From today's Washington Post:
Many candidates for the Virginia General Assembly campaigned last year on a pledge to curb the state's illegal immigrant population. But two weeks into the legislative session, many of the more than 100 immigration-related bills that have been introduced go even further and could penalize those living in the country legally.One bill would require that driver's license exams be conducted in English. Another would force people applying for a driver's license to show proof of U.S. citizenship. And several bills would declare English as Virginia's official language.
"Virginia's legislators claim that they only want to crack down on undocumented immigrants and that they welcome those immigrants who 'play by the rules.' That's what they say," said Tim Freilich, legal director for the Virginia Justice Center for Farm and Immigrant Workers. "Then they turn around and introduce these bills that directly attack Virginia's lawfully present immigrants."
So which is it? Is "legality" the issue here, or is it the desire of some people to have everyone -- Chinese, Koreans, Vietnamese, Indians, Latinos, etc. -- speak English? What's the core motivation here? Based on these bills, which focus a lot on which language people speak than on whether they're in the country "legally" or not, it's very hard to tell.
By the way, I thought this comment (by "timscanlon") on the Washington Post website was interesting in light of this article:
This stuff does wonders for property values:"The current slump is worse in counties far from the Beltway, such as Prince William, where prices fell 13 percent year over year, and slight in others, such as Arlington, which saw a 2 percent decrease."
Perhaps the experience of Riverside, NJ, which voted to repeal anti-illegal-immigrant legislation after watching its economy suffer greatly, might be worth reviewing?
P.S. To the legislators who proposed some of these bills that target both "legal" and "illegal" immigrants, my question is this: "what part of LEGAL don't you understand?!?"
Our goal should be to make sure the debate centers around ending the exploitation of people and making sure that immigration doesn't adversely impact American workers.
This is really an issue of economics, poverty, exploitation, and corporate greed. What frustrates me the most is that the Republicans have the audacity to focus their enforcement agenda on the illegal immigrants instead of on the illegal employers.
It's quite clear why. These same employers of illegal immigrants are also staunch Republicans. They are the root cause of this problem, yet they get a pass.
I believe that ICE should walk straight past the illegal workers at the company and into the corporate offices. The managers who knowingly hired these workers are the ones who need to be punished, and that would send a message to other employers who break the law.
We need to legalize the people here and to highly control entry into our country. But by "legalize" many people say we should give them a temporary corporate sponsored visa. We are kidding ourselves if we think most of these people are here temporarily. And by giving corporations control of their immigration status, we create what I call "slavery light". It's not quite slavery, but it's the next best thing for people who want to exploit other people.
2. My dog Lacy's vet has a sign outside that says "Parking for Customers Only. All Others Will be Neutered" sign similar to this one might be appropriate for the General Assembly idiots who insist on parking near the state capitol or other public places.
Enjoy.
T.C.
1) In Virginia, what compels an employer to hire an employee who cannot communicate in english? Nothing, so why hire the person in the first place if that is an issue for your company.
Seems the company that cried in Cuccinelli's ear to get this bill sponsored needs a refresher course in human resource management 101: the interview process. In the meantime, the proposed legislation gets vetted through the VA General Assembly on the taxpayers dime !
In Virginia, we are scraping together dollars to fund essential services for the homeless, medical services for under served children while Cole and Cuccinnelli "grandstand" to their base.
The small businessman was giving a person a chance and did not hold up his end of the bargain. At the end of the time period.. he had to let the person go since they did not improve as expected in learning the english language.. not a bit. The owner needed to have someone who could do the job well.
Having a right to work in Virginia, the small businessman did not think there would be an issue. However, he DOES have to pay Unemployment Benefits... and his insurance rates were raised.
Now... we can either give people with limited english a chance with the condition that they learn the language well, or they can not be offered a job at all.
The small businessman tried to help someone and give them a chance.