Driving liberals, dhimmis and illegal alien apologists absolutely insane since 2005...
video production in Manassas and Prince William County

E-Verify On Monday’s Agenda In Richmond

By Greg L | 26 January 2008 | Illegal Aliens, Virginia Politics | 90 Comments

Senator Colgan’s SB 90, which would require that Virginia employers screen potential hires using the federal E-Verify Program, is on Monday’s agenda for the Senate Courts of Justice Committee.  This bill would level the playing field and help ensure that employers who are compliant with federal labor laws aren’t unfairly disadvantaged when competing against companies who hire illegal aliens in order to boost their profit margins.  This is one of the most significant policy reforms being considered this session, and after adoption in Oklahoma and Arizona it made a tremendous difference.

If you want a handy way to contact the members of the Senate Courts of Justice Committee and urge them to allow this measure to be voted on by the full Senate, go to Save The Old Dominion’s “Take Action Page“.  Unless the electorate  weighs in on this bill, and does so strongly, this measure has little chance of getting past this committee.  Once out of committee, the chances of this proposal being enacted rise tremendously.

Strangely, I didn’t hear about this from Senator Colgan’s office, but from Senator Cuccinelli’s.  I hope this isn’t an indication that the business lobby tried to get this scheduled for a vote before anyone realized what was happening.  I really hope this isn’t an indication that Senator Colgan’s dedication to this effort has abated in any way.

The opinions expressed here are solely the views of the author, and not representative of the position of any organization, political party, doughnut shop, knitting guild, or waste recycling facility, but may be correctly attributed to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. If anything in the above article has offended you, please click here to receive an immediate apology.

BVBL is not a charity and your support is not tax-deductible.

You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed.


  1. BattleCat said on 26 Jan 2008 at 4:26 pm:
    Flag comment

    Did the Take Action thing, but I still have a question…I get “you’re not my constituent” occasionally. Is it customary to express support to those who are not your specific legislator. My thought is on these committees, we are all Virginians.

  2. Scott said on 26 Jan 2008 at 4:27 pm:
    Flag comment

    Hopefully it will pass.

  3. es_la_ley said on 26 Jan 2008 at 5:10 pm:
    Flag comment

    BattleCat: “…but I still have a question…I get “you’re not my constituent” occasionally.

    Yea, me too. I usually fire back “Well, if you aspire to a higher office, then eventually I *will* be your constituent and you should, at the least, listen to what I have to say.” Probably doesn’t work, but it lets you vent. :-)

    “Is it customary to express support to those who are not your specific legislator. My thought is on these committees, we are all Virginians.”

    Politicians are [almost] people. They love praise and hate criticism. Lather on the praise!

  4. One Voice said on 26 Jan 2008 at 5:19 pm:
    Flag comment

    Now this action.

    Sure beats asking old folks to prove they are legal……

    This is part one of MY four step approach!!! Part II would be to beef up the feds (THEIR 287 folks and federal courts) with the objected to increase deporatation stats, Part III, would be to just put as many people on the border as possible, Part IV would be to turn immigration compliance expired visas, delays in processing renewals and so forth over to the IRS. Treat illegal employment as tax evasion -there are already people in place to go after tax evaders. Plus they are probably one of the few agencies that work on an annual deadline.

  5. Jonathan Mark said on 26 Jan 2008 at 10:32 pm:
    Flag comment

    It is good to “level the playing field” as Greg L writes. However, some supporters of immigration attorney Faisal Gill from last fall are attempting to tilt the playing field IN FAVOR of immigrants. Perhaps Del. Lingamfelter can explain why he wants to spend tax money for an office that will help immigrants, and ONLY IMMIGRANTS, find work.

    Furthermore, the Immigration Lobby tells us how illegal immigrants take work Americans don’t want, blah blah blah. So why does Lingamfelter want to spend money for an office to help immigrants AND ONLY IMMIGRANTS find work? I thought immigrants were applying for jobs no one else wants, so there shouldn’t be much competition for these jobs.

    HB1174: Immigrant Assistance, Office of; created.
    Chief Patron

    Del. Scott Lingamfelter (R-31)
    Scott Lingamfelter (R-31)
    Woodbridge, VA
    Served: 2002–

    01/09/2008: In Rules Committee

    * 01/09/2008 Committee
    * 01/09/2008 Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/09/08 082535544
    * 01/09/2008 Referred to Committee on Rules
    * 01/21/2008 Impact statement from DPB (HB1174)


    Office of Immigrant Assistance created. Establishes in the Department of Social Services an Office of Immigrant Assistance, to assist persons lawfully entering the United States and the Commonwealth for the purpose of becoming citizens. The Office shall (i) provide advice and assistance regarding the citizenship application process, and (ii) provide assistance within finding and securing employment, housing and services for which such persons may be eligible.

  6. Jonathan Mark said on 26 Jan 2008 at 10:34 pm:
    Flag comment

    Here’s the link to the Richmond Sunlight page on Lingamfelter’s welfare-state Office Of Immigrant Assistance:


  7. AWCheney said on 26 Jan 2008 at 11:01 pm:
    Flag comment

    “Part III, would be to just put as many people on the border as possible.”

    That, along with completion of the fence, has my vote for #1. The remaining parts are largely irrelevant if the illegal aliens/alien criminals (felons losing their legal status for crimes committed) don’t STAY deported!

  8. Leila said on 26 Jan 2008 at 11:56 pm:
    Flag comment

    The planned fence isn’t even enough to cover half of the southern border. If it goes through, if all the lawsuits by private land owners and the environmental concerns, etc., don’t block it, it will cover about 700 miles of a border that is nearly 2,000 miles long.

