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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
[li]Requite the Massachusetts public health insurance program to verify legal residency before providing benefits[/li][/QUOTE]
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.
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.
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.