Woonsocket Rep. Jon Brien’s bill (which AR took note of here) requiring Rhode Island businesses to utilize the Feds “Basic Pilot Program” to determine if an employee can work in the U.S. legally is a good idea. In a hearing on it yesterday, Brien explained:
Brien said he is trying to reflect his constituents’ wishes to do something about illegal immigration “because the federal government is failing us.”
“I’m not a racist; I’m not a xenophobe,” said Brien. “I’m merely taking the wishes of the people of my district and trying to carry them forward.”
Brien said the Basic Pilot Program “is easy. It’s free — it doesn’t cost anything. It requires an Internet connection.” He said the verification cannot be used retroactively, and cannot be used during the hiring process to screen employees.
“Its goal is to ensure the work force is a legal work force, going forward. That’s it,” said Brien. “The point of the bill is that if you’re going to come to work in the state of Rhode Island, you must do so legally.”
The bill was also supported by WHJJ talk host Helen Glover:
“The federal government is dropping the ball here,” said Glover…“We are a land of laws and I am angered that we even have to go through this … At a time when there is a state budget deficit, we need to make sure there is employment for the people who are legally here.”
Not all agree, though. Here is a litany of their justifications for opposition:
Amy Vitale, program coordinator for the Rhode Island affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union, said the ACLU “strongly opposes this bill,” in part because of the reported inaccuracy of the government database upon which the program depends…
Rep. Joseph S. Almeida, D-Providence, said he feels that the bill, and others introduced this session on the illegal-immigration issue, “are anti-immigration bills” aimed at all immigrants, whether legal or illegal…
Rep. Grace Diaz, D-Providence, expressed her opposition, arguing that the mandate would place a financial burden on the small businesses she represents in the Washington Park and South Side areas…
Sen. Harold M. Metts, D-Providence, argued against the bill, saying that “anti-illegal” has come to mean “anti-immigration, period.”
…Sen. Juan Pichardo, D-Providence, called the bill on the Basic Pilot Program “part of a package of legislation that I believe is very divisive in our state and our community … people are getting angry to the point where they get to use the words ‘hate’ and ‘racist.’ ”
To sum up, while a few opponents believe Brien’s bill is inconvenient, their real dislike is based on their conflation (purposeful or otherwise) of immigrant and “illegal immigrant.” Added to that is their belief that a desire to uphold the law is really just closet racism. Well, they’re wrong.
[Open full post]I’ve taken a bit of flack, including a charge that I’ve lost credibility on economic development issues, over my last post discussing the impact of the T.F. Greene airport expansion proposals (more on it here, here). In it, I took ProJo columnist Ed Achorn to task because I thought that (to quote from a follow-up comment of my own) his “comment implied that this was only a mere runway expansion and that a bureaucracy or insiders or whatever were holding it up. In truth, it’s real people who value their quality of life. If they lose the argument, well, so be it. But for Achorn to so cavalierly dismiss them rankled me.”
According to some expansion proponents, it’s apparently either all or nothing. Your either for economic development or your against it. It’s all black and white, you see. And if all you see when looking at airport expansion is dollar signs being put into the state’s economy, I would imagine that it is black and white. Especially if you or your community is not affected.
The most aggressive of the proposals put forward so far seem to be too hard on the City of Warwick. {Update: thanks for the map, Andrew. Here are maps of the actual proposals–MAC}. Others, while less detrimental to the city, may not result in sufficient economic growth to justify a smaller expansion. What if the best course is to stand pat? These are the questions that I and many other Warwick residents want to have answered before a decision is made.
While it may be an economic boon to the State, the City of Warwick isn’t so lucky. Losing 200-350 homes worth of property taxes (that the State isn’t obligated to compensate) while at the same time picking up a net gain in infrastructure costs (water and sewer, trash collection, roads, etc) doesn’t bode well for the pocketbooks of those who choose to reside in Warwick. There are also aesthetic changes that will occur, like increased pollution, the loss of wetlands, noise, extension of fenced-off airport property. I know, not very “conservative” of me to bring up some of this stuff, is it? Apparently, it’s not very “progressive” of me either.
Look, I know the arguments. The airport has been there forever, so people who live or move to Warwick should have known that expansion was a possibility. They should have known that the State was thinking about planting LAX in the middle of an 80,000 person suburb. If it is really so bad, then current Warwick residents could just move. Besides, the State will pay them good money for their homes and they’ll move elsewhere and everything will be fine. They should just get over it and move on. That about sums it up, right?
I guess that, for some people, it is easy to simply pick up and leave a community in which they’ve either lived their whole lives or have put down roots and made new friends and joined community organizations. Perhaps this is because no one worries about maintaining a “community” anymore. Not really. Pat of this may be because fewer people join community organizations or associations for the sake of making things better. The result is that fewer people have a real stake in the community in which they reside.