    Even in the limited area the barrier will exist there is no indication it would be insurmountable. Places that have tried to maintain barriers over much tinier areas with much higher stakes have failed. The personnel isn’t available to man it, the technology as tested fails as much as it succeeds.

    It seems the fence idea exists to placate your movement, rather than as any sort of solution. The fence is as much a fantasy as mass deportation. A policy of draconian sanctions against any and all employers of illegal immigrants is the only thing that would make any difference. Even with a fourfold increase in workplace busts, is there any indication such a sweeping crackdown will happen?

  9. Leila said on 27 Jan 2008 at 12:48 am:
    Flag comment

    This is not even to mention that one cannot deport to Mexico (legally) people who do not come from Mexico. Only about 39 percent of illegal aliens come from Mexico (figures from CIS article). Another 16 percent or so are from other Spanish-speaking countries in the Americas. Even if one fantasized about a fence blocking all illegal immigration from the South, and one imagined that all current illegal immigrants from that direction could somehow be deported to Mexico and other countries in Latin America, that would leave nearly as many illegal immigrants who are here from Asia, Africa, Europe, Canada, etc. who entered on tourist, student, and other visas and overstayed. The proposed fence does nothing against them.

  10. josh said on 27 Jan 2008 at 12:52 am:
    Flag comment

    Leila is surely an expert on fence technology and it seems everything else. even 700 miles of fence is better than none, and from what I saw of the fence it’s not that easy to get over (I’ve seen videos of people trying and failing). Combine the Fence with the measures against the employers is an excellent two pronged attack against the illegals

    I dont think your average group of illegals trekking their way to the U.S. is going to mess with a fence, a coyote maybe but they are “professionals”. I dont believe the fence was meant for those persons.

    I would agree that the fence just means longer for them to walk to get around, but that’s less points that the border patrol has to cover with the amount of people they have. That means fewer choke points to catch the illegals attempting to sneak through. In law enforcement there is a term called “officer presence” basically the presence of an officer may be enough to prevent commission of a crime or induce a person to cooperate with the officer. I think the fence was meant to be the same, not as an “end-all be-all” solution.

  11. Leila said on 27 Jan 2008 at 1:11 am:
    Flag comment

    Josh, a huge proportion of illegal aliens in the US didn’t cross that southern border. I never claimed to be an expert on fence technology, but apparently you are since you have seen a couple of videos of people falling off it. Since hardly any of it is built, one will have to wait and see. I would anticipate methods of breach that don’t involve climbing over. Like I said, countries that have tried to maintain barriers that are a tiny fraction of that distance haven’t succeeded and they had far higher stakes involved in failure. I don’t doubt the proposed fence (if built) will deter some people, but need, like necessity, is the mother of invention.

    The only way to end the supply is to cut off the demand. And I don’t believe that will happen, not in the world’s bastion of free-market capitalism.

  12. Dave in PWC said on 27 Jan 2008 at 7:27 am:
    Flag comment


    You must be smoking something if you think that Mexican illegal aliens are only 39% of the illegals here.

    Look at the fence in San Diego that Duncan Hunter helped build. The border crossings has significantly slowed there, that’s why they keep finding all the tunnels to get the drugs across the border.

    I saw an SBIR (small business innovative research) come out last month asking for a small business to bid on a prototype for DHS to use for an acoustic device that when carried on a vehicle can generate sound waves into the ground that would collapse any tunnels that are running under our border fences. Think of it as a giant boom box…

  13. josh said on 27 Jan 2008 at 8:47 am:
    Flag comment


    whatever you are smoking I want some it. The fence is a deterrent and a good one at that. There fences that are in place seem to work fine, so what about the tunnels? The existence of tunnels show the fence is doing it’s job, making it harder (and more dangerous) for the illegals to get across, can you imagine anything more horrifying than being buried in tons of dirt when a tunnel collapses? a simple google search will turn up plenty of videos about the border fence and it’s effectiveness, I’m not going to do the work for you.

    If we really wanted something that would stop all illegal aliens from entering the united states then we would have placed a minefield along the border (ala’ berlin wall), I dont think that’s the intent here is it? It’s an inconvenience not a complete stoppage.

  14. One Voice said on 27 Jan 2008 at 9:10 am:
    Flag comment

    Fence is impractical. Sounds good, easy to say especially since no one here has to work out the details, but impractical. And, Josh whatever YOU ARE smoking, please pass it along to the feds and the army corp of engineers, they could use your assistance because they can’t figure it out either. :)

    It’s time to look at the math, determine the most strategic approach and act.
    Employers, Federal Expansion of Deportation, Tighter immigration laws and follow up and Border Patrol with authority.

    I’ve had a few experiences myself that make me understand the frustration and anger and I am concerned about potential violence - but nothing is really happening. Nothing, except making the elderly in PWC prove they are legal for their meals on wheels.

  15. Leila said on 27 Jan 2008 at 9:45 am:
    Flag comment

    Josh, the government appears to be switching gears to favor a “virtual” fence. But let’s assume that the actual physical fence promised is built, despite the lawsuits of private land owners, despite the environmental problems, despite the American Indian sovereignty issues, despite the fact hardly any work has been done. Then I would agree with you, as I said, that it will deter some people in the *scattered* places the fence is erected. But the draw is far too great to make much of a difference in the long run.

    Those optimistic about a fence might want to read the complaints of the Border Fence Project.

