Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 03/2004

« Deval Patrick addresses Somerville | Main | Time may be up for new parking prices »

January 17, 2006

Comments

illegal is illegal

I understand that these children were brought here by their parents and it is not their fault but illegal is illegal, whether it is done on purpose or by accident. I would take a free k-12 education if I was an illegal citizen.

“The federal government has a responsibility to their border policies, but as a state representative I have a responsibility to serve the people who are here right now,” he said (Sciortino).

Rep, there are so many legal people in Massachusetts right now. Don't you think money should go to programs that are underfunded in our district? Why to illegals when many legals can not even get proper services? Priorities need to be set here. By the way...It is more like the bill failed by 40-50 votes. Not FOUR!

Move to Canada

I feel bad! Move to Canada if your illegal and don't like the cost of tuition. We have a great number of Somerville youth who are LEGAL and documented, who can't afford UMASS. Let’s try to get them a cost reduction before we help the illegal’s. Let’s get the legislature to roll back the 1989 Dukakis temporary tax that was voted OUT by the people of Massachusetts in 2000 before we start voting on giving more money away.

results?

Does anyone know the link to find out the (yes/no) voting results?

I agree

I agree about the 89 tax. Mention clean elections and you will hear progressive talk about how the people voted in support of this measure in the form of a ballot question. Mention the tax role back that the people voted for in 2000 and they will look at you like your crazy. Let the people vote only applies when it benefits their agenda. I dont agree with the tax role back because now is not the time but come on progressives...lets not be hypocrites. I know Carl campaigned, like all progressives, on helping the working class family. My family is working class and you would rather give $8,000 to every ILLEGAL citizen who wants to attend state college. This could be better used towards local aid (another caimpaign theme you promised to everything to attain, this is not helping), Medicaid or school building assistance.

Common sense

I wouldn't say that talk radio killed this legislation. It was more like common sense. The bill got slaughtered. This is how out-of-touch our Somerville Delegation is. Can I hear again the debate on this blog about how powerful our Somerville Delegation is.That is an absolute joke.

ha!

"A lot of legislators looked these kids in the eye and promised them they would support us, then turned around and broke that promise," she said"

Politicians? LIED?! Say it ain't so!

Do illegals vote? Hence, are illegals "represented" by legislators?

Yankee

"Eime is a Somerville student who dreams of one day attending college and becoming a lawyer. ... 'I want to go to Umass-Amherst and become a lawyer,' she said."

RED HERRING ALERT!

What does receiving in-state tuition (or not) have to do with becoming a lawyer? Since when does LAW SCHOOL offer in-state tuition? Since when does UMass-Amh offer a JD?

College cost too much? Apply to a different school (UMass in-state exceeds many schools' out-of-state tuition). Want local? Consider Bridgewater State.

How does Eime plan to pay for law school? Loans? If so, why not accrue loans for undergraduate school? Loans unpalatable? Perhaps a scholarship search would be needed (unless you are telling me that Eime is "unqualified" for various merit scholarships?).

Here's a novel idea, and one that kills two birds with one stone: join the military. Eime would be deemed, in the eyes of her dear UMass, as independent from her parents; further, she could earn money from the GI Bill as well as her paycheck. Afraid of Iraq? Join the Air Force.

All this article tells me, if it is being truthful--is that Eime is not smart enough for merit scholarships, not aware enough to understand the non-linear connection between UMass and the Massachusetts Bar, not clever enough to map other options, not committed enough to finance herself while supporting her nation via military service.

Frankly, I could not care less about her situation; the way she is portrayed via this article shows me she is not just illegal, but a bit slow and maybe lazy.

I sure am glad Mr. Hassett brought her limitations to my attention.

[Fuller disclosure: in actuality, I have some sympathy for the plight of immigrant children who did not actively cause their situation; that said, this article does little to nurture that sympathy.]

One sentence can answer all your questions.

I can answer all your questions with one sentence. Eime is illegal and can not do any of those things. Our government does reward illegal immigrants and therefore makes considering this legislation silly and unlawful. My heart goes out to Eime, seriously, but you cannot reward illegal behavior. Wether it is here fault or her families. I am more concerned about legal immigrants who cannot afford to pay in-state rates. Lets take care of that problem first. Does this not make sense. Legal is legal and illegal is illegal...I dont care if you are here or not and for what reasons. No, it is not our responsibility.

