Much Apu About Nothing

Wikipedia explains it all below:

http://en.wikipedia....

entitled "Which part of illegal don't they understand?" Similar slant, as you can imagine.

Never gone even 1 mile-per-hour above the speed limit?  Never made an illegal turn on red?  Never jaywalked?  Etc., etc.  The point is, "let him who is without sin cast the first stone."  Are all these Republicans who repeat the "what part of illegal" mantra all without sin themselves?  I wonder...

no Republican has ever violated.  My favorites:

*"Driving while not wearing shoes is prohibited."
*"Citizens must honk their horn while passing other cars."
*"It is illegal to tickle women."
*"Children are not to go trick-or-treating on Halloween."
*"Not only is it illegal to have sex with the lights on, one may not have sex in any position other than missionary."

Glad to see that the Reps are getting their talking points in for the immigration debate. In all seriousness I am glad to see at least people are engaging in the debate because as each county comes in with its own independent studies, ours in Chesterfield recently completed, we are seeing exactly the toll that illegals are impacting local services and the costs. While is hard to support alot of the proposals coming out this debate is much better for Virginia long term than say wasting our political time and legislative capital on say trying to get smoking ban agenda passed. People need to step up to the plate and get honest about the impacts and maybe the county studies are beginning to create a call for action.

Five colleges say they don't admit illegal aliens. Two colleges--Virginia Tech and George Mason--do. Since they admit that they do not check legal status when they process an application, how would anybody, including Sen. Barker or Gastanaga, know whether someone there was an illegal immigrant or not?

On the flip side, if no illegal immigrants are currently attending public school in Virginia, why would it bother you to make a law saying that they can't?

any evidence.  Not registration records or application forms that were turned down due to status.  No evidence.

If he wants to open a debate on a law restricting illegal immigrants to colleges that's fine with me - debate is good.  But at a minimum he needs to show that it IS a problem that requires a law.  Right now this is a solution in search of a problem....  a solution which happens to be red meat to his base.  Sounds like bad politics instead of good government to me.

I imagine you can't simply walk up to the admissions office and ask to see someone's application. There are privacy laws in place. And if George Mason and VTech don't ask for proof of citizenship, presumably there isn't a giant box that says, "Check here if you are in this country illegally". So in addition to accessing someone's confidential application, they would then have to process each application to see if the person is legal, or to see if the SSN is valid.

I understand your point, but I don't see the overall harm. If we're pretty sure that illegal immigrants are going to public universities, or at least can go, and we want to change that policy, I disagree that you need evidence to do so. It is both prohibitive and preventive. It is both allowing for the possibility of it existing currently, and allowing for the chance that it could occur in the future. That sounds like good government to me.

In addition to which, this is just one part of a multi-part bill concerning immigration policy in this state. It's not as if they're spending all of their time debating just this one facet.

I think next session we will be having considerable debate over requirements for tuition status and the review of. I think all non-residents of Virginia should be charged out of state tuition for purposes of the requirement. I think currently there is a time frame set up for the residency requirement preceeding admission but reviewing that area may be a better route. I know we in Virginia already give in state tuition rate to "protected" status countries where immigrants fled like El salvador and such but then those individuals have been determined to be legal with regard to status. We have to begin addressing these issues at some basic starting point and requiring documentation of residency, status, citizenship or whatever seems like the logical starting point.

Will not this take us back to things like Albo's HB 1970 which passed the House I think but not the Senate?

The Rethuglicans have proven to be incompetent, corrupt, and hypocritical.

The citizens now know this.

Only hope is to re-activate the base. Racism unites them...

Come on, Joe Six-pack...  These guys are not on your side.  They are not going to protect you from immigrants (translation: dark people). They want to throw out our hard working immigrants, and continue to create an economy that will make sure YOUR children are so poorly educated that they will be mowing the lawns and washing the dishes!

Its public preschool FOR EVERYONE they should be discussing, not veiled RACISM.

"racist"? I am half-Hispanic and don't want illegals here in the US. While I agree that race motivates some of the opposition it is not why I am against illegal immigration. Why do we have immigration law if we won't enforce it?

I agree with these bills. I am sorry, but I don't support coming to the US illegally. And I don't believe that those who shouldn't be here should get in-state tuition at universities. I don't know why we can't enforce immigration laws against the employers who hire these day laborers and deport the illegals.