The toxic wokism that oozes out of Harvard and the other educational institutions in the Bay State have finally infected Massachusetts to the point where the it is too deranged even for the long-time Democratic Party’s mouthpiece, the Boston Globe. The propaganda rag that hasn’t endorsed a Republican President since… hmmmm, never, actually, though it has occasionally endorsed Republicans for governor if they sounded and acted like Democrats…issued an editorial this week headlined, “Massachusetts can’t handle the influx of migrants on its own.” Good ol’ Globe: it can’t stop spinning for the Left even when its criticizing it. The issue is illegal immigrants, not “migrants.” And it’s not an influx: it’s a completely predictable occupation in response to persistent invitations.
Two days ago, the Legislature passed a bill granting in-state tuition at public colleges for all illegal immigrants who graduate from Massachusetts high schools, where they shouldn’t be allowed to attend in the first place. State Rep. Paul Frost, a Republican, rose to make the obvious critical observation about the measure, saying, “This is another incentive to encourage more illegal immigration to the Commonwealth, that the taxpayers and the residents of Massachusetts will have to subsidize.”
Ya think? The Boston Herald reports that 1100 taxpayers leave Massachusetts every week. Firebrand conservative Herald columnist Howie Carr writes, “That’s 1100 law-abiding Americans who speak English, pay taxes, work for a living, aren’t on welfare and aren’t killing kids in hit-and-run accidents.”
Nauseated by the euphemism used by the bill’s supporters to disguise it—“tuition equity” (what a surprise)—Carr also noted another absurdity in the tuition bill, which is sure to be signed into law by far-left Democratic Governor Maura Healy:
…there’s one group of students for whom there is no equity, and that’s out-of-state Americans. The tuition for UMass-Amherst next year is $17,364 for in-state students, and $39,300 for out-of-state students.
Think of it this way: If you live in New Hampshire and work in Massachusetts, you pay income tax here. But your kid would have to pay more than double the in-state tuition to attend ZooMass. And an illegal alien, who sneaked into the country and whose family has been on welfare ever since (like the Tsarnaevs, to cite just one example), gets to go for free.
More irony: an “international” student – meaning a legal alien – is charged even more to go to UMass, $39,722.
To be fair, the state of my birth has been heading this way—to the metaphorical loony bin—for a long, long time. Remember, the Commonwealth was the only state that went for George McGovern in 1968, who was so silly that even Richard Nixon looked better in comparison. Massachusetts liberals also kept electing a man to represent them in the U.S. Senate whom they knew had killed a young woman, leaving her to drown in his wrecked car while he consulted his political advisors to come up with a cover story and a plan. (It is widely assumed that the plan put into action included the Senators’ wealthy family paying off the dead girl’s parents.)
With the latest news of how far their beloved state has declined, John Adams and his cousin Sam are rumored to have spun themselves right out of their graves to seek some semblance of peace in…well, someplace else. They’re going to have to get out of New England first.
Ethics Alarms 
Meanwhile, in Illinois, they plan to make illegal immigrants cops.
https://www.cbsnews.com/chicago/news/migrants-law-enforcement-pritzkers/
How exactly is putting criminals in charge of law enforcement supposed to work?
Where does it say that? The article says “work-eligible immigrants.” That obviously wouldn’t include illegal immigrants.
I have read that as well.
“In 2021, the Federal Government passed a bill that allowed some undocumented immigrants to become healthcare workers and military members. The bill’s sponsor called the introduction of this new bill a “natural progression.””
They are not undocumented migrants, they are illegal immigrants. Giving them permission to work doesn’t change the illegality of them being in the country in the first place.
That doesn’t answer my question. According to the article, the bill allows legal migrant workers to become cops, not illegal immigrants. The bill’s sponsor is wrong; this is not a natural progression at all, it’s a totally different circumstance.
The law says “an individual who is not a citizen but is legally authorized to work in the United States under federal law is authorized to apply for the position of police officers.” That means there is no illegality of them being in the country in the first place. They have legal permission to be here and to work under federal law.
Work authorization gets handed out to illegal immigrants on a regular basis. It does not mean that they have been given permission to be in the country, it means the government has decided to ignore its own laws.
That is not true.
Posting an instruction article for an illegal immigrant to get away with breaking the law doesn’t prove anything except my point.
Brilliant response in its simplicity and accuracy.
