Guest contributor Eric Byler weighs in on the Immigration Resolution, the tragic fatal wreck, and comprehensive immigration reform. He has been out in Phoenix as well as other areas, watching the immigration issue unfold before his eyes. He has talked to many people and heard a variety of opinions in his travels.
Any statements and opinions by guest contributors do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the administrators of moonhowlings.net.
The fact that this drunk driver was turned over to ICE in 2008, after the
“Immigration Resolution” was put into effect, brings up some real
questions about the wisdom of expensive policies at the local level
that redirect the time and resources of local law enforcement toward a
focus on immigration status rather than public safety. For 2 months
in the spring of 2008, the policy in Prince William County was very
similar to that proposed in Arizona’s SB 1070. But we corrected our
course on April 29, 2008 so that we check the status of ALL
individuals who are arrested for an underlying crime, rather than
people out on the streets who have not committed underlying crimes but
fit a “probable cause” standard. Just about everyone in our county
agrees that the repeal of the “probable cause” mandate made for a more
effective, more fiscally responsible, and more legally defensible
policy. Still it did not prevent this tragedy.
Until we have Comprehensive Immigration Reform, local jurisdictions
that send large volumes of people to ICE are essentially adding more
sand to the top of a funnel (to borrow an analogy made by Supervisor
John Jenkins, Sept. 18, 2007). The output at the bottom of the funnel
is slowed by the same limitations that existed before. Federal
authorities have limited time and limited resources, just like local
authorities do. And, they need to be cautious so as not to mistakenly
detain or deport a U.S. citizen or legal resident. The more voluminous
the workload for federal authorities, the harder it is for them to
determine who to prioritize, i.e. those who are truly a threat to
public safety.Comprehensive Immigration Reform will require all persons unlawfully
present to register with the federal government. This will reduce the
workload for ICE because, then, their focus will be those who choose
not to register — presumably a much smaller number, and, if we are primarily
concerned with finding people who may present a danger to society,
this will be a good place to start. But as long as Immigration and
Customs Enforcement is expected to process a hundred soccer moms and
janitors for every drunk driver or drug dealer, the system will remain
broken and cases like this will be more likely instead of less likely.
Local enforcement of federal immigration law can be effective if it
is done right — and many would say we’re doing it as well as it can be
done in Prince William County — but this case makes it clear that
local law enforcement cannot be the only solution.
It is also exceedingly clear that the elitists who run our government won’t do their job, though. So three cheers for Arizona and PWC for showing the government up, keeping the issue burbling (particularly on FOX News), and forcing the government’s hand forward.
it’s paradoxical. There needs to be federal support for law enforcement to work. Yet they won’t do it by themselves. We the people need to force their hand, working at the local level.
“Comprehensive Immigration Reform will require all persons unlawfully
present to register with the federal government. This will reduce the
workload for ICE because, then, their focus will be those who choose
not to register ”
That’s a prerry farcical viewpoint. As if the information provided, based on which Amnesty would be granted, would be worth the paper it’s printed on (or the magnetic particles it’s recorded on). The dirty secret of this line of thinking is that it’s yet another open invitation to fraud. Unless and until the border is actually secure, and our workplaces actually unable to hire illegal laborers, no such approach is conceivable. How are we to know someone’s been here for ten years vs. 10 days? Or been driving drunk repeatedly using fake IDs? Any such approach will probably cause an influx of illegal immigrants, all of whom will say they’ve been here “seven years”, “three years”, whatever the cutoff point is for Amnesty, and been good citizens the whole while. This comedy must stop.
Guest worker program, for those who haven’t been here yet, everyone who snuck in must go home. Be mad glad happy or sad, that’s the way this is going to go down eventually. Amnesty is absolutely impossible politically until the border is secure. And when it’s secure, there’s no rationale for bestowing citizenship on a bunch of crooks and identity theives.
Congratulations to EB for shaping Roger Ebert’s whole view of the PWC resolution and successfully misinforming one of America’s best-known movie critics with your film “9500 Liberty”. All those hours spent trying to work out a storyline that could falsely define what happened here affected Ebert, anyway. I doubt that you changed a single heart or mind in PWC though.
