Opinion

A reminder to Patrick: illegal means illegal

Governor refuses to sign off on program to deport dangerous criminals

Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick has a long history of pandering to illegal immigrants. During his first term, Patrick reversed a decision by the previous Massachusetts governor, Mitt Romney, which gave state troopers the power to arrest illegal immigrants. Let me point out that Romney’s policy makes sense because, as the title may imply, illegal immigrants are here illegally. They are breaking the law. As such, they should be arrested. Shocking, I know. Deval Patrick’s rationale for promptly reversing Gov. Romney’s decision was that state troopers “have a very big job as it is, without having to add enforcing federal immigration laws on top of it.” Ah, well there we are. Those poor state troopers are just too busy enforcing other laws. So if they pull over someone for speeding and it turns out that the individual is also an illegal immigrant, too bad! After all, according to Patrick, they have more important things to do—like enforcing laws that don’t alienate one of Patrick’s key special interests (the immigrant community).

But that’s just the tip of the iceberg. In November, Patrick announced that he would be pushing for in-state tuition for illegal immigrants, along with giving them driver’s licenses. This is interesting, because in-state tuition, as the term implies, is a lower tuition rate paid by those who are legal residents of the state. Illegal immigrants, as I am forced to repeatedly point out, are not here legally. As such, my tax dollars should not be subsidizing the education of criminals. When asked during the 2006 gubernatorial debate if he would allow illegal immigrants to pay in-state rates at public colleges, Patrick’s responded: “[Yes, but] this is one issue where I think both sides have a point. The folks on the other side of the question from where I am say we should only reward people who play by the rules and they’re right. I understand that immigration is a serious problem. But people are not coming here for in-state tuition, they’re coming here for jobs. We need to come down hard on employers.” Once again, that impeccable Patrick logic is in play. He admits that immigration is a serious problem. He also admits that he agrees that we should only reward those who play by the rules. But he will support in-state tuition for illegals, apparently on the basis that it is not the reason they come here. I fail to see how their motivations for being in Massachusetts factor into the reality that they are here illegally.

And who wouldn’t want to give illegal immigrants driver’s licenses? After all, it’s estimated that they cause over 5 percent of traffic incidents in the United States, which, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, would equate to 309,050 accidents, 2,132 deaths, and 139,400 injuries. In addition, they would be responsible for $11.5 billion of taxpayer money in associated costs. Patrick’s rationale in this case is that he would like to keep tabs on illegals. Of course, I’m not sure why he wants to know their locations and activities since he’s made it impossible for state troopers to arrest them.

Furthermore, he has made it more difficult to deport illegal immigrants. And this time, we’re not talking about any old illegal immigrant — we’re talking about illegals who have been arrested for committing crimes! The Secure Communities program leverages information sharing between the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of Justice (DOJ). Usually, when a criminal alien is booked by a local law enforcement agency, their fingerprints are checked not just against the FBI’s records, but also against DHS’s immigration records. Governor Patrick has decided that Massachusetts will be opting out of this program, despite his affirmation of support for it while he was running for re-election. His logic behind the 180-degree change in position? Back then, he thought it was mandatory. I know, Patrick should’ve been a logician. An individual’s support for a program, project, or anything else is typically based on the pros and cons of the program, not on whether or not that program is mandated. The Patrick administration was apparently concerned that the program was not serving its purpose. Apparently, more than half of those deported under Boston’s program were non-criminals and only one in four were “hard-core” criminals. This is directly contradicted by Mayor Thomas Menino, who stated that he had not seen a single individual deported who was not a criminal. Let me just throw in my favorite reminder: if you are here illegally, you are a criminal, whether or not you’ve killed somebody.

There has been a recent fascination among certain fringe groups as to whether Barack Obama was born in America, leading to the release of his official birth certificate. I’m curious why they haven’t focused more attention on Governor Patrick … after all, every policy he has supported has made illegal immigration a “second-tier” crime. He’s protected them and pampered them probably beyond any other group in Massachusetts, which leads me to wonder … is Governor Patrick here legally?!

15 Comments
1
kyledeb about 7 years ago

MIT is the last place I'd expect to this nativist trash to be published. No human being is illegal.

2
Ryan Normandin about 7 years ago

kyledeb- I'd invite you to read another piece I wrote: http://tech.mit.edu/V129/N61/normandin.html

Our nation's security is dependent upon secure borders, and those who break the law should be punished accordingly. Let's assume for a moment that we have open borders: in addition to perfectly good, innocent people, we would be beset by those who would wish to hurt America. This is not "nativist trash." While I believe that the current immigration system is unfair and should be reformed, it does not change the fact that we need secure borders and anyone who came here without the proper authorization is here illegally and should be treated for what they are- a criminal.

3
Roberta about 7 years ago

kyledeb

Typical left wing bs. Since when is upholding and following the law nativist?

There's not a think natavist in this column and you can't point to one thing that is.

Time to stop the left wing pandering.

4
Ryan Normandin is an idiot about 7 years ago

Man, intellectual standards at the 'tute have really fallen. Are birthers really writing for The Tech now? Hey Ryan, I want to see your birth certificate, since I don't think anyone this stupid could have made it out of their mom's uterus without choking on their own umbilical cord.

