Category Archives: Immigration

Encroaching Mob Rule

Corey Stewart needs a bigger loudspeaker. Photo credit: Washington Post

I’ve never had much use for Corey Stewart’s populist, in-your-face brand of politics. But some of the people opposing him aren’t any better.

Stewart, who is running for U.S. Senate against Tim Kaine, held a rally yesterday outside the Immigration and Customs Enforcement offices in Fairfax County to express his outrage, as the Washington Point news article puts it, “over an unlikely effort to abolish the federal agency.”

Less than 50 feet from Stewart and his nearly 40 supporters, counterprotesters banged pots and pans while playing Latin American music over a loudspeaker in hopes of drowning them out.

Groups like La ColectiVA social justice collaborative and the Metro DC Democratic Socialists of America, which took part in the counter-protest, feel increasing license to interfere with the right of their political opponents to peacefully assemble, speak… or even just dine quietly in a restaurant. Belligerence and rudeness can be found across the political spectrum, but the Left is the side trying to chase the Right from the public sphere, not the other way around.

Stewart handled the situation with good grace. “I want to thank the people in the back for providing tonight’s entertainment,” he said. “Those goofballs in the back don’t want to talk about” the crimes committed by illegal immigrants, he added.

Stewart could have won some sympathy from the incident. But then he falsely (according to the Washington Post) accused Kaine of wanting to abolish the Immigration and Customs Enforcement office. Note to Stewart: You don’t win votes by hurling falsehoods against your opponent.

A lot of people are getting fed up with the Left’s flirtation with mob rule. Instead of making charges that can be easily swatted down, perhaps Stewart should ask Kaine if he condones the tactics of La ColectiVA and the Democratic Socialists of America. The Senator has no easy answer. Either he criticizes his supporters on the far Left, he goes squishy on mob rule, or he refuses to respond, which makes it looks like he has something to hide. For Stewart, that’s a no-lose proposition.

Virginia’s Child-Immigrant Non-Scandal

The Shenandoah Valley Juvenile Center

In the fall of 2017, three migrant children detained by the federal Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) at the Shenandoah Valley Juvenile Center filed a class action lawsuit alleging abuse by guards. This June, amidst national media coverage of the separation of children from parents on the U.S. border, news media discovered the lawsuit and reported on the allegations.

As I summarized the charges in a blog post: “Allegedly, teenagers were restrained, handcuffed, and made to sit with bags over their heads. Some were stripped of their clothes. Some were locked in solitary confinement, some beaten, left with bruises and broken bones and kept shivering in concrete cells.” I added: “The claims, if true, are shocking and must be addressed immediately.”

Well, the Northam administration promptly looked into the issue and has published its report. The findings? As I should have surmised from the hysterical, almost apocalyptic nature of the immigrant-children coverage by the national media, the state Department of Juvenile Justice “found that there was no evidence of abuse or neglect.”

DJJ staff interviewed all of the federal residents of SVJC. The team was unable to substantiate the conditions described in the lawsuit concerning the operations of SVJC or the mistreatment of residents. After obtaining permission from ORR, the team returned on June 25 and reviewed case files, medical files, room confinement forms, and other documentation to assess compliance with regulations relating to the quality of care.

The immigrant children held at SVJC aren’t toddlers separated from their parents. They are unaccompanied minors under the age of 18 with no parent or legal guardian in the U.S. Many have suffered trauma; some belong to gangs such as the infamous MS-13. Many display behavioral issues presenting disciplinary challenges.

One technique used by SVJC is “room confinement” to “ensure the safety and security of residents, staff, and the facility.” The DJJ found no incidents where residents were confined longer than 24 hours. With the exception of one 23-hour incident, confinements typically lasted four hours.

SVJC staff also used, though rarely, a “restraint chair” for out-of-control residents “who cannot be safely restrained by less intrusive methods. While in the chair, a mesh spit guard can be placed on the resident’s head to prevent spitting or biting.”

In sum, the center faced difficult conditions. “Young people who have been frequently exposed to high levels of trauma, who are separated from their families, and who confront numerous language and cultural barriers” comprise a “uniquely challenging group,” the DJJ report says. The center should provide staff with professional development “in the areas of positive youth development, cognitive behavioral interventions and trauma informed care” and should increase “understanding and sensitivity toward the unique cultural backgrounds of the youth in the federal program.” DJJ also recommended more training in the use of physical and mechanical restraints, and in the effective use of de-escalation techniques.

