|
Help save yourself
— join CLT
today! |
CLT introduction and membership application |
What CLT saves you from the auto excise tax alone |
Make a contribution to support
CLT's work by clicking the button above
Ask your friends to join too |
Visit CLT on Facebook |
Barbara Anderson's Great Moments |
Follow CLT on Twitter |
CLT UPDATE
Wednesday, September 28, 2016
Tax hike unnecessary
— Halt wasteful spending now
|
. . . Greater Boston residents, however, can
rest a little easier knowing that despite the 31 billion
gallons of water lost from the Quabbin Resevoir since May
the major household water source still hold enough
—
351 billion gallons
—
to meet drinking and washing demands for the next 4.9
years.
That's longer than Bay State workers might
have to wait to finally see the income tax rate fall to 5
percent, despite the confirmation this week that for the
first time in four year income tax relief, albeit
incremental, will not be coming in January....
That means it will be 2019 at the earliest
that the full voter-backed income tax reduction could be
realized.
State House News Service
Friday, September 2, 2016
Weekly Roundup
Advocates of a 2018 constitutional amendment
referendum to raise taxes on millionaires and funnel that
cash to transportation and education are starting a super
PAC to back legislators who support their cause — and,
perhaps, attack those who do not.
The political action committee, which will
be able to raise and spend unlimited cash from labor unions
and other people and groups, is the newest effort from Raise
Up Massachusetts, a coalition of community, faith, and
organized labor groups.
Officials say Raise Up Together Independent
Expenditure Political Action Committee, which filed its
formal incorporating paperwork Monday afternoon, will
support lawmakers who back its three priorities: A $15
minimum wage, paid family and medical leave, and the
so-called “Fair Share” tax ballot push to amend the
Massachusetts constitution.
That referendum, which is poised to be on
the ballot in 2018, would impose an additional tax of 4
percent on annual taxable income in excess of $1 million
starting in 2019. And the new tax would be tied to
inflation, so the levy would continue to apply only to very
wealthy people....
The state Department of Revenue has
estimated that if there is not an exodus of wealthy people
from Massachusetts, the tax measure could bring in as much
as $2.2 billion annually, a massive new influx of cash....
Chip Faulkner, director of
communications for the Marblehead-based Citizens for
Limited Taxation, acknowledged, given the overwhelming
margin in May, the tax hike measure is likely to make the
2018 ballot.
But, Faulkner emphasized, Massachusetts
voters have previously rejected five proposals to change the
state constitution to allow for a graduated state income
tax: 1962, 1968, 1972, 1976, and 1994.
“So they’re going to have a hard time
persuading people to vote for this. Especially after we tell
people this is just the first step. They’ll be coming after
the next income group, and then the one after that,”
Faulkner said Monday. “This is a tax trap. They’re going to
try to trick you by telling you it only affects one group of
people. But they’ll come after all of us eventually.”
Currently, Massachusetts’ income tax rate is
5.1 percent for all income levels.
The Boston Globe
Tuesday, September 27, 2016
Super PAC created by group backing millionaires’ tax
Three months into a new budget year, Gov.
Charlie Baker's administration is already wrestling with
shortfalls from the previous year that could force a new
round of cuts.
A recent report from the nonpartisan
Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation projected that closing
out the books on fiscal year 2016, which ended June 30, will
cost the state more than $575 million....
Gov. Charlie Baker signed a nearly $39
billion state budget on July 8, vetoing more than $256
million from a spending package approved by lawmakers. The
House and Senate restored $231 million in spending through
veto overrides....
The state reduced its expected tax
collections for the current budget year by more than $630
million, he said, but that still lags benchmarks.
Amid the chronic revenue shortfalls, there
is speculation that lawmakers may look to increase taxes
next fiscal year. Baker opposes the move.
Over the weekend, House Speaker Robert DeLeo
told reporters he is seeking input from the state's
economists to gauge if tax increases are needed.
DeLeo said he is reluctant to support higher
taxes.
