Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-28-2010, 02:12 AM
astorian astorian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: austin tx usa
Posts: 34,012
Time to Boycott Massachusetts? Must Pierce & Garnett become "Los Celtics"?

Just wondering...

http://www.boston.com/news/local/bre...enate_pas.html
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 05-28-2010, 06:08 AM
BigT BigT is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 32,667
Um, no, because they actually did what we said the Arizona law should have done if illegal immigration was really their primary concern. If anything, they're proving to Arizona that there really is a way to tackle this without crafting de facto racist laws.

Not that I think it will work out, as cheap labor is the backbone of our economy.

Last edited by BigT; 05-28-2010 at 06:09 AM.
  #3  
Old 05-28-2010, 06:40 AM
Fear Itself Fear Itself is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Flavortown
Posts: 34,324
If you can't be bothered to quote the relevant passage from your cite, I can't be bothered to click offsite to figure out what the hell you are talking about.

Last edited by Fear Itself; 05-28-2010 at 06:40 AM.
  #4  
Old 05-28-2010, 07:45 AM
Bricker Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 54,835
The OP links to a news story about the Massachusetts Senate passing a bill that targets illegal immigration; it:
  • Bars the state from doing business with any company that breaks federal laws concerning the hiring of illegal immigrant
  • Increases penalties for using fake ID documents
  • Forbids the granting of in-state college tuition rates to illegal immigrants
  • Requite the Massachusetts public health insurance program to verify legal residency before providing benefits
  • Mandates priority for subsidized housing be given to legal residents

Quote:
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.
  #5  
Old 05-28-2010, 07:53 AM
boytyperanma boytyperanma is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Leominster MA
Posts: 5,169
I don't think you should boycott MA because I live here.

Do you care to offer any argument as to why we should boycott MA or were you hoping posters would take it upon themselves to create a debate?
  #6  
Old 05-28-2010, 08:05 AM
Marley23 Marley23 is offline
I Am the One Who Bans
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 78,234
Modding

Quote:
Originally Posted by astorian View Post
When starting a thread here in the future, please do a little more than "just wondering." I don't much care if an OP just asks questions instead of taking one side or the other, but at least have the courtesy to summarize your link and givean idea of the issues are.
  #7  
Old 05-28-2010, 08:20 AM
Bricker Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 54,835
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marley23 View Post
When starting a thread here in the future, please do a little more than "just wondering." I don't much care if an OP just asks questions instead of taking one side or the other, but at least have the courtesy to summarize your link and givean idea of the issues are.
In fairness to the OP, while his post is not a model of clarity, his post and title, taken together, lay out a reasonably deductible topic for debate, viz:

People called for boycotts against Arizona after the state passed its new, harsh anti-illegal-immigrant law. Even the Phoenix Suns, the local NBA team, expressed disdain for the measure by wearing jerseys that said "Los Suns," a translation of the team name into Spanish.

Now one house of the Massachusetts legislature has passed an arguably harsh anti-illegal-immigrant bill. Will we see a similar backlash against Massachusetts? Will the Boston Celtics, Massachusetts' NBA team, don "Los Celtics" jerseys?

Last edited by Bricker; 05-28-2010 at 08:21 AM.
  #8  
Old 05-28-2010, 08:42 AM
Marley23 Marley23 is offline
I Am the One Who Bans
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 78,234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
In fairness to the OP, while his post is not a model of clarity, his post and title, taken together, lay out a reasonably deductible topic for debate, viz:
I understood the topic before I clicked on the link, but I'm not sure how intelligible it is to non-basketball fans. And he left out a lot of details, or your other post would not have been necessary. It's not a big deal but providing a little more explanation would be helpful.
  #9  
Old 05-28-2010, 09:08 AM
Chessic Sense Chessic Sense is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,523
I'm still trying to figure out what not to like. They're doing what should be done. What's the problem?
  #10  
Old 05-28-2010, 09:13 AM
silenus silenus is online now
The Turtle Moves!
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: SoCal
Posts: 48,284
Exactly. And they are doing it in a way that isn't so overtly racist as the "Arizona Solution." I'm not seeing a problem here.
  #11  
Old 05-28-2010, 09:22 AM
Death of Rats Death of Rats is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Barack of Obama
Posts: 3,523
This is anti-illegal immigrant legislation as it should be done by a state. The law addresses the issue at state levels rather then trying to supersede the Federal Government's jurisdiction and does it in a way that is fair and does not open itself to abuses by targeting immigrants and citizens alike in a blatantly racist way like the AZ law does.

