Driving liberals, dhimmis and illegal alien apologists absolutely insane since 2005...

VA Senate: November Is Coming!

By Greg L | 16 February 2011 | Illegal Aliens, Virginia Senate | 33 Comments

On the very day three victims of illegal alien crime were buried in Manassas, the Senate of Virginia killed ten bills largely on party-line votes that would have helped reduce the number of illegal aliens unlawfully present in Virginia.  As has happened every single session since the issue arose, Democrats in the Senate of Virginia have blocked, delayed or rendered toothless every single measure that would ensure that jobs go to legal residents and citizens, that police investigate the legal status of incarcerated criminals, and that public resources aren’t used for the benefit of illegal aliens.  No matter how many Virginians die, Senate Democrats continue to reject necessary and vital protections for law abiding people because they might make the lives of illegal aliens uncomfortable.

This November every single one of those Senators is up for re-election, and control of the Senate of Virginia is in play.  If we return enough Democrats to office such that they continue control over the body, Virginians will continue to die and the Senate will do nothing.  If we re-elect traitorous bastards like Republican Fred Quayle, we get more illegal alien crime with no effective response from the Commonwealth of Virginia.  Those that stand by and do nothing while citizens are unemployed, while legal immigrant children are abused by illegal alien sex predators, and while the second triple homicide in the history of the Prince William County area is committed by an illegal alien just as the first one was must go.  May posterity forget they were our countrymen.

If they’re a Democrat, they need to go, even if they’re a Democrat who usually does a good job, since their very presence enables Dick Saslaw to control that body and perpetuate the conditions that increase unemployment and abet crime by illegal aliens.  If they’re a Republican who votes to protect illegal aliens from the consequences of their actions, they need to be primaried and replaced with someone who is not an idiot like Emmett Hangar.  We have to clean house, and now is the time.

However if you, dear reader, return to your couch between now and November and do nothing to change the legislative body that has stood so steadfastly against you and your interests over the past years, the fault really won’t lie with the Senate, but with the electorate that put the Senators there.  That’s you.

Make sure your elected officials understand that November is coming, and along with it will come a dramatic change in our legislative bodies.  If the Senate won’t lift a finger to address a problem that results in shattered lives and funerals, we’re going to lift a lot more than that to change the Senate.

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. You can also pingback or trackback from your own site.


  1. Maureen said on 16 Feb 2011 at 9:23 pm:
    Flag comment

    Greg- after checking notes, only one bill out of twelve got out of committee they were getting ready to have HB 1997 voted to go out but decided against it.

    Sorry for the misinformation

  2. Maureen said on 16 Feb 2011 at 10:55 pm:
    Flag comment

    kay my mind is fried there were two bills passed out. E-Verify and HB 1651.

  3. Gone said on 17 Feb 2011 at 1:40 am:
    Flag comment

    Jackson Miller on Fox:


    Why are our delegates protecting criminals and murderers? When they allow illegals to stay here, this is what they are doing.

  4. NoVA Scout said on 17 Feb 2011 at 5:45 am:
    Flag comment

    I haven’t looked at every bill, but odds are good (given the subject) that every one of them is blatantly unconstitutional. What’s going on when the Dems are the conservative defenders of the Constitution? Talk about “The World turned Upside Down” (as the old song title goes).

  5. Josh said on 17 Feb 2011 at 5:59 am:
    Flag comment

    NoVA Scout,

    None of these bills were unconstitutional otherwise they would not have been allowed to pass the house. Legislative Services is an entire team of lawyers in the General Assembly that double check that sort of thing, and if a bill is drafted and considered unconstitutional it comes back with a grey slip and its out of play.

  6. NoVA Scout said on 17 Feb 2011 at 7:15 am:
    Flag comment

    It’s good to know that it has never happened that an inflamed state legislature in Virginia can never pass an unconstitutional statute, Josh. Virtually every anti-immigration measure proposed by states and localities around the country is of dubious constitutionality. There’s a whole lot of grand-standing and profiling going on, and very little mature policy formulation. That Virginia, because Legislative Services stands in the way, can never fall into this pit, is very reassuring.

  7. legal beagle said on 17 Feb 2011 at 7:20 am:
    Flag comment

    Just an observation- As a general proposition, most proposed legislation is constitutional after going through legal review, but unconstitutional items do slip through. That’s why laws get reversed by the courts from time to time. The legal review during the regulatory process is genuine but can be somewhat cursory given the plethora of bills. So the team of lawyers is a good thing but not a guarantee as a practical matter. There’s just too much paper.

  8. legal beagle said on 17 Feb 2011 at 7:23 am:
    Flag comment

    Adding- While relevant, no doubt that it’s policy and political differences that are driving/stopping the bills more than constitutional issues.