Still, the Winthrop Democrat pushed through
a sales tax increase in 2009, lifting it from 5 percent to
6.25 percent, which boosted revenues by more than $900
million to meet revenue shortfalls during the recession.
He also supports a proposed constitutional
amendment for a 4 percent surtax on household incomes above
$1 million that could drum up $1.9 billion a year in new
revenue.
Chip Faulkner, a spokesman for
Citizens for Limited Taxation, said the state doesn't
have revenue problem, but a spending problem.
"We're taking in a lot of money but spending
too much," he said. "It's time to reign in the spending and
be fiscally responsible."
The Salem News
Wednesday, September 28, 2016
Sagging tax collections could prompt state cuts
Psst, Gov. Baker: When your team finishes up
its overhaul of the MBTA please have them shift their
attention to the state’s underperforming and
disproportionately expensive highway system. It is in
serious need.
A new report puts numbers to what most
Massachusetts drivers and taxpayers know by instinct and
experience: We spend more than nearly every other state on
state highways, but the system underperforms nearly every
other state.
The Reason Foundation’s annual highway
report found that only two states spend more than
Massachusetts per mile of state-controlled highway — at
$675,939 per mile we’re behind only Florida and New Jersey.
The weighted average for all 50 states is $160,997.
Meanwhile, in overall performance — which
reflects spending along with performance measures such as
pavement conditions, bridge deficiencies, traffic
congestion, etc. — Massachusetts ranks 46th.
A Boston Herald editorial
Monday, September 26, 2016
Road work looms ahead
Massachusetts last year deported the lowest
percentage of illegal aliens of any state in the nation —
and had the third highest rate of granting asylum, according
to a Herald investigation of a largely secret system that
shows the Obama administration’s increasingly lax policy on
immigration.
The state’s immigration court, nestled in a
largely unobserved space on the third floor of the John F.
Kennedy Federal Building downtown, deported just 26.9
percent of illegals who came before it, the country’s lowest
average rate — and well below the national average of 46.4
percent, records show.
That fits a rapidly accelerating trend that
saw Bay State judges ordering the deportation of 80.5
percent of illegal aliens just 10 years ago, a rate that
dropped every year but one until hitting an all-time low
last year, according to the Transactional Records Access
Clearinghouse (TRAC), which crunches government data.
The Massachusetts court also ranked third in
the country in the percentage of asylum claims granted last
year, at 75 percent, according to a Department of Justice
report.
The Massachusetts court also has the dubious
distinction of having one of the longest average lengths of
stay for convicted felons before a decision is made on their
deportation cases....
The Boston Herald
Wednesday, September 7, 2016
Massachusetts sees plunge in deportations
|
|
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
It's been pretty quiet up on Beacon Hill with the Legislature gone, home on
their extended vacations and re-election campaigning. There's been little
news of interest to pass on, until recently. Earlier this month it was
decided that — once again —
our income tax rollback will be frozen in place. That
overwhelming 2000 ballot-mandated rollback was the voters' strong response
to the "temporary, 18-month" income tax hike of 1989 —
a twenty-seven year-old lie still going strong.
The State House News Service report concluded: "That
means it will be 2019 at the earliest that the full voter-backed income tax
reduction could be realized."
It should have
added that it means it will be at least three full decades
—
an entire generation
—
since the tax was hiked
"temporarily" for just "18-months."
[See here and
here.]
"Some members of the Raise Up coalition will not be involved in the super PAC —
several because they are nonprofits," the Boston Globe reported in "Super
PAC created by group backing millionaires’ tax." But that is
inconsequential as the 800-pound Gimme Lobby gorillas the teachers unions
and government employee unions are not nonprofits and can merely "assess" a
mandatory increase in their members' dues, as usual. The
Tax-Borrow-and-Spend Gimme Lobby has never broken a sweat when it comes to
raising and spending unlimited amounts of other people's money, even their own
members'.
Imagine what CLT could accomplish if all we needed to do is "assess" membership
dues on taxpayers who benefit from our successes!
