Betraying common sense, House narrowly defeats SB 441

By: Doug in Mount Vernon
Published On: 3/7/2008 5:25:40 PM

In a move designed to further fan the flames over issues of immigration at the state and local levels, on Wednesday the House Republicans in Virginia voted down a very common sense bill 52-46, SB441.  The bill, patroned by Senator Janet Howell and defacto by Senator Patsy Ticer and Delegate Vivian Watts (by merging SB 639 into this bill), had sailed through the Senate 39-0.  The bill would prohibit the inquisition of crime victims or witnesses regarding their immigration status.

The truly maddening thing, is that even though this bill is absolutely common sense (enough so that four Republicans voted with a large bloc of Democrats), four Democratic delegates voted with the Republican bloc against the bill.  Why?

Perhaps these Democratic delegates are attempting to support a law and order theme, thereby appeasing the tough-on-crime vote?  Doubtful.  More than likely, they've been scared sufficiently by the fervent anti-immigrant noisemakers.  And they are in fact, for the most part, anti-immigrant, and not just anti-illegal-immigrant, as they claim.  More on that after the fold.

The saddest part of the vote is that the defeat of this bill will make the job of law enforcement in Virginia more difficult.  It belies common sense, and decency, to boot.

I've been troubled by some seemingly stupid votes that betray progressive causes by Democratic lawmakers in this year, both at the state and local levels, but this one takes the cake for me.
The fact of the matter is, the problems associated with illegal immigration will not be solved by state or local action.

Most people who are concerned about illegal immigration are actually worried about the effects (real or perceived) it has on neighborhoods, public safety, government expenditures on services, and/or the effect on competition for jobs and depression of wages.  I would argue that most of these issues are, in fact, quite valid and need lots of thought, debate, and policy to address them adequately and respectfully for all involved.

However, the anti-immigrant activism that we've seen pop up in Prince William County has largely been not just against real or perceived issues (symptoms) of the problem, but against the immigrants themselves.  The people who pushed this resolution in Help Save Manassas, in FAIR, and on the Board of Supervisors often speak in terms of making life harder FOR THESE PEOPLE.

I give you Corey Stewart in his infamous YouTube captured moment, paraphrased went something like "We want these people to be afraid of being deported".  I will find the YouTube link later and update this diary.

Then, you also have the leader of Help Save Manassas, Greg Letiecq, saying at an organizational meeting that their plight to remove immigrants from their community is not because they hate them, but because they "love" them!  Yes, he said, "we will send them home with love."  Imagine how loved those people feel!?

This bill sanely would seek to protect crime victims and crime witnesses from inquiries into their legal statuses in the United States.  Why is that important?

Obviously, the Latino community in Prince William County, and frankly, around the entire state feels very much under attack and vulnerable, and rightly so.  And despite the assurances of law enforcement and lawmakers that they are only concerned with the "illegals" it is actually the entire Latino community that is on-guard.  That is because the "illegals" are also the husbands, wives, mothers, fathers, and even in some cases, children, of the legal residents.  They are all feeling under attack, and all one needs to do to verify this is talk to them.

I wonder if Delegate Jeff Frederick, himself half-Latino (his mother is Colombian) talks to them?

At any rate, in this climate of fear that has been created, crime is actually more likely to be committed but go unreported.  If Latino families are afraid that ANYONE they know may possibly be detained and/or eventually deported because they are here on an expired visa or here illegally, then they are not going to talk to law enforcement authorities--it's basic common sense.

So what these delegates who voted against this bill are saying, is that it's more important to them to foster a climate of anti-immgrant fervor and fear than catching criminals.

That's why defeat of this bill makes it harder to keep all communities safe and help reduce crime.

I am very disappointed in Democratic delegates Paul Nichols, Paula Miller, Johnny Joannou, and Albert Pollard, and I think they've displayed a willingness to acquiesce to terrible politics and bad policy over public safety.

I could go into more about the political calculations for these delegate choices as some are obvious (Paul Nichols) but others are downright baffling, but we'll save that for later.

In the meantime, join me in thanking those who supported SB441, and sending some words of scorn to those who betrayed logic, public safety, and human decency to appease the anti-immigrant rhetoricists.


Comments



I fail to understand... (Doug in Mount Vernon - 3/7/2008 6:19:21 PM)
...why law and order Republicans would have voted against this bill!?


Crazy like a fox? (Eric - 3/7/2008 7:22:09 PM)
I'm just throwing out a possibly theory, but these anti-immigrants may have come up with a very sinister tool to do their bidding in a very clever way.

I completely agree with your description of how this bill on the surface is evil.  But projecting what will happen may make it a not only a sinister tool, but a very effective tool to chase immigrants out of the area.

If authorities are allowed to query residential status for victims it will put the obvious pressure on them to leave.  Who wants that hanging over their head?  Or, if they want to stay, they simply clam up and are forced to accept crime against them without support from authorities.  

Here's where it really kicks in - as criminals realize they have a large pool of silent victims, the criminals will become more bold and crimes against the immigrants will increase.  And many of the criminals will get away with it because almost nothing will be reported.  Which will lead to an ever increasing rate of crime against immigrants, eventually leading to the immigrants leaving because they have all become prime and frequent targets of the criminals.

And the added "bonus" for authorities?  Crime stats stay flat because none of the new ones are reported - making them appear effective at crime prevention.  



Just to clarify Eric.... (Doug in Mount Vernon - 3/10/2008 5:05:07 PM)
...this bill would PREVENT authorities to question immigrants who are crime victims or witnesses, not enable it.  That's why it was the right policy to pass it.

We've heard the police in PWC even claim that this type of targeting of immigrants will not happen, but I would not trust that.  We need a law to make it impermissible.



Everybody's Affected (AntiBVBL.net - 3/7/2008 9:33:43 PM)
Do you want witnesses of crimes committed against the public to just leave because they're afraid of scrutiny against themselves or their families?  This affects everybody.  Another quick example, there's a house fire, all the occupants of the house leave but nobody wants to report to the authorities that all occupants are safe.  Will the firefighters venture into a burning home to check if it's clear?  Now he's endangering his life.  This one should have been a no-brainer.  Unfortunately, we're going to have to learn this one the hard way.  And I feel sorry for the individuals who will suffer the consequences.  


Ugh (Doug in Mount Vernon - 3/10/2008 5:03:31 PM)
Hadn't even conceived such impacts but I fear you're probably right.

This is just REALLY bad public policy.  No crime victims or witnesses should have to worry about this, and this bill would have sent all the right messages to the latino community.

Like some of them care.



Shame on you Mr. Nichols (AntiBVBL.net - 3/7/2008 9:36:20 PM)
Especially disappointing was Mr. Nichols vote on this one.


Yes, but given the pressures in PWC (Doug in Mount Vernon - 3/10/2008 5:02:13 PM)
I can understand the political calculation in this vote.

Doesn't make ir right.

And if he believed in the rule of law, he would support this bill, but I fear in this vote he's displayed a willingness to kowtow to the anti-immigrant rhetoricists (for rhetoric is all they're good for...).

I wonder how he's voted on other immigration bills?



Helpful tip (LT - 3/9/2008 10:52:32 AM)
Doug: if possible, could you higlight/darken the names of the Dems who voted against the bill? I was having quite a bit of trouble trying to find them.


Done (Doug in Mount Vernon - 3/10/2008 5:00:37 PM)