January 13, 2011

Arlene on the Rescinding of the E.O.: Bromides In Place of Analysis

Monique Chartier

Awesome editorial by Arlene Violet in today's Valley Breeze about Gov Chafee rescinding the Executive Order on illegal immigration.

Despite anticipatory breast-beating to the contrary by advocates of illegal immigration, Arlene points out that there was not one instance of abuse of the Order in the two years that it was in place. She also enumerates the losers of this action ("legal Hispanics and black inner-city workers" - I would only modify that slightly to "legal immigrants ..." - and, in a different way, those whose identities are stolen.)

Perhaps best of all is this:

What is most disturbing about the new governor's action is his inability to analyze all the competing arguments involving this executive order. Instead, he floats around bromides about Roger Williams and how this state founder would be proud of the diversity by his action.

Indeed, it has been altogether unclear from the beginning what exactly was understood by candidate, now Governor, Lincoln Chafee and his staff about this E.O.

The e-verify component of the E.O., for example, pertained only to hiring by state vendors. But mis-informed assertions were made by Mr. Chafee about its impact on private sector hiring.

In justifying the rescinding of the Order, Mr. Chafee protested that the E.O. wasn't working in terms of the flow of illegal immigrants to Rhode Island. Two misapprehensions stem from this statement. The first is that the E.O. was designed to substantively impact migration patterns; in fact, it was not. The second, an almost comical one, developed after the E.O. was rescinded: advocates express relief on at least two separate occasions that "now, undocumented immigrants can return to Rhode Island". H'mmm. So was the E.O. efficacious on that front or was it not???

Thirdly, does the Governor understand that, with his action, the door has now been opened for tax dollars to flow past legal immigrants and citizens into the pockets of illegal aliens and their employers (i.e., unscrupulous state vendors) seeking to profit from the exploitation of those illegal alients? That, with his action, when the police take someone into custody on another matter, they must now close their eyes to any criminal immigration warrants pending against the individual?

Indeed, as Arlene says, what is most alarming about the rescinding of the E.O. is that it appears to have been done in the absence of a firm grasp either of the basic components of the Order or of a reasonably thought-through caculation as to the consequences of the Order's rescinding. Such a poor method of formulating public policy inevitably invites questions about the motive behind that policy and whether the good of the state - in this case, on several levels - was even a consideration.

Comments, although monitored, are not necessarily representative of the views Anchor Rising's contributors or approved by them. We reserve the right to delete or modify comments for any reason.

The chorus of scumbag enablers of illegal aliens,now led by Governor Gump don't care about facts or the truth-they take on all criticism by screeching"racism",and that's it.Incapable of intelligent debate or seeing what is in front of their eyes.
Illegal aliens returning to RI is a good thing?I gus-if you're a trust fund baby or a sleazy immigration lawyer,or a POS like Steven Brown who thrives on the destruction of our country and society.

Posted by: joe bernstein at January 13, 2011 5:34 PM

Monique: An awesome editorial indeed. Thanks for alerting us to it.

Arlene Violet's editorial seems (more politely) to echo the remarkable article that Ann Coulter penned about Chafee in 2006, and to which the ProJo referred today.

In 2008, Lincoln Chafee called Sarah Palin a “cocky wacko,” something to which the ProJo apparently did not refer today. Query how Chafee's comment about Palin fits into his current mental universe?

Posted by: Bill at January 13, 2011 8:19 PM

Apparently,in Arlene Violet's world,white Americans never work at minimum age jobs,because she doesn't recognize the plight of those of us who have or have had to work at those jobs.

According to Monique's report,Ms.Violet thinks that only legal Hispanics and black inner-city workers will get hurt.

I guess Ms.Violet is just another elitist.

Posted by: helen at January 16, 2011 4:38 AM

But of course,I forgot. If I've had to work at those jobs,and if my husband has had to,and we are white,not hispanic and not inner city blacks,that must mean that we are both intellectually incapable and maybe come from "bad" families,because...

well,you figure out the logic.

