Unfortunately for those who support Frederick/Marshall, this legislation offers nothing constructive. It’s a lot of hot air designed to stir the base into action. And there’s likely going to be no money from the no/low tax crowd to support any of the localities.

As an Independent who is socially liberal and fiscally (not stingily, but responsibly) more conservative, I’d like to see politicians ratchet down the fear mongering (code yellow, code red, bird flu, terrorists at the door, leprosy in the ice cream,illegal aliens ready to slit everyone’s throat and steal his/her tax dollars) and come up with viable solutions to the problems that the average person faces not just the lunatic fringe of each party. And…if you want some serious problems to confront, consider China, the US debt, our over-reliance on service jobs, our over-extended military. If you want issues that have the ability to ruin this country, consider those.

I just see the writing on the wall from the liberal PR machine in Richmond ready to attack all this contructive legislation. They will incorrectly paint a picture of guards keeping small children out of libraries if ANY services are cut-off from the illegal community.

Clean it up in ‘07, parks and libraries are merely an example of services that would not be cost effective to deny. Oh, and as a liberal, I value those two services and realize that that runs counter to what some right-wingers feel to be the most important goals of government - hunting down neighbors, snooping in bedroom windows, and running abortion clinics out of town. Hmmm…libraries and parks ( communion with the great outdoors and expansion of our minds) or a hate and anger filled agenda. The choice seems a no-brainer to me.

I think we might all be debating the same thing. My only issue would be that you feel our delegates are smart enough not to paint us into a corner. I am not so sure about that. One of my mantras is to beware of unintended consequences. I adopted that one years ago after the 26th amendment passed. It sounded like such a harmless amendment, giving 18 year olds the right to vote. In essence, it stripped parents of many parental rights, and had many other reprocussions that no one had thought of, once the courts got involved.

First of all, how does anyone know what specifically will be cut-off in this legislation based on the wording of the specific bill that is passed? The opposition to this legislation and the standard line used by the pro-illegal alien crowd is that the attempts to cut off services means that parks and libraries will be shut off to illegal aliens. Or..if you DO want to shut them off to illegals than enforcing the law so the County is in compliance costs more than the state aid that will be lost. This has been used to get everyone all fired up against what are sensible measures to cut-off other costly services that are ILLEGALLY going to illegals. The library and park issue is a non-issue and quite frankly is a huge distraction and red herring here. Yes…I guess technically if you say ALL public services are cut off that it will include anything that is publically funded, but that will not be the aim, nor the intent of the new bills which will be introduced in the General Assembly. Our Delegates are smart enough to not give the opposition that kind of ammunition and I can assure you that those small technicalities will be dealt with constructively in the legislation.

Step back and think about this whole debate and follow the logic of enforcing illegals using parks or libraries and whether PWC is in complience of any legislation that bans providing services. The fact that the illegal is even IN the County in the first place is “technically” a violation of a number of laws. Why would we get worked up about specifically enforcing the use of libraries and parks when there is a much more global problem to deal with — problems that cost the County more than all the parks and libraries combined.

I honestly feel you have misread her. I believe she is saying that should legislation such as mentioned above go through, then Pr Wm Co would not be in compliance since not all services were cut off. Some services were not cut off because it simply was not cost effective to do so. Perhaps I am wrong but that is my read on what she is stating.

With all due respect to you, Anonymoustoo is splitting hairs and trying to debate every nuance in the language of a piece of legislation that hasn’t been written yet. I suspect it is for the usual purpose — to whip the illegal alien community into a frenzy with lies for PR purposes.

I still don’t think some folks are getting what you said. Seems pretty obvious to me. It is probably because they chose not to get it.

Certain localities in the Commonwealth of Virginia thumb their noses at obeying the law, so why should legal, taxpaying citizens subsidize these localities? Frederick’s legislation will deny state funding for these localities in violation.

You and your “ilk” just use the scare tactics of parks and libraries because you choose to scare and throw panic into the very people that you purport to want to help. When will the majority of illegal aliens realize their so-called “leaders” and “spokesmen” are just using them as pawns in a silly, non-winnable power struggle?

By the way, changing demographics in a neighborhood have nothing to do any of this — either you obey the law or you are in violation of the law. This is all pretty simple.

Perhaps you’d like to explain why PWC wouldn’t be in violation of what Frederick proposes above:

“Del. Jeff Frederick, R-Prince William County, is drafting legislation that would financially punish counties and other local jurisdictions that provide any public services to illegal immigrants, except those required by federal law.”

Do you see the word “any”? Isn’t the use of libraries and parks a service? So, as I understand it, PWC has decided to still offer these services because it’s cheaper than denying them and in the case of libraries legally questionable as well. If PWC had to adhere strictly to what Frederick proposes, it will cost the taxpayers more to offer those services. Do you get my point? Or could it be that Frederick and Marshall are playing you guys as Stewart did?

I see that you like to sling derogatory names at those with whom you disagree - “illegal alien apologists”, “ilk”. Should I call you a xenophobe apologist? Would that be accurate? Talk about party speak…”aiding and abetting”, “cherry picking laws”. I’m not the one running around screaming “the sky is falling” or “the ice cream vendors may have leprosy” because the demographics in a few neighborhoods have changed.

We all have to work very hard to get these and other bills pushed through the House and Senate. The votes are probably not there. But like it was pointed out earlier, at least we’ll know who is who when the votes come in.

Here you go with that “they will stop them from using parks and libraries” lie again. You are taking this out of the liberal playbook. Whenever there was talk of actually slowing down a government spending binge, the libs would scream the government can’t operate without all the tax revenue…my gosh…”parks and libraries will need to be shut down.”

Now you and the other illegal alien apologists have borrowed this same tired page from the “sky is falling” playbook by saying that illegals will be stopped at the entrances of public pools, libraries, and parks. You’re probably disappointed to hear that it won’t happen. This isn’t some witchunt to purposely punish people. This is about stopping those who are here illegaly from taking benefits that should go to people here LEGALLY (Hispanic or otherwise). These are not bottomless funds we are talking about and it is important now more than ever for local and state governments to simply enforce the law and maybe start to get a handle on their huge, overburdened budgets…nothing more and nothing less.

I’m sick of this attitude from you and your ilk that legal citizens must follow all laws while you assist the illegal aliens in cherry picking laws and obey only the laws that suit your current purposes. Can you say aiding and abetting?

Being a Dillon rule state is bad enough. Now you want localities to have even fewer choices?

Policy allows illegals to attend college
http://news14.com/content/headlines/590086/policy-allows-illegals-to-attend-college/Default.aspx