“The two mission sets are criminal analysts and enter-identification team,” Harrison told CNSNews.com. “I can tell you that guardsmen will not be doing direct law enforcement on the southwest border.”
Remember those 1200 Guardsmen that Obama was sending to help secure the border?
Not so much.
http://l.wbx.me/l/?p=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fnewsbusters.org%2Fblogs%2Fedwin-mora%2F2010%2F08%2F08%2Fnational-guard-troops-deployed-border-will-not-be-used-stop-detain-illeg
Rick, why are you blaming Eric for what Roger Ebert wrote? Could it be that Ebert watched the film for himself and didn’t pay careful attention to detail?
I found 9500 liberty to be extremely accurate regarding what happened here. I found Ebert’s review to be off the mark. I expect he didn’t pay close attention, like many of our citizens and supervisors who still didn’t get it in Sept. 2008. (stay tuned on that one)
“Comprehensive Immigration Reform will require all persons unlawfully
present to register with the federal government.”
Yeah, right! They aren’t going to do anything, and then we’ll right back in the same boat of having to weed them out. Of course that will be met with the same complaints of ‘profiling’ that has done nothing more than delay the inevitable process that must be enacted. It’s either that, or do nothing. What a crock!
Ebert just assumed that the film’s narrative thrust bore resemblance to reality. Watch that film again sometime and notice the false arc.
“Comprehensive Immigration Reform” is a boondoggle that
DOES NOT enable us to sort the “good ones” from the “bad ones” in any real way not available to us now (i.e. through law enforcement records)
DOES NOT do anything to discourage future illegal immigration or identity fraud
DOES NOT make the border secure
DOES NOT hold our government accountable for any promises made to uphold law and protect Ameriocan citizens
DOES NOT save us money
DOES NOT save ICE money
DOES NOT make America safer
DOES invest some type of rights and citizenship or pseudo-citizenship in lawbreakers, making it harder to ever get rid of them or hold anyone accountable for this whole fiasco, which is the point of this sham concept “comprehensive reform”
DOES cost Americans money in welfare and Social Security payouts
DOES almost certainly assure more, not less, illegal immigration in future.
It’s the same kind of non-logic campaign trail BS that we heard on Health Care reform … it makes no sense at all when examined. (“Inherent savings will occur if we reorganize, and no one will have less care, and it’ll get cheaper”). The people selling us this snake oil ought to be tarred and feathered.
Rick, can you document why CIR is such a bad thing? Those are just opinions.
You are refusing to see that a compromise will be necessary. Otherwise, no change will take place.
The laws need to change to be more manageable.
Why is a compromise necessary? As Americans we can accomplish anything we put our collective minds and souls behind in the effort, however that effort has to involve the government as the orchestrator of all the various resources at their disposal. That isn’t happening today, but if we get an administration that truly wants to end this blight on our country, then it will be solved, and the only compromise will have to come from those who are in steadfast support of illegals at the present. The inability or refusal to determine who is in the country illegally is the biggest obstacle to accomplishing the task, and that is being roadblocked by only one thing and that is this insane concern over ‘profiling’. Profiling is nothing more than a tool to catch law breakers be it local, state, or federal laws. Enough said, just do it! Eventually those who feel the burden from ‘profiling’ will get tired of the process and start giving up those who caused the problem in the first place in order to end the process. It’s either that or a national ID card which they bitch about also.
You need to compromise because everyone doesn’t agree. Why should you get to have your way and squeeze everyone else out?
I also want to know how you are going to rid the country of all illegal immigrants?
You are treating this problem as binary. There are more than 2 answers and we will have to reach a compromise to get the problem under control.
Plenty of people bitch about national id cards who aren’t classified as those in steadfast support of illegal immigrants.
Profiling…it doesn’t matter how we feel…it matters how the courts feel if you get sued over it. It might seem stupid and obvious but it is a reality. Furthermore, there is a great deal to it. How do I know someone is illegal? hmmmm…lets see……
“You need to compromise because everyone doesn’t agree.”
