Caprio supports Carcieri on Immigration.
Posted by: RIFUTURE
in Frank Caprio
on February 09, 2010 
Frank Caprio seems bent on drifting rightward as an election strategy. These comments, published last week in The Boston Globe, seem indicative of his current trajectory. Also, Caprio is reportedly getting ready to release the results of a poll – a push poll based on the transcripts of questions provided to RIFUTURE.
Since Channel 12 and Brown University released the questions they asked in their recent polls, it only seems fair for the campaign to release the questions they asked. Wouldn't you agree?
From The Boston Globe:
He would keep a 2008 executive order signed by Carcieri that cracks down on illegal immigrants, even though he did not know all its terms. He supports requiring that companies doing business with the state use an electronic database called E-Verify to check whether new hires are authorized to work in the country.
When asked, Caprio said he also backed a provision in the order requiring state police and prison officials to identify illegal immigrants for possible deportation.
"People in Rhode Island can't pay their own bills," Caprio said. "So why are we going to argue whether we should be paying the bills for illegal immigrants in prison?"
Trackback(0)
TrackBack URI for this entry
Comments (28)
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Show/hide comments
written by Steve A., February 09, 2010
At roughly $40000 a year to house an inmate (last I saw), it makes perfect sense that if you're here illegally AND you commit a crime that you are deported. With the state being in a hole as it is, explain to a state worker why they've seen reductions in pay and increases in health insurance and yet we're housing people at the ACI. I don't know what the savings would be and to a point it doesn't even matter. Any other country, if you're there illegally and causing trouble, deportation would be a God send.
-
- +3
-
-
written by DeusEx, February 09, 2010
The ironic part is that the only reason illegal immigration is a problem in the first place is the welfare state. In a free market economy, an influx of cheap labor is actually beneficial for everyone. The only problem is when people start receiving state services and aren't paying for them. Pick one, progressives, welfare state or illegal immigrants, it is economically untenable to have both.
-
- -1
-
-
written by right_of_center, February 09, 2010
Why do people keep saying that this is about "Immigration" when it's not. It's about *illegal* immigration. People who are immigrating are great people. People doing it illegally, are not. Lots of immigrants who are either in the process or recently finished the process really hate being lumped in with those doing it the wrong way.
If the problem is with the laws, change the laws. But the laws we have should be enforced.
If the problem is with the laws, change the laws. But the laws we have should be enforced.
-
- +1
-
-
written by Evan, February 09, 2010
I disagree with him on E-verify (mainly because it's a lousy, ineffective system), but I totally concur that - particularly in a time of economic hardship - we should not be paying for illegal immigrants to stay at the ACI.
I also sort of resent the assumption that there is an official progressive position on this issue. There are actually plenty of Democrats that are anti-illegal immigration, for lots of good liberal reasons. Depressed wages springs to mind most immediately.
I also sort of resent the assumption that there is an official progressive position on this issue. There are actually plenty of Democrats that are anti-illegal immigration, for lots of good liberal reasons. Depressed wages springs to mind most immediately.
-
- +3
-
-
written by Mach, February 09, 2010
Nobody will win a statewide election with the opposite position. If we want someone in the Guv's seat who will do anything but perpetuate Carcieri's order, s/he is going to have to lie about it in order to get elected.
E-verify is still crap though, easily circumvented by identity theft. Just another pointless, ineffective, bureaucratic hoop to jump through.
E-verify is still crap though, easily circumvented by identity theft. Just another pointless, ineffective, bureaucratic hoop to jump through.
-
- -1
-
-
written by Contrarian View, February 09, 2010
and ACORN and the other illegal-alien advocacy groups are expert at that - they have developed it to a high art for election fraud purposes.
