Stewart may win re-election as PWC Chairman, but I can't imagine him ever succeeding Tom Davis in VA-11.  The other Supervisors, who might have simply voted no, stumbled badly.  I don't know to what extent they face serious challenges three weeks from yesterday, but they risked losing votes from voters on both sides of the issue by trying to have it both ways.

The good news is that, by cutting the first year funding by almost 90%, between the start-up costs of police training and the additional expenses added in last night's modifications, such as the public education campaign, the partnering with outside groups, and most immediately the expenses of having to defend against lawsuits, at least one of which has already been filed, there will be almost nothing left of the $325,000 to pay for the racial profiling, oops, I mean legitimate traffic stops and other checks of "probable" undocumented persons.

In defending itself in the lawsuits, the County will have to show that denying the services is related to some legitimate mission of the County.  They've only set the bar higher for themselves by admitting that they've done no research into how many undocumented persons are actually availing themselves of such services.

All the Supervisors can do now is pray that the voters don't conclude that passing the resolution in this way made things worse, because the reasonable estimates for the near-term in PWC is bleak in terms of increased taxes and decreased services.  There's an apt biblical metaphor here about reaping whirlwinds.

The true tragedy here is that the ones who will suffer the most are those least able to defend themselves.  I can't fathom why a decent majority of PWC residents and voters haven't yet been motivated to understand that they have an obligation to defend and care for these others who are proving every day by withstanding the hate that they must have had it even worse in the lands that they left.  You may convince some federal judge today that "it's the law,"  but, if you're a sincere believer, I don't know how you'll convince the ultimate judge.

Can we not show some compassion too?

Where are these voices now?  Why don't our churches step in?  Why don't our community leaders speak with reason?

I don't hold out much hope that we'll see much improvement until the next Administration in 2009.  If, at that time, things do start to get better, the loud minority complaining about undocumented persons will grow quieter and shrink.  The downside will be the elimination of pressure on our elected representatives to enact true reform to an immigration system that hasn't seen such reform in way too long.

On the other hand, if things get worse enough before they get better, the average person may have to publicly choose sides.  I guess that's what I meant by when push comes to shove.  I only hope the level of persecution that is grounded in irrational fear of others, i.e., racism, and that does exist today is minimal.  I concede that the open society that my immigrant ancestors bravely bequeathed to me makes me partly responsible for such persecution whether I directly inflict it or merely passively allow it to occur.  If I were a believer, I'd close with something like "may God have mercy on my soul."

*racism

As far as the "he started it, no he started it," that's really  interesting (zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz) but I still don't see how telling someone they need "therapy" for holding a different viewpoint than yours is particularly constructive.

I do enjoy this blog, Lowell.  The people here are much more interesting and certainly more intelligent than the flat-earthers over on the Neo-Con blogs.  The problem is that I'm a moderate Independent and consider myself neither a Democrat nor a Republican.  That is an interesting political stance to claim.  My conservative friends call me a liberal and my progressive friends call me a conservative.  You wouldn't believe the cross-fire that I can get caught in.  In any event, I call 'em like I see 'em and support the position that is most intellectually honest as I understand it.

Thanks.

I wonder why that is..../rhetorical question.

how can I tell someone that his friends don't appreciate having their choice of ideological labels being called a matter of fashion?  Is it even worth trying when this person has convinced himself that having a conscience is a bad habit that one should quit?

Sincerely,

Bewildered in Burke

Abby

P. S. Key writing.  I'm enjoying this, although the "calling out a racist" thing pissed me off more than a little.

Let me put it this way:  if anyone who is opposed to illegal immigration is a racist by association, then the ICE is a racist organization.  Further, appropriate sections of Title 10 of the US Code are racist laws passed by a racist Congress.

Has Jim Webb been briefed on this?

I think the supervisors had already reached consensus before the meeting began yesterday afternoon, as well.  In retrospect, the 6-2 vote defeating the limit of citizens' time to one minute was a signal to Corey that since he'd invited the entire county to the party, he needed to be polite and listen to what his guests had to say.

The resolution doesn't seem to have any teeth other than denial of a few services that we're not sure were being used anyway.

Illegals still get emergency care and education because that's federal law, and they won't get Medicare or food stamps, but they never did, legally.