It’s become obvious, even to the wh*res on Capitol Hill, that unless and until law enforcement obligations are met, no action can be taken on comprehensive Amnesty. It’s a complete non-starter and that’s why it hasn’t started for the past 3 years.
@Rick, why limit it to three years?
Which law enforcement obligations do you want to see met?
The only measures that will have any real impact are those that direct enforcement toward illegal employers. The overwhelming majority of illegal immigrants come here for work. They work much more cheaply than citizens or legal residents, don’t get any benefits most of the time, and are easy to exploit because of their legal status. Therefore, employers seeking low-wage labor turn to them rather than to any of the 10% of American workers who are unemployed but would require legal wages, benefits, and treatment.
Loud-mouth hypocrites such as Corey Stewart proclaim themselves champions of the illegal immigration crusade, propose nothing effective or legal, and then aid illegal employers to get their campaign contributions. We are living with probably the most immoral and exploitive system since slavery.
@Need to Know
Spot on!
If you cut off the labor pool you affect the inability of businesses to use that labor. What is it, Need to Know, that you are actually proposing?
@Rick Bentley
Let’s start with PWC:
(1) Use of eVerify and I-9 forms on file for all employees as a requirement for a business license.
(2) Random audits of personnel records.
(3) Random audits and visits of construction sites.
(4) Immediate suspension of business licenses and building permits for violators
(5) Certification that all contractors and sub-contractors doing business with the PWC government satisfy (1), (2) and (3)
(6) Inspection of day labor sites and charges brought against any employer who fails to complete I-9 forms for hires, or knowingly hires someone not eligible to work in the United States. Herndon makes I-9 forms available at day labor sites.
We could continue, but this gives an idea of what can be done.
Read also Arizona SB 1070. The judge ruled an injunction against the more controversial sections (i.e, “Papers Please”), which I don’t think would have had much impact on the problem anyway, but let stand all of the provisions aimed at illegal employers. Interesting that Corey Stewart left out from his Virginia Rule of Law all of those clearly legal provisions of the Arizona law aimed at employers (including his developer pals).
Enforcement of my proposals would be done by auditors and inspectors rather than police. Our police department would not need to become immigration officers. Our police would continue to check the immigration status of all persons arrested for a crime, and deal with them appropriately according to the law.
My proposals would cease workplace raids. These have no broad impact on the problem and serve only for grandstanding and photo ops for politicians and others who want to be perceived as addressing the problem.
I can make such suggestions because I am not beholden to development and real estate interests, and the Chamber of Commerce as are Corey Stewart, Wally Covington, Marty Nohe and John Jenkins.
I’m with you on those things. But why cease workplace raids? And what’s wrong with deporting illegal immigrants wherever they are found?
Is there some reason to keep our message to illegal aliens and would-be illegal aliens ambiguous?
@Rick Bentley
Rick – it’s a matter of focusing resources where they are most useful, and pursuing policies for effectiveness rather than grandstanding. A raid by a swat team makes for great television (note that the cameras seem to always be there when these raids take place) but is too narrow in focus to have much impact on the multitude of illegal employers. Moreover, these events are traumatic for everyone, legal and illegal alike. A group of auditors checking employment records can tackle vastly more firms. The threat of a high likelihood of an audit, combined with having your business shut down would be a much better deterrent.
Moreover, auditors don’t need guns, gas grenades and whatever. Their enforcement equipment is essentially notebook computers and links to databases. We must also deal with the fact that we don’t have detention resources to lock up everyone whose crimes are limited to just entering and working in the U.S. illegally. Those resources must be used for truly dangerous criminals.
Implement these audits and enforcements, and the other measures I described, along with strict penalties (loss of a business, plus fines and prison) for the employers and you will shut down the market for illegal labor quickly.
The positive results would be many fold. Non-violent people would self-deport and the inflow of illegal immigrants would grind to a virtual halt. Employers would have to pay more (OK, a restaurant meal would cost more and developers’ profit margins would narrow) and start reducing the 10% unemployment rate.