Remember, the left is not for illegal immigration, we are for treating those people like human beings.
  #12  
Old 05-28-2010, 09:58 AM
Rhythmdvl Rhythmdvl is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Shakedown Street
Posts: 12,948
It's simply wrong to conflate umbrage with the (perceived) racial profiling/papers please aspects of the Arizona law with all measures to curb illegal immigration's tax on limited state resources. It's ignorant--taking un-inspected cues from the Right Wing Marketing Machine--or disingenuous.
  #13  
Old 05-28-2010, 10:01 AM
jayjay jayjay is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Central Pennsylvania
Posts: 35,942
Gee...Massachusetts didn't make it practically mandatory for Hispanic and/or "foreign" looking American citizens to start carrying their "papers" around at all times. They didn't authorize the police to start harassing people who aren't white enough. They haven't elected the biggest fascist in the US to a county office repeatedly.

On the other hand, they DID make it legal to go after the employers who hire undocumented aliens. Which is one of the main alternative solutions the left has been offering as a real way to stop illegal immigration since well before SB 1070 was approved and signed.
  #14  
Old 05-28-2010, 10:01 AM
Bricker Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 54,835
Quote:
Originally Posted by Death of Rats View Post
This is anti-illegal immigrant legislation as it should be done by a state. The law addresses the issue at state levels rather then trying to supersede the Federal Government's jurisdiction and does it in a way that is fair and does not open itself to abuses by targeting immigrants and citizens alike in a blatantly racist way like the AZ law does.

Remember, the left is not for illegal immigration, we are for treating those people like human beings.
Except that "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."
  #15  
Old 05-28-2010, 10:05 AM
Fear Itself Fear Itself is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Flavortown
Posts: 34,324
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
Except that "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."
As you so frequently like to remind others, correlation does not equal causation.
  #16  
Old 05-28-2010, 10:44 AM
Bricker Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 54,835
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fear Itself View Post
As you so frequently like to remind others, correlation does not equal causation.
True.

But the quote is not offered to suggest that there is a reason Democrats caved on the bill... merely to prove that Democrats initially opposed the bill.

The reader can speculate on what led to the Democrats' about-face, I suppose, but that's not the point. Death of Rats said that this is legislation as it "should be done," contrasting the left's support of this bill with their rejection of the Arizona bill.

My quote points out that the left did not, in fact, embrace this bill or see it as how "it should be done."

Undoubtedly the overwhelming poll results played no part in this decision.
  #17  
Old 05-28-2010, 11:03 AM
Fear Itself Fear Itself is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Flavortown
Posts: 34,324
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
My quote points out that the left did not, in fact, embrace this bill or see it as how "it should be done."
Not before negotiations at least. The article does not reveal what points were negotiated, and what parties yielded on what points. It could just as easily be pointed out that Republicans compromised their priniciples and caved to Democrats following negotiation. I'm surprised you didn't know that is how sausage is made.
  #18  
Old 05-28-2010, 11:11 AM
UTejas UTejas is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 272
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
My quote points out that the left did not, in fact, embrace this bill or see it as how "it should be done."

Undoubtedly the overwhelming poll results played no part in this decision.
Nice switcheroo on your terms there. It seems that if 84% of a quite liberal state approved of the bill that "The Left" already approved of it. Who knows why the Democrats in the legislature were holding out, but it presumably has to do with getting as much as they want in negotiations.

Once again, why WOULDN'T the left approve? It's cracking down on the employers who create the problem, and it doesn't effectively mandate that citizens carry their papers with them at all times. The Arizona law is unfair to CITIZENS. This law avoids that and actually does something about the problem. What is not to like?
  #19  
Old 05-28-2010, 11:37 AM
Tom Tildrum Tom Tildrum is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Falls Church, Va.
Posts: 13,178
How do citizens prove their legal residency in the circumstances required under this law?
  #20  
Old 05-28-2010, 11:41 AM
John Mace John Mace is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 79,577
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Tildrum View Post
How do citizens prove their legal residency in the circumstances required under this law?
From the OP's link:

Quote:
The amendment would also require the state’s public health insurance program to verify residency through the Department of Homeland Security...
  #21  
Old 05-28-2010, 11:51 AM
Tom Tildrum Tom Tildrum is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Falls Church, Va.
Posts: 13,178
Does DHS keep a registry of natural-born citizens? I guess that's what's confusing me.
  #22  
Old 05-28-2010, 11:52 AM
John Mace John Mace is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 79,577
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Tildrum View Post
Does DHS keep a registry of natural-born citizens? I guess that's what's confusing me.
I would hope so! If they get some random name to check out, against what database would they do so?
  #23  
Old 05-28-2010, 11:55 AM
Bricker Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 54,835
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fear Itself View Post
Not before negotiations at least. The article does not reveal what points were negotiated, and what parties yielded on what points. It could just as easily be pointed out that Republicans compromised their priniciples and caved to Democrats following negotiation. I'm surprised you didn't know that is how sausage is made.
Er... maybe. But quotes like this seem to suggest otherwise:

Quote:
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."
Quote:
Sen. Sonia Chang-Diaz, a Boston Democrat, accused Republicans of trying to score “cheap political points” in an election year.
Quote:
Earlier this week, Senate President Therese Murray, a Plymouth Democrat, had dismissed the Republican proposal as "smoke and mirrors."

