Friday, February 13, 2009
Monday, November 10, 2008
Sarah Palin in her own words ... lest we forget
Put some rhythm in your step and a add a melody to your memory as you think about what might have been and vow not to allow it ever to be.
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
In politics, as in life ...
Love conquers.
But, love didn't conquer all today.
My heart goes out to my friends in the GLBT community who learned again today that too many Americans continue to practice the politics of exclusion denying them full equality and writing their second class citizenship into state constitutions.
Tears of sadness commingled freely with tears of joy tonight.
But, love didn't conquer all today.
My heart goes out to my friends in the GLBT community who learned again today that too many Americans continue to practice the politics of exclusion denying them full equality and writing their second class citizenship into state constitutions.
Tears of sadness commingled freely with tears of joy tonight.
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
Will "Love" Triumph?
I have a theory about "love" and "hate" on the campaign trail that will be tested today.
Four years ago, Democrats grudgingly chose John Kerry, a candidate that they "thought" could win, to vie against George W. Bush, a "hated" rival, who was then, and to some extent remains even now, fiercely "loved" by the base voters of his party. Regardless of whether you believe, as I do, that "hate" is too strong a label for partisan differences, the lesson of 2004 was two fold:
Now, four years later, it is the Republicans who chose "thoughtfully," turning grudgingly to someone with whom many in the base still are not comfortable, while Democrats turned away from the "she can win" analytical choice to embrace a candidate who touched their hearts and inspired passion in their souls.
And, while Democratic hearts went "all in" for Obama this year, the "thoughtful" McCain forces, in sorry repetition of Kerry four years ago, tried mightily to drive their base with hate and fear of their opposition, even while they tried pitifully to inspire some "love" for Palin as the capacitor that could spark the campaign with new energy.
So, the election today is the test for my "love"/"hate" theory.
Tonight we get the answer to the question whether love, in politics as in life, conquers all.
Four years ago, Democrats grudgingly chose John Kerry, a candidate that they "thought" could win, to vie against George W. Bush, a "hated" rival, who was then, and to some extent remains even now, fiercely "loved" by the base voters of his party. Regardless of whether you believe, as I do, that "hate" is too strong a label for partisan differences, the lesson of 2004 was two fold:
"Hate" as a political driver ultimately was ennervating for "thoughtful" Kerry forces, leaving husks behind, unable to sustain the emotional energy through the election. Hating Bush ultimately just wasn't enough to drive them to deliver victory to a candidate with whom they simply were not smitten.
At the same time, "love" grew in power, building through election day, sustaining the Bush forces in Ohio and elsewhere until the last poll was closed.
Now, four years later, it is the Republicans who chose "thoughtfully," turning grudgingly to someone with whom many in the base still are not comfortable, while Democrats turned away from the "she can win" analytical choice to embrace a candidate who touched their hearts and inspired passion in their souls.
And, while Democratic hearts went "all in" for Obama this year, the "thoughtful" McCain forces, in sorry repetition of Kerry four years ago, tried mightily to drive their base with hate and fear of their opposition, even while they tried pitifully to inspire some "love" for Palin as the capacitor that could spark the campaign with new energy.
So, the election today is the test for my "love"/"hate" theory.
Tonight we get the answer to the question whether love, in politics as in life, conquers all.
Monday, October 06, 2008
The Manchurian Candidate 2008 Remake
There is mounting evidence that John Sidney McCain is a real life "Manchurian Candidate" brainwashed by the Chinese controlled North Vietnamese during his captivity in Viet Nam and carefully prepared to turn over the United States to China after his election as President of the United States.
Let's start with the fact that McCain refers to his time in prison as his stay at the Hanoi Hilton. Pretty flattering description of what was supposed to be a time of deprivation and torture. And, he looks pretty comfortable in this picture from his time at the Hilton, doesn't he?
And, while the available evidence appears to support the claim that McCain did endure great hardship while a prisoner of war, there is no question that he broke under torture and signed a war crimes confession 10 months after his capture. Nonetheless, he was held for years after that, refusing early release supposedly because he didn't want to be part of North Vietnamese propaganda. But, there could be another explanation for this extended stay. It could be that he stayed as a part of a continuing indoctrination program that was preparing him for his future as a "Manchurian Candidate" under the control of the Chinese.
How else can you explain McCain's embrace of his former captors?
How else to explain the disdain that McCain has demonstrated towards POW/MIA families as documented by a 1992 article in the US Veteran Dispatch?
How else to explain why, as the junior Senator from Arizona, one of his first legislative initiatives was to lead "a legislative effort to force the Administration to open a lower-level American post in Vietnam, which could be preliminary to more formal relations?" (New York Times, June 1,1988)
How else to explain why McCain has been preaching about teaching soldiers in survival training about the need to forgive their enemies and captors since he wrote his thesis for the National War College in 1974?
And, then there was the accident that injured his first wife and opened the door for Cindy McCain to assume the Angela Lansbury/Meryl Streep role as McCain's handler. Although not a sitting Senator nor his mother as in the fictional book and movies, Cindy McCain clearly is a woman of great influence over McCain who could be holding his queen of diamonds trigger.
Shouldn't we be asking questions about just what the continuing effects of McCain's long term brainwashing and torture might be?
And, just what explains McCain's support from groups like Asian Americans for McCain that include very active Vietnamese volunteers?
What do these groups know that we should know?
Update: And, now the clincher ... John McCain owns a condo in Arlington ... "communist country" according to his brother.
P.S. Before you all hyperventilate, and, although I shouldn't have to tell you this, this is clearly satire provoked by the number of stupid conspiracy theory/inflammatory and worse emails I get implying that Barack Obama is a "domestic" or Muslim terrorist. Both of the candidates are fine men. McCain, Palin, their campaigns and friends should stick to the important issues of the day and distance themselves from the sleazy mud slinging from which McCain suffered in 2000 and from which he then distanced himself.
Let's start with the fact that McCain refers to his time in prison as his stay at the Hanoi Hilton. Pretty flattering description of what was supposed to be a time of deprivation and torture. And, he looks pretty comfortable in this picture from his time at the Hilton, doesn't he?
And, while the available evidence appears to support the claim that McCain did endure great hardship while a prisoner of war, there is no question that he broke under torture and signed a war crimes confession 10 months after his capture. Nonetheless, he was held for years after that, refusing early release supposedly because he didn't want to be part of North Vietnamese propaganda. But, there could be another explanation for this extended stay. It could be that he stayed as a part of a continuing indoctrination program that was preparing him for his future as a "Manchurian Candidate" under the control of the Chinese.