  16. One Voice said on 27 Jan 2008 at 10:04 am:
    Flag comment

    AW, my concern is regarding the resources the fed have available to carry out deportations of non violent criminals. They only deported 300,000 last year. They have 94 courts that can (by estimate) hear up to 160,000 hearings per year. That is woeful.

    We may want to hope that self-deportation happens, but if the choices are to return to country of origin and definitely starve or stay here and try to work around the system, what do you think most will choose?

  17. Leila said on 27 Jan 2008 at 10:30 am:
    Flag comment

    Some interesting statistics on modes of entry:


    Got to Pew via FAIR.

  18. 999 said on 27 Jan 2008 at 10:37 am:
    Flag comment

    josh said on 27 Jan 2008 at 8:47 am:
    If we really wanted something that would stop all illegal aliens from entering the united states then we would have placed a minefield along the border
    Sounds good to me but to even the playing field, lets give them a map of the minefield in ENGLISH!

  19. Leila said on 27 Jan 2008 at 10:56 am:
    Flag comment

    Being blown up for committing a federal misdemeanor. Interesting.

  20. josh said on 27 Jan 2008 at 11:33 am:
    Flag comment

    One Voice/Laila,

    so what’s your solution? Let them all in? I think you underestimate the power of the govt. If they can whip out 145B for an economic stimulus package they can whip out some cash to speed up deportation hearings. It’s what they “want” to do is the particular issue and it’s election season and the democrats really want those hispanic votes.

    The bottom line is the people are fed up, there is some underlying anger in letting people get away with breaking the law. Do you think this is fair? I sure dont, I want everyone held to the same standard as myself.

    There are laws and they need to be enforced..isnt really that simple?

  21. Ducky said on 27 Jan 2008 at 12:13 pm:
    Flag comment

    When we’re headed into recesssion, the last thing businesses need is more costly government regulations. This is a bad idea all around.

  22. 999 said on 27 Jan 2008 at 12:25 pm:
    Flag comment

    Leila said on 27 Jan 2008 at 10:56 am:
    Being blown up for committing a federal misdemeanor. Interesting.

    That’s their problem. No one is pushing them over the border. IT’S THEIR CHOICE!

  23. 999 said on 27 Jan 2008 at 12:28 pm:
    Flag comment

    Ducky said on 27 Jan 2008 at 12:13 pm:
    When we’re headed into recesssion, the last thing businesses need is more costly government regulations. This is a bad idea all around.

    When we’re headed into recession, the last thing this country needs is MORE ILLEGALS crossing the border. THIS is a bad idea all around.

  24. Bridget said on 27 Jan 2008 at 12:31 pm:
    Flag comment




    The feds and the Army Corp of Engineers can’t figure it out? Please.

    The feds figured out it would work, and that is precisely why they play cat-and-mouse games over the issue.

    If this law can be ignored:


    Why not the federal misdemeanor? Plenty of Americans have been given the death penalty for the “crime”of simply crossing paths with alien “trespassers”.

    As for the Army Corp of Engineers, that laclkuster bunch built the Hoover Dam and helped put an American on the moon. Politics alone prevent them from getting the job done.


  25. Leila said on 27 Jan 2008 at 12:43 pm:
    Flag comment

    Josh, “They” are already in. Nearly half of “them” do not come from Mexico. “They” therefore cannot be deported there, even if that were to happen, which it won’t, ever. Say are there are 15 million people (one figure FAIR uses) out of immigration status here in the US currently. I put it that way because a huge number of them did not enter illegally, but are illegal now. Your notion of money to speed up deportation hearings is kind of ludicrous. Even assuming not a single additional person entered, and assuming, which is impossible, that such hearings were held 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, it would be comical. Any person making a calculated decision of whether to try to stay here would find the odds vastly in their favor. The amount of money it would take to deport all the non-Mexicans to their home countries on every continent is astronomical. If you take park’d’s totally bizarre figure of 30 million illegal aliens, it only becomes more crazy.

    I think the only thing that would work toward the goal you desire is immediate and extremely draconian sanctions on all employers as in you can no longer operate. I don’t see that happening. What I see happening is more attention directed at your movement because it pays dividends in elections, a continued increase of busts here and there, but never anything sweeping, and essentially business as usual because business is a more powerful lobby than BVBLers and their ilk however much noise you make.

    As for it being as simple as needing to enforce all laws and punish all law breakers, it is never that simple. There are all kinds of laws that get very little enforcement in Virginia and other states, as well as federal statututes. The very fact that entering illegally amounts to a misdemeanor is quite telling. Discretionary decisions are made all the time about what laws get the greatest attention. If that were not so, you would have the bulk of American teenagers with criminal records, not to mention their parents. None of this is to say that there aren’t millions of Americans who agree with you that this particular set of laws is the most important thing ever.

    I would support a comprehensive guestworker program and means for those currently here illegally to enter into it, with a potential path to citizenship for those who have put down roots here. I think it is ludicrous, for example, to deport a youth who was brought into this country at 2 or 3 and deport him/her at 18 to a country he/she has had no experience of. I think the key is to be humane and also to recognize the United States’ own historical role in the world, eg. in El Salvador, the source for most illegal aliens in this area.

    I would focus deportations on gang members and others who have committed crimes apart from those related to their immigration status. There are limited funds, limited personnel, and limited time. ICE cannot even handle the tiny trickle it has now. Conditions in some holding camps violate international law. I would place the emphasis on the people who are the greatest threat.

  26. Leila said on 27 Jan 2008 at 12:51 pm:
    Flag comment

    Correction: national law.