Mrs.McCarthy

Yankee,

My.my, my. And I thought all of your kind was safely ensconsed up in Hamilton and Wenham snuggled up by the fire on this cold and rainy day with a good book and a half gallon of good bourbon. Well maybe not good bourbon, since all of your incestuous and drunk-ass ancestors piss away the family fortune years ago.

Listen, Bunny, I've still got some old "NO IRISH NEED APPLY" signs from the days when my immigrant grandparents were struggling to put food on the table and to educate their kids. And guess what Bunny, studies indicate that 40% of those "*****" immigrants were here illegally(most came in through the Canadian back door).

You have proven once again, that if it weren't for the immigrants of yesteryear and of today, all of us would be still singing "God Save the Queen". Next time your quite damaged brain cells feel the need to attack, through your slackjawed mouth, a young girl who is merely expressing her thoughts and dreams, remember that Mrs.McCarthy, the proud and fiesty decendent of immigrants, is watching.

(this line removed due to content)

Mrs. Mary McCarthy
Proud Decendent of Hannah and John Powers
Waterford, Ireland(by way of Nova Scotia)

(The above edited by JN due to inappropriate language, although I believe the reference to a "primate" meant the Irish immigrants, and not what everyone though she meant when they first read the comment, also the final line was a little gross. she must have had too much Elderberry Wine, not that alcohol should ever be an excuse for rude behavior)

Maybe

Maybe you are right Ms. McCarthy...but yet again...a law is a law...You cant break them because we feel bad for people...and i do not condon the actions of your grandparents or mine for that matter. I dont believe they are "monkey immigrants" and I dont appreciate your racial slurs. Typical ignorant progressive, everything becomes racial or hatred because you do not agree with them. This is a legal matter...not a hatred mater. We all do not want to read your racial slurs...this is not the 60's grandma

Mrs.McCarthy

Jamie,

Please accept my apologies and by way of extension to your readers for the "Yankee Doodle" reference. Too many Shelton brownies..............

As for the reference to the primate immigrants, I should have made it abundantly clear that it was an historical reference to the Irish often used by the "Yankee" elite of the time.(and I surmise, still in use by some of their decendents) Thanks for clarifying it.

And Maybe........I agree that this is a "legal matter, not a hatred matter".

Maybe if you re-read "Yankee's" post again, it might just dawn on you that that post was seething with hatred. And Maybe you would be a little less eager to label me with "ignorant progressive" and "grandma" and accusing me of posting "racial slurs".

Jamie, I usually read posts by folks like Yankee and just shake my head. This time it just "got my Irish up". Sorry for the flak, mon cheri................

NOT A PROGRESSIVE, NOT A GRANDMA, AND NEVER USES RACIAL SLURS,

Mrs. McCarthy
Proud Decendent of Immigrants

Maybe

In reaction to your classy post...I to apologize for being eager to paint you with hatred

Yankee

Mrs. McCarthy,

With regard to your "No Irish Need Apply (NINA)" signs:

Professor Richard Jensen (among others), now retired from U. Illinois' History department, writes "No historian, archivist, or museum curator has ever located [a NINA sign]; no photograph or drawing exists." In other words: your stated ownership of *real* signs is so much hoo-ha.

Similarly, your comment that my post "was seething with hatred" is also fiction. I would be interested if you could highlight exactly where you infer hatred or anti-immigrant leanings.

The strongest emotion (other than outrage at sophomoric writing) contained in my post is likely disdain, but no more disdain than is reserved for any student of any background with the same lack of perspective or gumption.

The gist of my comment was aimed rather at the article's author and his implication that the bill's failure would cheat Massachusetts out of a future lawyer. Horse hockey.

Indeed, my post was sympathetic to the plight of the unintended undocumenteds and offered several realistic courses of alternative action available to anyone afflicted with drive, ambition, and relative poverty. And I, unlike you, was not moved to slurs to get my point across.

Your comments regarding my heritage, fortune, and liquor are well taken.

