Breaking: Massachusetts Passes Illegal Immigration Bill

[Obama 2012 1,714]

This bill will be challenged and will lose big time for the highlighted reasons below:

See: Plyler v. Doe

Glad they are doing something, just a shame they didn't think twice about what they were passing.

-------

http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/05/mass_senate_pas.html

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 amendment will now be part of negotiations with the House as part of the entire state budget.

Supporters, especially Republicans, struck patriotic notes and spoke of the sanctity of the law as they spoke on the Senate floor.

“It was President Lincoln -- and I’m going to paraphrase here -- who suggested that respect for the law should be preached from every pulpit taught by every mother to every child,” said Senator Bruce Tarr, a Gloucester Republican.

But one supporter said that the measure was being passed for practical purposes and would hurt people.

Senator Frederick E. Berry, a Peabody Democrat, complained that one of the Republican sponsors acted like the "Patriots had just won the Super Bowl. ... I am going to vote for it, but I don’t think we ought to rejoice."

Democrats had resisted such a sweeping proposal, but spent last evening negotiating today’s measure, shortly after a new polled showed 84 percent of the liberal-leaning state’s voters supported tough immigration rules barring state services to illegal immigrants.

Sonia Chang-Diaz, a Boston Democrat who opposed the amendment, said the measure had not been properly vetted and would add undue obligations to businesses and state government when they could ill afford it. She said it would cost the state money, while programs for children and public safety are being cut and people in her city are being shot at.

"I just don't think this is an appropriate time to be enforcing an additional cost burden on the state, doing things that are not our job," Chang-Diaz said.

The measure would also close what supporters say is a loophole that allows businesses to register cars under a company name, without identifying the owner by Social Security number and federal tax identification number. It would also crate a toll-free hot line for anonymous reporting of companies that employ illegal immigrants.

The measure comes weeks after immigration measures failed in the House, and amid heightened debate over illegal immigration fueled by the state's election season and Arizona's passage in April of the toughest immigration law in the nation.

Recent polls have found that, while voters supported blocking illegal immigrants' access to public benefits, they were split over whether the Bay State should have a law such as Arizona's.

Thursday's Senate amendment would also authorize the state attorney general's office to broker an agreement with federal authorities to help enforce immigration law. That would be a stark departure for Attorney General Martha Coakley, who has increased outreach to immigrants, encouraging them to file employment complaints, regardless of their legal status. Scores of immigrants whose bosses allegedly failed to pay their wages have turned to her for help in recent years.

The legislation also would increase penalties for driving without a license, one of the main problems facing illegal immigrants in Massachusetts. In November, a panel commissioned by Governor Deval Patrick urged him to push to grant driver's licenses and in-state tuition for illegal immigrants, among many other recommendations. Patrick sent the recommendations to his cabinet for study and pledged to return with a proposal in 90 days, but the results have not been made public.

Most immigrants in Massachusetts are here legally, but an estimated 190,000, or 20 percent, are here illegally, according to the census.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Do you think Plyler v. Doe addresses higher education?

I'm still reading it, so I'm not sure yet......

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Do you think Plyler v. Doe addresses higher education?

I'm still reading it, so I'm not sure yet......

Plyler v. Doe addresses the equal protections under the law guaranteed by the 14th amendment.

Boston's stipulations and obvious discrimination against people within the boundaries of the US will have this bill knocked down by the courts in no time if it's challenged.

[Darnell 8,478]

Well, it still has to be 'put into law', there, right ?

I'm hoping all goes well with that.

[Pooky 3,809]

Do you think Plyler v. Doe addresses higher education?

I'm still reading it, so I'm not sure yet......

I don't think it does ...

We are reluctant to impute to Congress the intention to withhold from these children, for so long as they are present in this country through no fault of their own, access to a basic education. In other contexts, undocumented status, coupled with some articulable federal policy, might enhance state authority with respect to the treatment of undocumented aliens. But in the area of special constitutional sensitivity presented by these cases, and in the absence of any contrary indication fairly discernible in the present legislative record, we perceive no national policy that supports the State in denying these children an elementary education. The State may borrow the federal classification. But to justify its use as a criterion for its own discriminatory policy, the State must demonstrate that the classification is reasonably adapted to "the purposes for which the state desires to use it." Oyama v. California, 332 U.S. 633, 664-665 (1948) (Murphy, J., concurring) (emphasis added). We therefore turn to the state objectives that are said to support § 21.031. [p227]

... and ...

That section provides, in pertinent part:

(a) All children who are citizens of the United States or legally admitted aliens and who are over the age of five years and under the age of 21 years on the first day of September of any scholastic year shall be entitled to the benefits of the Available School Fund for that year.

(b) Every child in this state who is a citizen of the United States or a legally admitted alien and who is over the age of five years and not over the age of 21 years on the first day of September of the year in which admission is sought shall be permitted to attend the public free schools of the district in which he resides or in which his parent, guardian, or the person having lawful control of him resides at the time he applies for admission.

© The board of trustees of any public free school district of this state shall admit into the public free schools of the district free of tuition all persons who are either citizens of the United States or legally admitted aliens and who are over five and not over 21 years of age at the beginning of the scholastic year if such person or his parent, guardian or person having lawful control resides within the school district.

