The Massachusetts House of Representatives responded as it generally does when it comes across legislation it does not like, but voting against is also difficult to do. Such was the case when confronted with an amendment to the budget offered by State Representative Jeff Perry, (R-Barnstable). Mr. Perry proposed that all citizens on any form of the public dole provide proof of citizenship prior to being able to collect benefits or payments from the taxpayer generated public coffers.
In a statement by Jeff Perry:
“A majority of my colleagues continue to use money from the pockets of legal Massachusetts citizens to subsidize and reward illegal behavior. Later this week, they will further punish those taxpayers by cutting back on basic services provided to them in the state budget, including local aid, public safety, veterans services and public health programs. This is wrong. Our job as public servants is to protect the taxpaying residents of Massachusetts first. The House failed to live up to that responsibility today.”
To see who voted for and against the best interests of the taxpayer, click here for a PDF accounting of votes: (Our representative, Bill Greene, voted for the taxpayers by voting to approve Mr. Perry’s amendment. For that, I would like to thank and recognize Bill)
The system is non-discriminatory and it abides by Federal Law already in existence – The Federal Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlement program or SAVE for short. When one considers that the means of verification have already been established on the Federal level and that the law already requires aliens (legal) to carry documentation to prove their legality, I do not think this measure is all that complicated to understand or all that complex to enforce. I have a hard time finding the justification given by lawmakers that this amendment requires more time for study. Do you? I didn’t think so, but that is exactly what the leadership of the House proposed as an excuse for defeating the measure by a 4 vote margin, 82 – 75 (75+4 = 79) (82 – 4 = 78).
In a similar vein, We have President Barak Obama’s Aunt Zeituni living in Boston Elderly Housing with a waterfront view as she fights deportation, even though it’s clear that she is here illegally and that there is no reason for political amnesty or any other situation in Kenya that would warrant justifying asylum from oppression. In fact, this is her second attempt in the courts after ignoring her 1st deportation order issued by a U.S. Immigration Court Judge.
All of the Kenyan runners who’ve won the Boston Marathon have returned to their homeland without seeking asylum! What is the problem here, judge? Most people who ignore deportation orders are deported shortly after capture without further hearings, and some have been charged with additional crimes for violating the court order and being in contempt of court. What’s the hold up, Judge?
The only effects of non-asylum she would suffer is that being suffered by every one of her fellow citizens in her native land. If she is granted asylum, should we then import every citizen of Kenya not associated with the government or whatever it is that created the need to request asylum. Were she not related to the President of the United States, she would already be gone. Of that, I have no doubt.
So, considering the full circumstance of her prolonged stay, her nephew’s awareness of the first judgment and her current fight, why is her multi-millionaire nephew, Barak, not footing the bill for her stay? Who is paying her legal bills, her medical bills, her bills for food, clothing and shelter? Why should the taxpayers of Massachusetts foot these bills for this legal travesty? Was this an illegal Mexican, do you think the court would be dragging its feet as long as it is doing in this case? I don’t.
The system for adjudicating deportation is out of control and an abject failure. Enforcement of immigration statutes is not happening. This is the reason that Arizona passed its own immigration enforcement law. Aside from the cross border violence afflicting everyday life along Arizona’s border with Mexico, illegal immigration brings other problems:
That’s money leaving the country instead of going to American workers and being spent in the American enterprises that generate more jobs as a result of more available working capital.
“That’s really the question, as to whether the existing population is willing to work those (low-level) jobs,” Vest says. “I think economics provides the answer. If job openings have no applicants, then businesses need to address that by raising the offered wage.”
This is the rationale Republicans, such as John McCain and Lindsay Graham, have used to justify “comprehensive immigration reform”, including amnesty. Amnesty is not the answer. Arizona is demonstrating the answer. To follow McCain and Graham and their ilk in determining immigration policy is an affront to all of those who are here legally and who paid significant amounts of funds to apply, become approved to enter and stay and to ultimately become citizens once they completed prescribed steps for that ultimate goal.
If business must have illegals to compete and survive, then, we have greater problems than illegal immigration that must be addressed, such as regulation, lack of law enforcement, overspending by the government leading to over-taxation of businesses and individuals that make competition more difficult and outsourcing more attractive.