  27. Leila said on 27 Jan 2008 at 12:59 pm:
    Flag comment

    E-verify, which has so many fans here on BVBL that I would expect someone’s next child or grandchild to be named after it, has been put in force in a few places. Perhaps it be a great step forward. Or perhaps once it expands beyond Arizona, et al, it will become totally crippled.

    Arizona employers have apparently had trouble reaching officials when they need assistance. Imagine when every single employer in every single state needs to use the program for every single hire.


    Saying the issue of illegal immigrant labor is complicated is not a cop out, it is a reality.

  28. One Voice said on 27 Jan 2008 at 12:59 pm:
    Flag comment

    Josh, of course I am not for “letting them all in”, I am also not for collosal wasteful spending of my tax dollars with very little hope of success or return on my dollar. I am not for action just to have any action. Of course I am for following the law? Of course I don’t think it’s fair. Am I all those things just because I can’t agree with you on one issue???

    Now strategically placing fencing in more urban areas or a wall is not unreasonable, stronger authority for border agents to act.

    More resources for the feds to DO THEIR JOB when it comes to taking the people from the local jails and deporting them. More people are released with a summons to appear than are deported. THAT should stop.

    Not to mention the employers.

  29. Leila said on 27 Jan 2008 at 1:00 pm:
    Flag comment

    Sorry for the typos.

  30. One Voice said on 27 Jan 2008 at 1:01 pm:
    Flag comment

    While I don’t agree with illegals coming here the way they do, I certainly pray that some of you never find yourself in need or in a desperate situation. If you do, think of the things you’ve said about others.

  31. One Voice said on 27 Jan 2008 at 1:05 pm:
    Flag comment

    Lelia - just keeps coming back to the lack of support from the feds. They are a disaster. Just a disaster. Isn’t it strange that they are not trying to stomp all over locals - particularly law enforcment. Fed ususally can’t wait to get involved and take over. How come not now? How come not this issue? Gee…. I wonder.

  32. josh said on 27 Jan 2008 at 1:23 pm:
    Flag comment

    Just goes to show you (regarding all the debate on the issue) there is no one true way to solve the problem. I would like to think that we all believe that illegal aliens are a problem, but the bottom line is that some people who post here do not. That is where my issue lies. We can debate about fences, mine fields, paying taxes, etc..but the underlying issue is that something/someone created a problem and now it’s a big problem and needs to be fixed.

    as far as the comment about being in a desperate situation, I ensure that I take all applicable precautions to ensure I dont find myself in a position I cannot control. And if for some reason I’m in a desperate situation I dont break the law. I’m a firm believer in the rules and believe that rules keep order. I’ve never expected a hand-out from anyone, but I do believe we are giving hand-outs to millions who do not deserve them on a daily basis..that’s not very fair. I include many welfare recipients in this bunch too.

  33. Leila said on 27 Jan 2008 at 1:36 pm:
    Flag comment

    Josh, glad to see you “don’t break the law.” I guess you belong to that extremely small population who have not even once drank alcohol under age, tried a cigarette under age, had sex outside marriage in Virginia, etc. Perhaps eventually there will be enough of you to get a group rate somewhere. Isn’t it interesting how tolerate people are of lawbreakers who consistently break laws for reasons of pleasure seeking, but find it impossible to understand how workers might find the choice between survival and a misdemeanor less than compelling.

    I agree with you that someone created your number one problem, and the someone is everyone. Virtually every American consumes products of illegal labor currently. As Pogo would say….

  34. Leila said on 27 Jan 2008 at 1:37 pm:
    Flag comment

    tolerant not tolerate

  35. monticup said on 27 Jan 2008 at 1:49 pm:
    Flag comment

    The fact that Leila is so violently opposed to the fence makes me wonder–will the fence be even more effective at keeping the illegals out that we hope?

    If the illegals entered via Mexico, they can be sent back there, IMO. Mexico can then send them back to El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, etc.

  36. One Voice said on 27 Jan 2008 at 1:51 pm:
    Flag comment

    Like I said, I hope it never happens to you or any of us. I’ve seen perfect people run into trouble. I have a very perfect friend who is in total control of everything around her. Boy, was it ugly when she ran into a snag. Nothing wrong with that attitude though - it’s just the judgement. That also comes with age. :)

    Regardless, I think the majority of people here think illegals are a problem even if there is no simple solution. It will take a combination of talent, persepctives and ideas to fix.

    But, Josh, think about what I said at 1:05 - since when don’t the feds want to take over the the locals. :)

  37. One Voice said on 27 Jan 2008 at 1:54 pm:
    Flag comment

    Agree with the point of entry. Give them back the same route they entered. Gosh, I never thought about that aspect. Mexico is helping them on their way. OH BROTHER. I need to read a novel or make soup.

  38. Leila said on 27 Jan 2008 at 2:01 pm:
    Flag comment

    Monticup, I did not express violent opposition to the fence. I said it was unlikely to be built, covers much less than half the border, and would not solve the problem. It also would do zilch for the nearly half of illegal aliens who entered this country legally.

    I am curious why you think it would be legal under deportation statutes to send non-Mexicans to Mexican because they entered via that country. By that logic, any country used in direct transit to the United States would also be a place you could deport someone. Under what law could Mexico be forced to accept non-Mexicans, Canada non-Canadians, Britain, non-Britons, etc.?

  39. Leila said on 27 Jan 2008 at 2:02 pm:
    Flag comment

    Correction: to Mexico

  40. One Voice said on 27 Jan 2008 at 2:06 pm:
    Flag comment

    I think I almost agree with what Monticup is saying. Mexico is impacting us…. While it’s not the most grown up approach, it may be a way to work out a deal.

