Arlene on the Rescinding of the E.O.: Bromides In Place of Analysis
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 The second, an almost comical one, developed after the E.O. was rescinded: advocates express relief on at least two separate occasions that “now, undocumented immigrants can return to Rhode Island”.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.