I don’t believe that there are any jobs Americans won’t do; only jobs Americans won’t do for illegal wages, no FICA and no benefits. I’m a professional with a graduate-level education but I would work a construction job before I would let my family go hungry or homeless. As matters stand now with competition from illegal labor, I couldn’t earn enough working that job to support my family. Most American citizens and legal residents would do the same for their families.
You won’t hear any of this from Corey or similar politicians. They want to excite emotions and create scapegoats, such as the illegal who is here not to join a gang or annex the U.S. back to Mexico or some fictitious nonsense, but just to work. These politicians are not interested in pragmatic solutions that work but don’t stir up people to go to the polls on election. Worse, they won’t support any effective policies that run contrary to the interests of their campaign donors.
@Need to Know
I am with you except that I favor deportation and workplace raids if there is intelligence regarding illegal aliens in a particular location/workplace. Prosecute the employer AND deport the illegal aliens.
Your proposal would a require a BATTALION of inspectors. Given that the state and feds will never provide adequate funding for a sufficient number of inspectors, deportations and large fines should be instituted on the illegal aliens. That would also reduce the financial incentive for illegal immigration.
NTK, your dislike of Corey S. or of grandstanding politicians is clouding your judgement. The problem of illegal immigration should be attacked from both angles. You’re describing some ideal scenario that involves cooperation of our federal government. Out here in the real world the Obama Administration and this hack Napolitano don’t even deport the majority caught working illegally, they’re more or less trying to pursue what you suggest on a small scale. It’s not effective, because of the size of the problem.
Let’s not lose track of the fact that the illegal aliens themselves are primarily culpable for coming here and for any identity fraud committed.
I’m all for turning the jobs maget off. But getting someone to actually do that is part and parcel of forcing the issue down our elitist government’s throat – a big job that is taking years, not months. The worm is turning, but slowly.
@Rick Bentley
Rick, it’s no secret that I’m not a fan of Corey Stewart or any other grandstanding politician. I think instead of challenging me, just a guy with no power writing on a blog, you should confront Corey Stewart. Why is he not addressing illegal employers? Even conceding your other points, you have to acknowledge that cracking down on illegal employers would be the single most effective track to take. Corey won’t touch it because of his campaign donors.
“you should confront Corey Stewart”
About what? In terms of things that affect me or my family, he’s my champion. I strongly support him despite his flightiness, recklessness, and obvious desire for personal advancement.
He understands that illegal immigration is a real problem, and he has cojones. So I applaud him.
I agree that if we the people could get our government to effectively crack down on employers, it would take care of much of the problem, though not all. However, we can’t. Our elected “officials” refuse to help.
Is it more effective to punish employers than to focus on the illegal immigrants themselves? Absolutely not. Why would you even make that assertion? It may be more humane. It may be more “fair”. More effective? Absolutely not. The employers have plausible deniability, usually. The illegal immigrant themselves does not – they KNOW they’re illegal, and they are the ones presenting fake documents.
I submit to you that when we stifle this debate about “comprehensive amnesty” and get the two parties to stop encouraging illegal immigrants to wait it out and hope for citizenship, that only then we’ll see a sea change. And the best way to send that message is deportation, large-scale and random with no exceptions. (Even for the Presdient’s Aunt).
Meanwhile we’re stuck with both parties in a deadlock, afraid to enable the other to explout the Latino vote in future years. The only path forward is to break that political deadlock. Arizona is helping to break it. The politics of this issue are changing, as it stays in the front of the news. And particularly on FOX News. It feeds their news cycle every day now, and “conservatives” are consolidating into pro-law enforcement hardliners. We’re not yet at the point that the GOP is ready to nominate a Presidential candidate who will make a stand on this issue, but we’re inexorably moving towards it.
The issue is drifting towards law enforcement. Amnesty is a complete non-starter.