-
- -1
-
-
written by PinkHatLib, February 09, 2010
Why, right_of_center? Because the attacks from the right including attacks right here in this diary focus on vitriolic nonsense about ACORN. Folks like yourself say the right has nothing against immigrants while the wingnut echo chamber goes on nonstop smearing a group working to get those same (legal) citizens to vote. Maybe you're not one of those misinformed angry fringe-right folks, but I notice you didn't bother responding to those posts either.
http://judiciary.house.gov/news/091222.html
"There were no instances of individuals who were allegedly registered to vote improperly by ACORN or its employees and who were reported 'attempting to vote at the polls.'" Memorandum from the Congressional Research Service to the House Judiciary Committee, "ACORN Investigations" (December 22, 2009), at 1.
Much more here...
http://www.bradblog.com/?page_id=6500
http://judiciary.house.gov/news/091222.html
"There were no instances of individuals who were allegedly registered to vote improperly by ACORN or its employees and who were reported 'attempting to vote at the polls.'" Memorandum from the Congressional Research Service to the House Judiciary Committee, "ACORN Investigations" (December 22, 2009), at 1.
Much more here...
http://www.bradblog.com/?page_id=6500
-
- +0
-
-
written by right_of_center, February 09, 2010
If I saw that ACORN was being unfairly attacked, I'd support them. However, that organization seems to have a little bit of a sketchy history, so I'll stay out of that one completely. No attack, no support.
And if there are vitriolic attacks against ACORN in this very diary, and I haven't said a word about that, why are you attacking me? Why not go after whoever is writing such things about them?
And if there are vitriolic attacks against ACORN in this very diary, and I haven't said a word about that, why are you attacking me? Why not go after whoever is writing such things about them?
-
- +0
-
-
written by PinkHatLib, February 09, 2010
Hey, you asked the question; I answered it. And, for what it's worth, I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you don't share the unfounded opinions so frequently parroted by those who assure us that they have absolutely nothing at all against immigrants.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Matt Jerzyk, February 09, 2010
It is truly disappointing to read Caprio's comments on Carcieri's executive order and E-Verify.
As I recalled in this post -
http://www.rifuture.org/myblog/caprio-bucks-conservatives-on-immigration-.html
just several years ago, then Sen. Frank Caprio supported drivers licenses for undocumented immigrants.
I guess he supported immigrants before he was against them.
Further, in light of Treasurer Caprio's consistent use of data to support his positions, he would be hard-pressed to explain the failure rate of the E-Verify system and why - even though he claims he is a supporter - so many small business owners oppose this as simply another government, bureaucratic nightmare.
These positions might play well in the suburbs, but Caprio risks losing much of the urban vote since there are tens of thousands of Latinos in Rhode Island who have to deal with discrimination because of these policies.
-
- +1
-
-
written by Mach, February 09, 2010
Two sad things:
1) The discrimination won't go away even if the policy does (not a reason not to eliminate it, just a sad reality); and
2) Polling regularly puts public favor behind measures like these by an overwhelming margin (like 80/20 kind of voerwhelming).
E-verify and much of the anti-immigrant (both legal and illegal) measures might be error prone, counter-productive, misguided, punitive, bureaucratic, ineffective, and a million other things, but it is undeniable that they are actually popular. Policies don't need to good / logical / productive / etc. to win campaigns, they just need support - no matter how idiotic they might actually be. Sadly, these things get support and lots of it.
With support like they garner, Caprio can risk that urban vote. Besides, which viable opponent would actually come out against them? If none does, I'd question whether it really cost Caprio many votes.
1) The discrimination won't go away even if the policy does (not a reason not to eliminate it, just a sad reality); and
2) Polling regularly puts public favor behind measures like these by an overwhelming margin (like 80/20 kind of voerwhelming).
E-verify and much of the anti-immigrant (both legal and illegal) measures might be error prone, counter-productive, misguided, punitive, bureaucratic, ineffective, and a million other things, but it is undeniable that they are actually popular. Policies don't need to good / logical / productive / etc. to win campaigns, they just need support - no matter how idiotic they might actually be. Sadly, these things get support and lots of it.
With support like they garner, Caprio can risk that urban vote. Besides, which viable opponent would actually come out against them? If none does, I'd question whether it really cost Caprio many votes.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Matt Jerzyk, February 09, 2010
Mach -
You might imagine that I am not a big fan of governing by "what is popular."