How else can you explain McCain's embrace of his former captors?
How else to explain the disdain that McCain has demonstrated towards POW/MIA families as documented by a 1992 article in the US Veteran Dispatch?
How else to explain why, as the junior Senator from Arizona, one of his first legislative initiatives was to lead "a legislative effort to force the Administration to open a lower-level American post in Vietnam, which could be preliminary to more formal relations?" (New York Times, June 1,1988)
How else to explain why McCain has been preaching about teaching soldiers in survival training about the need to forgive their enemies and captors since he wrote his thesis for the National War College in 1974?
And, then there was the accident that injured his first wife and opened the door for Cindy McCain to assume the Angela Lansbury/Meryl Streep role as McCain's handler. Although not a sitting Senator nor his mother as in the fictional book and movies, Cindy McCain clearly is a woman of great influence over McCain who could be holding his queen of diamonds trigger.
Shouldn't we be asking questions about just what the continuing effects of McCain's long term brainwashing and torture might be?
And, just what explains McCain's support from groups like Asian Americans for McCain that include very active Vietnamese volunteers?
What do these groups know that we should know?
Update: And, now the clincher ... John McCain owns a condo in Arlington ... "communist country" according to his brother.
P.S. Before you all hyperventilate, and, although I shouldn't have to tell you this, this is clearly satire provoked by the number of stupid conspiracy theory/inflammatory and worse emails I get implying that Barack Obama is a "domestic" or Muslim terrorist. Both of the candidates are fine men. McCain, Palin, their campaigns and friends should stick to the important issues of the day and distance themselves from the sleazy mud slinging from which McCain suffered in 2000 and from which he then distanced himself.
Monday, September 01, 2008
Governor Sarah Palin ... to reform means to "re-form"
For short time Governor Sarah Palin being a "reformer" simply means that she's a "re-former." Someone who "re-forms" or remakes her political positions to fit the politics of the moment and audience.
First, Palin was for the so-called "bridge to nowhere" when she was running for governor, and, then, she was against it after she was elected and it became a political liability on the national stage on which she longed to play. And, even when she announced she was cutting the state funding for the project, she said it was because of "inaccurate portrayals" of Alaska bridge projects.
And, for Palin "thanks but no thanks" means "we'll take the money thank you, but no thanks to the purpose for which it was appropriated. We'll just spend it the way we want to" ... like on the road that's designed to link up to ... you guessed it ... the "bridge to nowhere."
Read the complete story here.
First, Palin was for the so-called "bridge to nowhere" when she was running for governor, and, then, she was against it after she was elected and it became a political liability on the national stage on which she longed to play. And, even when she announced she was cutting the state funding for the project, she said it was because of "inaccurate portrayals" of Alaska bridge projects.
And, for Palin "thanks but no thanks" means "we'll take the money thank you, but no thanks to the purpose for which it was appropriated. We'll just spend it the way we want to" ... like on the road that's designed to link up to ... you guessed it ... the "bridge to nowhere."
Read the complete story here.
Friday, August 29, 2008
The Governor of Alaska ... 'nuff said
"I know Hillary Clinton, and Sarah Palin is no Hillary Clinton," Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) said in a phone interview with NBC.
Tuesday, July 01, 2008
perhaps there is hope for the Virginia legislature
Perhaps the parties to the legislative impasse should try to be more like the cat the rat and the dog ....
Friday, June 27, 2008
On Guns --- Welcome to the Land Of Common Sense
Yesterday's gun ruling by the United States Supreme Court may be the first to interpret the Second Amendment but calling it historic may be histrionic.
The First Amendment and the Second Amendment are part of the bill of rights and define the limits of government relative to the citizens. Neither confers an absolute affirmative right on individuals.
The government cannot ban speech under the First; the government cannot ban guns under the Second.
The government can establish reasonable time, place and manner rules for the exercise of free speech; the government can establish reasonable time, place and manner rules for the use of guns.
The government can require a permit for use of free speech in a parade; the government can require a permit for use of a gun.
The government can set rules on where speech can occur (on the sidewalk, not in the Capitol); the government can set rules on where you can carry/use a gun.
Just as all speech isn't entitled to protection (obscenity, yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, slander or libel); the right to possess/use all guns/ammo (assault weapons, armor piercing ammo) isn't entitled to protection.
And, finally, just as the First Amendment doesn't constrain the right of any private person or organization (including colleges and universities) to set whatever rules they want on speech; the Second Amendment doesn't constrain the right of any private person or organization (including restaurants, colleges, concert venues, apartment complexes) to set whatever rules they want on guns.
May common sense rule.
The First Amendment and the Second Amendment are part of the bill of rights and define the limits of government relative to the citizens. Neither confers an absolute affirmative right on individuals.
The government cannot ban speech under the First; the government cannot ban guns under the Second.
The government can establish reasonable time, place and manner rules for the exercise of free speech; the government can establish reasonable time, place and manner rules for the use of guns.
The government can require a permit for use of free speech in a parade; the government can require a permit for use of a gun.
The government can set rules on where speech can occur (on the sidewalk, not in the Capitol); the government can set rules on where you can carry/use a gun.
Just as all speech isn't entitled to protection (obscenity, yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, slander or libel); the right to possess/use all guns/ammo (assault weapons, armor piercing ammo) isn't entitled to protection.
And, finally, just as the First Amendment doesn't constrain the right of any private person or organization (including colleges and universities) to set whatever rules they want on speech; the Second Amendment doesn't constrain the right of any private person or organization (including restaurants, colleges, concert venues, apartment complexes) to set whatever rules they want on guns.
May common sense rule.
Monday, June 23, 2008
Monday, March 10, 2008
The Year in Hate -- New Report from the Southern Poverty Law Center
Not surprisingly, the Southern Poverty Law Center's annual report on hate in America documents that anti-immigrant rhetoric is fueling an increase in reported hate crimes and a resurgence in hate groups.
Also not surprising is that a leading immigration reduction advocacy organization has made the list of "hate groups" for the first time ...
Find the report online here.
See the map of hate groups in Virginia, here.
It may be debatable whether any group should properly be classified as a "hate group."
What is not debatable is that here in Virginia there is growing hostility to language minorities and people of color that is fueled by the anti-illegal immigrant rhetoric.
Anger, hostility, hate ... no matter where directed simply can't be neatly contained so that injury falls only on intended targets. There is already much collateral damage in this war of words, including kindergarteners who arrive home from tears seeking explanation for why their classmates are hurling the word "illegal" at them at school in tones disturbingly reminiscent of the pejorative use of the "n" word.