After the vote, Murray said she was bowing to the will of the Senate, even though she didn't agree with everything in the proposal.

"There are parts of it that I think are unfortunate, but the members wanted it," said Murray, who did not cast a vote.
  #24  
Old 05-28-2010, 03:52 PM
Chronos Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 72,194
It could still be that the Republicans were pushing for some more onerous measures, which the Democrats managed to negotiate out of the final bill. Without knowing what the bill said at the time of those quotes, it's hard to know the context.
__________________
Time travels in divers paces with divers persons.
--As You Like It, III:ii:328
Check out my dice in the Marketplace
  #25  
Old 05-28-2010, 04:45 PM
Cisco Cisco is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 17,208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
The OP links to a news story about the Massachusetts Senate passing a bill that targets illegal immigration; it:
  • Bars the state from doing business with any company that breaks federal laws concerning the hiring of illegal immigrant
  • Increases penalties for using fake ID documents
  • Forbids the granting of in-state college tuition rates to illegal immigrants
  • Requite the Massachusetts public health insurance program to verify legal residency before providing benefits
  • Mandates priority for subsidized housing be given to legal residents
I'm staunchly pro-immigration (open-borders variety), but within current social and legal context, there's nothing I can really get worked up about here.
  #26  
Old 05-28-2010, 05:11 PM
DanBlather DanBlather is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Portland, O-bamagon
Posts: 7,851
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
Except that "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."
Fuck the Democrats, they listened to constituents!! The nerve. What is this country coming to?
  #27  
Old 05-28-2010, 06:29 PM
waterj2 waterj2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Jamaica Plain, MA
Posts: 6,061
Just as a point of information, the Democrats in the Massachusetts Senate don't need to compromise with the Republicans. There are 35 Democrats and 5 Republicans. Whatever Democrats were opposed to the bill, they caved to other Democrats.
  #28  
Old 05-28-2010, 07:28 PM
Bricker Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 54,835
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanBlather View Post
Fuck the Democrats, they listened to constituents!! The nerve. What is this country coming to?
Wait, which is it? They listened to constituents, or correlation is not causation?
  #29  
Old 05-28-2010, 07:37 PM
Snowboarder Bo Snowboarder Bo is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 20,072
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
True.

But the quote is not offered to suggest that there is a reason Democrats caved on the bill... merely to prove that Democrats initially opposed the bill.
I think what you really mean is that the Democrats opposed the initial version of this bill.
  #30  
Old 05-28-2010, 07:48 PM
Frank Frank is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Kettering, Ohio
Posts: 20,471
Let's completely leave aside the fact that this is not even remotely comparable to the Arizona law, as can be easily ascertained by anyone whose brain cell has divided.

This bill is not yet law, it is an state Senate amendment to the Massachusetts budget bill, and must be ironed out in conference. The state House defeated a similar amendment. Gov. Patrick has given no indication as to whether he will veto. He is on record as opposing certain parts of it. (And favoring certain parts of it.)

The Democrats who "caved" appear to have done so on the illegal immigrants receiving state benefits (such as in-state tuition and health insurance) aspects of the bill. There seems to be whole-hearted support for the sanctions on employers of illegal immigrants.

As a Democrat who is not happy with all aspects of the bill, it's still a lot closer to what a state law on illegal immigrants should look like than is Arizona's, and--were I a member of the Massachusetts legislature--I suspect I would have held my nose and voted for it.
  #31  
Old 05-28-2010, 08:07 PM
foolsguinea foolsguinea is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 14,673
Boycott the state? I think the entire population of Puerto Rico should move to Massachusetts & confuse everyone.
  #32  
Old 05-29-2010, 07:05 AM
What the .... ?!?! What the .... ?!?! is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 4,165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
The OP links to a news story about the Massachusetts Senate passing a bill that targets illegal immigration; it:
  • Bars the state from doing business with any company that breaks federal laws concerning the hiring of illegal immigrant
  • Increases penalties for using fake ID documents
  • Forbids the granting of in-state college tuition rates to illegal immigrants
  • Requite the Massachusetts public health insurance program to verify legal residency before providing benefits
  • Mandates priority for subsidized housing be given to legal residents
Why do I expect that, before the bill passes (if it does), there will be provisions to make it as difficult as possible to enforce.
  #33  
Old 05-29-2010, 12:22 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 33,560
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
In fairness to the OP, while his post is not a model of clarity, his post and title, taken together, lay out a reasonably deductible topic for debate, viz:
]
Not without clicking on a link, it doesn't. I'm with Fear Itself, if you can be bothered to at least do a little cut & paste, then don't both opening a thread. Marley was correct.
  #34  
Old 05-29-2010, 12:48 PM
Der Trihs Der Trihs is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: California
Posts: 38,274
Quote:
Originally Posted by What the .... ?!?! View Post
Why do I expect that, before the bill passes (if it does), there will be provisions to make it as difficult as possible to enforce.
I wouldn't be at all surprised.

