Oh, by the way, I presume you're just as concerned about George W. Bush and Dick Cheney repeatedly breaking the law - U.S. and international -  and violating the constitution the past 6 1/2 years?  Oh wait, I forgot, illegal immigration is a MUCH more important issue than lying to take the country to war, trashing our civil liberties, etc.  Priorities, priorities.

Believing illegal immigration to be an important issue does not mean any of the three are true:

1) Believing that the issue is black-and-white, and there are two clear-cut sides,

2) Believing that illegal immigrants should be executed (BTW: WTF?)

3) Believing that illegal immigration is the most pressing issue today.

The logical inverse of this is also true: *not* believing any of the three above does not mean one cannot believe illegal immigration is a serious issue.

What can David Bulova do about the Bush Administration, besides write a letter to Tom Davis, Jim Webb, and John Warner? Nothing. Delegate Bulova wasn't elected to stand up symbolically against the Bush Administration, he was elected to represent Fairfax. God forbid he take a tough stance on an important issue facing his district.

More importantly, I'm extremely concerned with the language in the original post, when you search in vain and exhaust all the reasons why Bulova would have voted for this bill, *politically*, and leave out absolutely any room for possibility that he voted for the bill because he believes in it. I understand that, if you had it your way, all the legislation that you agreed with would be voted by Democrats unanimously and opposed by Republicans unanimously, and all the legislation you disagreed with would be the inverse, but that's not a reflection of reality. The same thing goes with the abuser fees. Like it or not (and you don't, which is something you're going to have to get over), Governor Kaine and many members of the Democratic caucus voted for the transportation bill. Voters don't see the abuser fees, or illegal immigration for that matter, as partisan issues, and that's something that David Bulova recognizes. Why are you having trouble doing the same?

Does that clear things up for ya?

1) The issue is black-and-white.

2) Why don't we just execute illegal immigrants.

3) Bulova has his priorities screwed up because he's concerned about illegal immigrants and not about the Bush Administration.

All of which are patently ridiculous. In order to ridicule a perfectly legitimate answer, one you happen to disagree with (for reasons you refuse to offer), you provided three strawman arguments that neither 1) address the concern of those who believe illegal immigration is a serious issue (of which David Bulova is one) nor 2) offer any meaningful rebuttal to the answer provided to your question.

Rather than have a meaningful discussion about this legislation, you search in vain for any political reason why Bulova would have voted for it, excepting the obvious answer: because he believes its good policy. Rather than have an honest discussion about illegal immigration in general, you ridicule and mock those who believe it is important, and then pretend that you have subtantially answered their concerns.

All of this leaves me to wonder: Where is Eric when you need him to provide a reasonable and intellectually honest response?

I'm not even going to try to get into the debate over immigration and illegal immigration with this.  It's way too complex to address with a comment - a couple hundred dissertations might do the trick.

FWIW, here's my take on how the politicians are messing it up.  They are so scared of upsetting the Hispanic voting block (both sides), looking weak on illegals (hard core conservatives), or looking inhumane (hard core liberals) that they can't come up with legislation to even begin to address the issue.  Understatement: Gridlock is not a good option here.  So both sides share a significant amount of blame for this mess.

But I do have a specific partisan gripe about the Republicans (big surprise here).  A significant number of conservative politicians have and continue to play this up as a simplistic black and white issue.  As in "what part of illegal don't you understand" or "it's either them or us" and so on.  That's red meat to their core but it doesn't help us move toward a solution in any way at all.  Aside from oversimplifying the problem to the point of absurdity, this approach re-enforces a mindset that is at direct odds with making real progress because this is way too complex for a black and white solution.  Which ironically makes this group, who are arguably the most desperate for a solution, one of the prime roadblocks to real progress.  Which, you guessed it, means that the hard core Republican politicians are just playing for political points among their base, not looking for solutions.

Today most Americans are having economic stress because the middle class and below hasn't seen salaries go up to match real inflation--by this I mean the real cost of life, which includes paying for food and gas, which the official number conveniently leaves out.

