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.
So, why would one of the more liberal states in existence pass such a law, even with Democrats that voted for it complaining about it?
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.
Well, well well..... guess the people of Mass. do not want to pay for services to be provided to criminals either.
Fancy that.
I have a quick question here though... if those states that have decided to boycott Arizona, also boycott the other 17 states and Massachusetts, who actually loses the most if all those states decide turnabout is fair play?
I mean using LA as an example, if Los Angeles independently boycotts any state that toughens immigration law against illegal aliens and say, all those same states decide to boycott LA, wouldn't that severely damage LA's economy?
Boycott away baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaby.
.