Thus, we can all just live in our McMansions and not talk to our neighbors (unless we need something), so one house is as good as any other and one neighbor is just as nondescript as another. As for the kids, well, they can make new friends in a new school–they’re all the same. But for some people, it’s a lot harder to just write off all of that time and money they’ve spent trying to help and better their community. And if that is what ultimately happens, there’s a good chance that they will move on to the next city or town, but newly jaded and less likely to lend a hand. In today’s throw-away society, I fear that we’re also throwing away the already dying sense of community, too.
Despite the apparent conventional wisdom, conservatives–me included–don’t necessarily privilege economic concerns over less measurable, and thus more aesthetic, factors, such as the quality of life in a community. Perhaps I’m falling prey to a predisposition that romanticizes the idea of a community. Yet, if so, it is rooted in my own experience. A real community is built on personal relationships, of groups of people joining together to make their neighborhoods–and the city or town as a whole–a better place for their families. That includes supporting such things as economic development, which can help to ease the tax burden on families, which, in turn, will allow them to devote more time (and money) to their families and communities. Yet, the by-products of economic development can also have a negative impact.
I support airport expansion, but only if it is done with forethought and with the goal of achieving the best cost/benefit ratio (and that means more than just dollars) possible. To bring up very real concerns about the burden that a particular community will bear so that the State as a whole may benefit–to ensure that any negative impact is either acceptable or manageable–is both fundamentally conservative and economically smart. The discussion going on now in Warwick is over where, exactly, is the point at which the economic benefits of economic development begin to be outweighed by the negative impact that will be felt by the city. As this discussion continues, it’s not too much to ask that Warwick residents receive at least a little forbearance from their fellow Rhode Islanders. After all, it is they who are being asked to sacrifice a portion of their community–both property and personal relationships–so that the rest of the State can become more prosperous.
To help understand the options being considered for an airport runway extension, here is a link to a map of T.F Green Airport and the surrounding neighborhoods, courtesy of Mapquest.
[Open full post]Mike Stanton of the Projo picks up the story of a possible non-town employee seeking to draw a town pension in West Warwick. The scope of the story is broadening to include Thomas Iannitti, the acting chairman of the State Board of Elections and the director of West Warwick’s senior center (which is not part of the town) since 1986, as well as the ongoing Federal corruption investigation in Rhode Island…
A federal corruption probe of the Rhode Island State House has branched out into the town of West Warwick, home to powerful Senate Finance Chairman Stephen D. Alves.As a result of these various controversies, West Warwick officials are having a hard time getting into the spirit of this year’s “Sunshine Week” in government (March 11-17)…
Officials confirmed yesterday that West Warwick’s finance director and the town pension board’s secretary appeared on Thursday before a federal grand jury in Providence.
Federal investigators also have subpoenaed records regarding various financial dealings in town, including contracts with Alves’ employer, UBS Paine Webber, to help manage West Warwick pension funds.
The Journal has previously reported that Alves, an investment adviser, is among seven politicians under investigation as part of a wide-ranging State House influence-peddling probe dubbed Operation Dollar Bill.
The probe, which began with former state Sen. John A. Celona, who recently reported to federal prison after pleading guilty and agreeing to cooperate, has also focused on Senate President Joseph A. Montalbano. The Journal reported last fall that the FBI has questioned West Warwick officials about title work that Montalbano did for the town, and Alves’ role in Montalbano’s hiring.
Yesterday’s disclosures came as a result of a stormy meeting of the town’s pension board, during which two vocal critics of Alves and the town attacked the pension application of the longtime director of the West Warwick Senior Center, Thomas Iannitti.
[West Warwick Resident Tom Jones] also said that he understood that the FBI has questioned officials of the pension board. Members denied that, but acknowledged that the board’s secretary, Chris Payette, has been questioned.[Open full post]
With Jones pressing for more details, Town Manager Wolfgang Bauer interjected that federal investigators had asked town officials to keep the FBI’s inquiries “confidential.” That prompted board officials to decline to discuss the matter further.
Afterward, town Finance Director Malcolm Moore declined comment when asked about being questioned by federal investigators. However, town officials confirmed that he and Payette appeared before the grand jury last week….
The question of whether Iannitti is a town employee is a confusing one. [West Warwick Resident Alan Palazzo], who has waged a year-long battle to obtain town records regarding Iannitti’s pension, said that he was initially informed by Joseph Pezza, the board’s lawyer, that Iannitti was an employee — only to be contradicted later by the town’s lawyer, state Rep. Timothy Williamson.
The town has blocked access to the records Palazzo requested.
In an otherwise good piece explaining the reason why Mississippi just got a new Toyota car plant and Rhode Island did not, ProJo columnist Ed Achorn writes:
Its culture of NIMBYism (Not In My Backyard) is so bad that the state must engage in a prolonged struggle merely to extend the main runway at the airport, a crucial engine of business.
Well, that airport is in MY backyard (though my home isn’t in any danger) and, as the ProJo reported on Saturday, the plans involve a lot more than “merely…extend[ing] the main runway.”
If the main runway at T.F. Green Airport is expanded, it will swallow at least 204 houses, up to 53 businesses and dozens of acres of wetlands, according to a draft summary of a Federal Aviation Administration report released yesterday, examining the consequences of expansion.
