If this was a pro-illegal Democrat, then we can joke about this person not being able to recognize the hazards of illegal entry into the USA even if they hit at 60mph.
STUDY PROPOSAL TO REQUIRE PROOF THAT BENEFIT RECIPIENTS ARE LEGAL (H 4600)
The House, 83-75, approved a Democratic leadership-sponsored amendment that would indefinitely delay a proposal to require the state to verify that anyone over 18 who applies for state benefits is legally in Massachusetts. The amendment prohibits the proposal from taking effect until Gov. Patrick’s Office of Health and Human Services studies its impact on the state’s economy and a new bill to require the verification is filed and approved.
The proposal would require a person seeking benefits to produce proof that he or she is here legally by providing either a valid Massachusetts driver’s license or identification card, U.S. military card, Coast Guard Merchant Mariner card, military dependent’s identification card or Native American tribal document. Anyone who could not produce one of those documents would have the option to execute a notarized affidavit stating that he or she is a U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident or is otherwise lawfully present in the United States.
The measure provides many exemptions from the requirement and allows people who cannot produce the necessary identification to still receive emergency medical treatment, immunization and services such as soup kitchens, crisis counseling and intervention and short-term shelter.
Some supporters of the study said that the proposal is mean spirited and anti-immigrant and noted that many illegal immigrants are hardworking people who perform jobs that most Americans would not do. Others said that the House should gather information before making a rash decision and noted that this problem really should be solved on the federal level. Some argued that there are many legal immigrants who would find it difficult to produce the necessary documents.
Opponents of the study said that it is simply another example of a sneaky way for legislators to avoid a direct vote on the proposal itself. They said that the study would never be conducted and that the measure would never be implemented.
They noted that state services, with some emergency exceptions, should not be provided to people who broke the law and are here illegally. They emphasized that the legislation would only apply to illegal immigrants and includes many safeguards to protect individual rights. Some argued that the state should not be spending money on illegal immigrants during this recession when people are losing their jobs and homes and there are drastic cuts in many state services.
In April 2009, the House, 118-40, approved a similar delay of the same bill. That delay replaced the bill with a requirement that the state conduct a cost-benefit study of the services that immigrants receive versus their contributions to the state’s economy and the constitutionality of denying public services to immigrants regardless of immigration status. Supporters of the proposal note that this 2009 study was never conducted.
The roll call votes are on the amendments to study the proposal.
The first roll call listed is from 2009. The second roll call is from 2010.
(A “Yes” vote is for the study. A “No” vote is against the study.)
Rep. Michael Moran - Yes/Yes