Government/politics is not nor should not be a popularity contest.
Cowardice asks the question - is it safe?
Expediency asks the question - is it politic?
Vanity asks the question - is it popular?
But conscience asks the question - is it right?
And there comes a time when one must take a position
that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular;
but one must take it because it is right.
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
-
- +3
-
-
written by Mach, February 09, 2010
Actually it is employers who have perfected the art, because they don't really care what ID you provide so long as it is "verified" by E-Verify. And what is better for identity theft than employers who will turn a blind eye to blatant fraud and theft?
ACORN has nothing to do with it, but then I doubt you have any serious point to make here so I'm sure that doesn't matter to you.
ACORN has nothing to do with it, but then I doubt you have any serious point to make here so I'm sure that doesn't matter to you.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Matt Jerzyk, February 09, 2010
Patrick Lynch stated at Drinking Liberally that he would rescind the Governor's executive order.
http://www.rifuture.org/myblog/patrick-lynch-at-drinking-liberally-a-review.html
-
- +0
-
-
written by Mach, February 09, 2010
Oh I'm sure of it Matt. And that is to be commended. But, I'm sure you also know our general position on the immigration issue is basically the same, at least as far as having the same common goals albeit by different means.
Paraphrasing Machiavelli - "The man who acts virtuously all the time is bound to come to ruin amongst the great many who are not."
Publicly revealing a desire to eliminate the Governor's EO has a time and place - that time is after the election, that place is from the Governor's office.
Do it beforehand and the election will be lost, and if that happens, the candidate won't be in a position to do anything about it. Having the "right" policy does us no good if the candidate doesn't attain the power to institute the policy in the first place.
And Caprio definitely isn't the right candidate.
Paraphrasing Machiavelli - "The man who acts virtuously all the time is bound to come to ruin amongst the great many who are not."
Publicly revealing a desire to eliminate the Governor's EO has a time and place - that time is after the election, that place is from the Governor's office.
Do it beforehand and the election will be lost, and if that happens, the candidate won't be in a position to do anything about it. Having the "right" policy does us no good if the candidate doesn't attain the power to institute the policy in the first place.
And Caprio definitely isn't the right candidate.
-
- +0
-
-
written by forsanri, February 09, 2010
if this the "planforri"? After months of waiting, we have Caprio's plan for governance: small business tax cuts (along with corporate tax cuts), and supporting Carcieri.
That's it. That's what we've been waiting for: Carcieri with a small business tax cut. Awesum.
That's it. That's what we've been waiting for: Carcieri with a small business tax cut. Awesum.
-
- +1
-
-
written by Steve A., February 09, 2010
"You might imagine that I am not a big fan of governing by "what is popular.""
But if it's a Govt of the people, by the people and for the people and the elected officials are elected to represent the people, then if something were to have an 80% popularity, then why shouldn't the elected official follow suit with the wishes of the people? Isn't that what they were elected to do?
But if it's a Govt of the people, by the people and for the people and the elected officials are elected to represent the people, then if something were to have an 80% popularity, then why shouldn't the elected official follow suit with the wishes of the people? Isn't that what they were elected to do?
-
- +0
-
-
written by Mach, February 09, 2010
How's he polling? And do you think this position will increase, decrease, or not impact his numbers?
I suggest that if it were a widely-known position, it'd hurt him.
Friendly bet that no candidate who comes out against the EO wins a statewide seat? Loser can make a donation to Latino Policy Inst. @ RWU.
I suggest that if it were a widely-known position, it'd hurt him.
Friendly bet that no candidate who comes out against the EO wins a statewide seat? Loser can make a donation to Latino Policy Inst. @ RWU.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Matt Jerzyk, February 09, 2010
Steve A - If politicians simply governed by popularity, why have politicians at all. All we would need is polling. We could have government ala American Idol! Just what the framers intended! Right?
-
- +1
-
-
Write comment
You must be logged in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.
espite unlimited access...
You can't have both ideological purity and a chance to win, at least not until ACORN and the Poverty Institute have their election fraud machines fully operational.