Ok, so you didn’t read the article either. Had you done so, you’d know it’s not an accurate characterization of the article at all. But your bias made you both make assumptions instead of looking for facts.
Except that the answer in the article is “You can’t, sorry,” so it does nothing of the sort. Maybe read it next time. Or start slowly: read the articles you yourself link to.
A legal immigrant is someone who legally applies to immigrate to the country. An illegal immigrant is someone who ignores immigration laws and comes into the country by crossing the border illegally. There are only those two options.
There is no legal way to immigrate illegally.
The article you posted is talking about “undocumented immigrants” and “asylum seekers” which are both made up categories of illegal immigrants. In this context, the article is talking about people who turned themselves in to border patrol after illegally breaking into the country and told the magic “I need asylum” lie, versus people who illegally entered the country and just disappeared. The article is telling people the method by which the current administration prefers for illegal immigrants to break the law and letting them know that they will be given a pat on the head for breaking the law in the proper manner.
The government permitting crime doesn’t make that crime legal.
“A legal immigrant is someone who legally applies to immigrate to the country. An illegal immigrant is someone who ignores immigration laws and comes into the country by crossing the border illegally. There are only those two options.”
Right, I forgot that no one ever overstays their work visas. Only those two options!
“The article you posted is talking about “undocumented immigrants” and “asylum seekers” which are both made up categories of illegal immigrants.”
False. Asylum seekers are a category of legal immigrants, and not all asylum seekers “cross the border illegally;” many enter at designated ports of entry.
“In this context, the article is talking about people who turned themselves in to border patrol after illegally breaking into the country and told the magic “I need asylum” lie,”
Right, they’re all liars. No one has ever actually needed asylum. They just ask for it for funsies.
“The article is telling people the method by which the current administration prefers for illegal immigrants to break the law and letting them know that they will be given a pat on the head for breaking the law in the proper manner.”
No it isn’t. You didn’t read it. You made this up.
And nothing you’ve written here supports your false characterization of the Illinois law of allowing illegal immigrants to become cops. Again, the law is specifically about legal immigrants with work permits who are not yet citizens. You also did nothing to support your claim that my article tells illegal immigrants how to get work permits, which you made up.
People can overstay their visas. Valid point.
The rest of this is just a willful effort to ignore reality. You can ignore reality if you like. There is certainly nothing I can do to stop you. Ignoring reality does not make for a very persuasive argument, though.
To be fair, it is a necessary, indeed required, practice for obstinate defenders of current Democratic Party conduct, predominant media narratives, and Woke World.
Null Pointer, are you ever going to present evidence that illegal immigrants frequently receive work permits, or that the article I posted tells illegal immigrants how to do this?
Or are you just going to continue saying that anyone who does not buy your extraordinary claims is “ignoring reality?”
Texas sends its crocodile tears.
I never thought I would say that I was proud to have no further ties to the Bay State since there are no more members of my family living there, but I am. I’m just glad I don’t have kids to send to college, but if I did, I’d mandate they stay right here in the Garden State or take out loans. The kids can borrow for school, but their parents can’t borrow for retirement.
There are times I think I married the only normal, rational girl in New England. Massachusetts born and bred, Mrs. OB happily fled Taxachusetts with me to my home state of Florida in 1975, eventually settling in Arizona in 1981. Frankly, I’m beginning to worry about what’s happening in Barry Goldwater’s state.
As a point of interest, I think it was the prep school and college decals plastering the back windows of the Volvos that did me in. I thought of it as the state sport: competitive parenting.
The worst thing about the insanity taking over states like Massachusetts and Illinois (where I reside) is that it is prompting thousands of people to escape, more often than not to red states, and many of those idiots are taking their voting preferences and idiotic political beliefs with them. It’s amazing how many people don’t learn or see the connection between their political beliefs and votes on one hand and the deteriorating conditions in states and localities run by the politicians they elect and support!!
The worst thing about the insanity taking over states like Massachusetts and Illinois (where I reside) is that it is prompting thousands of people to escape, more often than not to red states, and many of those idiots are taking their voting preferences and idiotic political beliefs with them. It’s amazing how many people don’t learn or see the connection between their political beliefs and votes on one hand and the deteriorating conditions in states and localities run by the politicians they elect and support!!
Kelly Ayotte is running for governor in NH and has a great campaign strategy: “New Hampshire is one election away from becoming Massachusetts.”