Now, what do you do with a mass of grumpy people who hasn't seen their salaries rise while health care, college tuition, housing, food and gas has skyrocketed?

These angry people are dangerous because they may end up realizing that our society has turned into a Vegas casino where every machine is design to make them lose money to enrich the casino owners. Being aware of the unfairness of the situation, they may demand single payer health insurance, real retirement security, low tuitions for college, and affordable housing; all of that populist dangerous stuff.

So instead of that, pick a minority and blame them for your misfortunes. Undocumented workers are a great target because they cannot defend themselves, and we can blame them for our  lower salaries, even when the tomato pickers are not competing with our desk jobs.

I am sad to report that I saw the same dynamic back in 1994 in California. Once people start earning more money, they come back to their senses, but considering that we lived through a whole economic cycle without the middle class getting anything, I don't know how long it will be for this to end.

Continue wondering why folks like David Bulova support legislation like this when its "obviously" driven by hate and fear.

*The economic impact of immigration, "illegal" and otherwise, pro or con.  My understanding is that it's a mixed bag, benefiting the vast majority of consumers, not affecting the vast majority of wage earners at all, while possibly having a marginal impact in certain industries and geographic areas.

*The impact (if any) of immigration on crime rates (my understanding is that, if anything, the U.S. crime rate has plunged as immigration has surged)

*The difference, if any, between current immigration patterns and historical ones - e.g., what's the difference between waves of Irish, Jews or Germans coming into the country compared to waves of people from Latin America and Asia?

Please cite studies to support your views.  You have 1 hour. Ha. :)

There are some illegal immigrants that work hard, contribute to society, and even pay taxes. There are others that hang around on front porches or 7-11 all day, get paid under the table when they do work, and never pay taxes.

There are many problems with this. First is the issue of taxpayer benefits going to those who don't pay taxes. The biggest strain is on hospitals and schools. Our obligation as human beings is to help sick or injured people and to educate children, but you cannot deny that it is a strain on the system to provide these services to people who don't put into the system. We have finite resources. How much of our school budget is going to ESL programs, and at what expense are those resources not going elsewhere?

Then you have non-crucial services, like unemployment, Medicare, and other facilities that illegal immigrants use, again, without paying taxes. Some Democrats even voted for government subsidized tuition for illegal immigrants, despite the fact that many have never paid taxes.

You see this as a cut-and-dry issue: Republicans are bad, therefore the only reason why they are opposed to illegal immigration is because they're all so very racist. You can stick your head in the sand all you want, but this is an issue that affects real people.

This is about what's just and what's fair. Is it fair for people who pay taxes and obey the law to pay for people who don't pay taxes, and by definition, have not obeyed the law? You may think it is. Others disagree, and it has nothing to do with racism. I know a friend who lives in a neighborhood where, down the street from him is a two-story house that ten people lived in. There would be ten cars, parked in the driveway, on the street, and in the backyard. They were all 20 or 30 year-old men. What are the chances that they all were relatives? Slim to none. Is that an issue, when it affects crime and property values? You may think it isn't. Others disagree, and it has nothing to do with racism.

Talk to any policemen, especially traffic cops. They'll pull over someone going 20 miles over the speed limit with no liscense and no registration. What can they do? Local police officers have their hands tied. They can't take them down to the precinct, even if he suspects the person is an illegal immigrant. He can't write a ticket; its a waste of time and money to bother trying to go through the judicial system with someone who doesn't give a real name, and has no reason to pay the fine or show up in court. So what do cops do? They let them go. That's all they can do. Is that fair? You may think it is. Others disagree, and it has nothing to do with racism.

There are many ways to approach the illegal immigration issue, and most of them are perfectly valid. Your opinion on the issue is perfectly valid. You, I assume, have done your own research, looked at the consequences, and concluded that the effects of illegal immigration are negligible. That's fair. What's *not* fair is to have your opinion on illegal immigration, and cast all other opinions as invalid. That's what you have done consistently, when you try to paint illegal immigration as a social wedge issue, when you try to paint those concerned about the issue as racists, when you construct strawmen arguments believing that we should execute illegal immigrants, and so on. Nothing you have posted on this site indicates that you believe any position on illegal immigration other than your own is valid. And that's not fair.

