Beyond letter of the law

When is resisting a law a matter of principle, and when is it a matter of political calculation?

Last year, Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly said he had no choice but to defend an obscure 1913 state statute hauled out of mothballs to block out-of-state gay couples from marrying in Massachusetts. It is his job to defend state law, he said, whether he agrees with that law or not.

This week, Reilly said he has no obligation to notify immigration authorities about Massachusetts employers who illegally hire undocumented workers. It is not his job to enforce federal law, he said, whether he agrees with that law or not.

He wins the technical point -- the federal government has jurisdiction in immigration matters -- but does a broader obligation to the rule of law trump all else for a state's chief law enforcement officer? Reilly certainly said as much when the issue was a discriminatory state statute aimed squarely at same sex couples. He said as much again last fall when he insisted that, despite his personal and political objections, the law required him to certify an initiative petition to dismantle the state Supreme Court decision that legalized gay marriage.

The question might not arise, but for Reilly's recent habit of making common cause with those whose support could help him in an increasingly uphill primary fight for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination.

A new poll of 435 probable Democratic primary voters shows Deval L. Patrick, the former corporate lawyer and civil rights chief in the Clinton administration who won the party convention endorsement earlier this month, with 36 percent support to Reilly's 31 percent. Time to tilt left?

The Globe reported Sunday that contractors routinely use immigrants with fraudulent work papers or Social Security cards on state jobs despite a federal law that requires employers to check the documentation of their workers.

Although his office often receives complaints about the widespread illegal practice, Reilly said it has been his policy since 2001 not to refer those complaints to federal authorities, because it is ``not the responsibility of the state government."

Whether that policy makes him a champion of undocumented workers or an unwitting ally of unscrupulous employers looking to exploit cheap labor is an open question. But there is no doubt that right now Reilly's intent is to plant himself firmly on the side of immigrant rights. That is where he wants to be on primary day next September, when liberal Democrats will dominate at the polls.

It will prove to be a more uncomfortable place if Reilly makes it to the general election, when he will face voters who have been whipped into an anti-immigrant frenzy by the Republican right and its handmaidens on talk radio. They do not want to hear that immigration is not his job.

He will need to do better than he did this week when he said his legal responsibility stops with enforcing state prevailing-wage standards, especially since that assertion was promptly undercut by trade union officials telling Globe reporters that his record in that area is ``appalling."

Primary voters pay attention to the details, and they have long memories. They remember when Reilly was against gay marriage before he ran for governor and was suddenly for it. They remember when he opposed extending the statute of limitations for prosecution in child sexual abuses before last week when, at a State House rally, he was suddenly for it.

Liberals might be seduced momentarily by Reilly's refusal to turn undocumented workers over to US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, but they are going to want to hear more about what he would do as governor to curb the widespread economic exploitation of those same workers by employers more interested in their profit margins than the rights of immigrants.

``It's not my job" is not going to be a very convincing answer.

Eileen McNamara is a Globe columnist. She can be reached at mcnamara@globe.com.