  41. starryflights said on 27 Jan 2008 at 2:10 pm:
    Flag comment

    A country is only as strong as it’s borders. This is why our country is in such a mess. Virtual fences are not much good, unless you are trying to stop virtual criminals for entering.

  42. starryflights said on 27 Jan 2008 at 2:11 pm:
    Flag comment

    Should be FROM entering.

  43. Leila said on 27 Jan 2008 at 2:23 pm:
    Flag comment

    starryflights, you might want to communicate your concerns about a virtual high-tech fence to DHS, because they are the ones advocating one in many places. But it appears you think virtual means non-existent.

  44. Mr. anon said on 27 Jan 2008 at 2:32 pm:
    Flag comment

    I refute the arguement that only 39 percent of illegal aliens in this country are Mexicans. There is no way that any organization can truly claim this figure to be accurate, since we have no way of even knowing how many people are in this country illegally. One thing we do know as a fact is that Mexico has worked to undermine our immigration laws by aiding and abetting their citizens in coming here illegally. The government of Mexico is unabashed in their complicity here. I know of no other country that has set up consulate offices in our larger cities to protect the rights of their citizens.

  45. Leila said on 27 Jan 2008 at 2:33 pm:
    Flag comment

    One Voice, I have no idea if it would be a way of making a deal. I just know that isn’t deportation law. Mexico has no obligation in that regard, just as we would have no obligation to take a Chinese person back from Canada who had settled in Toronto via New York.

    Since close to half of all illegal aliens in the US are not Mexican, this creates a problem for any notions of busing people to the border.

  46. One Voice said on 27 Jan 2008 at 2:36 pm:
    Flag comment

    Well, I am of the opinion that our deportation law need to be overhauled - 94 federal courts, 300k deportations last year, goodness knows how many released on a summons and disappear…….. Considering the changes in the influx it occurs to me that the current process is not working?

    This need to be a summit with Mexico if since our leaders have ignored tihs for the past 15 or more years.

  47. Leila said on 27 Jan 2008 at 2:43 pm:
    Flag comment

    Mr. Anon, I would agree with you that the number seems low. But considering that many Americans in your movement tend to generically call Spanish-speaking illegal aliens Mexicans helps to make the whole matter very murky.

    Here is the CIS article:


  48. Bridget said on 27 Jan 2008 at 2:45 pm:
    Flag comment

    Mexico is impacting itself and throws tantrums whenever there is talk of refusing their spillover …

    This article is from 2001; topical today for the link between the Hernandez character and McCain:




    Mexico needs to grow up, on so many levels:



  49. monticup said on 27 Jan 2008 at 2:46 pm:
    Flag comment

    Leila: We’re “forced” to accept Mexicans, aren’t we? Stop putting up obstacles. We were “forced” to the Marielitos or I should say, weaking Jimmy Carter allowed the criminals to be dumped on us.

  50. monticup said on 27 Jan 2008 at 2:48 pm:
    Flag comment

    that’s weakling Jimmy Carter.

  51. josh said on 27 Jan 2008 at 2:54 pm:
    Flag comment


    now we’re bring pre-marital sex and alcohol into the mix…this is getting quite interesting! Didnt know it was against the law to have pre-marital sex in virginia, it’s a new one on me! What’s the punishment for that? Castration? Beheading?

    As far as drinking under age, I grew up mormon. About the worst I did was drink a coke and I did tell my Bishop about it.

    It totally seems as though you are one of the “open borders” crowd.

  52. Leila said on 27 Jan 2008 at 3:00 pm:
    Flag comment

    Monticup, i am not putting up obstacles, the law is. We are not forced under law to accept Mexicans, we can deport them under law back to Mexico. Please explain how Mexico *under law* is forced to accept people from any other country. To paraphrase the BVBL mantra, what part of law don’t you understand?

    As for the Marielitos, blame the political power of the Cuban exile community and the history of US policy toward the island since the revolution. Even so many years later, Cubans still have special privileges and even the so-called wet foot/dry foot policy (term used by our gov) is not honored. There was recently an article about Cubans now changing strategy to arrive by sea in Mexico who then just walk up to the border, identify themselves, and are allowed into the United States.

    If you object to that, you are objecting to something held very very dear to the GOP, who still like to imagine they are fighting the cold war.

  53. anonymoustoo said on 27 Jan 2008 at 3:08 pm:
    Flag comment

    I’m curious. How are you going to determine a person’s country of origin? He or she can always lie.

  54. Bridget said on 27 Jan 2008 at 3:09 pm:
    Flag comment

    Nothing murky about the term “Country of Origin”.

    I agree with Leila on this one.

    No point in entrusting Mexico with the deportation of non-Mexicans.

    Mexico is frantic enough, as it is, with their ongoing efforts to deport Mexicans.

  55. Leila said on 27 Jan 2008 at 3:12 pm:
    Flag comment

    Josh, like I said, you are one of a tiny group of very pure people. My congratulations. As for not knowing fornication was against the law in Virginia, I guess you never “bothered” to find out :) It isn’t exactly uncommon for American states to have laws on their books outlawing fornication as well as positions and practices they consider deviant such as sodomy, even between consenting adults. But you are safe now. The Supremes’ landmark 6-3 decision in Lawrence v. Texas (2003) pretty much put the constitutional kibosh on all such laws across the country. But if you did anything before June 26, 2003, then yes, you broke Virginia law. The state formally invalidated the law in 2005 after it figured in a civil lawsuit in 2003.