"Gov. Charlie Baker signed a nearly $39 billion state budget on July 8,
vetoing more than $256 million from a spending package approved by lawmakers.
The House and Senate restored $231 million in spending through veto overrides,"
The Salem News reported today. "Amid the chronic revenue shortfalls,
there is speculation that lawmakers may
look to increase taxes next fiscal year."
Here we go again: Overspend, then hike taxes even more to pay for the
unaffordable overspending. This is such a typical Beacon Hill cycle:
Create the problem then solve it with more of our money. It's what the
Legislature did back in 1989 — "temporarily"
don'cha know — and we're still paying a higher
income tax rate. And it's still not enough.
In the CLT Update of Aug. 30 ("'Budget
gap' has 'easy fixes' for those honestly seeking them") I wrote:
This is how budgeting works in the Legislature with a Republican
governor. The Legislature passes a bloated budget that everyone
recognizes is not affordable. The governor vetoes as much of
the over-spending as he thinks he can get away with, only to
have is vetoes overridden by the Democrat Legislature.
Legislators run back to their districts to crow about what a
wonderful job they did bringing home the bacon. They know
they've overspent when they send out their self-congratulatory
press releases, but most constituents won't until too late, if
at all. When and if the voters realize the budget had to be
cut, the Beacon Hill big-spenders will blame the "heartless"
governor.
Bear in mind that these so-called "shortfalls" are revenue "expectations" that
fell short of "benchmarks" — predictions of future
revenue. In its latest (Sep. 6) release of revenue collections, the state
Department of Revenue
reported:
Massachusetts Department of
Revenue Commissioner Michael J. Heffernan today announced that
preliminary revenue collections for August totaled $1.737 billion,
which is $9 million or 0.5% more
than August 2015.
“Total revenues are above the
same period last year,
but the rate of growth is lower than the projected benchmark,”
said Heffernan. “Collections in August reflect a continuation of adverse
trends from recent months, including relatively lower-than-expected
growth in sales and income-related payments. While most economic data
and independent researchers remain generally positive about the
Massachusetts economy, we will continue to closely monitor our revenue
collections.... For the first
two months of the Fiscal Year, July and August, total revenues are 1.3%
greater than the same period last year, and $36 million or 1.0%
below benchmark.”
You want to spend more money so you "project" that you're going to raise more
money to spend. You go ahead and commit to spending more, based on your
amorphous "projection." Your projection proves false —
so you need to cut that increased spending you can't afford, or you need to find
a new way to pay for it. If you are the government, you hike taxes.
Chip Faulkner, our spokeman, was right on spot in his Salem News interview:
Chip Faulkner, a spokesman for Citizens
for Limited Taxation, said the state doesn't have revenue
problem, but a spending problem.
"We're taking in a lot of money but
spending too much," he said. "It's time to reign in the
spending and be fiscally responsible."
According to that Salem News report, Rep. Brian Dempsey (D-Haverhill), chairman
of the House Ways & Means Committee, said:
"House leaders want to
avoid using the state's reserves to plug shortfalls, which can hurt the
state's bond rating. Given the timing — a few months into the fiscal
year — lawmakers have few options.... There's really only two
practicable solutions. One is a reduction in spending, and the other is
drawing down from the state's reserves, or rainy day funds."
So far, he's not brought up the third option, the usual fallback position
— but a tax hike wouldn't be a "practicable
solution" for the immediate squeeze immediately. Long term, it would let
the good times roll in the coming year and beyond for the big spenders.
If "The Best Legislature Money Can Buy" (compensated as "fulltime" but
off-duty since July until January) would focus on how our money is being spent
they wouldn't need to consider more tax hikes. When it comes to
squandering taxpayers' hard-earned money the Beacon Hill Legislature is close to
if not the top of wasteful spending with so little return. The Boston
Herald provided us with one more example:
We spend more than nearly every other state on state highways,
but the system underperforms nearly every other state.
The Reason Foundation’s annual highway report found that
only two states spend
more than Massachusetts per mile of state-controlled highway
— at $675,939 per mile we’re behind only Florida and New Jersey.