Yankee

Addendum for Mrs. McCarthy:

Journal of Social History 36.2 (2002) 405-429

Article available here:
http://www.yale.edu/glc/archive/Jensen.htm

yankeeisoutofline

yankee,
the child you speak of with so much condescension is all of 11-15 years old, as those were the ages of the kids at the rally. though your opinion is valid and worthy of discussion your insistence on demeaning and insulting a young person who only wants achievement and success makes you look like a jerk we shouldn't listen to. be nicer yankee, you'll make more friends and can still hold on to your perspective on the subject.

Ron Newman

Also, I bet that Eime knows perfectly well that UMass-Amherst has no law school. However, an undergraduate degree is usually a prerequisite to attending any law school.

Yankee may claim to have 'sympathy' but he sure doesn't exhibit any.

Mrs. McCarthy

Yankee,

I doubt you can get any of your points across without slurring.

Good night, Yankee.


Mrs. McCarthy

Ron Newman

Sure, send the Irish back to Ireland, the Italians back to Italy, the Jews back to Russia, the various Portuguese speakers back to Portugal and Brazil and Cape Verde, etc.... and who's going to be left here in Somerville?

Howie Carr

Don't forget about Tim Toomey he was the one defending all the wet backs .Let me see how did Tim say it "We can't bow down to talk radio" Well Tim start bowing

howieisapoorjournalist

ok howie,

the last time we heard from you in somerville you were misquoting people and distortiting news stories. Before that you were viciously insulting us. Your relevancy diminishes with every nasty barb (and burnt bridge) you make. People in the city skip your page in the herald. Go back to advocating for vinnie ciampa and sucking b---s little man, how long do you think you'd last hanging in dot or the ville small guy?.

JARfromWard3

Does anyone know where I can find out who voted for and against the recent change in the seat belt law (from "secondary" to "primary" violation)? There doesn't seem to be much being said about this.

rights

I dont know where you can find it but Somerville legislators voted for it. funny, I could have sworn Carl Sciortino campaigned on rights for all citizens. He seemed to have voted to eliminate my right to choice wether or not to wear my seatbelt. He seems to have a selective value of rights.

Devil's Advocate (or Damned Yankee)

While I am not necessarily a fan of seatbelt laws (although they, like helmet laws, have proven macro- and microeconomic benefits). But your "choice" to ignore popular legislation imposes responsibility and costs on others: statistically, if you crash w/o your seatbelt you will incur greater injury, hence greater burden on the insurance and healthcare industries (as proxy for society). Society should have a say regarding what you do on its roads (they are not YOUR roads, they are PUBLIC roads) and with regard to potential impact on societal costs.

You ARE free--i.e., it is within your RIGHTS--to forego a seatbelt on YOUR property (as well as drive as fast as you like or drink or what have you). Go join a private road-race club (they exist) if you have a problem with the public protecting itself from you.

But we digress from the topic of Talk Radio and its supposed hypnotic effects on otherwise card-carrying liberal intelligentsia...

Maybe

Good points...but who cares about the safety of seatbelts...that is not the point. Yes they are safer but yet it is my car and i can do what I want in it as long as i am not endangering you or others. You cannot deny that. Public safety announcements is the way to go. Health care and insurance should not be an issue. Rights are rights wether they contribute to the economy in a positive or negative manner. Money is not a factor when we talk about peoples rights!

Maybe again

P.S Stop eatimg butter becuase you might have a heartattack...you are putting a greater burden on the health care industry. If we are worried about the health industry...90% of our food consumtion should be outlawed.

Ron Newman

I phoned Pat Jehlen's office this morning and asked her to vote against the seatbelt law once it reaches the Senate. I see no reason for the state to pass such a law protecting people from their own actions (or inactions). It can only lead to increased police harassment of minorities.

I always wear a seatbelt when driving a car, but the state should not mandate this. Massachusetts has the lowest automobile fatality rate in the US, which suggests that the proposed law is a solution in search of a problem.

Here's the roll call vote, from Boston.com. (Toomey also voted for it.)

Maybe again one more time

Good point that I missed about your comments regarding the roads belonging to the state. They then should have the right to pull you over for no reason at all...it is their roads right? Horrible Devil's Advocate. You are trying to justify a vote for one of your reps you support. Progressives stick together no matter how wrong their legislator is? they are like trained dogs

JARfromWard3

Thanks all.