I hold leaders accountable for the effects of their rhetoric as well as their intent. It is time for conversation among all parties about finding solutions to quality of life issues such as overcrowding and for collaborative approaches to building inclusive communities.
Standing in our corners of the ring, hurling rhetorical punches and epithets across the physical or cyberspace divide is definitely NOT the answer.
Also not surprising is that a leading immigration reduction advocacy organization has made the list of "hate groups" for the first time ...
The most prominent of the organizations newly added to the list, the Federation for American Immigration Reform, or FAIR, vehemently rejected the "hate group" label, and questioned the law center's motives. FAIR said the center was using smear tactics to boost donations and stifle legitimate debate on immigration.
"Their banner may be 'Stop the hate' but it's really 'Stop the debate,"' said FAIR's president, Dan Stein. "Apparently you can't even articulate an argument for immigration reform without being smeared."
The law center's report contends there is a link between anti-immigrant activism and the significant rise in hate crimes against Latinos in recent years. According to the latest FBI statistics, 819 people were victimized by anti-Latino hate crimes in 2006, compared with 595 in 2003.
Find the report online here.
See the map of hate groups in Virginia, here.
It may be debatable whether any group should properly be classified as a "hate group."
What is not debatable is that here in Virginia there is growing hostility to language minorities and people of color that is fueled by the anti-illegal immigrant rhetoric.
Anger, hostility, hate ... no matter where directed simply can't be neatly contained so that injury falls only on intended targets. There is already much collateral damage in this war of words, including kindergarteners who arrive home from tears seeking explanation for why their classmates are hurling the word "illegal" at them at school in tones disturbingly reminiscent of the pejorative use of the "n" word.
I hold leaders accountable for the effects of their rhetoric as well as their intent. It is time for conversation among all parties about finding solutions to quality of life issues such as overcrowding and for collaborative approaches to building inclusive communities.
Standing in our corners of the ring, hurling rhetorical punches and epithets across the physical or cyberspace divide is definitely NOT the answer.
Friday, February 08, 2008
The RTD to Unilingualist Fulminators ... Get Over It
Today's Richmond Times Dispatch editorial defends Governor Tim Kaine's use of Spanish in greeting the pro-America president of El Salvador, complimenting his "hospitality" and "graciousness" to a foreign visitor and calling the fulminators on the internet and in the blogosphere who are bloviating about the Governor's bilingual greeting and the Spanish translation of his office's press release (an obvious courtesy to the Salvadoran press covering their leader's visit) "ridiculous."
Thank goodness common sense and common courtesy are still rated as "virtues" by some who revere (and would save) the Old Dominion.
Thank goodness common sense and common courtesy are still rated as "virtues" by some who revere (and would save) the Old Dominion.
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
Governor Kaine Addresses Illegal Immigration; Offers Facts; Urges "Balance"
Governor Kaine addressed the issue of illegal immigration in his State of the Commonwealth address. He put some important facts on the table and urged balance in the discussion of the issue during the 2008 legislative session. Here's what he said:
“Securing the Commonwealth’s future also means that we must set aside political rhetoric and carefully address the most complex and challenging issues we face – like illegal immigration.
We are a nation of laws. It is our obligation to enforce those laws, and we should continually assess the consequences of illegal immigration.
It is equally important to recognize the many positive benefits of legal immigration. We cannot afford to let supercharged political rhetoric unfairly paint a picture of Virginians as a people who are hostile to New Americans.
The debate about illegal immigration needs to begin with a recognition of steps we have already taken.
Virginia law already prohibits any person who is not legally in the country from receiving state or locally funded benefits, with only a few exceptions, like education, emergency health care and care for contagious diseases.
When a Virginia State Trooper comes in contact with a person suspected of being in the country illegally, he or she contacts Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Eighty percent of those reports made since March 1st of last year have resulted in ICE beginning deportation proceedings.
The state police also participate in regional task forces that target violent gang activity by illegal immigrants.
The Virginia Department of Corrections notifies ICE of any foreign-born offender who is convicted and placed in state custody. Our Department of Motor Vehicles works hard every day to scrutinize drivers’ license applications to determine whether people are lawfully in the Commonwealth, and our Virginia Guard helps patrol the border between Arizona and Mexico to help federal enforcement agents. Virginia has done much to pick up the slack for broken federal immigration policy.
There will be more proposals on immigration this year, and we should scrutinize them carefully. In doing so, we have to balance the need to enforce our laws with a few important realities.
One in ten Virginians was born outside of the United States, and most of us can trace our ancestors back to another country in only a few generations. The majority of immigrants today are legal and fully contribute, strengthening the social fabric of our communities.
Our Jamestown commemoration recognized the positive and transforming power of immigration—and of those that welcome immigrants. Immigration continues to invigorate our culture, provide new energy to our economy, and expand our view of the world.
Did you know that, in 2007, foreign companies announced over $750 million of investments in Virginia, creating over 2000 new jobs? Many of these jobs were created in parts of our Commonwealth that are hungry for economic development. We are in fierce competition for those jobs, and we cannot afford to give the world the impression that Virginians are not willing to engage with people from other countries in global commerce.
And it’s not just about new business opportunities or foreign investment in our communities. Many long-time Virginia businesses, especially in the agricultural sector that still represents the largest part of our economy, are dependent on immigrant workers. We should not punish law-abiding businesses or hinder their ability to grow and create jobs.
In this critical area, as in all others, we have a responsibility to go beyond sound bites, to take the debate seriously, and to spend the time it will take to craft a balanced response to our challenges.”
“Securing the Commonwealth’s future also means that we must set aside political rhetoric and carefully address the most complex and challenging issues we face – like illegal immigration.
We are a nation of laws. It is our obligation to enforce those laws, and we should continually assess the consequences of illegal immigration.
It is equally important to recognize the many positive benefits of legal immigration. We cannot afford to let supercharged political rhetoric unfairly paint a picture of Virginians as a people who are hostile to New Americans.
The debate about illegal immigration needs to begin with a recognition of steps we have already taken.
Virginia law already prohibits any person who is not legally in the country from receiving state or locally funded benefits, with only a few exceptions, like education, emergency health care and care for contagious diseases.
When a Virginia State Trooper comes in contact with a person suspected of being in the country illegally, he or she contacts Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Eighty percent of those reports made since March 1st of last year have resulted in ICE beginning deportation proceedings.
The state police also participate in regional task forces that target violent gang activity by illegal immigrants.
