So now that the Mass State Senate approved a law requiring proof of citizenship for receiving state benefits it will be interesting to see if we become a target of scorn and outrage like Arizona. Hey, maybe Cambridge will secede and join up with New Hampshire, the "live free or die" state. But with a motto like that, probably not.
The Republican reports
The WSJ reports (leave Dora out of this debate)
16 comments:
C'mon, these are not even closely related. Everyone has to provide proof of citzenship before applying for state benefits, not just people "suspected" of not being citizens.
And I believe if you actually took the time to read the Arizona law (and obviously President Obama did not) then you would know that it does NOT allow police to simply stop anyone for being a "suspected" illegal immigrant.
Which is kind of why the editorial cartoon printed last week in the Gazette, I believe, with Dora and her monkey in a spotlight with the caption "Freeze! Show me your papers," kind of pissed me off.
Especially since my 8-year-daughter happened to see it and asked why a policeman would hassle Dora.
What's wrong with putting the burden of proof on the applicant for services you and I fund with taxes?
It's an tough problem to solve - illegal immigration.
- Most people are willing to concede that we have a 14,000,000+ foreigners living illegally in the US and that they decided to enter illegally for work opportunities ... some stay for the social services.
- We are willing to pressure employers to verify paperwork so that they do not employ undocumented foreign workers (non-citizens in the US illegally)
- We are willing to require people who apply for Commonwealth safety net services like food stamps, low income housing to show documentation that they are citizens of the US or have a legal status that qualifies them.
"Especially since my 8-year-daughter happened to see it and asked why a policeman would hassle Dora."
There are many things in this world and in the newspaper that are hard to explain to an 8 year old, cartoon editorials notwithstanding, which tend to make their points using hyperbole.
Next step:
What's the problem with asking recipients of state benefits to be drug tested? In order to ensure that government money is not going straight to drug dealers, which right now it is. The dealers know what day of the month the government checks are issued and set up shop accordingly.
Because taking drugs does not disqualify a person from receiving food stamps or public housing?
And some cities and towns in the Commonwealth of Mass actually have a needle exchange program (our local Sister City Hamp for instance.)
But taxpayers should understand that government benefits paid to drug-addicted people go straight out of the envelope into illegal narcotics. That's not cynicism; that's reality.
And, if this flow of money were curtailed in some way, the illegal commerce on our streets might be curtailed also. A significant amount of drug profits from street dealing is one degree of separation from government coffers.
The Federal Government also subsidizes
tobacco growers (some of them right here in the Happy Valley).
And that product--when taken as directed--only kills 400,000 Americans annually.
No, but you can stop them for any trivial reason, which police already do. Then you can demand their proof in immigration status. So, if you are out for a jog and you jaywalk (or jayrun) make sure you've got your proof of legal immigration status. Don't go pick-up your newspaper off your lawn in your pajamas. You may end up in jail.
Larry,
You are so naive. Our freedoms get taken away one by one and it's always with some evil that we will be protected from. It's always "we'll only wiretap terrorists, not ordinary citizens" and then the trut comes out years later about all the abuses of the law. If you lovee freedom you will stand against this law.
Larry, you are correct in saying,
"then you would know that it does NOT allow police to simply stop anyone for being a 'suspected' illegal immigrant." The AZ law
also forbids racial profiling. In the lingo of law enforcement: reasonable suspicion building up to probable cause in the context of a lawful contact.
For instance, if a Phoenix policeman pulls over a female motorist for driving like Dale Earnhardt, Jr. at Talladega, and requests to see her license, and is handed only a Mexican national identity card -- bingo. Mr. Cop may have to obtain further information about Ms. Speedy Gonzalez's immigration status from the appropriate federal agency.
What is unreasonable about any of that? And how does that affect a law-abiding person's freedoms?
P.S. Dora is a cutie.
Speedy Gonzalez? Nothing racist about that comment.
Actually I hear he's very popular in Latin America.
Last Anonymous: Puse mis ojos en blanco (^.^) at your moronic comment
Note to Anons:
Don't mess with somebody with Costa Rican roots.
Post a Comment