Bacon’s bottom line: In other words, while the Shenandoah Valley Juvenile Center could benefit from some tweaks, investigators found no real problem there. What this story highlights — although you’ll never see a mainstream media outlet framing the issue this way — is an endemic feature of illegal immigration. Many children are unaccompanied by parents or relatives. Many suffered trauma — not at the hands of Americans but of their fellow countrymen (or perhaps Mexicans, which many had to pass through to get to the U.S.). And many pose special behavioral problems requiring their confinement and costing U.S. taxpayers.

The national media is largely uninterested in such issues, of course, so I anticipate zero follow-up. If U.S. immigration policy cannot be blamed, there’s nothing worth writing about.

Here’s what I would like to know. Who were the children who made the allegations and had a suit filed in their name? More importantly, who were the attorneys filing the suit on their behalf? How did those attorneys gain access to the children? Are they just random lawyers off the streets of Staunton, or are they part of a nonprofit organization? If they were part of a nonprofit, what is that organization’s aims and who is funding it? Could there have been political motivations behind the lawsuits? None of that information, as I recall, was reported by the media. What a surprise.

Update: The state report has come under heavy criticism by the people who filed the original lawsuit, including  the Washington, D.C., law firm Wiley Rein and the Washington Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs, as well as the Henrico-based disAbility Law Center of Virginia. The Virginia Mercury has the story here. Unlike state investigators, the disAbility Law Center says it had unaccompanied access to the residents.

Does Anyone Care about U.S. Children?

Youth for Tomorrow facility, Prince William County

Over the weekend, U.S. Senator Tim Kaine visited the Youth for Tomorrow facility in Prince William County that has been housing undocumented-immigrant children for the past six years. The visit highlighted his call the previous day for the Trump administration “to assure us that every single one of the children they separated from their parents is quickly and safely returned to their families.”

Last week Governor Ralph Northam ordered Virginia’s National Guard contingent serving on the U.S. Southwest border to come home. He ordered the Guard to withdraw four soldiers and one helicopter from Arizona, he said, “until the federal government ends its enforcement of a zero-tolerance policy that separates children from their parents.”

Now that they’ve made clear their antipathy to the policies of the Trump administration, perhaps Kaine and Northam can turn their attention to a near-identical problem that has festered here in Virginia for decades: the separation of children from their parents in the administration of criminal justice in the U.S.

While the separation of children and parents at the border has dominated national news coverage for a couple of weeks now, the issue of child-parent separation inside the U.S. had barely warranted any attention at all. Ever. A rare exception was a USA Today article published in 2014, “Who’s Watching the Kids?

The Justice Department and police officials across the nation are directing their agencies to deal with thousands of children who are left behind following the arrests of parents, from surprise raids at family homes to roadside traffic stops.

Few law enforcement agencies have policies that specifically address the continuing care of children after such arrests, despite an estimated 1.7 million children who have at least one parent in prison, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. The number of children jumps to about 2.7 million when parents detained in local jails are included. …

Justice and the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the nation’s largest organization of police officials, are beginning to roll out guidelines to agencies across the country. It is an unusual attempt to shield children — often forgotten in the chaotic moments before and after arrests — from unnecessary “trauma” related to their parents’ detention.

I’m trying to understand the logic of those who oppose the separation of children and parents. Does the objection extend to all children separated from parents who enter the criminal justice system? Or does the insistence upon non-separation apply only to those who are trying to enter the United States?

When Kaine said, “every single one of the children they separated from their parents [should be] quickly and safely returned to their families,” does his logic apply to U.S. families? What would such a policy look like? Should children be admitted into jails and prisons to reside with their mothers? Or should mothers be released from jails and prisons to be with their children? Did Kaine act to prevent such policies when he was mayor of Richmond? If child-parent separation is such a moral travesty, why didn’t he?

When Northam demands that the federal government “end its enforcement of a zero-tolerance policy that separates children from their parents,” how would he describe state policy toward the separation of children from Virginia parents who are arrested and put into jail? Do we have a “zero tolerance” policy in Virginia, or are there instances in which parents are released from incarceration on the grounds of humanity? Does Northam even know what the policies and practices prevail in Virginia?

If Kaine believes that illegal-immigrant children should not be separated from their parents entering the criminal justice system, is he prepared to submit legislation to prevent the same from happening to U.S. children? If not, why not?Does he think U.S.-born children are less deserving of compassion?

If Northam decries the Trump administration’s “zero tolerance” toward the separation of children, is he prepared to act against Virginia localities that also might have zero-tolerance policies? Does his heart not go out to Virginia children deprived of a mother’s embrace?