I wear my seatbelt religiously, and remind anyone who gets in the car with me to do the same thing. It's usually the first thing I tell the kids at T-Ball (while their parents are all listening) to do when they show up on the first Saturday--nothing is more important, statistically speaking, to ensuring one's safety.

Suffice it to say, however, that I'm against making the wearing of seatbelts mandatory and punishable as a primary offense. I agree fully with "Maybe" above. Personal responsibility is what it's all about. I found the distribution of yeas and nays in the House interesting.

Ron Newman

And moving back to the original topic, here is the House vote tally for the in-state tuition bill.

As reported here earlier, Tim Toomey and Carl Sciortino voted for it. So did all three representatives for Arlington, and all six(!) for Cambridge. Paul Donato of Medford voted no; the other two Medford reps voted yes. Paul Casey of Winchester also voted no.


Devil's Advocate (or Yankee Go Home)

The title of the article is "Talk radio defeats in-state tuition rates for Somerville," yet discussion of the broadcasting of public views is limited to one paragraph and one quote.

Personally, I believe the debate is misdirected: we once again look to "society" for blame, rather than individual responsibility.

I find it unconscionable that parents would choose to consign their children to a life outside federal law and support. In the case of schooling, undocumented children "residing" in the US already have citizenship in another country that is responsible for their education (whether to similar standards is beside the point).

Why are these parents not shamed and reprimanded for such gross neglect? If, as many claim, the children have been in the US for years and years, how could good parents doom their offspring to future legal limbo, a fate of which by definition (as illegal aliens themselves) they could not be unaware?

Somehow the benefits must outweigh the costs; similarly, given that these undocumented children, upon reaching the age of majority, choose to remain in the US--despite the obstacles--the benefits still must outweigh the costs. (The argument that they now feel "American" and thus would be "returning" to a foreign land ignores that their parents, likely in worse shape, left *their* home country for a foreign land... in other words, it is clearly possible).
---
Other matters:

With regard to previous suggested solutions (esp. joining the military), I stand corrected (and not by any of _you_, but by my own interest and responsibility regarding full disclosure): undocumented children, a.k.a. illegal aliens, may not join the military; only citizens and legal residents may do so (residents enjoy facilitated naturalization, by the way).

On the plus side, private universities are not precluded from bestowing upon illegal aliens any financial aid they deem fit. That should give extra incentive for Eime et. al. to "study hard for Harvard" (and the like) where admissions is "need blind"; financial aid, "need based."

Also, several scholarships now exist for "undocumented children" (and nothing is stopping Eime's papa from joining the freemasons, the children of whom may compete for generous scholarships). Seriously, I can see many creative solutions here (e.g., concerning all the nifty foreign-bought babies populating Arlington's playgrounds [not that there's anything wrong with that]: their parents could adopt Somerville's Eimes, no? Certain legislation has just made such transactions much easier...).

Proposed (but, given politics, unrealistic) solution?
1)assign residency to all minors (but not necessarily their parents) over the age of 15 AND having resided in the US for at least 3 years (for those under the age of 15, residency requirement should be longer, as lesser harm would be involved in returning them to their homelands). (There, is that humanitarian enough for you?)
2)re-interpret the 14th amendment and end birthright citizenship.
3)allow the remainder an opportunity to apply for residency under applicable laws.

At the risk of drawing ire--ire which is irrelevant because what I am about to type is incontrovertible--I will point out that Roberts and Alito will likely be part of any upcoming SC cases on just these matters...

By the way: favoring Eime et. al. for the mere fact of her geographical disposition is short shrifting all the worthy (and the many likely more-worthy, e.g., those who might be able to shoot a little higher than UMass) non-US-based non-citizens. I mean, why have borders at all, really...

Ron Newman

Well, in-state tuition is already a form of geographical discrimination: it says that Massachusetts favors its own residents in its state universities. All states do this.

But this should be based strictly on residency. Live here a certain number of years, you qualify as a resident. Immigration status shouldn't enter into the picture.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Most Recent Photos

  • Danehy_Park_Family_Day
  • Bloco
  • 3517a
  • Web_toon_7_21_10
  • Prospect hill
  • Web_toon_7_14_10
  • 3224a
  • Art1(2)
  • Art5
  • Art10(2)
  • Union_square_flood
  • Flood_pic_(bridge_1)