  9. Independent Thinker said on 17 Feb 2011 at 8:23 am:
    Flag comment

    I am kind of curious. What is the objection to the use of e-verify that is administered by the Federal government (DHS and SSA)? Even the Federal government requires its use for contractors of the Federal government?

    As I read the paper this morning, only a limited application of E-verify was passed out of committee? Why is it a problem if the law is changed to require, as a requirement of business licenses and business registration, the use of e-verify? That way if an employer chooses not to use e-verify, they could lose their licenses, which is a state matter and not a Federal one.

  10. Robert L. Duecaster said on 17 Feb 2011 at 9:56 am:
    Flag comment

    Most of the bills were scrutinized by the legislative support team not only this session, but in several prior sessions. The bills have as much chance (if not more) of withstanding a constitutional challenge as not. Their potential constitutionality was not the reason for them being voted down. The Democrats have alligned themselves with illegal aliens. From the President on down to your local city councilman, county supervisor, and commonwealth attorney. It’s that simple, folks. You’ve been sold out by that political party, and the other one, with few exceptions, has not had the spine to stand up and call it like it is.

    Your country has been given away by the likes of Dick Saslaw, George Allen, Frank Wolf, Tim Kaine, Paul Ebert, Frank Principi, and on and on and on.

    The question is, do YOU have the stones to take it back?

  11. ddpdrinker said on 17 Feb 2011 at 12:03 pm:
    Flag comment

    Don’t expect anything support from Colgan. His new wife is of Latino descent and on the Commonwealth of Virginia’s Commission on Immigration.

  12. M. Park Voter said on 17 Feb 2011 at 12:13 pm:
    Flag comment

    Jackson Miller for Senate!

  13. Citizen12 said on 17 Feb 2011 at 12:59 pm:
    Flag comment

    On what grounds would any law passed by the state legislature be unconstitutional in dealing with illegal aliens? As it is the U.S. Constitution and not the Constitution of the World, it was intended for the citizens of the United States only.

    The 14th amendment states:

    No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    One might argue that as it stands; any provisions extended to non U.S. Citizen would be a non binding courtesy reflective of the civility of its citizenry and legislative body.

  14. Robert L. Duecaster said on 17 Feb 2011 at 1:11 pm:
    Flag comment

    Citizen 12:

    The Supreme Court decided so long ago I’ve forgotten the case that the words in the 14th Am, “any person,” means that our Constitutional rights apply to everyone within the jurisdiction of the U.S, not just its citizens.

    When I was a young Army JAG Corps officer in Panama, the local commander took it upon himself to approve the forced hospitalization of a Panamanian national and wife of a soldier into the Army hospital’s mental ward. I was appointed her “legal representative” so that he’d have some cover and could say she had legal representation. Little did he know that I knew how to draft a petition for habeas corpus and I threatened to file it in the Eastern District of Virginia (proper venue for the Pentagon) if he didn’t let her out. She was out in five minutes.

    My point is, any law must withstand constitutional scrutiny, and an unconstitutional one cannot escape that scrutiny because it only applies to non-citizens. Trust me, you would not want to live in a country without that rule. I have, and it ain’t purty.

    But I really don’t think constitutionality was an issue with any of these bills.

  15. Citizen12 said on 17 Feb 2011 at 1:57 pm:
    Flag comment

    Robert L. Duecaster:

    Thanks for the speedy reply. I was expecting that based on other things I have read.

    It just goes to show that the Supreme Court, like everyone else, is not infallible.

    Based on that, would it not seem that if a law applied to everyone, but had a negative effect on illegal aliens only, would still be constitutional?

    That a law would affect negatively only illegals aliens seems to be at the core argument of every pro illegal activist. And it would seem is at the core of elected representative opposition.

  16. Robert L. Duecaster said on 17 Feb 2011 at 2:15 pm:
    Flag comment

    [Based on that, would it not seem that if a law applied to everyone, but had a negative effect on illegal aliens only, would still be constitutional?]

    It could be constitutional even if its negative effects were directed only against illegal aliens. If however, in its application, it was found to be applied only to those of a certain race, it would violate the equal protection clause of the amendment you quoted in your previous post.

    That’s why the supporters of illegal aliens are constantly trying to get us to refer to “Hispanics” and “Illegal Aliens” synonomously. If they can get us to fall into that trap, their argument for the unconstitutionality of laws directed against illegal aliens has more weight.

    As for me, illegal is illegal. The Canadians taking jobs away from unemployed Michiganers are just as bad as the El Selfadorans committing crimes around here. Although I couldn’t blame Michiganers if they recruited some Canucks for UM’s offensive line.