There was some hope that Obama would somehow make an Amnesty happen. This was not really rational; Bush could convince Republicans to vote for it; Obama can’t. The hope was, that because it serves Democratic political interests, that Obama would somehow make it happen, since he was the second coming of Christ. But :
1. Obama is weakened by his unpopularity. He’s not going to acheive any such thing. Altready we’ve seen health care reform, his supposed raison d’ete, morph into Health Care Insurance reform and basically seen him abandon the issue for now. It’s a struggle for him to even do something so common sense as reforms applied to the institutions we bailed out.
2. It’s entirely irrational to think that this could be done in a climate with people upset about mounting deficits and the unsustainability of our entitlement programs. Hey gang, great idea! Let’s take in millions more uneducated poor and invest them with rights and benefits, for breaking the law! Who’s with me on this?
3. From a policy standpoint there’s no rational reason to reward people with citizenship for breaking the law. A guest worker program is in our interest; amnesty is not.
4. Arizona’s approach has the pro-Amnesty arguement tied up in knots. This false and evil sense that the federal Government is here to abrogate duty and tell the rest of us what laws we can and can’t vote for is being broken into pieces.
5. At heart, Obama and other Democratic operatives know an Amnesty would be bad for America. Read the chapter in Obama’s book where he talks about immigration. He pretty much admits all of the ways it’s bad for America, but says it’s inevitable that they’ll keep coming so we’d better embrace it. (Audacity of hope my ass). He walked through a Spanish neighborhood in Chicago and decided that it’s allright after all. Pretty facile. But anyway, I submit to you that the Obamas pelosis and reids are more interested in keeping the issue alive, and thereby exploiting the Latino vote, than in actually moving past the status quo and making people legal. Luis Guitierrez may be so upset as to chain himself to buildings and what not, but most democrats don’t really give a crap.
So i submit to you that the time has come for us all to join together, support Arizona’s fight against tyrannical government, and begin to encourage self-deportation and border security. The time is now to let your government know how you feel about this problem and their role in it.
@Rick Bentley
“So i submit to you that the time has come for us all to join together, support Arizona’s fight against tyrannical government”
Then why does Stewart omit completely from his Virginia Rule of Law campaign every single provision in SB 1070 that deals with employers? Simple answer – he won’t do anything that goes against his the interests of his big campaign donors.
Which is more effective and a better use of our resources – taking out a drug dealer or trying to chase down all of his customers? The correct answer is try to do both if you can, but if that’s not possible focus on the drug dealer. Same with illegal aliens and illegal employers.
Rick, believe me, I’m on your side. You are being duped by Stewart just as he duped his former land use supporters, Finley, the Grizzlies, and on and on. As soon as he gets elected to State office and is completely the tool of the business lobby and the Chamber of Commerce you, Greg, HSM and everyone with your goals will be pulling the knives out of your backs just like the others are doing now. And – you will be doing that while watching masses of new illegal aliens flood in to PWC to work the developments Stewart is helping to get rezonings (and protect so their sources of cheap labor don’t dry up).
I’m not going to chide you, or say “I told you so” because you will be one of many of his victims.
Don;’t count on Obama being that unpopular. The vocal opposition is just louder.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_approval_rating
Rick, you have been blinded by this.
You can pass all the state laws you want. then what? No one answers this question: If you need to feds to pick up the immigrant and take him (or her) for a deportation hearing, you are dependent on them. If they don’t pick up the detainee, then what? You get to pay to incarcerate a person who very well might not have committed a crime.
Do you or have you ever known someone who was in this country and was out of status? I mean known them in a business or personal relationship?
“Which is more effective and a better use of our resources – taking out a drug dealer or trying to chase down all of his customers? The correct answer is try to do both if you can, but if that’s not possible focus on the drug dealer. Same with illegal aliens and illegal employers.”
The analogy doesn’t hold. Employers of illegal immigrants, unless they helped them to forge identity documents, have plausible deniability. They haven’t – again, unless they’re involved in helping people obtain fradulent documents – broken the law. So we can’t (until something like E-verify is mandated) treat them as we would drug dealers. By contrast the illegal immigrant is culpable for their offense.