Is being an illegal immigrant illegal? Yeah! Just like how being an obvious troll is obvious, or being a crappy writer means your writing is crappy, Ryan. But here's a bit of legal refresher: there are a lot of illegal things in society that cops don't ever arrest anyone for. Did you know that adultery is technically illegal in Massachusetts? Would you like to see cops spending valuable man-hours staking outside of cheating couples' houses arresting people who aren't harming anyone but themselves?

Then again, you probably would, since an idiot like you is probably okay with all of us having to carry papers at all times. If we have nothing to hide, we have nothing to fear, right?

5
Anonymous about 7 years ago

It certainly IS nativist trash. Referring to undocument people as "illegals" is evidence of that. There are certain connotations and specific intentions when you use the term, and to say otherwise is,frankly, ridiculous. Moreover, the fact that once again the legal status of a person of color (Patrick, Obama) is questioned speaks to the blatant racism of this rhetoric. I wonder, would the same have been asked of Romney if his policies had been similar, or any other non-Latino, white politician? It's shameful.

6
Anonymous about 7 years ago

Ryan, you are not course 6, 8, or 18. Your opinion is invalid.

7
Anonymous about 7 years ago

kyledeb

Are you insulted by the shorthand "illegal" or by the notion that it can be illegal to be in a sovereign jurisdiction for failure to abide by that jurisdiction's immigration laws? You are generally correct that human beings are not inherently illegal, but their behavior can be, which makes them criminals. The consequences of certain human behavior are imposed on the human being, on the theory they are best responbsible for their behavior. Since the illegal immigrant's crime is simply being in the jurisdiction illegally, so that they continue to break the law every moment they remain, they are as close as one can get to being simply an illegal human. The shorthand is not so inaccurate.

8
Anonymous about 7 years ago

#5: there is but one requirement spelled out in the Constitution for being POTUS - you must be born in the USA. I think anyone running for the office ought to have to submit public proof of meeting that single requirement before they are placed on the ballot. What is racist about that? Or is the idea of criticizing a person of color itself inherently racist in your view? Res ipsa loquitor #5.

9
Nimrod the Mighty Hunter about 7 years ago

Illegal immigration is illegal. Duh. To everyone but the La Raza crowd this is news of the tautological.

We could just as accurately call them "criminal aliens", because criminals are people who break laws, so illegal aliens are criminals by definition. Using "illegal" is being generous.

10
Ryan Normandin about 7 years ago

Just want to point out to #5 and anyone else who might be confused that the whole "is Governor Patrick here legally?!" was a joke playing on the silliness of the "birthers"... I thought that was pretty apparent, but perhaps I was mistaken.

#6- lolz, I have a guess as to who you are.

11
Anonymous about 7 years ago

Was the underground railroad illegal?

Were fugitive slaves 'breaking the law'?

Was it illegal for women to vote?

Was it illegal to violate racial segregation laws?

Was Rosa Parks 'breaking the law' the day she refused to give up her seat and move to the back of the bus?

12
Ryan Normandin about 7 years ago

#11- Those are not valid comparisons. All examples you gave were civil rights issues that were later rectified. I would be willing to bet large sums of money that the United States never "rectifies" the immigration situation by opening its borders.

Do we need immigration reform? Yes. But while there was no rational basis for any of the laws you mentioned, which were simply discriminatory, our immigration system has a solid foundation: national security. To allow anyone to just walk over our borders is dangerous, and would lead to easier access by terrorists and the spread of contagious diseases that would have been screened during the immigration process.

13
Anonymous about 7 years ago

Ill-informed and full of hate. One wonders how one can be in a school such as MIT that pushes the boundaries of science and still spew such bigoted bilge. The author is also in a very direct way an immigrant in America - the original natives are the only genuine natives and are now a protected minority under the Constitution.

This author's views are right-wing, and are based on not only a profound lack of empathy, but also a shocking rejection of our history and a failure to grasp the economics behind immigration that we so desperately need in these years of economic decay.

The Tech should be ashamed to have published this article.

14
Communist Alum about 7 years ago

"Identity Card Please." said the Blue Uniformed policeman. "I left it in the lab by mistake." protested the short dark skinned women with a Cuban Accent. A man with dark glasses, hat and trench coat sitting on a bench came forward and then said, "Come with us. We have a few questions we'd like to ask." Knowing that she would be raped and tortured at the newly built Cambridge Sector "Freedom Protectors" building she turned and ran. She was only shot once in the back. Bullets were in short supply and so required strict accounting procedures. So she was left to die until the next "Committee for a Safe and Healthy America" truck made its regular pass by.

Do you really want to live in a "Don't leave home without it." society?

15
Ryan Normandin about 7 years ago

I have to wonder if #13 and the others who allege "hate-spewing" even read the article...

Upholding the law by asking people to come here legally is not an unreasonable or hateful demand. It is important for our national security, and those who do not see that are naive.

And #13- throughout our history, people have come her LEGALLY. They waited for long periods of time on Ellis Island (most famously) and many died on the voyage to come here. These people played by the rules, as should immigrants today. And yes, my ancestors are most certainly immigrants- but legal ones. My views are not "right-wing," they are common sense.