Tuesday, May 23, 2006

The CLIP Principle

What's the CLIP Principle, you ask. Read on.

From the Boston Globe:

Mass. GOP pushes immigration debate

Senate Republicans, echoing their national party's tough talk on immigration, are pushing for a debate on the Senate floor this week over whether Massachusetts needs to take a harder line against undocumented immigrants.

The six GOP senators are offering amendments to next year's state budget that would sharply increase penalties on employers that knowingly hire immigrants who are here illegally; require the attorney general to compile annual reports on companies that do so; have local housing authorities verify the immigration status of each applicant; and tie funding for the judiciary to a requirement that defendants' immigration status be confirmed at their arraignments.

How long (in minutes) before these six legislators are branded as uncaring, hate-filled racists?

A leading immigrant advocate said the Republican proposals wouldn't solve anything.

"Everybody is frustrated with our nation's broken immigration system ... [but] it's not a solution," said Ali Noorani, executive director of the Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition. "The only outcome would be impacting immigrant families who are working hard to make Massachusetts a better place."

What a douche. Let's review:

A crackdown on employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens would help preserve these jobs for legal immigrants "who are working hard to make Massachusetts a better place", and who have come here legally, out of respect for the laws of the Commonwealth and the nation.

Yeah...can't have that.

Requiring local housing authorities to verify the immigration status of all applicant's looking for tax-payer subsidized housing will make it easier for legal immigrants to find affordable housing in the Commonwealth, at a time when the lack of such housing is being blamed for the state's continuing lack of population and economic growth.

Yeah...can't have that.

Lastly, we have the proposal to require the confirmation of defendants' immigration status at criminal arraignments.

Do I even have to comment on this one?

How the hell can Mr. Noorani argue that the only people being impacted by this amendment would be the "immigrant families who are working hard to make Massachusetts a better place". I mean, I realize carjacking and drug trafficking is "hard work", but aside from providing job security for police officers, prosecutors, and prison guards, I'm not quite clear as to how they're improving the quality of life in the Commonwealth. A little help on that one?

Why can't people like Mr. Noorani here at least have the decency to admit that there exist in our communities illegal immigrants who have no intentions, whatsoever, of living within the boundaries of the law?

God forbid we should ever dare to stand up to these individuals and hold them accountable for their actions.

Of course, this whole discussion is moot. These amendments have as much chance of passing in the People's Progressive Republic of Massachusetts as does a shall-issue concealed carry law. One needs only to apply the CLIP Principle (the Common-sense Law of Inverse Proportion), which states that the more heavily-laden with common sense a piece of pending legislation might be, the lesser its chances of making out of the State House alive.

Case in point: I can legally walk around my neighborhood with a duffle bag carrying 100 fully loaded, 10-round pistol magazines. But if I were to be caught inside my home with an EMPTY 12-round pistol magazine manufactured after some arbitrarily selected date, I would be in violation of the Commonwealth's "Common-sense" gun laws.

Apparently, that one empty magazine, capable of holding two additional rounds, would put me over the edge and transform me into a dangerous killing machine.

I need a drink.