Posted by: helen at January 16, 2011 4:47 AM

Hey Arlene Violet! I call you out right here.

My husband has a small business. We live on about 30,000 a year or less. It's our only source of income. It's a construction type of business. So nice that you think only legal Hispanics and inner-city blacks will get hurt by letting people who are here illegally undercut the citizenry.

Yeah,I went to Catholic school,my school had pedophile priest James Porter. I remember how snobby the nuns were then. Everybody must have an encyclopedia at home,right? Everybody must have a hat to wear in winter or you must be disobeying your parents,you must be careless and disobedient,right,Arlene?

Posted by: helen at January 16, 2011 5:13 AM

Hey Arlene,do we matter,or do only legal Hispanics and inner city blacks matter?

We come from small farming and working class families. My father's mother was born in the 1880's and was a seamstress. Guess I'm one of those special white people who get it all handed to them.

Oh,by the way, my husband and I both qualify for Mensa. But we've had to work for minimum wage because our parents were, for lack of a better term wage slaves at very low pay.

My mother was extremely ill with an incurable,progressive,neuro-muscular disease. She died in a nursing home after being there for aprox 7 years.

I don't count, and I must be stupid because I was impoverished because of her illness.

Ms. Violet et al. Can you relate to that? And don't try to say I could do this or that. I applied to get educational aid from social security and they said it had been too long since my mother worked.

I Know Isound a little crazy,but I'm telling you the God's honest truth of my life.

Posted by: helen at January 16, 2011 7:40 AM

By the way,I was thirteen or close to fourteen when my mother went in the nursing home. I had to help with the daily bills. My father was born in a working class Canadian French family(1909) and only went to the sixth grade. I had to quit school to survive,basically. Also,I was adopted,which made it even more complicated.

Oh,but all high school dropouts are dumb,right. I want you to see my circumstances so that maybe more justice will prevail in the future and it's cathartic for me as well. Thank you to all who can put up with it.

Arlene Violet,Linc Chafee and most of the rest don't understand those circumstances in those days or even now.

Posted by: helen at January 16, 2011 8:23 AM

Oh gosh! I used the word "cathartic".

That isn't a prole word. Sheesh.

Posted by: helen at January 16, 2011 9:19 AM

One more thing...

When my husband was in the Air Force,stationed in Florida,I had trouble finding a job because my experience was in factories up here.
Whole new world down there.

John McCain said Americans can't do the farming work of the illegals.

Well,I picked a heck of a lot of oranges without the special equipment the Spanish speaking people had when we worked in the hot,steamy orchards in Florida.

And John McCain said Americans can't do that work. I'm living proof we can do it and better and I'm nothing.

Posted by: helen at January 16, 2011 9:30 AM

People of Arlene Violet's stature should not perpetuate stereotypes. What a highly respected,trusted,public figure says has more import that that of a person who lives a private life and might not have even ever written a letter to the editor of their local paper.

I think that highly respected public figures should be held to high standard. That means that if they indulge in divisive or stereotypical remarks,they should be called out on it.

The reported remark is like one of those computer folder icons. It's small,but when you click and open it,there's a lot of stuff in there.

It would take a lot of words to examine here the idea that legal immigrants and inner city black people are most hurt by illegal alien workers.

Often,such remarks are based on percentages of the specific populations,not actual numbers of individuals who are affected by whatever the situation might be. In this instance,a whole majority race was left out of the equation.

I swear to God,that in my experience as a worker in many minimum wage or just above jobs,doing menial,manual labor,not unionized,the vast majority of people doing the same or very similar work that I was doing,for the same or very similar pay,were white,English speaking Americans,who most likely were born in this country.

Isn't logical then to surmise that in sheer numbers people in that group would be most affected negatively in competition for jobs,even though proportionately the percentage of people in that situation compared to the whole might be lower than that of other groups?

Posted by: helen at January 18, 2011 7:46 AM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?

Important note: The text "http:" cannot appear anywhere in your comment.