“You are being duped by Stewart just as he duped his former land use supporters”
I think you’re paranoid about him. I think the guy honestly has some passion about the issue, as he does for other causes I don’t so much care about.
“No one answers this question: If you need to feds to pick up the immigrant and take him (or her) for a deportation hearing, you are dependent on them. If they don’t pick up the detainee, then what? You get to pay to incarcerate a person who very well might not have committed a crime. ”
Until the Federal Government starts fulfilling their obligations, and Congress adequately funding those obligations, there will be no peace.
“Do you or have you ever known someone who was in this country and was out of status? I mean known them in a business or personal relationship?”
Not personally known. There are some people I know of who might be.
Even if my freaking Aunt Zetunio was “out of status”, that wouldn’t make it right.
@Rick Bentley
“I think you’re paranoid about him. I think the guy honestly has some passion about the issue, as he does for other causes I don’t so much care about.”
No, I’m not paranoid about him; I’ve been burned by him like many others. We thought he honestly had some passion about smart land use and conservation. Just look where we are with that now.
He will tell you whatever he thinks you want to hear to get your support, and then discard you when he moves on to another issue.
Washington Post, February 8, 2009:
“So Stewart, the pugnacious chairman of the Prince William Board of County Supervisors, began setting his sights on a new mission: navigating Republican loyalists out of the immigration debate with the same vigor he used to help draw them into it.”
“The debate about illegal immigration is over.” – quoting Stewart
“Corey was so badly damaged politically because of his actions on immigration,” Jenkins said. “He is trying to put that tarnished image away and show leadership. That probably forms the basis of his actions in reshaping his image.”
Washington Post, November 29, 2009
WP: What issue do you care about most?
Corey Stewart: “Quality of life in the county. And that changes from time to time, based upon what the community needs. At one time it was trying to restrain residential development. At another time it was addressing illegal immigration. And now it’s about promoting economic growth in the county.”
Where was his passion about immigration in 2009? HE NEVER HAD IT! Stewart jumped back on the immigration bandwagon after Arizona passed SB 1070 because he thought he could exploit the issue again to further his political ambitions.
Rick – you are a smart guy and I respect you for the sincerity of your views. But please understand that Corey Stewart is using and duping you just like he did all of the rest. If you want real progress made on illegal immigration, Stewart is not the person to turn to as your leader.
He zigs, and he zags. But I’m in a mood to vote for a person like that, someone who will shake up the status quo (for whatever personal reason or personality quirk). Who else would you have me vote for?
I take your point that the day may come when I regret voting for him. But we’re a long way from that now.
Rick, then you contribute to the problem as much as the next guy, despite bitching about the rest of us.
I came on this thread to support what NTK is saying. He has supported Corey and has been thrown under the bus.
Corey is basically amoral when it comes to sticking to his promises (see the pledge he recently ignored regarding the rural crescent), he calls to arms and then fizzles (health care and by the time it got to the BOCS chambers, it was a whimper), and now revisiting immigration.
He lies about our crime statistics. He continues to lie even though those of us here in PWC can go right to the source and see for ourselves that he is lying. He says these things on national TV knowing that no one will come behind him to check. (our crime statistics have plummeted) What’s really pathological is the fact that he knows some of us are tracing the lies and he simply doesn’t care. He is getting by with it nationally.
However, he will continue to push the envelope and he will eventually get bitten in the ass by it. Some of us will be there to laugh.
NTK is not alone. He is simply the spokesperson for a much larger group who are working behind the scenes. NTK is not a liberal. He is a life long Republican who feels it is time for the Republicans to police their own ranks and get rid of the deadwood and the dangerous.
point taken. he is highly reactive and self-serving. and yes he plays games with the truth to a degree that he’ll probably never be taken seriously beyond sound bytes feeding the FOX News machine.
When we get another public servant running against him who appears to be on my side in life, I’ll consider voting for them instead.
Meanwhile my disdain for the political status quo remains huge and I am generally supportive of Stewart or at worst amused by him.
I would think he was amusing if he didn’t cost the county so much money and set such a bad tone.