  56. anonymoustoo said on 27 Jan 2008 at 3:19 pm:
    Flag comment

    So, Bridget, enlighten me about the process. If a person has no papers and no fingerprints on file, how can you accurately determine his or her country of origin. If he wants to claim he’s an Argentine instead of a Salvadoran, what do you do?

  57. Leila said on 27 Jan 2008 at 3:20 pm:
    Flag comment

    anonymoustoo, I would guess the country you are deporting the person to could demand proof he/she was one of its nationals. But it’s an interesting question. I would be interested in learning the standards of proof.

    The US certainly does deport Central Americans back to their Central American countries, and not to Mexico.

  58. josh said on 27 Jan 2008 at 3:20 pm:
    Flag comment

    Now it’s getting ridiculous Leila,

    never “bothered” to find out because I never cared too.

    So now we are having a Discourse on Premarital Sex, drinking alcohol as a minor and Sodomy (which you seem to know a lot about). Getting mighty interesting on Sunday afternoon. Maybe this conversation needs to be moved to another type of blog….

  59. Advocator said on 27 Jan 2008 at 3:22 pm:
    Flag comment

    If Leila is so dead set against the fence, it must be a good way to keep the invaders out.

    The point about crossing the border being a civil misdemeanor is interesting. If one lawmaker in Richmond has her way, stealing kitties will be a more serious crime than violating the sovereinity of her country.

    Una Voce, who said, “I certainly pray that some of you never find yourself in need or in a desperate situation.” The reason most Americans do NOT find themselves in such a desperate situation is due to the sacrifices our fathers and mothers and those who came before them made in order to make this country what it is today. You open borders advocates would give that all away.

  60. Leila said on 27 Jan 2008 at 3:32 pm:
    Flag comment

    In the case of Argentina, the person would have been on record since birth with a thumb print. That’s assuming that a simple conversation in two vastly different forms of Castilian Spanish would not answer the question in about 10 seconds. I realize you were just using those countries as examples, but most countries have identity card systems. The US and other countries that don’t are the anomaly.

  61. Leila said on 27 Jan 2008 at 3:39 pm:
    Flag comment

    Josh, I only specified because you apparently doubted I was accurate about the law, which I was not. You also appear not to actually know the legal definition of a term you just used. But I won’t elaborate because I understand your delicacy.

    Advocator, your logic is fascinating. I will definitely remember that if I bring up problems of feasibility about anything whatsoever, it means that said object/plan will work like a charm. It is a damn shame such logic could not be put to the service of policy making in our government.

  62. Leila said on 27 Jan 2008 at 3:41 pm:
    Flag comment

    Sigh, correction to first line above. I was accurate in my description of what was on the books in Virginia until recently.

    Reading about antiquated state laws is fascinating and very easy to do. Although Josh may be sad to learn they don’t all have to do with subjects that offend his delicacy.

  63. Leila said on 27 Jan 2008 at 3:45 pm:
    Flag comment

    Just as I thought. Josh’s delicacy appears to be of extremely recent derivation. I see nary an objection to that recent posting by Greg on anatomically incorrect vehicles.

  64. Mr. anon said on 27 Jan 2008 at 4:08 pm:
    Flag comment

    Leila said on 27 Jan 2008 at 2:43 pm:
    Mr. Anon, I would agree with you that the number seems low. But considering that many Americans in your movement tend to generically call Spanish-speaking illegal aliens Mexicans helps to make the whole matter very murky.

    I have no movement, but am simply here to learn and be informed. I agree with you that many do label hispanics as Mexicans as a general description, and that is probably the wrong thing to do.

    I would like your opinion on some questions that I think about often. Assuming that the current group of illegal aliens are offered a path to citizenship, what do we do with the group of citizens in other countries that have been patiently waiting their turn in line to become Americans? Should we open our borders to all of them immediately, or make them continue to wait until they are at the top of the list? If made to wait, what do you tell them? And finally, by granting citizenship to those here illegally, what message are we sending about the rule of law in this country?

  65. anonymoustoo said on 27 Jan 2008 at 4:22 pm:
    Flag comment

    Leila, that could certainly speed up an identity check in those countries with more detailed identifying records. It seems to me that a country which didn’t want to have a large number of emigrants return could also deny that they had ever been residents or citizens to begin with. Are there treaties or agreements in place to prevent that. ..although a clerk could always have an “oopsie” moment and the record could be lost.

    It seems that a person who lies about his country of origin could slow down any deportation process.

  66. Johnson said on 27 Jan 2008 at 4:24 pm:
    Flag comment

    The fence has made a difference, and the more of it we complete, the more difference it will make. It is not unsurmountable as a physical barrier, that is true. Chertoff wants more virtual fence because it’s cheaper than a real fence (and Border Patrol Agents) and he’s interested in appearances, not results. The Bush clan wants the cheap labor for their corporate supporters. The fence, along with lack of legal employment, the repeal of the 14th amendment, no social services and immigration violation sanctions with teeth will make it undesireable to enter and stay in the U.S. illegally. Ever try to get a work permit in europe? It’s not easy. I’m all for legal immigration. I want citizens, not criminals. The illegal aliens should be afraid to go out. That’s how all criminals should feel. Afraid.

  67. Johnson said on 27 Jan 2008 at 4:36 pm:
    Flag comment


  68. josh said on 27 Jan 2008 at 4:39 pm:
    Flag comment


    I must have missed that one about the anatomically correct vehicles, if you are speaking of the testicles displayed from the back of trucks, I do personally object not because they “are testicles” but because I’m not really into that sort of thing. I think having a bill passed to prohibit them is a bit much though.