  17. Robert L. Duecaster said on 17 Feb 2011 at 2:19 pm:
    Flag comment

    Incidentally, Citizen 12, the Supremes are not infallible, but there’s no appeal from them. Their decisions are the law of the land, that we’re all bound to follow.

  18. Just Sayin' said on 17 Feb 2011 at 2:21 pm:
    Flag comment

    Not to be picky but Constitutional rights do not apply to everyone in the jurisdiction of the U.S. For example, if you are a felon, your right “To keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”; will be infringed. Also, you lose the “right” to attain public office and in most jurisdictions you may no longer vote in national elections, I believe.

    Are “aliens illegally in the United States” allowed to purchase handguns in the Commonwealth? If they petition for habeas corpus, can they then purchase a handgun? I don’t think so.

    These provisions were designed to act as a deterrent or punishment for crimes against the United States (felonies). Violating the national border should be among the crimes against the United States and when these crimes are committed the offenders should be prosecuted. By definition, aliens illegally in the United States are fugitives from justice and can be arrested on the spot anytime anywhere. The proper punishment is deportation which causes the crime to cease. Putting the offender in jail for any length of time just prolongs the crime because, at some point, they will be released. And again be just as guilty of being an alien illegally in the United States.

    You mentioned living in countries that don’t have a law similar to our habeas corpus. However, if you cross their into their country by crossing the border illegally, what happens?

  19. Robert L. Duecaster said on 17 Feb 2011 at 2:53 pm:
    Flag comment

    I can’t disagree with you, JS.

  20. Citizen12 said on 17 Feb 2011 at 3:13 pm:
    Flag comment

    Robert L. Duecaster

    Thanks for clearing that up. I am in agreement in that illegal is illegal. It’s not deep.

    As far as MU goes, perhaps a guest worker/ student exchange program? After all, we got a Michigander playing for the Vancouver Canucks now.

  21. legal beagle said on 17 Feb 2011 at 5:32 pm:
    Flag comment

    For those interested in the constitutionality of restrictions on the right to bear arms as a basis for limiting rights of illegals aliens, a good place to start is the 2008 Heller decision by the Supreme Court of the United States. It’s easy to find through a Google search.

    Remember, however, the admonition that “hard facts make bad law.” I agree that it is very attractive to deny gun ownership rights to illegals of all types. To be clear, it is attractive to me. It’s a facially rational position to take.

    But to take that position you need to take a relatively activist judicial position: The constitution means what is says except when we don’t want it to. That, then, gives government authorities any number of opportunities to shave a bit more of literal meaning off the constitution.

    Fellow law graduate Duecaster (or others), thoughts?

  22. Kris Day said on 17 Feb 2011 at 7:09 pm:
    Flag comment

    Robert L. Duecaster

    You wrote earlier that George Allen has not been supportive of anti-illegal immigration efforts. I was kind of leaning towards supporting his Senate bid. Any ideas of who you would like to see instead? (I wish I could vote for Jackson Miller…)

  23. Cynic said on 17 Feb 2011 at 7:11 pm:
    Flag comment

    Vacant positions in Wisconsin State Senate!

    Democrats skipped out - don’t have the guts to address the State’s dire financial problems.

    Why not replaced these Whimpering Wimps of Democracy with illegals!

  24. Patty said on 17 Feb 2011 at 7:16 pm:
    Flag comment

    Rob and Just Sayin’,

    I wish you could post your comments on Bearing Drift. Mr. Brian W. Shoeneman seems to be incapble of understanding the difference between illegal aliens and US citizens.


    You need to include Shaun Kenney and his supporters.

    By the way, my comments are now blocked on Bearing Drift. I believe because I posted a link to a report about another illegal alien committing a crime, sexual assault, that Mr. Kenney just couldn’t take the truth anymore.

  25. Pat said on 17 Feb 2011 at 8:21 pm:
    Flag comment

    yup, all those Democrats in Washington are to blame. The Republican Administration before this Administration was just doing such a good job.

  26. Citizenofmanassas said on 17 Feb 2011 at 10:53 pm:
    Flag comment


    We are talking about the General Assembly, not Congress or the President. The liberals in the General Assembly Senate have blocked attempts to crack down on illegals for years. So in affect, they are endorsing the many crimes committed by illegals.

