What will Obama, Calderon say about this immigration law?

It seems you don’t need to be located on the U.S.-Mexico border or have a high-profile case of an illegally present college student — or even to have a Republican majority — for your state legislature to decide something has to be done about immigration. From the Boston Globe:

With one lawmaker citing President Lincoln’s respect for the rule of law, the Massachusetts Senate passed a far-reaching crackdown this afternoon on illegal immigrants and those who would hire them, going further, senators said, than any immigration bill proposed over the past five years.

In a surprising turn of events, the legislation replaced a narrower bill that was passed Wednesday over the objections of Republicans.

The measure, which passed on a 28-10 vote as an amendment to the budget, would bar the state from doing business with any company found to break federal laws barring illegal immigrant hiring. It would also toughen penalties for creating or using fake identification documents, and explicitly deny in-state college tuition for illegal immigrants.

The amendment would also require the state’s public health insurance program to verify residency through the Department of Homeland Security, and would require the state to give legal residents priority for subsidized housing.

The focus on state benefits is an important one. We absolutely need better security on the border. But we also have to face the fact that when we extend any government-provided benefits to illegal immigrants, we are offering people an additional incentive to enter our country illegally. As Milton Friedman once said, “you can have immigration reform, but you can’t have open immigration without largely the elimination of welfare.”

We have to get that part right, along with border security, before we can start debating whether to take such steps as adjusting the number of legal immigrants we accept, or ending the practice of birthright citizenship. And, of course, the thornier issue of what to do with the millions of illegal immigrants already here.

22 comments Add your comment

Big D

May 28th, 2010
10:36 am

If it does anything except hurt the USA or make that bag of air Obama look good, you an bet all you have that he will go on the campaign trail to denounce it.

saywhat?

May 28th, 2010
10:48 am

The big difference between this measure and the one in Arizona is that Massachusetts police won’t be detaining US citizens for lack of proof of citizenship, based on ethnicity. That consequence of the Arizona law is what bothers me most about it.

Gator Joe

May 28th, 2010
10:56 am

Kyle,
If you believe the measures in Arizona or Massachusetts (or others like them) will stop undocumented immigrants from entering you are mistaken. When people are suffering extreme poverty and hunger, with bleak prospects for them and their families, they will seek to improve their lives by any means legal, or otherwise. You would do the same if you faced their desperate situations, you would that is, if you are honest with yourself and have any measure of compassion within you. Of course a solution to the problem must be found, but I don’t see any compassionate, comprehensive, rational suggestions comming from you Conservatives.

Peadawg

May 28th, 2010
11:16 am

“but I don’t see any compassionate, comprehensive, rational suggestions comming from you Conservatives.”

Do you not know what illegal means? Breaking the law? Are you in favor of selectively enforcing our nation’s laws?

MPercy

May 28th, 2010
11:22 am

Gator Joe @10:56 am

If I felt that I needed to smuggle myself into Canada, and create false papers to allow me to con my way into a job, apartment, etc. and avail myself of it’s socialist health care system and other welfare-state bennies, I’d do so knowing that I was breaking laws and expect that if caught I would face penalties, the least of which might be deportation.

scrappy

May 28th, 2010
11:34 am

This is what Arizona should have done – go after the people that hire the illegals.

Of course it is way easier to rally the absent minded masses by shouting illegal! I am an American and they are illegal! They are responsible for all crime and must be stopped! Anyone who disagrees with me is un-American and socialist!

Michael

May 28th, 2010
11:52 am

Peadawg-
We already selectively enforce the laws. How many times were you speeding and passed a cop. If you didn’t get pulled over, he was selectivley enforcing the speed limit

Jefferson

May 28th, 2010
12:03 pm

Some folks just can’t stand it if they think someone else is getting a better deal than them.

Michael H. Smith

May 28th, 2010
12:37 pm

Mr. Will is a little bit off on what is required to set the record straight on birthright citizenship. There is more to it than interpretation. In fact, interpretation is the problem that is in need of correcting. There shouldn’t be any “wiggle room” or any need to interpret. Therefore, another amendment is the only way to achieve the objective of correcting the 14th amendment now that the slavery issue has long since been resolved. Birthright citizenship can only be past on from a U.S. Citizen to another U.S. Citizen by birth making birthright citizenship by virtue of mere geography alone null and void.

Jus sanguinis (Latin: right of blood) is a social policy by which nationality or citizenship is not determined by place of birth, but by having an ancestor who is a national or citizen of the state. It contrasts with jus soli (Latin for “right of soil”).

Massachusetts seems to be on the right track, we are a nation of laws.
In order to deal with illegal immigration once and for all it is necessary to truly secure the borders, enforce the laws eternally against the employers and the illegal aliens and take away any and all other means of residing in this country illegally through a process of attrition and deportations.

As long as there is any hope given to an illegal alien that they can possibly remain in this country or possibly fix their papers as it is so called or receive any type of amnesty, as in this tripe of a so-called pathway to citizenship bunk that is nothing more than an illegal detour created especially for those who violated the law as a reward for their crime, there will never be an end to illegal immigrations.