    I dont find your discussions of sodomy offensive, actually very little offends me. However i’m pretty sure there are other blogs that can entertain you more if that’s your thing, different strokes you know.

  69. Leila said on 27 Jan 2008 at 4:43 pm:
    Flag comment

    Anonymoustoo, I wish I knew the answer to your question. I mean in cases in which the receiving country denies it. However, I haven’t heard of it being a mass problem. Are you in favor of mandatory national identity cards? I have always been happy to be in a country with a common law tradition that opposes that. I think it is wonderful that unlike so many places, an American does not have to have or produce ID just walking around.

    Mr. Anon, I think legal immigration should be expedited yes. I see such immigration as a strength to this country. I would note that FAIR and CIS and other leading organizations opposed to illegal immigration are also lobbying to get ALL immigration greatly reduced. They are very explicit about this.

    About your other question, I wouldn’t argue for granting citizenship in some automatic sense. But I would argue for a regularization of legal status that is short of that for those who qualify, along with devising some kind of citizenship path for people who have set down roots here. Some kind of penalties could be involved as well. But you are right, any form of legalization would seem to reward law breaking. However, one has to consider the alternatives and their feasibility and humanity. Who knows, maybe the status quo will continue and that would be the uneasy but best course. I don’t know. The previous amnesty was signed by the god of the Republican Party. It didn’t do anything to stop illegal immigration, but that was because nothing was done to enforce laws after it. I have been reading about the successful integration of those legalized by that ruling. That is the flip side few BVBLers talk about.

    Any amnesty of any kind on this or any other issue causes the problem you describe doesn’t it? Do you feel equally about all amnesties or just this one. For example, do you think the US should not have granted amnesty to American men who went to Canada during the Vietnam War? Should they have all being imprisoned even years later? Should any form of forgiveness under law be anathema? What is the difference between forgiving the breaking of a law and not enforcing a law. There are so many laws that go unenforced. There are so many laws the US government breaks as well. There aren’t easy answers to these kind of issues.

  70. Bridget said on 27 Jan 2008 at 5:08 pm:
    Flag comment


    What, does this person have amnesia? Is he/she suffering from some psychiatric ailment that prevents recall?

    Or are you talking about someone who is just a conniving dishonest opportunist, selectivelly mute over his/her national origin and playing the odds game?

    Either way, this person gets a choice - locked up in the appropriate facility - corrections or mental health. Either one might help jar their memory.

  71. The Patriot (Got E-Verify?) said on 27 Jan 2008 at 5:25 pm:
    Flag comment

    Leila, Leila, Leila, why don’t you look at http://www.dhs.gov/ximgtn/statistics/publications/YrBk06En.shtm
    Check out the TABLE 35 Deportable Aliens. Look at the numbers of deportable aliens for the countries of origin. You will find Mexico is the PRIMARY (by leaps and bounds) country of origin…way higher percentage than you quoted. Additionally, you will find El Salvador, Honduras right up there too. All other countries don’t even come close! Oh…these numbers are from DHS (Department of Homeland Security).

  72. anonymoustoo said on 27 Jan 2008 at 5:26 pm:
    Flag comment

    Bridget, I would assume that this person would more than likely be an opportunist. How many opportunists can our jails hold at any one time if this becomes defense du jour, particularly if their only crime is being here illegally? Also there are criminals who have commited more than misdemeanor entry to our country and then become comotose (car wreck, foul play, etc.). What do you do with them?

  73. The Patriot (Got E-Verify?) said on 27 Jan 2008 at 5:30 pm:
    Flag comment

    “Kansas and Missouri to push for tougher illegal alien laws”
    As you can see…this problem is a country wide problem!

  74. The Patriot (Got E-Verify?) said on 27 Jan 2008 at 5:32 pm:
    Flag comment

    “McCain aide, Juan Hernandez:”I want the third generation, the seventh generation, I want them all to think ‘Mexico first.’”

  75. The Patriot (Got E-Verify?) said on 27 Jan 2008 at 5:33 pm:
    Flag comment

    “Arizona law denying in-state tuition to illegals is working”
    See it does work!

  76. josh said on 27 Jan 2008 at 5:33 pm:
    Flag comment


    you make a lot of assumptions….which are completely incorrect. You keep digging into those Sodomy Laws, whatever floats your boat ya’ know.

  77. The Patriot (Got E-Verify?) said on 27 Jan 2008 at 5:39 pm:
    Flag comment

    “But chaos struck during a trip to Toys “R” Us on a frigid day last February. Police pulled over the Baltimore County family’s truck for a traffic violation. Her husband was handcuffed. A month later, he was deported. Adela and her sons never saw him again.”
    Now that is what I am talking about! Nice turnaround time on the deportation! We need to see this in our county…NOW.

  78. One Voice said on 27 Jan 2008 at 5:52 pm:
    Flag comment

    “In fiscal year 2007, ICE removed more than 278,000 aliens from the country including over 41,000 who returned voluntarily to their country of nationality, a record for the agency. More than 91,000 had criminal histories.”
    — from DHS

    I don’t think that’s working……. the math the math…. at the 2007 rate it will take 40 years. If 30% deport, and we assume three family members per deportation hearing we are down to 13 years. Just math just math…..

  79. The Patriot (Got E-Verify?) said on 27 Jan 2008 at 5:57 pm:
    Flag comment

    One Voice…the plan is to continue raids and deportations….IN ADDITION…to cutting benefits and employment from illegal aliens and their families. The benefits/employment piece will send many home on their own. They won’t be able to operate due to the restrictions. They will have no choice. This self-attrition plus deportations is the best solution.

