Written by Patrick Young, Esq. CARECEN
Since late Tuesday, I’ve been asked a dozen or more times “Is Scott Brown an immigration moderate in the mold of other Northeastern Republicans?”.
Based on the record, the answer is likely “No”.
Brown had little to say about immigration before it became clear that Ted Kennedy’s seat would be up for grabs. But since then, he has been in the tea-steam of immigration politics.
For example, last year he introduced legislation that would take away the ability of courts to protect undocumented immigrants against labor law violations. If passed, this would empower employers who hire undocumented immigrants to cheat them out of wages and abuse them without fear of being forced by a court to make reparations. This would not help American workers, because, by losing labor law protections, undocumented workers would be even more desirable employees. But it would help unscrupulous employers seeking super profits through the hyperexploitation of immigrant workers.
Brown’s election website has the following statement on immigration issues: “…we are also a nation of laws and government should not adopt policies that encourage illegal immigration. Providing driver’s licenses and in-state tuition to illegal immigrant families will act as a magnet in drawing more people here in violation of the law and it will impose new costs on taxpayers. I oppose amnesty, and I believe we ought to strengthen our border enforcement and institute an employment verification system with penalties for companies that hire illegal immigrants.”
The leading anti-immigrant political action committee, ALIPAC, endorsed Brown because “Scott Brown has publicly stated he opposes Amnesty for illegal aliens while Coakley has state she supports Amnesty,” said William Gheen President of ALIPAC. “His vote in opposition to Amnesty will be needed in a few weeks as President Obama, with Democrats in the Senate and House, and a handful of misguided Republicans attempt to pass new Amnesty legislation.”