BADA BING

May 28th, 2010
12:38 pm

If you and your family were starving you would do anything to save them? How about overthrowing the corrupt Mexican government and taking their country back? It is called revolution and it is sometimes a good thing. Freedom is nourished by bloodshed, nothing is free without sacrifice. Do you remember what this holiday is about? Time for another Mexican revolution.

WILLIS

May 28th, 2010
12:45 pm

Gary Coleman is in the hospital. I hope he doesn’t have a heart attack, because I do not want to hear any more ‘Different Stroke’ jokes. That’s what I’m talkin bout.

Michael H. Smith

May 28th, 2010
12:48 pm

The Mexicans thus far have never been able to achieve the objective of Independence through a rebellion like the United States accomplished. Of course, given the people of the current United States, if faced with the same task as the founders of this country no doubt WE wouldn’t be anymore successful than the Mexicans. We are not the same stock of people as were are founders, sadly.

Lucky US, we had the founders that we had and a Constitution that not only the Mexicans didn’t have but few other countries have ever duplicated.

Jefferson

May 28th, 2010
1:04 pm

What about the Cubans, they get a free ride?

Michael H. Smith

May 28th, 2010
1:25 pm

What about the Cubans, they get a free ride?

Nope. That is another point of law left over from the cold war that is in need of correcting in order to have real immigration reform: Wet foot – dry foot as it is called will have to be repealed.

Rightfully so, as article one section eight clause four says: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization…

There can be only one means of legal immigration not many different ways or specially treatment give to one nation or culture or particular language as too many times has been the case.

Do note where in the articles the rule of immigration is placed: In the commerce section, with very good reason. Legal immigration should be regulated pursuant to the economy. The highest numbers of legal immigrants should be allowed only when citizen employment numbers are at very high levels, as in having reached a state of what is considered full employment.

CJ

May 28th, 2010
1:34 pm

Kyle: “We have to get that part right, along with border security, before we can start…ending the practice of birthright citizenship.

Ending the practice of birthright citizenship? Why does Kyle hate our Constitution so much?

Fourteenth Amendment: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws…

Cooter-- The illegal hunter

May 28th, 2010
1:48 pm

This morning I was at the quiktrip on Jimmy Carter when this truck full of illegals pulled up with landscaping equipment.
I heard them speaking Spanish so I knew they were illegals. I took down the license # and called 911 and told them what direction they were headed. I told the police I saw them talking to a teenage white girl trying to lure her into their truck. I hope they got pulled over and then deported.

My good deed for the day, enjoy your weekend I will.

Michael H. Smith

May 28th, 2010
1:52 pm

You didn’t mean end birthright citizenship did you Klye?

Was your intention more like amending the 14th amendment to make birthright citizenship Jus sanguinis (Latin: right of blood) is a social policy by which nationality or citizenship is not determined by place of birth, but by having an ancestor who is a national or citizen of the state and no longer jus soli (Latin for “right of soil”)?

Kyle Wingfield

May 28th, 2010
2:01 pm

Right, Michael, I was referring to the argument George Will made in the article to which I linked in those words, in which he says the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is key to interpreting the 14th amendment and determining who exactly should be considered a citizen at birth. I may not have been clear enough about that.

What I *was* clear about, however, was that even this is something to be put up for debate — and not something to simply “start…ending” in the completely and utterly distorted way it was presented by CJ, who likes to call *me* a hack.

Michael H. Smith

May 28th, 2010
2:21 pm

Yeah I’ve noticed you do have quite a following – perhaps of two are three – posers that have nothing better to do than attempt – often by very foolish antics – to distort, convoluted and confuse any issue you bring to the public fore in honest debate.

The phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is far to broad Kyle. The U.S. has jurisdiction in places like the Panama Canal and Guantanamo Bay Cuba. In fact the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court can even extend beyond places like the Panama Canal and Guantanamo Bay Cuba.

The best sure way to end the gaming of “jus soli” (right of the soil) that grants birthright citizenship solely by means geography is to create another amendment that specifically says:

All persons born to a U.S. citizenJus sanguinis or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws…“

It is very hard if not totally impossible to misinterpret that rendering, would you agree?

BADA BING

May 28th, 2010
2:44 pm

Why is the US blamed for Mexico being in a mess? Why can’t the Mexican Gov’t do something to help THEIR people instead of counting on us? They could support the Mexican population if they get rid of corruption and put people to work in MEXICO. We are not responsible for Mexican citizens.Revolt, Mexican people!

BADA BING

May 28th, 2010
3:32 pm

What is the Dept. of Homeland Security for if they won’t secure the homeland? Seal the Border!

Rev. Al Sharptongue

May 28th, 2010
3:47 pm

This blog is dead, so few comments.
I guess only Jay and Cynthia can bring all the nuts out.
Your simplistic non nuanced right wing rhetoric 101 falls way short.
You bore your own kind with your high school book report writing style.