The Virginia Department of Corrections notifies ICE of any foreign-born offender who is convicted and placed in state custody. Our Department of Motor Vehicles works hard every day to scrutinize drivers’ license applications to determine whether people are lawfully in the Commonwealth, and our Virginia Guard helps patrol the border between Arizona and Mexico to help federal enforcement agents. Virginia has done much to pick up the slack for broken federal immigration policy.
There will be more proposals on immigration this year, and we should scrutinize them carefully. In doing so, we have to balance the need to enforce our laws with a few important realities.
One in ten Virginians was born outside of the United States, and most of us can trace our ancestors back to another country in only a few generations. The majority of immigrants today are legal and fully contribute, strengthening the social fabric of our communities.
Our Jamestown commemoration recognized the positive and transforming power of immigration—and of those that welcome immigrants. Immigration continues to invigorate our culture, provide new energy to our economy, and expand our view of the world.
Did you know that, in 2007, foreign companies announced over $750 million of investments in Virginia, creating over 2000 new jobs? Many of these jobs were created in parts of our Commonwealth that are hungry for economic development. We are in fierce competition for those jobs, and we cannot afford to give the world the impression that Virginians are not willing to engage with people from other countries in global commerce.
And it’s not just about new business opportunities or foreign investment in our communities. Many long-time Virginia businesses, especially in the agricultural sector that still represents the largest part of our economy, are dependent on immigrant workers. We should not punish law-abiding businesses or hinder their ability to grow and create jobs.
In this critical area, as in all others, we have a responsibility to go beyond sound bites, to take the debate seriously, and to spend the time it will take to craft a balanced response to our challenges.”
Friday, January 04, 2008
Was Mike Henry right after all?
Much was made last spring of a memo written by former Kaine campaign manager, now Clinton campaign official, Mike Henry, advocating that Clinton skip the Iowa caucuses. Mike's key point was that "playing" in Iowa was not strategic -- that Iowa traditionally was Clinton's "weakest state," that winning would require a costly investment with a relatively small return given Iowa's limited number of electoral votes, and that it would be smarter to focus on winning big on super Tuesday.
Mike's analysis was ridiculed on Raising Kaine and elsewhere.
After last night, could be that Clinton supporters might be wishing that the campaign had taken his advice to heart. At least, she might have had her "inevitability" still intact.
Mike's analysis was ridiculed on Raising Kaine and elsewhere.
After last night, could be that Clinton supporters might be wishing that the campaign had taken his advice to heart. At least, she might have had her "inevitability" still intact.
Monday, December 24, 2007
What is it about the right and bathrooms?
The former child actor who played Zelda on the Dobie Gillis Show, now all grown up and a state senator in California, got a 1999 California nondiscrimination law amended last year (and signed by Governor "I'll Be Back") to include gender as well as sex. The purpose was to afford legal protection against discrimination to gay, lesbian and transgender students.
Now, according to USA Today, so-called "social conservatives" and various religious groups are trying to stop the implementation of the amended law claiming "that the law will permit 'homosexual indoctrination' of schoolchildren as young as 5 and that 'gender-specific bathrooms would also be discriminatory.'" One group is suing to set the law aside as unconstitutionally vague and another is seeking to put a referendum on the ballot in 2008 to repeal it.
The general counsel of the group that is suing says: "This law will allow kids, boys and girls in public schools, to decide their own gender," .... As a result, they have the right to go into any restroom they choose and any locker room they choose."
Sen. Sheila Kuehl, the bill's author, calls these claims "stupid." She says that the bill says nothing about bathrooms and won't make locker rooms co-ed.
What is it about conservative politicians and groups and bathrooms, anyway?
And, another thing ....
When I was in law school working to get the Equal Rights Amendment ratified in Virginia, the two principle arguments made against the amendment by Phyllis Schlafly and her supporters were that the Amendment would make women and men have to go to the bathroom together and it would force women into combat.
As one of my friends pointed out the other day,there are more and more unisex bathrooms around these days, and women are dying in combat.
So, she asked, "where's my Equal Rights Amendment?"
Now, according to USA Today, so-called "social conservatives" and various religious groups are trying to stop the implementation of the amended law claiming "that the law will permit 'homosexual indoctrination' of schoolchildren as young as 5 and that 'gender-specific bathrooms would also be discriminatory.'" One group is suing to set the law aside as unconstitutionally vague and another is seeking to put a referendum on the ballot in 2008 to repeal it.
The general counsel of the group that is suing says: "This law will allow kids, boys and girls in public schools, to decide their own gender," .... As a result, they have the right to go into any restroom they choose and any locker room they choose."
Sen. Sheila Kuehl, the bill's author, calls these claims "stupid." She says that the bill says nothing about bathrooms and won't make locker rooms co-ed.
What is it about conservative politicians and groups and bathrooms, anyway?
And, another thing ....
When I was in law school working to get the Equal Rights Amendment ratified in Virginia, the two principle arguments made against the amendment by Phyllis Schlafly and her supporters were that the Amendment would make women and men have to go to the bathroom together and it would force women into combat.
As one of my friends pointed out the other day,there are more and more unisex bathrooms around these days, and women are dying in combat.
So, she asked, "where's my Equal Rights Amendment?"
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
The Authors of the Abusive Driving Fees Are At It Again
Updated: 12/27/08
Updated again: 12/28/07
-
Having failed to learn their lesson about unintended consequences and the dangers of crafting bills that are just a little too "creative" in trying to get to an objective in a roundabout way, two of the primary authors of the abusive driver fees (crafted to fund highways creatively by taking money from the pockets of people that they figured had no political constituency), Tom Rust and Dave Albo have offered bills that, I assume, they believe will be seen as "cracking down" on "illegal aliens" without generating backlash among average Virginians or incurring political cost for either patron (unlike their last foray into creative road funding).
First, some background. Under current Virginia law, it is a class 2 misdemeanor to drive without a valid license and a class 1 misdemeanor for a second offense. Also, under Virginia law, police officers are required to issue you a summons, rather than arrest you and take you into custody, for any such offense unless the officer has reasonable cause to believe that you will not appear in response to the summons, or that you are a danger to self or others or that you won't stop committing the offense for which the summons is being issued.
So, under current Virginia law, if your not yet fully licensed teenage son "borrows" your car and gets caught driving without a license, he would normally be issued a summons for driving without a license. Or, if you move to Virginia from another state and are caught driving on your previous state's license after the 60 day grace period has elapsed, you would now be issued a summons for driving without a valid Virginia license.
The Rust and Albo bills (HB91 and HB 104) would change Virginia law to say both for never licensed drivers and for those whose license is not "valid," i.e., unrenewed?, suspended or revoked:
Now, the intent of this bill obviously is to require police to arrest any "illegal aliens" driving in Virginia without valid licenses so that the Crime Commission's requirements for post-arrest/post-conviction inquiry into citizenship status will kick in, the denial of bail proposals will apply, and all of these persons will be in jail subject to detainer and deportation.