The weighted average for all 50 states is $160,997.
Massachusetts spends some four times above
the national average on its highways. For that kind of money we
should have the best roads and bridges in the country. So why
are we constantly assaulted with demands for more taxes (like the
proposed Graduated Income Tax constitutional amendment) to address
the transportation infrastructure "crisis" and why would anyone
believe even more money would be the solution?
Ahead of the curve, and again from the CLT Update of Aug. 30 ("'Budget
gap' has 'easy fixes' for those honestly seeking them") I wrote:
In the CLT Update of Nov. 2, 2011 ("$93M
for illegals' health care — "the tip of the iceberg") we learned how
much the state was paying in increased healthcare costs for illegal
aliens, and it was an eye-opening shocker. According to the Boston
Herald on Oct. 29, 2011:
A dogged freshman
lawmaker [Rep. Jim Lyons, R-Andover] who refused to budge from
the House chambers earlier this month until the Patrick
administration came clean on how much taxpayers coughed up last
year for free health care to illegal aliens finally got his
answer yesterday: a whopping $93 million....The 58-year-old
Andover Republican — who bucked Beacon Hill by holding a sit-in
in the House chambers two weeks ago — pried the shocking report
from state officials. It showed that nearly 55,000 illegal
immigrants received more than $93 million in MassHealth benefits
for emergency medical services last year.
That was five years ago. Do you suppose that number has decreased
since then — or
increased?
The answer is still being slowly revealed, and as it trickles out
it's even worse than we thought.
The Boston Herald reported ("Massachusetts sees plunge in
deportations"):
The state’s
immigration court, nestled in a largely unobserved space on the
third floor of the John F. Kennedy Federal Building downtown,
deported just 26.9 percent of illegals who came before it,
the country’s lowest
average rate — and well below the national average of
46.4 percent, records show.... That fits a rapidly accelerating
trend that saw Bay State judges ordering the deportation of 80.5
percent of illegal aliens just 10 years ago ... The
Massachusetts court also ranked third in the country in the
percentage of asylum claims granted last year, at 75 percent.
There are so many obvious and relatively easy solutions available to balance
the state budget, to save billions of our dollars, to provide a better return
for our money. So many that one has to be careful not to trip over them.
As I said in the last update, easy fixes are staring our legislators in the face
— for anyone honestly seeking them.
Massachusetts does not have a revenue problem. This state for far too long
has had a serious spending problem.
|
 |
 |
|
Chip Ford
Executive Director |
|
|
|
|
State House News Service
Friday, September 2, 2016
Weekly Roundup
By Matt Murphy
[Excerpt]
. . . Greater Boston residents, however, can
rest a little easier knowing that despite the 31
billion gallons of water lost from the Quabbin
Resevoir since May the major household water
source still hold enough
— 351 billion gallons
— to meet drinking and washing demands
for the next 4.9 years.
That's longer than Bay State workers might have
to wait to finally see the income tax rate fall
to 5 percent, despite the confirmation this week
that for the first time in four year income tax
relief, albeit incremental, will not be coming
in January.
Revenue growth in fiscal 2016 proved
insufficient to meet the first of five economic
triggers that would have been required to set in
motion a decrease in the income tax rate to 5.05
percent in January. Instead, after 16 years of
waiting since voters approved in income tax
reduction to 5 percent, taxpayers will pay the
same 5.1 percent in 2017.
Despite supporting a 5 percent income tax rate,
Gov. Baker's office said the governor was
content to leave the current process - developed
by Democrats in the midst of budget struggles in
2002 - in place rather than force the issue as
some of his GOP colleagues in the legislature
have tried for years.
That means it will be 2019 at the earliest that
the full voter-backed income tax reduction could
be realized.
The Boston Globe
Tuesday, September 27, 2016
Super PAC created by group backing millionaires’
tax
By Joshua Miller
Advocates of a 2018 constitutional amendment
referendum to raise taxes on millionaires and
funnel that cash to transportation and education
are starting a super PAC to back legislators who
support their cause — and, perhaps, attack those
who do not.