... are both fairly clear in that these passages refer to free public schools and basic education.

I think MA has chosen its policy carefully to avoid falling foul of the 14th Amendment and is targeting the main body of its policy in the right direction, namely the verification of status for hiring and the proposed sanctions against companies found to be guilty of hiring illegal immigrants.

The most encouraging thing about this, however, is that the vote was 28 - 10 in one of the bluest states in the country. Let Deval Patrick veto the proposal, knowing that a significant number of his fellow Democrats voted for the proposal.

It's good to see that elected representatives are listening to the people they represent and doing something positive. What remains to be seen is whether Washington will finally realise that Arizona was just the first of many and that more states, red and blue, are prepared to take the action the electorate is clamoring for, if the Federal authorities don't step up to the plate and enforce the laws already in force.

Edited May 28, 2010 by Pooky

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

This is actually a much more effective bill to eliminate the economic incentive for illegals. Doesn't go far enough for punishing employers, in my opinion.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

I don't think it does ...

... and ...

... are both fairly clear in that these passages refer to free public schools and basic education.

I think MA has chosen its policy carefully to avoid falling foul of the 14th Amendment and is targeting the main body of its policy in the right direction, namely the verification of status for hiring and the proposed sanctions against companies found to be guilty of hiring illegal immigrants.

The most encouraging thing about this, however, is that the vote was 28 - 10 in one of the bluest states in the country. Let Deval Patrick veto the proposal, knowing that a significant number of his fellow Democrats voted for the proposal.

It's good to see that elected representatives are listening to the people they represent and doing something positive. What remains to be seen is whether Washington will finally realise that Arizona was just the first of many and that more states, red and blue, are prepared to take the action the electorate is clamoring for, if the Federal authorities don't step up to the plate and enforce the laws already in force.

However the ruling wasn't just about education. It was about the 14th amendment and equal protection clause.

In the footnotes of the ruling, it's even stated: """no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment 'jurisdiction' can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful."""

So in other words, even if one is found to be illegal in the country after their check, they cannot treat them any differently by law. Be it Federal or State law. So prioritizing housing to 'legal' residents and denying something offered to other in-state residents is unconstitutional under this ruling.

[Pooky 3,809]

However the ruling wasn't just about education. It was about the 14th amendment and equal protection clause.

In the footnotes of the ruling, it's even stated: """no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment 'jurisdiction' can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful."""

So in other words, even if one is found to be illegal in the country after their check, they cannot treat them any differently by law. Be it Federal or State law. So prioritizing housing to 'legal' residents and denying something offered to other in-state residents is unconstitutional under this ruling.

There are a few twists and turns hiding in the legal language there, such as this one ...

In determining whether a class-based denial of a particular right is deserving of strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause, we look to the Constitution to see if the right infringed has its source, explicitly or implicitly, therein.

Needless to say, I am not a Constitutional expert, nor do I play one on TV, and should this one make it onto the MA. Statute books, it will be interesting to see where any legal challenges go.

I am, however, heartened by this being in MA. and having clear and undisputed bipartisan support. The electorate need their elected representatives to listen, with regard to the illegal immigration issue. The more states that come to the table with proposals to do something, like this one and like AZ., the more Washington will feel the pressure.

The citizens of America and the legal immigrants overwhelming support enforcement of current Federal law over an immigration "reform" amnesty. Washington is beginning to hear that message. What this country needs now is for them to listen.

[SMR 368]

However the ruling wasn't just about education. It was about the 14th amendment and equal protection clause.

In the footnotes of the ruling, it's even stated: """no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment 'jurisdiction' can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful."""

So in other words, even if one is found to be illegal in the country after their check, they cannot treat them any differently by law. Be it Federal or State law. So prioritizing housing to 'legal' residents and denying something offered to other in-state residents is unconstitutional under this ruling.

But if this were the case, the whole concept of in-state tuition would be unconstitutional. In-state tuition means that I have to prove my legal residence in the state in order to get a discount on tuition. I don't even understand why this needs to be specified. If you aren't in the country legally, how can you be a resident of the state legally?

[Obama 2012 1,714]

But if this were the case, the whole concept of in-state tuition would be unconstitutional. In-state tuition means that I have to prove my legal residence in the state in order to get a discount on tuition. I don't even understand why this needs to be specified. If you aren't in the country legally, how can you be a resident of the state legally?

Because if the person in the country illegally is living in your state, they are still a resident and still within its jurisdiction.

A citizen from a different state, not residing in your state, is not within it jurisdition.

The whole point in Plyler v. Doe was stating that jurisdiction and equal protection are defined by residing within the boundaries of the nation and of that state.

Whether one is 'legal' or 'illegal' is completely irrelevant.

[mawilson 2,133]

Because if the person in the country illegally is living in your state, they are still a resident and still within its jurisdiction.

A citizen from a different state, not residing in your state, is not within it jurisdition.

The whole point in Plyler v. Doe was stating that jurisdiction and equal protection are defined by residing within the boundaries of the nation and of that state.

Whether one is 'legal' or 'illegal' is completely irrelevant.

BY will have a field day with this one.