But, to get there, Albo and Rust have to apply the mandatory arrest, fingerprint and photograph requirement to everyone caught driving without a valid license regardless of circumstance to avoid any claim of racial profiling or discriminatory application.
What will the cost of this mandatory arrest requirement be in terms of lost policing power while officers are transporting these traffic violators to jail and processing paperwork? How will Virginians feel when their teenagers, forgetful grandmothers (an unrenewed license is not "valid,") and others are subject to mandatory arrest, fingerprinting and photographs?
And, wait, the proposal doesn't stop there.
In addition to mandatory arrest and fingerprinting and photographing, the Rust/Albo proposal, HB 104, also mandates that the officer who arrests you impound your car for 30 days on a first offense.
Mandatory impoundment was first imposed in Virginia for driving under the influence and then for 7 days. It is now up to 30 days, but has continued to be used primarily as a sanction for drunk drivers, those adjudged habitual offenders and for those driving on a revoked license (i.e., those who've lost their licenses for drunk driving or other egregious safety threatening driving offenses).
Under the Rust/Albo proposal, however,the officer will have to impound the vehicle of any person caught driving without a license. That includes your family car if your teen is out for a ride with his learner's permit without an adult in the car. And, you might be able to get it back before the 30 days are up if you can prove to a judge that you didn't know that the kid had the car and that it is your only car and having it impounded for 30 days would cause your family a hardship.
Bob Marshall (no fan of the abusive driver fees, but no stranger to creative bill drafting) also has gotten into this act. He proposes in HB 63 that anyone caught driving without a license twice in three years forfeit his vehicle (or the vehicle of another person who knew he was driving it) to the state. (Yup, that means the state gets it and you don't get it back; the money from forfeitures goes into the literary fund which funds schools).
The arresting officer would seize the vehicle at the time of arrest and deliver it to the sheriff. There is another provision in the Marshall bill that appears to say that, if the vehicle doesn't belong to the driver, it would be subject to impound rather than seizure and someone would pay a fine equal to the market value of the vehicle, but the language is so poorly drafted it's not entirely clear what it would do since it's not clear who has to know what:
Now, it may well be that all Virginians will be quite happy to live with the far reaching consequences for citizens and legal residents of the Rust/Albo/Marshall creative efforts to "crack down" on "illegal immigrants". Time will tell what price Virginians, and, particularly, the middle and moderate income people least likely to be able to pay the legal fees necessary to get out of the snare of impoundment, are willing to pay to make Virginia "the most inhospitable state in the nation" for "illegal aliens."
P.S. Albo wants to amend, not repeal, the abusive driver fees so anyone who is caught driving after his/her license is suspended for nonpayment of the fees will be subject to the mandatory arrest and impound requirements.
UPDATE 12/28/07
I asked Delegate Albo if he thought that I had gotten this wrong and promised to pull the post if I did have it wrong. His response focused on the P.S. regarding drivers whose licenses have been suspended for failure to pay the abusive driver fees:
But, even with the amendment Delegate Albo is saying he'd make that leaves teens who are caught driving on a learner's permit (i.e., without a valid license), any new resident of Virginia who doesn't get a VA license within the 60 day grace period, and, arguably, any person who simply forgets to renew his/her license on time subject to the mandatory arrest and impoundment requirements.
Updated again: 12/28/07
-
Having failed to learn their lesson about unintended consequences and the dangers of crafting bills that are just a little too "creative" in trying to get to an objective in a roundabout way, two of the primary authors of the abusive driver fees (crafted to fund highways creatively by taking money from the pockets of people that they figured had no political constituency), Tom Rust and Dave Albo have offered bills that, I assume, they believe will be seen as "cracking down" on "illegal aliens" without generating backlash among average Virginians or incurring political cost for either patron (unlike their last foray into creative road funding).
First, some background. Under current Virginia law, it is a class 2 misdemeanor to drive without a valid license and a class 1 misdemeanor for a second offense. Also, under Virginia law, police officers are required to issue you a summons, rather than arrest you and take you into custody, for any such offense unless the officer has reasonable cause to believe that you will not appear in response to the summons, or that you are a danger to self or others or that you won't stop committing the offense for which the summons is being issued.
So, under current Virginia law, if your not yet fully licensed teenage son "borrows" your car and gets caught driving without a license, he would normally be issued a summons for driving without a license. Or, if you move to Virginia from another state and are caught driving on your previous state's license after the 60 day grace period has elapsed, you would now be issued a summons for driving without a valid Virginia license.
The Rust and Albo bills (HB91 and HB 104) would change Virginia law to say both for never licensed drivers and for those whose license is not "valid," i.e., unrenewed?, suspended or revoked:
"Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person charged with a violation of this section shall be placed under arrest and shall have his fingerprints and photograph taken."
Now, the intent of this bill obviously is to require police to arrest any "illegal aliens" driving in Virginia without valid licenses so that the Crime Commission's requirements for post-arrest/post-conviction inquiry into citizenship status will kick in, the denial of bail proposals will apply, and all of these persons will be in jail subject to detainer and deportation.
But, to get there, Albo and Rust have to apply the mandatory arrest, fingerprint and photograph requirement to everyone caught driving without a valid license regardless of circumstance to avoid any claim of racial profiling or discriminatory application.
What will the cost of this mandatory arrest requirement be in terms of lost policing power while officers are transporting these traffic violators to jail and processing paperwork? How will Virginians feel when their teenagers, forgetful grandmothers (an unrenewed license is not "valid,") and others are subject to mandatory arrest, fingerprinting and photographs?
And, wait, the proposal doesn't stop there.
In addition to mandatory arrest and fingerprinting and photographing, the Rust/Albo proposal, HB 104, also mandates that the officer who arrests you impound your car for 30 days on a first offense.
Mandatory impoundment was first imposed in Virginia for driving under the influence and then for 7 days. It is now up to 30 days, but has continued to be used primarily as a sanction for drunk drivers, those adjudged habitual offenders and for those driving on a revoked license (i.e., those who've lost their licenses for drunk driving or other egregious safety threatening driving offenses).
Under the Rust/Albo proposal, however,the officer will have to impound the vehicle of any person caught driving without a license. That includes your family car if your teen is out for a ride with his learner's permit without an adult in the car. And, you might be able to get it back before the 30 days are up if you can prove to a judge that you didn't know that the kid had the car and that it is your only car and having it impounded for 30 days would cause your family a hardship.