The political action committee, which will be
able to raise and spend unlimited cash from
labor unions and other people and groups, is the
newest effort from Raise Up Massachusetts, a
coalition of community, faith, and organized
labor groups.
Officials say Raise Up Together Independent
Expenditure Political Action Committee, which
filed its formal incorporating paperwork Monday
afternoon, will support lawmakers who back its
three priorities: A $15 minimum wage, paid
family and medical leave, and the so-called
“Fair Share” tax ballot push to amend the
Massachusetts constitution.
That referendum, which is poised to be on the
ballot in 2018, would impose an additional tax
of 4 percent on annual taxable income in excess
of $1 million starting in 2019. And the new tax
would be tied to inflation, so the levy would
continue to apply only to very wealthy people.
The state Department of Revenue has estimated
that if there is not an exodus of wealthy people
from Massachusetts, the tax measure could bring
in as much as $2.2 billion annually, a massive
new influx of cash.
“We’re winning on issues,” said Deb Fastino,
chairwoman of the new political committee. “We
have an agenda with important policy efforts for
working people like a living wage, paid leave,
and a tax on millionaires. And we want to make
sure people in Massachusetts know where their
legislators stand on these issues.”
She said there have been discussions of a
roughly $200,000 budget. Asked whether the group
planned to attack lawmakers who don’t support
the Raise Up agenda, Fastino said no decision
has been made on that.
Some members of the Raise Up coalition will not
be involved in the super PAC — several because
they are nonprofits.
Raise Up and its supporters say Massachusetts,
among the wealthiest places on earth, can’t
thrive when the gap between the top 1 percent
and everyone else is so vast.
But opponents frame Raise Up simply: A front
group for public-sector unions — like those
representing teachers and MBTA workers — trying
to extract more money out of taxpayers for
profligate Beacon Hill spending. And Raise Up is
doing it, business and low-tax groups say, under
the guise of forcing the rich to pay their fair
share.
There are three key steps to get the proposed
tax-hike amendment before voters in November
2018 — gathering signatures, and a vote by
lawmakers in two consecutive legislative
sessions.
Raise Up has completed the first two, collecting
more than 157,000 signatures, and, in May,
garnering the votes of at least one-quarter of
legislators.
In fact, 135 of a combined 200 senators and
representatives voted for the measure. Only 57
voted against it.
Chip Faulkner, director of communications
for the Marblehead-based Citizens for Limited
Taxation, acknowledged, given the
overwhelming margin in May, the tax hike measure
is likely to make the 2018 ballot.
But, Faulkner emphasized, Massachusetts voters
have previously rejected five proposals to
change the state constitution to allow for a
graduated state income tax: 1962, 1968, 1972,
1976, and 1994.
“So they’re going to have a hard time persuading
people to vote for this. Especially after we
tell people this is just the first step. They’ll
be coming after the next income group, and then
the one after that,” Faulkner said Monday. “This
is a tax trap. They’re going to try to trick you
by telling you it only affects one group of
people. But they’ll come after all of us
eventually.”
Currently, Massachusetts’ income tax rate is 5.1
percent for all income levels.
The Salem News
Wednesday, September 28, 2016
Sagging tax collections could prompt state cuts
By Christian M. Wade, Statehouse reporter
Three months into a new budget year, Gov.
Charlie Baker's administration is already
wrestling with shortfalls from the previous year
that could force a new round of cuts.
A recent report from the nonpartisan
Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation projected
that closing out the books on fiscal year 2016,
which ended June 30, will cost the state more
than $575 million.
The group attributes much of the deficit to
lackluster tax collections in the last half of
the fiscal year.
"The magnitude of this shortfall is
unprecedented," said Doug Howgate, the
foundation's director of policy and research.
"Not since the height of the Great Recession
have collections over a five-month period
slumped by so much, and never in the midst of an
economic recovery."
He noted concerns those problems could spill
into the current budget year, prompting cuts.
