What a profound and comforting assertion, Nova….and the relative percentages of the population, Nova? Ever think of that? :)

I’m glad you’re happy. After yesterday’s vote, we’ll keep sending ‘em your way…

In any event, the chances of my family or acquaintances being murdered are greater for USofA murderers than illegal immigrant murderers.

In any event, I’m a conservative gun rights kind of guy with a devoted 110 pound guard dog. The dog and I will fastidiously extend equal treatment to aspiring murderers regardless of immigration status.

Oh, and Nova…you’re certainly correct; murder is and has been a crime for a long time, and in the case of murder, the end-result is the same — death — regardless of who commits the crime. However, should the murder victim be one of your loved ones (and we would wish that upon no one) and should the perpertrator be someone who shouldn’t have even been in this country to begin with, your tune with respect to illegal aliens would likely change a bit.

Remember more than 50% of the murders in PWC last year were committed by illegal aliens. We are certainly hoping that the influx of your new neighbors won’t cause the numbers in your area to increase, but based upon our experience, extra caution may be prudent.

Battlecat: who’s “them”?

Dude, as long as you’re paying for them, you’re all right with me. We’ll do our best to send more your way.

I have no idea of what you’re talking about in terms of funding illegals. I don’t notice a lot of clamor from illegal aliens for funding or other public support for their activities. If for no other reason than that they’re here illegally, they lie pretty low and just try to work. How much do illegals cost the public? I’ve always conceded that there are probably pockets where there are measurable negative financial impacts from large illegal presence, but, try as I might, I find it hard to find people who have competently established what the magnitude of those costs are on a net basis. In most instances, what one sees is a lot of sound and fury, often in verbiage laced with sweeping cultural and ethnic vituperation, and very little in the way of instructive, reliable numbers.

I know it’s a hard thing to count, but most who’ve done it find that 2Is are net economic contributors. They pay a lot in taxes and claim little in benefits. I don’t think that’s necessarily good thing just because we natives are net gainers - they ought to be visible in the system and incentives for off-book activities (or, more preciesly, disincentives for on-book activities) ought to be eliminated. But I think it’s incumbent on people like you who throw these phrases around to put some substance behind them.

Your BOCS acted impetuously, motivated in large part by political oppotunism in an election year, in smaller part by lousy fiscal stewardship coupled with incompetence, temerity and bad financial analysis. I wouldn’t trust your board with a nickel of my tax money. They didn’t understand the comparative costs of the measures they adopted as weighed against the costs of the real world problem they faced. They didn’t prioritize this issue with all the other issues they face in a time of falling real estate values and other external economic pressures. They didn’t understand (or care to understand) the overall negative impacts of their measures on the economic vitality of the County, the negative effects on public safety by diverting the local police into unconstitutional immigration enforcement or the comparative merits (programmtic and fiscal) of simply enforcing existing housing, criminal and public order ordinances. I think people like you got played by pols and your Board is essentially a leftist tax-and-spend-for-votes (or, worse yet, “don’t-tax-and-spend”), fiscally irresponsible, incompetent governance outfit. Perhpas worst of all, they didn’t understand (or care to understand) that to suck votes out of this issue, one has to exaggerate the impact and talk down about conditions in the County. You can’t mobilize people to go to the polls on this by a nuanced, modulated discussion of the very real impacts of failed federal immigration policy. PW was doing much better when it had leadership that talked the County and its citizens up, not down. It may be something with a considerable cosmetic or atmospheric component, but it brings in business, investment, productive residents.

It ain’t easy being a conservative Republican in Fairfax, but at least (so far) our supervisors have taken the position that if unrelated people (citizens or not) are living 14 to a two bedroom house, enforce the housing codes. If people (citizens or not) are peeing in the streets, arrest them for disorderly conduct, if people (citizens or not) are slitting each others’ throats, arrest them for murder. They haven’t proposed to take over federal responsibilities that they have no constitutional authority to assume or competence to enforce. They haven’t proposed to degrade our police force by turning it into ICE or compromising its ability to get information from within the immigrant (legal and illegal) communities. In this one area, at least, I consider Gerry Connolly to be a more competent provider of fiscal stewardship and rational government than phony conservatives in neighboring jurisdictions (not that I’ll vote for him for Congress, but I’ll give the man his due).

As far as fiscal responsibility is concerned, relieving the taxpayer of the burden of financially supporting those here illegally is probably the most fiscally responsible thing the BOCS could ever do…not to mention the virtue of supporting the law as it exists.

Advocate changes to federal immigration law all you want….that’s commendable, however, until that goal is accomplished, existing laws are to be both followed AND enforced.

Conservatives respect the constitution and favor fiscal responsibility at all levels of government. Not a whole lot of that going ’round down in PW these days.

I’ve been a strong advocate of federal immigration law changes to get the laws on the books to match the reality of current economics. So I guess I fall within even your definition of conservative there.

BTW, what’s the reference to “funding a class of people who want things etc,”? Sounds pretty left wing to me and not like anything I’ve ever advocated.

Further, conservatives do not support funding a class of people who want things just because they are a class and want.

You’re right (about blue passports). Passports had green covers from 1941 until 1976, when the cover was changed to blue, as part of the U.S. bicentennial celebration (I checked the wikipedia). I guess I’ve carried four different colors

Thanks for the clarification.

You’re right (about blue passports). Passports had green covers from 1941 until 1976, when the cover was changed to blue, as part of the U.S. bicentennial celebration (I checked the wikipedia). I guess I’ve carried four different colors.

That being the case NoVA, then you would most certainly understand why I so passionately support the “Rule of Law” Resolution here in Prince William County. And, by the way, I never left those conservative roots.

Is everyone happy now?

Black is diplomatic. These are issued to civilian and military personnel and their families on diplomatic assignments overseas for the government. Red (or Maroon) is official. These are issued to civilian and military personnel for official government business overseas which is not classified as diplomatic. Green is the standard issue. I’ve had one of each (often at the same time) at one time or another.

GREEN? That must have been way before the 60’s when I started travelling overseas for Uncle. The only colors were blue (tourist), red (official travel) and black (diplomatic.) Never heard of or seen a green U.S. passport.

Official (red) passports are also issued to Department of State personnel not on the Diplomatic list overseas.