Young children are always innocent victims in these things, and they always deserve our compassion. But maybe, just maybe, the administration of justice in the real world gets really complicated and messy because the issues are inherently difficult. People in the law-enforcement community have been wrestling with these issues for years. I’d take Kaine and Northam a lot more seriously if they’d spoken up before now and if they’d addressed the practices in their own back yard.

Will the Real Corey Stewart Please Stand Up?

Minnesota Confederate? Corey Stewart was born in Duluth, Minnesota. He grew up in Minnesota attending St. Olaf College before transferring to Georgetown University to finish his BS degree. He then went back to Minnesota to attend law school before moving permanently to Northern Virginia. So it comes as something of a surprise that this transplanted Minnesotan has such a taste for the Confederate flag. Corey Stewart is a hard man to categorize.

Take my wife, please. Corey Stewart was first elected to the Prince William County Board of Supervisors in 2003 at the relatively young age of 35. Three years later he became the Chairman of the PWC BoS, a position he still holds. His initial notoriety came from the aggressive anti-illegal immigrant posture taken by the entire PWC BoS starting in 2007. The board allowed county police to check the immigration status of anyone, even if the person in question was not suspected of any wrongdoing. The board then cut off all county aid to illegal immigrants. While some say Stewart is anti-immigrant, there is apparently one immigrant that Stewart likes – his wife Maria. Maria is from Sweden and met Corey while they were both teaching English in Japan. Why am I suddenly hearing Chuck Berry lyrics in my head … “I met a German girl in England who was going to school in France”?

If at first you don’t succeed. Stewart is a fixture as Chairman of the Prince William County Board of Supervisors. He’s won four elections to that post getting 57% of the vote in the last of these elections (2015). However, he failed to get the Republican nomination for Lt Governor in 2013, was fired by the Trump Campaign from his post of Virginia campaign manager in 2016 and failed to get the Republican nomination for Governor in 2017. Today, he has won the Republican nomination for US Senate and is running against Tim Kaine. Stewart is widely expected to lose.

Unusual behavior. During his run for Governor Stewart gave away an AR-15 for Christmas. When asked why he was giving away an AR-15, Stewart said that he just couldn’t find a man portable mini-gun to give away. Actually he never said that. However, he did claim in a March, 2018 tweet that that you’re more likely to be killed by Hillary Clinton than an AR-15. During 2017 he used his position on the PWC BoS to support the construction of a mosque in the so-called Rural Crescent area of Prince William County. He was singled out for thanks by the All Dulles Area Muslim Society (ADAMS).  He also faced a recall petition for supporting the Mosque. After losing the Governor’s primary to Ed Gillespie Stewart took to Reddit to call Gillespie a “cuckservative” but then went on to support Gillespie’s campaign.

A hard man to summarize. Stewart is the Minnesota Confederate who supposedly hates immigrants but is married to one. He pushes anti-illegal immigrant laws while supporting the construction of a mosque at risk to his own political career. He can’t lose as BoS Chairman but can’t win much of anything else. He gratuitously insults opponents from his own party and then endorses them for office. He pals around with ultra-right winger Paul Nehlen and then repudiates him after finding out that Nehlen issued anti-Muslim and anti-Semitic tweets in 2016.

Conclusion? I have no conclusion. Corey Stewart is a paradox shrouded in inconsistency while wearing dichotomy’s clothes. I’ll wait for this election to play out a bit more before making a final judgement on Corey Stewart. However, if I were a hashtag artist today I’d have to consider #loon, #sloppy, #impulse_control_issues. But I don’t buy #racist.

— Don Rippert

No Excuse for Immigrant Child Abuse

From the outside, the Shenandoah Valley Juvenile Center in Staunton doesn’t look like a hellhole. What goes on inside?

Governor Ralph Northam has ordered state authorities to investigate allegations that guards at the Shenandoah Valley Juvenile Center beat and otherwise abused children held at the immigration detention facility. The claims, if true, are shocking and must be addressed immediately.

Allegedly, teenagers were restrained, handcuffed, and made to sit with bags over their heads. Some were stripped of their clothes. Some were locked in solitary confinement, some beaten, left with bruises and broken bones and kept shivering in concrete cells. Frankly, I find the accusations, included in a federal civil rights lawsuit, hard to believe. But Northam is surely right to look into the charges. If they are accurate, such treatment cannot be tolerated, and someone needs to be held accountable.

According to the Associated Press, U.S. immigration authorities accused the children of belonging to violent gangs, including MS-13. But a top manager at the Shenandoah center said in recent congressional testimony that they did not appear to be gang members, and that they were suffering from trauma suffered in their home countries — problems the facility is ill-equipped to deal with.