Gov. Charlie Baker signed a nearly $39 billion
state budget on July 8, vetoing more than $256
million from a spending package approved by
lawmakers. The House and Senate restored $231
million in spending through veto overrides.
Earlier this year, Baker signed off on a round
of cuts and reductions that plugged an estimated
$500 million gap in the last fiscal year's
budget. In July, he filed a bill to plug
additional holes, which lawmakers are now
reviewing.
Rep. Brian Dempsey, D-Haverhill, chairman of the
House Ways & Means Committee, said news about
lower tax revenue is worrisome.
"It's a huge concern because it appears to be a
trend," he said. "But we're waiting to see the
final numbers for September, which is usually a
good month for tax collections, before we decide
if any budget adjustments need to be made."
Howgate said there's no consensus among
economists about reasons for smaller tax
collections, which are affecting many other
states.
"Everyone is trying to figure out what's going
on," he said. "But the only thing we all know
with certainty is that the last seven months
have been poor."
The state's revenue collections of $1.7 billion
in August fell $42 million short of monthly
estimates, according to the Department of
Revenue. Income taxes, tax withholdings and
sales taxes were all below monthly benchmarks,
as well.
Dempsey said House leaders want to avoid using
the state's reserves to plug shortfalls, which
can hurt the state's bond rating. Given the
timing
— a few months into the fiscal year
— lawmakers have few options.
"There's really only two practicable solutions,"
he said. "One is a reduction in spending, and
the other is drawing down from the state's
reserves, or rainy day funds.
"And drawing from the rainy day fund isn't
something that anyone wants to do," he said.
The state reduced its expected tax collections
for the current budget year by more than $630
million, he said, but that still lags
benchmarks.
Amid the chronic revenue shortfalls, there is
speculation that lawmakers may look to increase
taxes next fiscal year. Baker opposes the move.
Over the weekend, House Speaker Robert DeLeo
told reporters he is seeking input from the
state's economists to gauge if tax increases are
needed.
DeLeo said he is reluctant to support higher
taxes.
Still, the Winthrop Democrat pushed through a
sales tax increase in 2009, lifting it from 5
percent to 6.25 percent, which boosted revenues
by more than $900 million to meet revenue
shortfalls during the recession.
He also supports a proposed constitutional
amendment for a 4 percent surtax on household
incomes above $1 million that could drum up $1.9
billion a year in new revenue.
Chip Faulkner, a spokesman for
Citizens for Limited Taxation, said the
state doesn't have revenue problem, but a
spending problem.
"We're taking in a lot of money but spending too
much," he said. "It's time to reign in the
spending and be fiscally responsible."
The Boston Herald
Monday, September 26, 2016
A Boston Herald editorial
Road work looms ahead
Psst, Gov. Baker: When your team finishes up its
overhaul of the MBTA please have them shift
their attention to the state’s underperforming
and disproportionately expensive highway system.
It is in
serious need.
A new report puts numbers to what most
Massachusetts drivers and taxpayers know by
instinct and experience: We spend more than
nearly every other state on state highways, but
the system underperforms nearly every other
state.
The Reason Foundation’s annual highway report
found that only two states spend more than
Massachusetts per mile of state-controlled
highway — at $675,939 per mile we’re behind only
Florida and New Jersey. The weighted average for
all 50 states is $160,997.
Meanwhile, in overall performance — which
reflects spending along with performance
measures such as pavement conditions, bridge
deficiencies, traffic congestion, etc. —
Massachusetts ranks 46th.
The only category in which the Bay State
performed extraordinarily well was the highway
fatality rate; at 0.58 fatalities per 100
million vehicle miles Massachusetts has the
lowest of all 50 states. That’s probably because
not many fatalities happen in gridlock traffic.
Now, some of these conditions are beyond the
state’s power to address; urbanized states will
always have the longest traffic delays, for
example. Costs are also higher here.
But as we know from the MBTA, when as a state
you spend the most — and yet perform among the
worst — there is important structural work to be
done. The highway system needs to be on the
to-do list.