I applaud Arizona for taking a stand and turning up the heat on the Federal government to do the job they were hired and sworn to perform. I hope other states will react similarly until the Federal government takes its responsibility seriously. No amount of savings to business or votes for Democrats is worth selling out the sovereignty of the United States and the freedom of its people to pursue happiness by access to jobs and free trade as well as the ability to keep most of what they earn.
President Obama’s spokespeople have suggested that President Obama is planning on calling up the National Guard to protect the border, including that of Arizona. Were I the Governor of Arizona, I would put the National Guard under my control on the border and refuse to contribute any more guardsman to fight in Iraq, Afghanistan or to be deployed anywhere else until the Federal government provided the security required of them by the United States Constitution.
Obviously, the President is not going to send troops and never seriously considered it a month ago. Now, he, through his Attorney General, Eric Holder is talking of suing Arizona for civil rights violations.
The rights of American citizens are to be held above those of any immigrant population; especially, illegal immigrant populations – not the other way around. Our taxes are not intended to be poured into a trough from which illegal immigrants can take resources to feed, clothe and shelter themselves. Those funds are intended to go toward, national defense, interior law creation, enforcement and adjudication in the interest of protecting citizens at all levels of government, including providing adequate public safety measures and resources. Everything else is optional and no U.S. citizen should ever be asked to take a back seat to non-citizens or to fire police, fire, ambulance or other essential government personnel hired to provide public safety because we are squandering our resources to keep costs down for businesses or buy votes for Democrats. Period! It’s past time to stop the madness by both parties and we have a running start toward the November elections.
If any of your representative have spoken out against Arizona’s efforts to maintain its sovereignty and the obligation to protect the rights, welfare and safety of its citizens through its laws, or if you have a representative who voted against proving citizenship before claiming tax dollars and benefits, then, please consider voting them out of office if you believe in liberty and justice. Please consider pressuring your officials to propose and support a national I.D. card. (our social security cards as they are once did that, but that system has become so compromised that it is no longer safe to use it). With new biometric technology available, providing such I.D. is easy and something I believe the majority of taxpayers would support using when it comes to doling out benefits and to voting in elections.
Do note the follwing in the article I linked to directly above:
A tip of the hat (TOH) to Michele McPhee for her making the roll call vote on Mr. Perry’s amendment to the budget regarding proof of citizenship prior to receiving benefits in Massachusetts. Hopefully, we won’t see too many drifters from Arizona looking for a place to ski.
destructionist said:
Most people in America aren’t against immigration; they’re just against illegal immigration. For example, like most of our ancestors, my mother’s parents were immigrants. They came through Ellis Island and followed the various legal steps required in order to establish themselves as true citizens of this country. The immigrants crossing the Mexican border, however, have absolutely no interest in following these legal protocols. Once they cross the border, they change their names and/or purchase social security numbers in an effort to conceal their true identities from the law. It is not uncommon for an illegal immigrant to purchase not one, but two or more social security numbers, just in case one is flagged. I have witnessed this crime with my own eyes. (One day, a supposedly legal immigrant was asked to give their social security card to a receptionist for a job application and an interview. When the receptionist happened to ask to see the card a second time, the immigrant mistakenly handed over a different social security card with the same name on it, but with a completely different set of numbers…)
Don’t get me wrong: I’m not against Hispanics. I have many Hispanic friends, but they either have green cards to work in the United States or have become legal citizens. They decided to follow the rule of law and work within the boundaries of our legal system. Unfortunately, many immigrants do not, and it is those particular individuals that we are most concerned about.
Now it seems that those who sympathize with illegal immigrants wish to hijack the discussion of reform by attacking the law recently imposed by the State of Arizona through protests and boycotts; a state mind you, that has been besieged with crime, drugs and an ever-increasing population of illegal immigrants. Don’t allow them this option. Speak out and take action. This is your country… fight for it.
In closing, I consider myself to be a bleeding-heart liberal: a Democrat. My ancestor, Roger Williams – the founder of Rhode Island and founder of the First Baptist Church in America, was one too; regarding the acceptance of different nationalities, cultures and religions as the vitality and lifeblood of any country. Nevertheless, I think that he would agree with me; that immigrants wishing to become legal citizens have not only the obligation, but the civil and legal responsibility to follow the rules of law established by any country in which they wish to become authentic citizens, just as our ancestors – both yours and mine – struggled so arduously and righteously to achieve.