There won't be any immigration sweeps or checkpoints, and unless I missed it, I didn't see anything about going after landlords of overcrowded rental houses.

They will address businesses who hire illegals through business licensing.

They're calling for a public education program aimed at ethnic and immigrant communities and for the county to work with a university or consultant to study the fairness of the resolution(HSM will really like those.).

There will be a Criminal Alien Unit to work with federal immigration agents.

Finally, they committed only $325,000 to fund the measure at this point.

This was all smoke and mirror -- a way of telling constituents "We did something about illegal immigration" without really doing anything at all.

I think those against the resolution actually won.

The fact is, this people sustain economic activity in this country, that if lost, would cripple us all economically.

The Social Security windfall they are providing to the federal government, which they will never see as non-citizens, is estimated to be in the ballpark of $36B (that's BILLION) per year!

They are not COSTING us money.  They are valuable and CONTRIBUTING hard-working people, nearly 100% of them.

Far more leacherous and destabilizing on our economy are poor white people who are collecting welfare and dropping out of high schools at alarming rates in some parts of the country.  Even the working poor who make less than $20-25K per year are going to consume far more in government services than they will pay in taxes.  Shall we cut off their access to services too?  Some of these people actually would want that, I have no doubt.

Fair is fair.  There are problems.  The ways that people are going about trying to tackle them are at best, misguided, at worst, catastrophic economically, socially, and morally.

I attened this circus for a couple hours yesterday.  The man of the hour (1-2pm) leading up to the meeting was clearly Greg L, who was busy handing our red stickers and giving interviews.  Just before 2pm Mr. Stewart walked in with a broad smile.  (I was surprised he left his crown at home.)  Nevermind; people clapped and called his name and he looked quite confident.  I was hopeful when the meeting began with Maureen Caddigan challenging his one minute rule, but I should have known better.

That said, it doesn't do your cause much good when one of your speakers tells the Board to "Kiss My Ass"; the remark was apparently for Mr. Stewart who had left the room to do an interview with CNN.

Sad.

The resolution, when fully funded, will cost the PWC taxpayers $14.2 M in total.  Mostly the cost of FTEs in law enforcement to deport criminals who are here illegally.

Great.

What are they saving?

Well, aside from the obvious that they will remove criminals (something that should already be happening), they are going to be saving a little bit on drug counseling, senior services, and apparently, on issuing business licenses after checking for e-verify compliance (sounds more like another COST actually).

What is the dollar amount that may actually be saved?  THEY DON'T EVEN KNOW because the Supervisors didn't BOTHER to look into how many illegal aliens are using those services, in fact.

I can tell you right now, it ain't many, and looking at that list of "cut services" your talkin' chump change compared to the $14.2 M they're now SPENDING on this, alone.

THIS IS ABOUT HATING AND MAKING NEW AMERICANS FEEL UNWELCOME, PEOPLE.

Don't let them bash you for insisting on the truth--that hatred, bigotry, and xenophobia are at the root of this movement.

That doesn't mean there are not legitimate problems here. But don't let them off the hook when the fiery speakers against illegal immigration tell you, "this isn't about hate".

I call bullshit on that one.

Go Sharon Pandak.

Go Corey Riley.

Janet Dudley-Eshbach, the president of Salisbury University in Maryland [...]

[...] had a photo on her [Facebook] profile showing her pointing a stick toward her daughter and a Hispanic man with a caption saying she had to "beat off Mexicans because they were constantly flirting with my daughter."

A caption accompanying a photo of a tapir referred to the large size of the animal's genitalia.

Link

If you want to whine about racism, the article and photo above depicts racism.  Enforcing the law is not racism.  If we do not enforce immigration laws, why enforce traffic laws?  Why enforce hunting laws?  Why prosecute bank robbers?  Or, murderers?  Hell, Bush thinks the Constitution is nothing but a "goddamn piece of paper."  We can simply do away with all laws and have anarchy.

In fact, James Walsh, a former INS lawyer, says we already are in anarchy:

"[...] Californians for Population Stabilization released a study claiming there are 20 million to 38 million illegal immigrants in America, not the 12 million the federal government says.

Immigration is in a state of anarchy," organization member James Walsh, a former Immigration and Naturalization Service lawyer, fervently told the room. "Not chaos, anarchy."

Link