The Boston Herald
Wednesday, September 7, 2016
Massachusetts sees plunge in deportations
By Jack Encarnacao
Massachusetts last year deported the lowest
percentage of illegal aliens of any state in the
nation — and had the third highest rate of
granting asylum, according to a Herald
investigation of a largely secret system that
shows the Obama administration’s increasingly
lax policy on immigration.
The state’s immigration court, nestled in a
largely unobserved space on the third floor of
the John F. Kennedy Federal Building downtown,
deported just 26.9 percent of illegals who came
before it, the country’s lowest average rate —
and well below the national average of 46.4
percent, records show.
That fits a rapidly accelerating trend that saw
Bay State judges ordering the deportation of
80.5 percent of illegal aliens just 10 years
ago, a rate that dropped every year but one
until hitting an all-time low last year,
according to the Transactional Records Access
Clearinghouse (TRAC), which crunches government
data.
The Massachusetts court also ranked third in the
country in the percentage of asylum claims
granted last year, at 75 percent, according to a
Department of Justice report.
The Massachusetts court also has the dubious
distinction of having one of the longest average
lengths of stay for convicted felons before a
decision is made on their deportation cases.
An Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
report issued to a congressional committee in
July showed criminals placed in deportation
proceedings in the Boston area had an average
stay of 92.4 days last year, the third longest
in the country behind New York (116.8 days) and
Seattle (94.3 days).
The Massachusetts court completed 4,713 cases
last year, according to TRAC, the country’s 12th
largest caseload.
The Herald probe comes as immigration and border
security have become hot-button issues in the
race for the White House, with Donald Trump
calling for zero tolerance for illegals and a
wall along the Mexican border, and Hillary
Clinton basically vowing to extend President
Obama’s policies.
The Herald investigated the secretive court, how
it operates, who’s in charge and how its
outcomes compare to other states.
New York, for instance, had the second lowest
deportation rate to Massachusetts last year,
27.5 percent. Those rates contrast starkly with
states like Texas (62.4 percent deported),
Georgia (71.4 percent) and North Carolina (79.1
percent).
Jessica Vaughan, director of policy studies at
the Center for Immigration Studies, a
conservative group critical of U.S. immigration
policy, said low deportation rates reflect Obama
administration policy changes that favor
immigrants.
These changes include giving greater judicial
weight to whether illegals have children in the
U.S., and granting more asylum claims on the
basis of a generalized fear of violence in their
home country, instead of a specific threat.
“Under the law, the burden is on the alien to
show that they qualify for relief — that has
been flipped on its head,” Vaughan said. “It’s
become a system where the illegal alien or
applicant for relief is given the benefit of the
doubt.”
Kathryn Mattingly, a spokeswoman for the
Executive Office for Immigration Review, which
oversees immigration courts, said each case “has
its own set of facts and variables that affect
its outcome.”
“Immigration judges adjudicate matters on a
case-by-case basis, according to U.S.
immigration law, regulations, and precedent
decisions,” Mattingly said in a statement.
“Immigration judges consider all evidence and
arguments presented by both parties and decide
each case based on that information.”
Mattingly said the office monitors case outcomes
through an evaluation system and “takes
seriously any claims of unjustified and
significant anomalies in immigration judge
decision-making and takes steps to evaluate
disparities in immigration adjudications.”
Unlike many states, Massachusetts has only one
immigration court, in Boston. When the Hub
court’s deportation rates are compared to other
individual city courts, not statewide averages,
it ranks around eighth most lenient, with
Phoenix topping the list.
Retired former Boston immigration judge Eliza
Klein, who also served in the Chicago and Miami
courts, said the low removal rate in
Massachusetts is likely tied to how much more
often aliens seem to secure lawyers here than in
other states.
“I think people get fair hearings there, and I
think when you see fair hearings, you get more
relief granted,” Klein said of the Boston court,
adding that, unlike courts on the border, Boston
sees cases where it’s often less clear-cut how
and when illegal immigrants entered the country,
and what relief they might be eligible for.
