City leaders always on wrong side of taxpayers
by Michael Graham
DNN Staff -EXCLUSIVE!
Monday, May 10, 2010
The Boston City Council passed its boycott of Arizona last week, and already one Bostonian has pledged not to go anywhere near the Grand Canyon State until they stop enforcing immigration laws:
Aunt Zeituni.
No, she’s content to stay right where she is, in a taxpayer-subsidized apartment, collecting her city check and other benefits while receiving the best medical care in the world for her long list of ailments - all on the taxpayer’s dime. She’s like a welcoming beacon to every illegal immigrant in Arizona. “Come to Boston,” is her message. “I’ve been ordered deported twice - and they still won’t throw me out!”
That’s Boston. We don’t punish immigration law breakers. We embrace them.
Gov. Deval Patrick ended our participation in a federal program that allowed our state police to help enforce immigration laws. Just last week the House shot down Rep. Jeff Perry’s modest request that everyone applying for state benefits prove they’re in the U.S. legally.And in 2008 the City Council unanimously endorsed the “Welcoming Massachusetts” pledge. Deportations and workplace enforcement, according to the council, “violate civil and human rights of [illegal] immigrants and, therefore, the core value that all people are endowed with unalienable rights.”
In other words, if you can get here, you can stay. While the rest of us pay and pay.
I could recount the body of social science on the impact of illegal immigration, how it costs taxpayers billions of dollars a year while driving down wages for working Americans, etc. But the City Council’s vote was untethered from facts or even basic logic.
On WTTK-FM yesterday, the resolution’s co-sponsor Felix Arroyo Jr. insisted, “Anyone in this country who is breaking the law should be dealt with. But that’s a completely separate issue” from illegal immigration.
So “breaking the law” is bad, but “illegal” is OK. Got it?
Arroyo also said Arizona’s law was offensive because “I want to walk down the street without having to worry about someone stopping me and asking me for papers.”
This merely proves that Arroyo has no idea what the Arizona law he’s boycotting actually does. It applies only in cases when a police officer has made a “lawful stop, detention or arrest.” So unless Arroyo is stumbling drunk down the street or carrying a severed head, he won’t have any problems.
But, once again, who cares about the facts when you’re busy pandering for politics? My question is, who is the City Council pandering to? Poll after poll shows Americans support the Arizona law by a 2-1 margin. Of those who oppose it, a significant number think Arizona isn’t going far enough.
When word of this boycott reaches the rest of the country, who is more likely to lose casual family tourists this summer - the Grand Canyon or the Big Dig? Phoenix or Fenway Park]?
There is no evidence that the Arizona law is harming Boston. On the other hand, Boston’s “Welcoming Massachusetts” embrace of illegals costs millions in federal tax dollars, a cost shared by Arizonans.
If anything, they’re the ones who should be boycotting us until we stop encouraging criminal immigrants to cross their border and burden U.S. taxpayers. But Arizonans aren’t as arrogant as our city councilors.
They’re more than happy to take care of their immigration problems while letting us care for Aunt Zeituni.
No comments:
Post a Comment