Now, onto the wild misrepresentations of my positions (boy, this is time consuming and tiring...why do I bother since I know you'll twist my words again the second I'm done typing?):

*I never said that "those concerned about the issue" are "racists."  Certainly, there is a segment of the anti-immigrant movement that is xenophobic, no question about that.  But then there are all kinds of other people, some of whom on the left feel that illegal immigrants are driving down wages, hurting the ability of labor to organize, etc., etc.  Those are perfectly legitimate issues to hash out, and I certainly don't have all the answers.

*I don't construct "strawmen" arguments, I'm just taking the "illegal is illegal," black and white worldview of certain illegal immigrant opponents to a logical extreme in order to show how overblown it is.  Obviously, I don't believe that there are more than a few people out there - if anyone - who wants to execute illegal immigrants.  But sometimes the rhetoric on this issue gets so heated that it seems to be the most important issue in the world.  In my view, it's not.

*Finally, I have never argued that only my view is valid on this issue or any other.  The reason I have a blog is so that I can state MY views on issues.  Guess what, nobody has to read this blog - NOBODY - and certainly not you if you dislike/disagree with my views so strongly.  Or, start your own blog - it's easy, cheap (or free with Blogger), and CAN be fun when you're not dealing with trolls.

Now, why do you continue to try and make this argument about individuals - me, Eric, whoever - and not about the facts and merits of the case?  To me, it's a red warning flag whenever someone starts straying in that direction...makes me wonder if - as Jim Webb said about George Allen - they've got "nothing to report."

Yes, there are some people who get heated about the issue of illegal immigration. I don't see any of them in this thread. I don't see any overblown language in this thread. It seems odd that you would choose here to take a stand against such hyperbole when no one you are responding to has used it. And I don't recall anybody calling it the most important issue in the world, but that doesn't mean its not an important issue.

And you have never argued that only your view is valid, but you sure have acted like it. You're right, though. Its your blog. You can demean and mock the views of anybody else you choose. But when you start a thread like this, I assume you're looking for a reasonable explanation for why Bulova voted the way he did. If you are looking for just more affirmation that your opinion is right and everybody else's is wrong, then perhaps you should rephrase the original post.

I've never tried to make this about anything other than the merits of the case. In this specific example, your approach to the issue conflicts with a discussion of the merits of the case, which is why I talked about both.

I'm sure that most of the people who agree with you are not racist, but their main congressional allies are, if not racist, then very good at pretending.  And when Tancredo says that civilization wi9ll collapse because Mexicans live next door, that undermines whatever legitimate point you may have had, because it makes the whole movement look unhinged.

Hell, this could be a huge problem for all I know.  But I see a bunch of Tancredos screaming about Mexicans and trying to give it cover by saying their beef is with the illegality, even though these illegals were coming here for a decade or more.  So suddenly now it's a problem?  Why wasn't this a big enough deal to fix before?

So yeah, forgive some of us for thinking this is basically just a ruse.  I mean, look at the promoters and tell me that the "illegal" part is really all they care about.

And he basically never responded to my main point: how is this somehow a more important issue now than it was before?  What was happening 10 years ago that made not fixing this allegedly big problem not so important?  And what makes it so hysterically important today?

And may I say, that's some of the most disastrous logic I've ever come across, on any issue. "Well, no one fixed this ten years ago, so why should we fix this now?" How does that many any sense?

The immigration "issue" in this country has come and gone throughout its history.  Right now, it's on an upswing.  I have no idea where it will be in ten years from now.

Legal immigrants pay taxes. Many, if not most, illegal immigrants do not, while they take advantage of benefits paid for by those who do. Even if not a single illegal immigrant enters Virginia in the next ten years, that will still be ten more years of taxpayer money going to those who have not paid for the services they recieve.

