston have limits as to how man people they hold and so does America. Do you want more jobless people walking the streets.
We have more than enough room for plenty more people willing to contribute to our society, but I also believe that it is in our interest to promote political liberty and economic opportunity elsewhere so they don’t all need to come here. My complaint in this particular comment is that once they are here and we encounter each case they should be treated with compassion and as people, not as nuisances and hinderances.
One reason I think the right is successful is that their positions are often less-nuanced and reducible to sound bites.
<
p>On the left, we want to explain our positions, and we have very persuasive advocates, like Deval Patrick, who can do it. The problem is that newspapers and cable news outlets don’t attract many customers with nuance. The Globe didn’t explain things well on this issue, and you know the Herald won’t even try.
<
p>Remember the Herald coverage of public assistance recipients being able to use their EBT cards on this like alcohol? That made some people go nuts, even though there really wasn’t much of a story there. And then Charlie Baker ran with it and made things crazier.
<
p>The Health Insurance Reform bill is probably the most perfect example of this. The negative sound bites dominated and people didn’t know what was in the bill (even though in polls they overwhelmingly endorsed almost every individual piece), they just knew that they didn’t like it. Republicans clearly won that public opinion debate.
<
p>We do need to do a better job explaining things on the left because we often don’t receive much help from institutions not doing their jobs.
“What part of fairness do you not understand?” at least as a retort to “What part of illegal…?”
<
p>The United Church of Christ has a slogan that is apt for this:
<
p>”No matter who you are or where you are on life’s journey, you are welcome here!” The state and country would have to make necessary execptions to this for those who would threaten our safety, but it’s still a good starting point and reminder of what our default position should be.