Bob Marshall (no fan of the abusive driver fees, but no stranger to creative bill drafting) also has gotten into this act. He proposes in HB 63 that anyone caught driving without a license twice in three years forfeit his vehicle (or the vehicle of another person who knew he was driving it) to the state. (Yup, that means the state gets it and you don't get it back; the money from forfeitures goes into the literary fund which funds schools).
The arresting officer would seize the vehicle at the time of arrest and deliver it to the sheriff. There is another provision in the Marshall bill that appears to say that, if the vehicle doesn't belong to the driver, it would be subject to impound rather than seizure and someone would pay a fine equal to the market value of the vehicle, but the language is so poorly drafted it's not entirely clear what it would do since it's not clear who has to know what:
Any vehicle knowingly used to commit a second violation within three years of § 46.2-300 by a person who is not the owner thereof shall be subject to impoundment under § 46.2-301.1 and the person shall be fined an amount equivalent to the fair market value of the vehicle.
Now, it may well be that all Virginians will be quite happy to live with the far reaching consequences for citizens and legal residents of the Rust/Albo/Marshall creative efforts to "crack down" on "illegal immigrants". Time will tell what price Virginians, and, particularly, the middle and moderate income people least likely to be able to pay the legal fees necessary to get out of the snare of impoundment, are willing to pay to make Virginia "the most inhospitable state in the nation" for "illegal aliens."
P.S. Albo wants to amend, not repeal, the abusive driver fees so anyone who is caught driving after his/her license is suspended for nonpayment of the fees will be subject to the mandatory arrest and impound requirements.
UPDATE 12/28/07
I asked Delegate Albo if he thought that I had gotten this wrong and promised to pull the post if I did have it wrong. His response focused on the P.S. regarding drivers whose licenses have been suspended for failure to pay the abusive driver fees:
That would not be a 46.2-300 Driving Without a License. It would be a Driving on Suspended 46.2-301, and not subject to my bill. Now there is a argument that a CA could charge under the 46.2-300, so probably need to clarify my bill by saying in only applies to those who have never been licensed, and I will work to get that in shape for session.
But, even with the amendment Delegate Albo is saying he'd make that leaves teens who are caught driving on a learner's permit (i.e., without a valid license), any new resident of Virginia who doesn't get a VA license within the 60 day grace period, and, arguably, any person who simply forgets to renew his/her license on time subject to the mandatory arrest and impoundment requirements.
Thursday, November 08, 2007
2007 General Election: Impact of Immigration
In the 2007 election cycle in Virginia, the results show unequivocally that the issue of illegal immigration did not move voters and that immigrant bashing is not an effective campaign tactic in Virginia, regardless of party.
All across the state, party loyalty, and local issues other than immigration, most often determined the outcomes of hotly contested state legislative and local county and school board races.
Examples that prove the point include:
1) Senator Emmet Hanger (R Augusta) won a hotly contested Republican primary in June during which he was attacked repeatedly for his sponsorship of a bill that would have given a small number of taxpaying undocumented students the opportunity to qualify for in-state tuition. Hanger won the primary 53.01% to 46.98% and went on to win the General Election with over 65% of the vote in a three way contest.
2) Senator Roscoe Reynolds (D Henry) won a bitterly contested general election campaign in which his support for Senator Hanger's bill and his vote against mandating that the Governor enter into a statewide 287g agreement were key focal points in his opponent's campaign. Reynolds margin of victory was 62.84% to 37.19%, a four point change from his win in 2003 in a decidedly less spirited contest which he won 67% to 33%.
3) Even in Prince William County, ground zero for the anti-illegal immigrant movement in Virginia, Senator Chuck Colgan (D Manassas) was reelected by a vote of 54.09% to 45.76% despite his vote for Senator Hanger's in-state tuition bill and accusations that he was soft on illegal immigration. Colgan's margin of victory in 2007 was nearly unchanged from 2003 when he won 54.68% go 45.32%. Prince William Democratic House candidates who chose to try to out do the Republicans by setting out a 10 point plan to crack down on illegal immigration or attacking their opponents for being "soft" on immigration got no benefit from their effort. Three of their targets, Delegate Jackson Miller, Delegate Jeff Frederick and Delegate Bob Marshall only increased their margins of victory seven, six and six points respectively over their election totals in 2006 and 2005.
4) In a Republican leaning district that spans several counties in the fast-growing Fredericksburg area, Senator Edd Houck (D Spotsylvania) won reelection by a vote of 55.95% to 43.95% over a candidate Chris Yakabouski, chair of the Spotsylvania County Board of Supervisor's whose campaign website described him as "leading the fight against illegal immigration." http://www.yakabouski.com/ Houck's margin of victory in 2003 was 59.25% to 40.68%.
5) In a district that supported George Allen over Jim Webb in 2006 by significant margins, Albert Pollard nearly beat Richard Stuart despite Stuart's one-note campaign that attacked Pollard for not being strong enough in his opposition to illegal immigration and for his votes on higher education bills. The election ended in a near dead heat, 50.63% to 49.22%, with Stuart's win dependent on his significant margin in Stafford County where he won 57.44% to 42.31%, margins similar to those enjoyed by Allen in the US Senate race against Jim Webb (55.12% to 43.09%) and where the so-called marriage amendment which Pollard voted against while in the House of Delegates passed by a margin of 64.48% to 35.52%.
6) In Tidewater, where anti-tax candidate Tricia Stahl (R) tried to use immigration to beat John Miller (D) in a Republican district considered out of play until Stahl beat incumbent Marty Williams in a June primary, Miller won convincingly by a margin of 51.01% to 48.63%. Also in Tidewater, Ralph Northam (D) defeated incumbent Senator Nick Rerras (R)(Norfolk) by a vote of 54.37% to 45.57% and Delegate Paula Miller (D)(Norfolk) was reelected 54.13% to 45.86% despite campaigns in which their opponents focused heavily on illegal immigration. Miller's margin exceeded her margin in 2005 when she was elected with 50.27% of the vote in a three-way race.
7) Local races also showed the lack of meaningful influence of the immigration issue. In Loudoun County and Chesterfield County where much has been made of "studying" the costs of illegal immigration and incumbents called for the adoption of measures similar to those adopted in Prince William, a majority of the county board incumbents were defeated in their re-election bids, largely by candidates who ran against the incumbent's pro-growth policies which are at the heart of many of the issues for which immigrants have become the convenient scapegoats (e.g., over crowded schools). One surprising election in Chesterfield was the defeat of an incumbent School Board member by a minority candidate. There is now one minority member on the School Board and one on Chesterfield's board of supervisors in a County that is now more than a quarter minority.