While it has been evident for years that illegal immigrants pay a variety of taxes, the extent of their contributions to Social Security is striking: the money added up to about 10 percent of last year's surplus - the difference between what the system currently receives in payroll taxes and what it doles out in pension benefits. Moreover, the money paid by illegal workers and their employers is factored into all the Social Security Administration's projections.

Illegal immigration, Marcelo Suárez-Orozco, co-director of immigration studies at New York University, noted sardonically, could provide "the fastest way to shore up the long-term finances of Social Security."

Sorry, but you're just completely, wildly misinformed on this issue.

As I said, I don't have a problem with hospitals treating whoever comes through the door or schools educating any child that registers. That is neccesary. But you cannot argue it doesn't but a strain on local services, and resources being allocated towards people who don't pay taxes are resources that cannot be used to help people who do pay taxes.

Whether it was a stunt or not, I'm not sure. I'll let someone more familiar with the legislation, like members of the GA, determine that. I think the larger point is that local police don't have the power to do anything about people breaking the federal immigration law. This may change that. And I'm still not sure why you call it a wedge issue. Who is it wedging between?

Wedge issue is a social or political issue, often of a divisive or otherwise controversial nature, which is used by one political group to split apart or create a "wedge" in the support base of an opposing political group, with a view to enticing voters to give their support to the first group. The use of wedge issues gives rise to wedge politics.

and

Illegal immigration operated as a wedge issue in 2007. Large employers, seeking to legalize their access to cheap labor, lobbied for immigration reform with amnesty for millions of Mexicans in the U.S. illegally. Other Republicans, primarily individual voters, bitterly opposed any legislation that would give amnesty to "illegals" and reward them for breaking U.S. law. Some Democrats pitched in to keep the issue alive, but one large and influential group of Republicans was mainly doing this to a different, not quite so influential group of Republicans. The result was a bitter division in Republican ranks and a stalled bill in Congress. This all looks very mysterious to commentators who don't understand the "wedge" nature of the issue.

You made my day. I had been very busy this week to check back on this comment, but I noticed that you spent a good amount of time dodging the main point that I made:

The the immigration issue is a distraction from the current economic strife of Americans.

So, your attempt to change the topic of conversation and your contemptuous--but unsupported--dismissal of my argument, this is, using two cheap rhetorical tricks, means that I must have touched a sore point. That makes me happy :)

You say that this is about fairness. You want to know what is truly unfair?

It is unfair that people making medium income must pay for Bush's subsidies for the rich.

It is unfair that when Americans work the hardest and are the most productive, our business leaders deny them their fair share of their labor and keep all of the profits for themselves.

It is unfair to quietly cut the salaries of workers by shifting the costs of retirement and health care to individuals.

Are you also self-righteous about these unfair situations? :)

Who carves up the hogs at the Smithfield plant?

Who cures the lawns of Northern Virginia's wealthy?

Who tends to the peanuts that make Virginia famous worldwide?

Illegal immigrants.  We can be as proud as we want of what we have, but we must not take it for granted.  The business community is already feeling the pinch of crackdowns on illegal immigrants.  Farmers out West have no one to pick their crop, and the big business leaders who financed George Bush's victories are guiding his hand to let the c. 10 million illegal immigranst in this country stay and be productive.

For anyone who thinks that these people are a drain on our resources, think how much we're spending on projects to kick illegal immigrants out of the country, how much business productivity is lost when said projects succeed, remember that the moment they get back to their home country they start working on getting back to the United States, and add in how much more we pay in border security to keep them out once again.

I could go into the long term benefits of massive immigration (look what the Italians and Jews have done for our country 100 years later), but if that's not obvious to whoever is reading this than there's really little point in arguing it.

Most of the people who have come here "illegally" were actually simply responding to the demands that our government and economy created for them.  They are not without blame or responsibility, but the ire that is being directed at them is very, very misdirected.