Scapegoats and Reality

By: Lowell
Published On: 8/14/2007 8:34:09 AM

From this morning's Washington Post article, "Sterling Park's Identity Crisis":

Defenders of the immigrants say many of the criticisms are not supported by statistics.

For instance, although there is a widespread perception that crime has increased in Sterling, sheriff's office data show that nearly every kind of crime has decreased since 2000. Last year, Sterling Park saw a few high-profile shootings and gang-related incidents. But according to the Loudoun sheriff's office, only one in 20 gang members in the county is in the country illegally, and most are U.S. citizens.

Brocke and others say Sterling has been plagued by illegal boarding houses that rent rooms in single-family homes to illegal immigrants.

From July 2006 to June 2007, officials received 198 complaints of overcrowded homes, said Keith Fairfax, head of the county's residential overcrowding enforcement office. Only a few turned out to be boarding houses in which landlords rented homes to more than a dozen people, he said.

Ah, myth and reality. And the search for a scapegoat for everything you don't like in life.  The problem is, there appear to be few if any facts to back up the contentions of "anti-immigrant" forces.  Even Del. Thomas Davis Rust (R) admits it:

"People I talk to are very concerned about degradation of their neighborhoods, property values, overcrowding, lack of maintenance on homes -- that type of thing," said state Del. Thomas Davis Rust (R), who represents Sterling Park and nearby Herndon and supports the resolutions. "Most people that have talked to me blame illegal immigration and believe there is a direct link. Do I have proof that there's a link? No. But that is what people believe."

Oh, great!  There's no proof of any "direct link" between illegal immigration, crime rates, overcrowding, degradation of neighborhoods, etc., but people "believe" there is, so go ahead and use it as a political "wedge issue?"  Bash away, Hispanic immigrant bashers, if it makes you feel any better and doesn't cause your blood pressure to spike through the roof.

By the way, I think this says it all about Loudoun County Supervisor Eugene A. Delgaudio (R):

..., executive director of an anti-gay organization based in Falls Church. Delgaudio, who is up for reelection in November, was the main sponsor of the Loudoun resolution cracking down on illegal immigrants. In a note to constituents last month, he warned of "invasions of illegal aliens who turn safe neighborhoods into filthy, crowded slums."

Yes, this IS a noxious type of demagoguery.  Yes, this IS a man who is both an anti-gay bigot AND an immigrant basher.  Why is it that homophobia and xenophobia so often go together?  What are these people so afraid of, anyway?  Yeah, that last last question was rhetorical.


Comments



I have no problem with legal immigration (jiacinto - 8/14/2007 5:42:20 PM)
But I do have a problem with those who come here illegally. I am half Hispanic, so I disagree with those who label all these folks who oppose illegal immigration "racist". I support the Prince William and soon-to-be-enacted Loudoun resolutions denying services to illegal immigrations. What I resent is the inherent sense of entitlement from groups like La Rasa and Case de Maryland, who act as if illegals are ENTITLED to welfare, in-state tuition at universities, and other benefits by default. I disagree with that. It's not fair to those who have waited in line for years, played by the rules, and have come here legally.

Imagine if you went to the UK, managed to avoid immigration authorities at Heathrow Airport, and then found a job. You worked there for two years before immigration finally catches up with you. Do you think that the British immigration authorities are going to let you stay, give you free benefits, and treat like you native-born Britons? I don't think so. They would put you back on a plane to the US immediately.

I honestly disagree with the "progressive" position on illegal immigration. Here are some questions that I have:

1) Do you concede that these illegals violated the law to come here?

2) Do you concede that they didn't follow the law and file the proper paperwork?

3) What does that say to those who play by the rules?

4) Why should other people play by the rules if we are going to give preferential treatment to illegals?

5) Do you realize that you are advocating that illegals receive preferential treatment?

6) If you are advocating that these illegals stay and get amnesty, then why not even bother to have immigration laws at all because you are not enforcing them equally?



Very simple solution. (Lowell - 8/14/2007 6:31:25 PM)
Fine every "illegal" immigrant in this country $100 or whatever as a "penalty" for following the laws of supply and demand and coming to this country.  Then, after they've paid their fine, give them a green card and legalize them.  That takes care of them being "illegal," by definition.  After that, take steps to deal with both the supply and demand sides of the equation, while setting realistic LEGAL immigration quotas.  You might also want to deal with the EMPLOYERS, like Smithfield Foods and many others, who have been employing and exploiting "illegals" for years.



Well (jiacinto - 8/14/2007 6:37:25 PM)
I fully agree with going after the employers. But I also am against rewarding illegals with citizenship automatically.


Straw man. (Lowell - 8/14/2007 6:38:46 PM)
Pretty much nobody's talking about "rewarding illegals with citizenship automatically."  That certainly isn't what Jim Webb's talking about, and I'm mainly with Jim Webb on this issue.