“There are immigration courts where attorneys
who are representing respondents are perceived
as part of the problem, a hurdle that a judge
has to get through in order to complete their
job,” Klein said. “And my view is that any time
there’s an attorney in a case, it made my job
easier.”
Illegal aliens do not have a right to a
court-appointed attorney, but have due process
rights. Family members often pay for their
lawyers, and some legal aid groups offer
pro-bono services.
The Herald noted several instances in which a
judge in the Boston court seemed hesitant to
resolve a case when undocumented immigrants did
not have legal counsel.
In one case, a man from El Salvador told Judge
Steven F. Day he feared torture if he returned
home, but didn’t have money for a lawyer. Day
passed him a list of attorneys. The man said
he’d seen the list, but “they don’t answer the
phone.”
“Well, you have to be persistent,” Day replied.
In another case, Day denied bond to a Guatemalan
who had been picked up on drunken driving
charges in Massachusetts and did not have a
lawyer. He said he was seeking asylum because
he’d been extorted and threatened in his native
country by people whose names he did not know.
But he was eager to get back to supporting his
family, and asked, “This might sound like
committing suicide, but what if I want to be
deported?” After some back-and-forth, Day
convinced the man to delay his decision for a
week, and entered an appeal of his own bond
denial on the man’s behalf.
Matt Cameron, an East Boston attorney who
regularly represents immigrants before the
Boston court, said the area has seen a recent
surge of Central Americans who legitimately fear
for their safety and qualify for asylum.
“We have refugees fleeing hollowed-out countries
overrun by gangs, catastrophic in the last
couple of years,” Cameron said.
Experts say declining deportations are also
fueled by a change in ICE priorities. A 2014
Homeland Security directive told the agency to
target apprehensions of aliens who are national
security threats, been convicted of a violent
offense or have an aggravated felony or three
misdemeanor convictions on their records.
This priority list, Vaughan said, has opened up
more doors for lawyers to make a case their
clients should be allowed to stay.
The July ICE report showed the agency had
completed 168,781 departures this fiscal year,
well on track to be the fourth straight year of
declines since 2012, when there were 409,849.
The Boston Herald
Wednesday, September 7, 2016
Percentages of immigration cases resulting in
removal
By Jack Encarnacao
Percentage of cases in Massachusetts immigration
court resulting in removal/deportation of aliens
in fiscal year 2015 (numbers are averages of all
courts in each state):
Massachusetts
— 26.9%
New York
— 27.5%
Oregon
— 32.6%
Hawaii
— 33%
California
— 33.8%
Virginia
— 36.3%
Puerto Rico
— 37.2%
New Jersey
— 37.4%
Florida
— 38.3%
Arizona
— 39.4%
Minnesota—
40.8%
Colorado
— 41%
Pennsylvania
— 42.4%
Nebraska
— 42.8%
Michigan 45.7%
Ohio
— 46.6%
Nevada
— 47.2%
Guam
— 47.5%
Connecticut
— 48.6%
Washington
— 49%
Tennessee
— 50.1%
Missouri
— 57.4%
Utah
— 60.3%
Maryland
— 61.1%
Illinois
— 61.5%
Texas
— 62.4%
Louisiana
— 62.7%
Georgia
— 71.4%
North Carolina
— 79.1%
Deportation rate in Massachusetts court
historically:
1998
— 68%
1999
— 69.5%
2000
— 65.9%
2001
— 63.2%
2002
— 67.3%
2003
— 69.5%
2004
— 63.7%
2005
— 77.2%
2006
— 80.5%
2007
— 66%
2008
— 61.6%
2009
— 61.5%
2010
— 58.9%
2011
— 56.3%
2012
— 49.7%
2013
— 39.5%
2014
— 41.5%
2015
— 26.9%
|
| |
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes
only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
Citizens for Limited Taxation ▪
PO Box 1147 ▪ Marblehead, MA 01945
▪ 508-915-3665
BACK TO CLT
HOMEPAGE
|