I do have a problem with this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
[*]Requite the Massachusetts public health insurance program to verify legal residency before providing benefits
There should at the least be an exception for the vaccination against and treatment of infectious diseases; it does no one good to have people with dangerous diseases avoiding treatment and remaining infectious to others.
  #35  
Old 05-29-2010, 12:54 PM
athelas athelas is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: In Transit
Posts: 3,351
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanBlather View Post
Fuck the Democrats, they listened to constituents!! The nerve. What is this country coming to?
Or, they were originally ridiculously out of touch and would have continued being so if not forced by near-unanimous public opinion. Also as Bricker says, you're trying to have it both ways.
  #36  
Old 05-29-2010, 01:00 PM
descamisado descamisado is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: At a Candlelight Supper
Posts: 6,204
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fear Itself View Post
As you so frequently like to remind others, correlation does not equal causation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fear Itself View Post
It could just as easily be pointed out that Republicans compromised their priniciples and caved to Democrats following negotiation. I'm surprised you didn't know that is how sausage is made.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
It could still be that the Republicans were pushing for some more onerous measures, which the Democrats managed to negotiate out of the final bill. Without knowing what the bill said at the time of those quotes, it's hard to know the context.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanBlather View Post
Fuck the Democrats, they listened to constituents!! The nerve. What is this country coming to?
Quote:
Originally Posted by waterj2 View Post
Just as a point of information, the Democrats in the Massachusetts Senate don't need to compromise with the Republicans. There are 35 Democrats and 5 Republicans. Whatever Democrats were opposed to the bill, they caved to other Democrats.
Several ideas were presented regarding the change in support, none of which are mutually exclusive. Some or all of them could be true at the same time.

Last edited by descamisado; 05-29-2010 at 01:04 PM.
  #37  
Old 05-29-2010, 07:51 PM
Magiver Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 26,789
Quote:
Originally Posted by boytyperanma View Post
I don't think you should boycott MA because I live here.

Do you care to offer any argument as to why we should boycott MA ...?
Because Boston City Council voted to boycott Arizona? Seems like the MA thing to do.
  #38  
Old 05-29-2010, 09:19 PM
boytyperanma boytyperanma is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Leominster MA
Posts: 5,169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
Because Boston City Council voted to boycott Arizona? Seems like the MA thing to do.
Well at least you unlike the OP are offering an argument. Not a good one but it is miles ahead of his.

Last edited by boytyperanma; 05-29-2010 at 09:20 PM.
  #39  
Old 05-30-2010, 09:51 PM
Frostillicus Frostillicus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,625
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
The OP links to a news story about the Massachusetts Senate passing a bill that targets illegal immigration; it:
  • Bars the state from doing business with any company that breaks federal laws concerning the hiring of illegal immigrant
  • Increases penalties for using fake ID documents
  • Forbids the granting of in-state college tuition rates to illegal immigrants
  • Requite the Massachusetts public health insurance program to verify legal residency before providing benefits
  • Mandates priority for subsidized housing be given to legal residents
Wow! It is exactly like the Arizona law. Except for the first 5 bullet points listed above.
  #40  
Old 06-03-2010, 10:06 AM
Bricker Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 54,835
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostillicus View Post
Wow! It is exactly like the Arizona law. Except for the first 5 bullet points listed above.
Just guessing, but: you haven't actually read the Arizona law, have you?
  #41  
Old 06-03-2010, 11:42 AM
Steve MB Steve MB is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 11,824
Quote:
Originally Posted by astorian View Post
Wondering what? How anyone could possibly imply a parallel between reasonable law enforcement techniques (MA) and "yahr pehpahs, pliz" (AZ)?
__________________
The Internet: Nobody knows if you're a dog. Everybody knows if you're a jackass.
  #42  
Old 06-03-2010, 01:30 PM
Omar Little Omar Little is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Within
Posts: 11,673
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
If anything, they're proving to Arizona that there really is a way to tackle this without crafting de facto racist laws.
Uhmm...don't you mean the de facto racist Federal immigration laws?

Please tell me how the Arizona laws are more de facto racist than the current Federal immigration laws.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:41 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2017 Sun-Times Media, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017