It’s amazing how quickly Dems can change things, irreversibly, when they get a trifecta control of a state. Just see what happened in Washington, Oregon, etc. and what’s happening in Michigan and Minnesota (and soon in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin)
Carr’s analysis of the inconsistencies in how the various parties are treated is spot-on.
My one issue, “to cite just one example,” the Tsarnaevs were here legally. That was a gratuitous (and erroneous) slap at them. I get it–It’s Boston. It makes a good rhetorical point, but still needs to be pointed out.
-Jut
Howie’s just a bit too vicious for me. But he’s often correct.
This was also gratuitous and erroneous:
“That’s 1100 law-abiding Americans who speak English, pay taxes, work for a living, aren’t on welfare and aren’t killing kids in hit-and-run accidents.”
Really? No citizens ever kill kids in hit-and-run accidents? Only illegal immigrants do? His analysis is completely clouded by biased generalizations.
No, but no illegal immigrant should ever be in the position to kill any US citizen under any circumstances. That’s the point.
That’s the point you wish he had made. It’s not what he said, and it’s not a plausible interpretation of his words.
That’s exactly what he meant. I don’t like Carr but he’s not stupid: he isn’t implying that only illegal immigrants commit hit and run accidents. He’s referring to a particular, recent hit and run accident by an illegal immigrant, and obviously so. This is the old game of deliberately construing a statement to mean the most indefensible thing grammatically possible within the words to make a statement easy to attack. Cheap.
I knew exactly what Carr meant the second I read it. I don’t “wish” Carr says or said anything: I literally don’t care what he says. But I have written sentences using the same technique. His meaning should be obvious.
Your response is no better; worse, in fact. Do you know that any of the weekly 1100 have ever killed a kid in a hit and run? Is that what we should assume you meant? Do you think Carr’s statement was intended to be an absolutely factually exact representation of the situation? The “plausible interpretation” by anyone not trying to be deliberately obtuse is that Carr used a known incident as a metaphor, illustrating, as Jack notes, that any such death or injury caused by an illegal is one that would not have occurred if the illegal were where he belonged.
Yeah, Bingo. MA’s criticism is essentially using the same intellectually dishonest distortion as those who said Trump’s characterization of illegal immigration that launched his Presidential run was “racist,” since he was claiming, they said, that all Mexican illegals were murderers and rapists.
He didn’t say anything about illegal immigration in that speech. He said “when Mexico sends its people.” You’re right that he didn’t imply “all,” but he certainly implied “most.”
He did not, and saying that the speech wasn’t about illegal immigration is shockingly dishonest. In that section of the speech, he said,
“When do we beat Mexico at the border? They’re laughing at us, at our stupidity. And now they are beating us economically. They are not our friend, believe me. But they’re killing us economically. The U.S. has become a dumping ground for everybody else’s problems.
When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people. But I speak to border guards and they tell us what we’re getting. And it only makes common sense. It only makes common sense. They’re sending us not the right people. It’s coming from more than Mexico. It’s coming from all over South and Latin America, and it’s coming probably — probably — from the Middle East. But we don’t know. Because we have no protection and we have no competence, we don’t know what’s happening. And it’s got to stop and it’s got to stop fast.”
Border GUARDS? “Protection”? The Mexican border? Nobody can look at that and say it’s not about illegal immigration unless they are incapable of objectivity. The commentary on the Trump comments launched the deceitful practice of confounding immigrants with illegal immigrants.
Border guards deal with both legal and illegals immigrants, and Trump has argued we need “protection” from both. “They’re not sending us the right people” makes a lot more sense if he’s talking about legal immigration, which he immediately began restricting upon becoming president. And when you make a bunch of statements about “them” before saying “some are good people,” that implies that most are not. The person guilty of conflating legal and illegal immigration here is Trump. Null Pointer also did so above when he falsely claimed Illinois is letting illegal immigrants become cops, but you said nothing about that.
Dishonest answer. Astounding.
So it’s intellectually honest for someone to make misleading comparisons based on stereotypes, but intellectually dishonest for me to point that out. Got it. Cool standard. Not at all biased.
That’s not at all what happened in these comments (see my caution against being deliberately obtuse). You called “erroneous” Carr’s easily understood rhetorical use of a real exemplar as the base of a metaphor for one facet of the illegals problem, but countered with an irrelevant whataboutism straw man, based on no specific information, and completely missing the point. Talk about “erroneous”.
Frankly, your comments increasingly seem to be some sort of weird mashup of sealioning and the Monty Python “Argument” skit.