Expansion would also increase noise pollution and cut the city’s tax base by as much as $2.2 million a year. On the flip side, it is predicted to generate $138 million in business revenue within the next 13 years…
Depending on which, if any, option is ultimately selected, the draft summary shows the following:
•204 to 339 houses would be taken
•10 to 32 acres of wetlands would be taken
•6 to 53 businesses would be displaced
•36 to 60 houses would experience such an increase in the level of noise that they would become eligible for a volunteer land-acquisition program
The FAA has not ranked any one alternative above another, saying it does not plan to choose a preferred scenario until the summer.
But the release of the consequences summary yesterday signals the beginning of what is expected to be a protracted battle between expansion critics — many of them at the city level — and the FAA.
“No matter what you do, there will be adverse effects,” Mayor Scott Avedisian said. “All the options will encroach on different parts of the city.”
Warwick’s principal planner was more forthright. “Whatever alternative you look at, you are devastating either neighborhoods and family homes, or destroying wetlands,” said William J. DePasquale. “It seems like the impact of all this expansion is disproportionately set on the community.”
City officials say they’ve known for years what expansion would do to their community. They expressed frustration yesterday that the FAA is only now recognizing those impacts.
Believe me, I realize that there are long-term economic benefits to be had by expanding the airport, but at what price? The airport already bisects Warwick and most of the proposed plans would only make it worse, which would be detrimental to the quality of life in the community–my community–as a whole.
Yes, I know that (to paraphrase) the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one, but here is the fundamental problem: why is the State hellbent-for-leather on putting an international-quality airport in the middle of a suburban community? The fact that the State chose to develop it’s major airport there in the first place belies Rhode Island’s historical penchant for having a lack of foresight. Unfortunately, at this time, there is really no other plausible choice for making it possible for Coast-to-Coast or international flights via Rhode Island. (Quonset, for instance, has it’s own problems and I don’t see any way that our cash-strapped State could possibly build a new airport).
At the very least, the citizen’s of Warwick deserve a chance to weigh-in on the plan they favor the most (see the extended entry) should this inevitable “march of progress” proceed. If the State is insistent on expanding the runway, then they are stuck dealing with a community that is wary of losing even more of it’s identity via what amounts to a large scale exercise of eminent domain. How would Achorn respond if the same thing was happening in his town?
I have to confess that I haven’t really put a lot of thought into “Don’t ask, don’t tell,” over the last few years. Now, comes this story about General Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff:
Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Monday that he supports the Pentagon’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” ban on gays serving in the military because homosexual acts “are immoral,” akin to a member of the armed forces conducting an adulterous affair with the spouse of another service member.
Responding to a question about a Clinton-era policy that is coming under renewed scrutiny amid fears of future U.S. troop shortages, Pace said the Pentagon should not “condone” immoral behavior by allowing gay soldiers to serve openly. He said his views were based on his personal “upbringing,” in which he was taught that certain types of conduct are immoral…
Charles Moskos, a military sociologist at Northwestern University who was instrumental in helping the Pentagon craft the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law, said it is unusual for a top commander to use morality as a justification for the policy. But he said he has repeatedly heard enlisted members use that reasoning when opposing gays in the military.
“With the enlisted, it’s a question of cohesion, but morality is something they always bring up,” said Moskos, who declined to comment specifically on Pace’s remarks.
I respect General Pace’s personal feelings on the matter and Moskos brings up the reason for which I’ve tended to support the current, “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.
Now, however, I think that “Don’t ask, don’t tell” has served its purpose. It was useful because it served as a pragmatic bridge between two different military generations. The older generation of officers, like Pace, understandably call on their personal experience and collective belief that having homosexuals in the ranks is disruptive to overall morale. They know that they would have been uncomfortable working alongside homosexuals and project this onto today’s fighting men and women.
Today’s soldiers, sailors and marines have grown up in a different time. I certainly don’t have any particular insight into the attitudes of today’s enlisted or officers. However, I think it’s safe to say that they reflect the attitudes of their Gen X / Gen Y generation, who have grown up in an era of total exposure to homosexuals and the gay lifestyle. Thus, I think that most simply don’t think it’s a big deal to work with or be around homosexuals. They’ve probably done it already and their non-military peers do it every day.
Is the military a different entity than society in general? You bet. That is why “Don’t ask, don’t tell” was such an important policy. It was in no way an ideologically pure way to deal with the real issue, but it bought the military some time to acclimate itself to the broader cultural change in attitude towards homosexuals.
In a different time, African-Americans and Japanese-Americans had to prove their patriotism and fighting ability in a segregated military environment. Gay men and women also want to serve their country and, once they prove (if they haven’t already) that they can do the job, I think that straight men and women in the military will accept them within their ranks.
Addendum: Incidentally, I agree with Pace on the adultery point. As Jonah Goldberg so eloquently put it, we don’t “need to ‘liberate’ our troops so they can be free to boink other men’s wives and other women’s husbands,” whether they’re gay or not, I’d add.