  80. alexandrianagainstillegals said on 27 Jan 2008 at 6:27 pm:
    Flag comment

    McCain wants to get us in more wars

    Makes me wonder if he wants the Illegal Immigrants to join the army to fight his wars.

    As for McCain’s hispanic director….Dr. Juan Hernandez…who btw was a previous advisor to Mexico President Vicente Fox..a person who has dual citizenship with both Mexico and the USA

    He is scary.

    Text from a spot with tucker and tancredo

    And here’s Tom Tancredo recounting how Hernandez told him that Mexico and the U.S. are not two separate countries, but “just a region:”

    TANCREDO: I had a great argument one time with a gentleman by the name of Juan Hernandez who was at that time the minister of that ministry that I just mentioned, the Ministry for Mexicans Living in the United States.

    And I asked him that very question. What he told me the purpose of his ministry was to push people into the United States, it was to—by the way, it was also AFC work with them so that they did—he was with the community, he said. He was three days a week in the United States, four in Mexico.

    By the way, he himself is a dual citizen born in Texas, university—teaching at the University of Texas and on the Vicente Fox cabinet. And he said, “I work with the community in the United States, the Mexican community because I don‘t want them essentially going native on us. We want them continually tied emotionally, linguistically, politically to Mexico, because then they‘ll continue to send money home.”

    And I said to him, that does not sound like—you know, you‘re doing something that‘s actually the act of an unfriendly government.

    CARLSON: Well, of course, it doesn‘t in any way serve American interests. It undermines our country in a pretty direct and direct and obvious way.

    TANCREDO: Tucker, his response. Let me tell you his response.

    CARLSON: Yes.

    TANCREDO: At the end he goes, “Congressman,” in an incredibly condescending way. He goes, “Congressman, it‘s not two countries; it‘s just a region.”

    CARLSON: That is not my view, to put it mildly.

    TANCREDO: Not mine either.

  81. One Voice said on 27 Jan 2008 at 6:42 pm:
    Flag comment

    Just looking at the numbers. It doesn’t look good. Those numbers I provided don’t even adjust for the 800k coming in each year. The fed must qaudruple their deportations - they release too many on a summons due to overloaded federal courts (94).

    If 30% self-deport then we are still down to 9 years assuming three leave on one deportation and no new illegals come in.

    Doesn’t mean I don’t want it to happen, I am just a tired analyst who looks at the numbers and they don’t look promising….. :)

  82. Leila said on 27 Jan 2008 at 6:44 pm:
    Flag comment

    Patriot, your quarrel is with the Center for Immigration Studies, not me. I already said repeatedly that I thought the figure for Mexicans was too low. But that still leaves 40 percent or more who are not Mexican and therefore could not legally be deported to Mexico.

  83. dolph said on 27 Jan 2008 at 6:58 pm:
    Flag comment

    One Voice,

    I don’t think your math also incorporates the time it takes to round up folks. That will not be easy either.

  84. One Voice said on 27 Jan 2008 at 6:59 pm:
    Flag comment

    No, it doesn’t. All emotion and opinion aside, the numbers are the numbers…..

  85. Dave in PWC said on 27 Jan 2008 at 7:26 pm:
    Flag comment


    I know being in the military and me on submarines we both saw some disgusting things a couple of times a week especially underway.

    We got a message one time to surface at a point off the coast of Cuba and take on “passengers”, they were in an overcrowded vessel, all Cubans with their chickens and goats as well. The torpedomen and machinist mates had a lot of fun with those animals… We had about 30 people in our bow compartment plus all the animals, we couldn’t have done a torpedo reload if we tried. The watch spent all the time keeping the kids from pushing buttons and turning valves. It was a crazy two weeks until we got them off our boat. But the ladies were “nice” to us for rescuing them, I was married so I didn’t partake.

    It took us weeks to clean up after the mess left by the people and their animals, so I can understand what it must be like in MP with the chickens and other animals running around.

    I still don’t understand why Cuba has a different set of rules than other countries about allowing them to emigrate if they set foot on our land. It’s been a long time that we’ve embargoed them, I bet when Fidel passes things will open up shortly afterwards. And we can stop allowing them into the country unless they qualify for it. Do the paperwork, follow the rules and so on and so forth.

  86. Greg L said on 27 Jan 2008 at 7:56 pm:
    Flag comment

    We got way off topic here and I had to take down a tangent before this totally spun out of control. I’m putting up another open thread for those of you who found that tangent an interesting topic of conversation.

  87. anonymoustoo said on 28 Jan 2008 at 6:07 am:
    Flag comment

    Leila, I forgot to answer your question about national identity cards. No, I don’t favor them and am glad that this country has been able to get by without them for so long.

  88. One Voice said on 28 Jan 2008 at 9:41 am:
    Flag comment

    I am hearing from folks in Richmond that the pressure from the Chambers of Commerce is going to be too much for SB90 to survive…. Now, just who are the Chamber of Commerce… Hm.

    Glad we are not tied to illegals economically.

  89. Alexandrianagainstillegals said on 28 Jan 2008 at 10:06 am:
    Flag comment

    Well I sent my letters…hope everyone else did the same.

    We could call today as well.

  90. The Patriot (Got E-Verify?) said on 28 Jan 2008 at 2:39 pm:
    Flag comment

    National ID cards should be given to all “guest workers”. It should have their fingerprints and photo on it too.

Comments are closed.

Views: 3439