He aspires to national office, via the state. He truly appears to be without convictions about much of anything.
Rick – there is no one who is less on your side in life than Corey Stewart. The only side he is on is that of his own political career. Note how he even threw John Stirrup under the bus on Avendale. He didn’t even let John know that he was putting Avendale on the agenda until the Wednesday before the vote when he told everyone else. John found out that Stewart and Covington had been making deals with the GAINESVILLE Grizzlies football club in his own district from one of his staffers who reads Moonhowlings.
I support John strongly and like him very much. I had already come to realize Corey’s true nature and began opposing him prior to the Avendale fiasco but that betrayal showed me how much Corey truly is a snake-in-the-grass.
Let me emphasize that you will not get what you want on immigration from Corey Stewart. You’ll help him get reelected in PWC. Thereafter, he will spend full time working on his campaign for Lt. Governor and making deals with developers and other big-money interests who will finance his campaign and want to keep the steady flow of illegal labor going.
Who should you vote for? I can’t comment publicly at the moment because others need to make their own announcements. Regretably, it appears Stewart has the Republican nomination locked up unless we can persuade enough good people such as yourself what he really is in time to get someone else nominated. Otherwise, I might end up voting Democratic, which is something I rarely, rarely do. If it comes to that, both Prince William County and the Republican Party will be better off by having a Democrat in that job for while rather than Stewart.
NTK….come to the light….come to the light….
just kidding. I am an independent, although I often vote democrat, if I can ever figure out who is running in Prince William County. Sometimes the dysfunctional Dems forget to announce who they have running. And if they are reading moonhowlings (doesn’t everyone?) ,if the shoe fits, wear it.
As for a Republican running against Corey, he would not show his fellow republican on the board the same courtesy. I wish Mike May would run. I could easily vote for him as chairman. He has integrity from what I can tell. Can he be talked into running?
@Moon-howler
Moon – Mike May or John Stirrup would be great. I know you and I differ somewhat on John because of the immigration debate. However, in retrospect I think if John had remained in charge of that debate rather than allowing Stewart to hijack it, we would have had a responsible public discussion, as when John took the lead on Brentswood in 2006. Also, we would have ended up about where we are now but without all of the rancor Stewart created.
“we would have had a responsible public discussion”
We needed action. The discussion had already been taking place and many of the people in my neighborhood were expressing their feelings by running away.
Perhaps Mr. Stirrup could mend fences by further extricating himself from the immigration debate.
I am willing to bet that Elena and I, do to the nature of jobs we have had, have clocked more hours with illegal immigrants than anyone on this blog who is a regular contributor. Why is it that we can discuss immigration without dehumanizing?
Rick, just what kind of action are you looking for?
And what did the running away part do to the value of your property? Were there a lot of foreclosures in your neighborhood?
The action i was lloking for was the action we got. A message sent that PWC is not friendly to illegal immigrants.
My property now is worth about what it was 8 years ago, and about 60% of what it was worth circa 2006/2007. My neighborhood was full of foreclosures. It was a better situation than when it was full of flophouses.
Mine is just under 2002 prices so about the same. I guess everyone’s is.
My maxium value was in 2006. I am at half that. I got clobbered. I am glad I dont have to sell my house.
Ididn’t have a neighborhood full of flop houses. I didn’t have to go far to see it though.
I am not sure that the flop house syndrome is over. I see a lot of multiple people/families in single family homes as I drive around. One just broke up next door to me. The landlord handled it well, but it was still a single family being used as a rooming house.
We still have just as many flop houses in my neighbohood as we did before Stewart in 2007. The only way to get rid of them is to dry up their jobs.
If you dry up the legitimate jobs it will go a good way towards encouraging self-deportation, but if illegal immigrants can still find flophouses to live, live in Section 8a housing with relatives, get food stamps and so forth for kids, find day labor at the Coverstone 7-11, etc. – many will remain “in the shadows”.
The flop house next to me was really a rooming house. It wasn’t overcrowded and it didn’t have the problems that one associates with ‘flop houses.’ Still, I like knowing who my neighbors are.