  27. Disgusted said on 18 Feb 2011 at 9:15 am:
    Flag comment

    Legislative Services does not kill a bill if it is deemed to be unconstitutional by their analysis. They attach to the bill something called a “Gray Sheet” or “Gray Slip” (forgive for not remembering) that will explain their interpretation of the unconstitutional provisions. It is still the patron’s decisions, likely with the concurrence of his/her caucus, to continue with the bill. I watched Del. Morrissey in the HOD prattle on about some bill that had such a sheet, asking for it to go by for the day. The majority voted down his motion and then passed the bill.

  28. Black Saint said on 18 Feb 2011 at 12:44 pm:
    Flag comment

    Citizenship has been downgraded by not enforcing our laws and having millions of Illegal Aliens breeding Anchor babies while we pay their medical bills for breeding like cockroaches!

    We are the only country in history that deliberately changed its ethnic makeup, and history has few examples of ‘diversity’ creating a stable society.

    The federal government has facilitated, supported and assisted the largest invasion in World history of any Nation, at Any time, by Any means as ten,s millions of illegal aliens marched across our borders to wreak havoc on our schools, communities, jobs, hospitals, language, prisons, Standard of Living, and Welfare system.

    Over 20,000 members of MS-13 gangs distribute $130 billion in drugs yearly. We pay for 400,000 babies born to illegal alien mothers annually. We suffer 28 million Americans on food stamps because ILLEGALS downgrade wages and take jobs from our working poor.

    Now our successful culture finds itself turning into the same type of society the Invading horde have built, sustained and maintained for hundreds of years! A society of Corruption, Crime, Poverty and Misery a failed Society and Culture that they are recreating here in the USA!

    Mexicans do not respect the rule of law in Mexico or here. Corruption is so prevalent in Mexico it is embedded in their DNA.

    Because of the flood of ILLEGAL Mexicans into the USA and having a Corrupt government that cares more about votes than American Citizens or this Nation,s future, we are doomed as a nation.

    Our country’s scholastic scores keep dropping while Asia’s keep rising. In 15 years the United States will be an economic cesspool like Mexico, full of barrios and criminals.

    What’s so sad what millions have fought, died and built with Blood, Sweat, and Tears our Corrupt Politicians are giving away for Latino votes!

    Our Nation and our future for our Kids are being destroyed by our own Corrupt government.

  29. Black Saint said on 18 Feb 2011 at 12:45 pm:
    Flag comment

    Mexicans and Hispanics sneak into this country because they have breed their selves out of living space the same way some insects and animals do and must migrate to find enough space and food to repeat the process!

    They earn more here in a half day’s work than they do in a week at home. The water is cleaner, the medical care (which they get for FREE) is much better, they get low-cost (or free) housing, don’t pay taxes, drive without licenses and insurance, attend schools for free (with 2-3 daily meals included, courtesy of Uncle Sam), get welfare, food stamps, Slaughter approx. 25 American Citizens per day commit 10,s of thousands other crimes per year and to top it all off, we reward their criminal behavior by offering everything in their native language.

    For all of this royal treatment, are they grateful? OF COURSE NOT. THEY’RE CONSTANTLY FURIOUS AT US and demanding More while turning this Nation into the same type of Cesspool they created in their own countries! You would think they are the Citizens because of their in your face demanding ways and legal American Citizens are the invading horde of Parasites!

    We’ve given them the shirt off every taxpayer’s back, but they want MORE. When do legal American CITIZENS not have the right to get angry, without being called RACIST?

  30. Anonymous said on 18 Feb 2011 at 1:53 pm:
    Flag comment

    ddpdrinker said on 17 Feb 2011 at 12:03 pm: Flag comment

    Don’t expect anything support from Colgan. His new wife is of Latino descent and on the Commonwealth of Virginia’s Commission on Immigration.

    No wonder he claims there are no illegals here!

  31. Robert L. Duecaster said on 18 Feb 2011 at 3:42 pm:
    Flag comment

    @Leagle Beagle:

    I’m not convinced the 2d AM right to bear arms was intended to apply to non-citizens. The purpose of the right was to insure a “well-regulated militia.” A militia could only be comprised of persons loyal to the state. That would not (arguably) include non-citizens. Therefore, I think the exclusion of illegal aliens from that particular right is consistent with the original intent of the Amendment.

  32. Robert L. Duecaster said on 18 Feb 2011 at 3:47 pm:
    Flag comment


    I’ve not made up my mind whom I will support for Webb’s seat yet, but I assure you, I will oppose George Allen. I would have voted for Webb had he run again versus that self-indulgent, inherently stupid drugstore cowboy who gave the pervertocrats control of the Senate.

  33. zuzu said on 18 Feb 2011 at 10:27 pm:
    Flag comment

    Well, really,….after the “macaca” slip, Allen probably doesn’t dare say anything about illegal aliens, even if he wanted to!

Leave a Reply

Views: 2187