Political Lessons
The bottom line, according to Celinda Lake and Peter Brodnitz and other national analysts on a conference call yesterday sponsored by Immigration 2007, is that candidates who “lean into the issue,” i.e., engage on it rather than duck and cover, can be elected on a comprehensive immigration reform platform that is measured and focused on practical responses to real problems (e.g., Gerry Connally’s platform in Fairfax which carried him to reelection by a substantial margin).
The key for candidates is to communicate actively to voters that they have a positive plan to address immigration. The plan must be comprehensive and include securing our borders and enforcing our laws, particularly in the workplace, and, then, it can address future flow of immigrants and the creation of a path to earned legalization for those already here.
Sage advice from Morton Kondrake in his column in the November 8th issue of Roll Call:
All across the state, party loyalty, and local issues other than immigration, most often determined the outcomes of hotly contested state legislative and local county and school board races.
Examples that prove the point include:
1) Senator Emmet Hanger (R Augusta) won a hotly contested Republican primary in June during which he was attacked repeatedly for his sponsorship of a bill that would have given a small number of taxpaying undocumented students the opportunity to qualify for in-state tuition. Hanger won the primary 53.01% to 46.98% and went on to win the General Election with over 65% of the vote in a three way contest.
2) Senator Roscoe Reynolds (D Henry) won a bitterly contested general election campaign in which his support for Senator Hanger's bill and his vote against mandating that the Governor enter into a statewide 287g agreement were key focal points in his opponent's campaign. Reynolds margin of victory was 62.84% to 37.19%, a four point change from his win in 2003 in a decidedly less spirited contest which he won 67% to 33%.
3) Even in Prince William County, ground zero for the anti-illegal immigrant movement in Virginia, Senator Chuck Colgan (D Manassas) was reelected by a vote of 54.09% to 45.76% despite his vote for Senator Hanger's in-state tuition bill and accusations that he was soft on illegal immigration. Colgan's margin of victory in 2007 was nearly unchanged from 2003 when he won 54.68% go 45.32%. Prince William Democratic House candidates who chose to try to out do the Republicans by setting out a 10 point plan to crack down on illegal immigration or attacking their opponents for being "soft" on immigration got no benefit from their effort. Three of their targets, Delegate Jackson Miller, Delegate Jeff Frederick and Delegate Bob Marshall only increased their margins of victory seven, six and six points respectively over their election totals in 2006 and 2005.
4) In a Republican leaning district that spans several counties in the fast-growing Fredericksburg area, Senator Edd Houck (D Spotsylvania) won reelection by a vote of 55.95% to 43.95% over a candidate Chris Yakabouski, chair of the Spotsylvania County Board of Supervisor's whose campaign website described him as "leading the fight against illegal immigration." http://www.yakabouski.com/ Houck's margin of victory in 2003 was 59.25% to 40.68%.
5) In a district that supported George Allen over Jim Webb in 2006 by significant margins, Albert Pollard nearly beat Richard Stuart despite Stuart's one-note campaign that attacked Pollard for not being strong enough in his opposition to illegal immigration and for his votes on higher education bills. The election ended in a near dead heat, 50.63% to 49.22%, with Stuart's win dependent on his significant margin in Stafford County where he won 57.44% to 42.31%, margins similar to those enjoyed by Allen in the US Senate race against Jim Webb (55.12% to 43.09%) and where the so-called marriage amendment which Pollard voted against while in the House of Delegates passed by a margin of 64.48% to 35.52%.
6) In Tidewater, where anti-tax candidate Tricia Stahl (R) tried to use immigration to beat John Miller (D) in a Republican district considered out of play until Stahl beat incumbent Marty Williams in a June primary, Miller won convincingly by a margin of 51.01% to 48.63%. Also in Tidewater, Ralph Northam (D) defeated incumbent Senator Nick Rerras (R)(Norfolk) by a vote of 54.37% to 45.57% and Delegate Paula Miller (D)(Norfolk) was reelected 54.13% to 45.86% despite campaigns in which their opponents focused heavily on illegal immigration. Miller's margin exceeded her margin in 2005 when she was elected with 50.27% of the vote in a three-way race.
7) Local races also showed the lack of meaningful influence of the immigration issue. In Loudoun County and Chesterfield County where much has been made of "studying" the costs of illegal immigration and incumbents called for the adoption of measures similar to those adopted in Prince William, a majority of the county board incumbents were defeated in their re-election bids, largely by candidates who ran against the incumbent's pro-growth policies which are at the heart of many of the issues for which immigrants have become the convenient scapegoats (e.g., over crowded schools). One surprising election in Chesterfield was the defeat of an incumbent School Board member by a minority candidate. There is now one minority member on the School Board and one on Chesterfield's board of supervisors in a County that is now more than a quarter minority.
Political Lessons
The bottom line, according to Celinda Lake and Peter Brodnitz and other national analysts on a conference call yesterday sponsored by Immigration 2007, is that candidates who “lean into the issue,” i.e., engage on it rather than duck and cover, can be elected on a comprehensive immigration reform platform that is measured and focused on practical responses to real problems (e.g., Gerry Connally’s platform in Fairfax which carried him to reelection by a substantial margin).
The key for candidates is to communicate actively to voters that they have a positive plan to address immigration. The plan must be comprehensive and include securing our borders and enforcing our laws, particularly in the workplace, and, then, it can address future flow of immigrants and the creation of a path to earned legalization for those already here.
Sage advice from Morton Kondrake in his column in the November 8th issue of Roll Call:
For the umpteenth time, American voters this year have rejected a nativist approach to illegal immigration. It ought to be a warning to Republicans: Don’t make this your 2008 wedge issue.
Election results on Tuesday, especially in Virginia and New York state, also should encourage nervous Democrats that they can support comprehensive immigration reform — stronger enforcement plus earned legalization — and prevail.
***
Polling on immigration consistently shows that large majorities of Americans — two-thirds, in a September ABC survey — believe the U.S. is not doing enough to curb illegal immigration, but that almost as many, 58 percent in that poll, support allowing illegal immigrants to earn their way to legal status.
***
In The Wall Street Journal last month, conservative think tank president Richard Nadler wrote that his study of 145 majority-Hispanic precincts showed that “immigration policies that induce mass fear among illegal residents will induce mass anger among the legal residents who share their heritage.”
