For the second year in a row, the Massachusetts House Wednesday killed a proposal to require the state to verify that anyone over 18 who applies for state benefits is legally in Massachusetts.

The proposal was sent off to be studied on an 83-75 vote. It received wide bipartisan support and came within a few votes of passage. All 16 House Republicans voted to keep the proposal alive and not order the study. They were joined by 59 of the chamber's 143 Democrats who bucked Democratic House Speaker Robert DeLeo and his leadership team by supporting the proposal.

The same measure was also killed in April 2009 by essentially being shipped off to be studied.

A total of 35 Democratic representatives who voted to send the proposal off to a study in 2009, changed their minds and on Wednesday voted to keep it alive by voting against the study.

Those legislators include Reps. John Binienda (D-Worcester); Bill Bowles (D-Attleboro); Linda Campbell (D-Methuen); Christine Canavan (D-Brockton); Steven D'Amico (D-Seekonk); Paul Donato (D-Medford); Lori Ehrlich (D-Marblehead); James Fagan (D-Taunton); Christopher Fallon (D-Malden); Barry Finegold (D-Andover); David Flynn (D-Bridgewater); Thomas Golden (D-Lowell); William Greene (D-Billerica); Danielle Gregoire (D-Marlborough); Lida Harkins (D-Needham); Michael Kane (D-Holyoke); Robert Koczera (D-New Bedford); Timothy Madden (D-Nantucket); Allen McCarthy (D-East Bridgewater); Paul McMurtry (D-Dedham); Kevin Murphy (D-Lowell); Harold Naughton (D-Clinton); Matthew Patrick (D-Falmouth); Sarah Peake (D-Provincetown); Robert Rice (D-Gardner); Michael Rodrigues (D-Westport); John Rogers (D-Norwood); Dennis Rosa (D-Leominster); Michael Rush (D-West Roxbury); Harriett Stanley (D-West Newbury); David Sullivan (D-Fall River); Arthur Tobin (D-Quincy); Cleon Turner (D-East Dennis); Brian Wallace (D-South Boston) and James Welch (D-West Springfield).

Only one legislator, Rep. Walter Timilty (D-Milton), voted against the study in 2009 and then for it on Wednesday.

Here are the roll call votes on studying the proposal:

STUDY PROPOSAL TO REQUIRE PROOF THAT BENEFIT RECIPIENTS ARE LEGAL (H 4600)

House 83-75, approved an amendment that would indefinitely delay a proposal to require the state to verify that anyone over 18 who applies for state benefits is legally in Massachusetts. The amendment prohibits the proposal from taking effect until Gov. Deval Patrick's Office of Health and Human Services studies its impact on the state's economy and a new bill to require the verification is filed and approved.

The proposal would require a person seeking benefits to produce proof that he or she is here legally by providing either a valid Massachusetts driver's license or identification card, U.S. military card, Coast Guard Merchant Mariner card, military dependent’s identification card or Native American tribal document. Anyone who could not produce one of those documents would have the option to execute a notarized affidavit stating that he or she is a U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident or is otherwise lawfully present in the United States.

The measure provides many exemptions from the requirement and allows people who cannot produce the necessary identification to still receive emergency medical treatment, immunization and services such as soup kitchens, crisis counseling and intervention and short-term shelter.

Some supporters of the study said that the proposal is mean spirited and anti-immigrant and noted that many illegal immigrants are hardworking people who perform jobs that most Americans would not do. Others said that the House should gather information before making a rash decision and noted that this problem really should be solved on the federal level. Some argued that there are many legal immigrants who would find it difficult to produce the necessary documents.

Opponents of the study said that it is simply a sneaky way for legislators to avoid a direct vote on the proposal itself. They said that the study would never be conducted and that the measure would never be implemented. They noted that state services, with some emergency exceptions, should not be provided to people who broke the law and are here illegally. They emphasized that the legislation would only apply to illegal immigrants and includes many safeguards to protect individual rights. Some argued that the state should not be spending money on illegal immigrants during this recession when people are losing their jobs and homes and there are drastic cuts in many state services.

In April 2009, the House 118-40, approved a similar delay of the same bill. That delay replaced the bill with a requirement that the state conduct a cost-benefit study of the services that immigrants receive versus their contributions to the state's economy and the constitutionality of denying public services to immigrants regardless of immigration status. Supporters of the proposal note that this 2009 study was never conducted.

The roll call votes are on the amendments to study the proposal.

The first roll call listed is from 2009. The second roll call is from Wednesday.

Some supporters of the proposal said that despite the maneuvering by opponents to avoid a direct vote on the measure, a vote to study it is essentially a vote against it.

A "Yes" vote is for the study and precludes a vote on the proposal itself. A "No" vote is against the study and favors a vote on the proposal itself).

Rep. Thomas Calter, No/No                                   Rep. Daniel Webster, No/No                                   

April 28, 2010

Copyright © 2010 Beacon Hill Roll Call. All Rights Reserved.

Bob Katzen welcomes feedback at bob@beaconhillrollcall.com