***
Despite all that evidence, House GOP leaders have staged vote after vote on amendments designed to restrict benefits to illegal immigrants — even where the law already restricts them — and Senate Republicans led the way, joined by nine Democrats, in filibustering the DREAM Act, which would have allowed young people brought to the U.S. by illegal immigrants to earn citizenship.
If Republicans want to destroy their future prospects in increasingly Hispanic, once-Republican states like Colorado, Florida, New Mexico, Nevada and Arizona, it’s their option. But the process could be very nasty.
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
Developing (as NLS would say): Intimidation of Latino Voters in Prince William
When you can't win based on your platform, try intimidation.
There were reports out of Prince William late yesterday that people associated with the "anti-illegal immigrant" movement were videotaping Latino-looking voters on their way into the polls and telling the subjects of their harassment that they were taking pictures to send to immigration officials.
There are thousands of Hispanic/Latino citizens qualified to vote in Prince William County. It is shocking and criminal for anyone to intimidate them when they seek to cast their ballots.
Help Save Manassas and other affiliated organizations should immediately distance themselves from these tactics and call on the Commonwealth's Attorney to undertake a criminal investigation of the allegations.
Failure to do so will send the message that these anti-illegal immigration groups are really anti-Latino ... a charge they continue to deny vehemently.
Time to make the denials credible by forcefully decrying voter intimidation as a political strategy.
There were reports out of Prince William late yesterday that people associated with the "anti-illegal immigrant" movement were videotaping Latino-looking voters on their way into the polls and telling the subjects of their harassment that they were taking pictures to send to immigration officials.
There are thousands of Hispanic/Latino citizens qualified to vote in Prince William County. It is shocking and criminal for anyone to intimidate them when they seek to cast their ballots.
Help Save Manassas and other affiliated organizations should immediately distance themselves from these tactics and call on the Commonwealth's Attorney to undertake a criminal investigation of the allegations.
Failure to do so will send the message that these anti-illegal immigration groups are really anti-Latino ... a charge they continue to deny vehemently.
Time to make the denials credible by forcefully decrying voter intimidation as a political strategy.
Saturday, November 03, 2007
You Don't Need a Crystal Ball to See the Future of Prince William County and the City of Manassas
This ad shows clearly what the citizens in Prince William and the City of Manassas should expect ... loss of businesses, revenues and jobs, empty houses and tax increases to continue to provide basic services.
Companies and families don't want to locate in communities torn by ethnic strife -- regardless of which side they are on.
The leaders in Prince William and the City of Manassas have failed the people in their communities by choosing to demogogue instead of dialogue.
Their failure of leadership has sown the seeds of despair and disparity rather than prosperity.
Once the scapegoats are gone, who will these "leaders" blame for their failures to address the real issues in their communities ... uncontrolled growth, inadequate public facilities and clogged roads?
Companies and families don't want to locate in communities torn by ethnic strife -- regardless of which side they are on.
The leaders in Prince William and the City of Manassas have failed the people in their communities by choosing to demogogue instead of dialogue.
Their failure of leadership has sown the seeds of despair and disparity rather than prosperity.
Once the scapegoats are gone, who will these "leaders" blame for their failures to address the real issues in their communities ... uncontrolled growth, inadequate public facilities and clogged roads?
Thursday, November 01, 2007
Homophobia Doesn't Work? Try Xenophobia
Having apparently learned from Brad Marrs’ defeat in 2005 that gay bashing won’t get him elected in the 68th House District, Manoli Loupassi (R Richmond) has, instead, sought to make immigrants the pawns in his 2007 bid for election to the Virginia House of Delegates.
In a recent campaign commercial focused on “illegal immigration,” Loupassi seeks to mislead voters into believing that some vote of Katherine Waddell’s means that illegal immigrants are being admitted to Virginia colleges as in-state students, occupying slots that would otherwise have gone to Virginia residents.
Such is not the case; and Loupassi knows it is not the case.
A veteran trial lawyer who, by all accounts, hopes one day to become Virginia’s Attorney General, Loupassi certainly knows the basics of Virginia law:
Neither Loupassi, nor any other Republican candidate using this page from this year’s Republican campaign playbook, can point to one undocumented student who has been admitted to any Virginia public college as an in-state student in violation of this settled Virginia law.
Delegate Waddell did not vote to change current law; she did vote against a “message” or “brochure” bill that was completely unnecessary to assure that undocumented students could not qualify for in-state tuition.
The bill did nothing more than provide a “hook” on which to hang Loupassi’s fear mongering campaign commercial – a commercial that is irresponsibly adding rhetorical fuel to an increasingly hostile environment for all persons of color and language minorities in Virginia.
Candidates who purport to be leaders should not have to resort to misleading the public to get elected. Nor should they be allowed to escape responsibility for the predictable effects and consequences of their actions and rhetoric.
Loupassi should be ashamed that he has stooped so low in his reach for higher office, and voters in the 68th House District should, again, reject the candidacy of one who seeks to exploit our fears rather than elicit our best.
In a recent campaign commercial focused on “illegal immigration,” Loupassi seeks to mislead voters into believing that some vote of Katherine Waddell’s means that illegal immigrants are being admitted to Virginia colleges as in-state students, occupying slots that would otherwise have gone to Virginia residents.
Such is not the case; and Loupassi knows it is not the case.
A veteran trial lawyer who, by all accounts, hopes one day to become Virginia’s Attorney General, Loupassi certainly knows the basics of Virginia law:
Virginia law requires one to be “domiciled” in Virginia to get in-state tuition;
Virginia’s Attorney General has made clear that persons in the United States without authority cannot establish domicile in Virginia and cannot qualify for in-state tuition; and
Virginia colleges have successfully defended in court their right to deny admission to undocumented students, regardless of in-state or out of state status for tuition purposes.
Neither Loupassi, nor any other Republican candidate using this page from this year’s Republican campaign playbook, can point to one undocumented student who has been admitted to any Virginia public college as an in-state student in violation of this settled Virginia law.
Delegate Waddell did not vote to change current law; she did vote against a “message” or “brochure” bill that was completely unnecessary to assure that undocumented students could not qualify for in-state tuition.
The bill did nothing more than provide a “hook” on which to hang Loupassi’s fear mongering campaign commercial – a commercial that is irresponsibly adding rhetorical fuel to an increasingly hostile environment for all persons of color and language minorities in Virginia.
Candidates who purport to be leaders should not have to resort to misleading the public to get elected. Nor should they be allowed to escape responsibility for the predictable effects and consequences of their actions and rhetoric.
Loupassi should be ashamed that he has stooped so low in his reach for higher office, and voters in the 68th House District should, again, reject the candidacy of one who seeks to exploit our fears rather than elicit our best.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)