That observation suggests that if the charges are true, critical context may be missing from the lawsuit and sworn statements. Perhaps these teens are prone to outbursts of anger and violence. Perhaps the detainment center lacks appropriate facilities for handling such behavior. Perhaps staff was at wit’s end on how to maintain order. Whatever the case and whatever the mitigating circumstances, we need to find out what’s happening and fix it.

Permit me a philosophical observation: The United States is a sovereign state and a nation of laws. We decide through the political system who is allowed to enter the country and who cannot, and then we enforce the laws. We may or may not like the laws, but we don’t get to pick and choose which ones we enforce. (Got that, sanctuary cities?) The principle of enforcing the law applies both to immigrants who enter the country illegally and to the law enforcement authorities themselves. There is no excuse for beating and abusing detained immigrants.

I would feel much more comfortable with hard-line immigration-control policies if the people who espoused them didn’t also demonize the would-be immigrants. I don’t blame Central Americans for wanting to escape the horrors of their home countries or even to make a better living by entering the U.S. any way they can. If I were in their shoes, I might well do the same thing. Their predicament warrants sympathy and compassion. But that doesn’t give them the right to enter the country illegally. The world is full of miserable, abused and suffering people. We can’t take them all. If we catch people entering the country illegally, we treat them humanely… and then send them back. If we don’t like the laws on the books, we change them.

What Now for Separation of American Women from their Children?

Growth in U.S. female incarceration. Image credit: Prison Policy Initiative

Some 25 years ago I was living in Church Hill, then a sketchy Richmond neighborhood in the early stages of gentrification. One night police lights were flashing in my front window, so I stepped outside to see what was happening. Halfway down the block, a woman on the sidewalk was clutching an infant and bawling as police were confronting her. The police, it transpired, were arresting her on a charge relating to activities in her abode, a notorious crack house, and they had to haul her downtown. “Please don’t take my baby!” she wailed. “Please don’t take my baby!”

Curious, I inspected the premises. Other than a mattress on the floor, the house was bereft of furniture. The stink of dirty diapers permeated every room. I shuddered to think what kind of care the baby was receiving from a crack-addict mother. And I kept thinking, lady, if you don’t want to be separated from your baby, you should have thought about that before you started smoking cocaine. Even so, it was impossible not to feel compassion. The woman’s addiction had not smothered her maternal instinct. She was truly piteous.

I fully confess my ignorance of the inner workings of the U.S. criminal justice system, but it is my impression is that there was nothing unusual about the scene I witnessed, and that nothing significant has changed in the administration of justice since. If a woman is arrested for breaking the law, she is charged with a crime and taken to jail, where she may or may not get bail. She is held there until her trial. If found guilty, she goes to prison. As an inevitable part of the process, the mother is separated from her children, often for a considerable length of time. 

In 2015 the Virginia prison system incarcerated 3,236 female inmates. (A roughly equal number were held in local jails.) The most frequent offenses, according to the Richmond Times-Dispatch, were larceny/fraud (38%); drug sales (14%); robbery (8%); and drug possession (6%). The racial breakdown: 62% white and 37% black. The average age was almost 38. Sixty-two percent were separated from minor children.

The criminal justice system has been separating women from their children pretty much forever. The system has procedures for providing care for the children — handing them over to relatives, holding them in orphanages, placing them in foster homes. There may be other options I’m not familiar with. While that system has been subject to criticism from time to time — sometimes children fall between the institutional cracks — I don’t recall anyone objecting to the underlying necessity of removing children from women who are charged and convicted of crimes.

Even a recent study by the leftist Prison Policy Initiative, which absurdly manages to find injustice in the treatment of women in a prison population in which 90% of the inmates are men, mentioned the issue of children only in passing, and mainly in the context that female inmates should be allowed more face-to-face time with them.

Now, over the course of a two or three weeks, the nation has totally flipped on the issue — not out of concern for American citizens caught in the criminal justice system, but for families seeking to enter the country illegally. All of a sudden, it’s an affront to the country’s moral conscience that children are separated from mothers being held in detention while awaiting adjudication. My point is not to criticize or defend the behavior of either President Trump or his enemies in the media, but to explore the implications of this new way of thinking for the administration of criminal justice here in Virginia.

If it is a shocking violation of American values to remove children from parents entering the country illegally, is it a shocking violation of American values to do the same with American citizens breaking state laws? If justice requires ending the practice for Guatemalans and Salvadorans entering California, does logic now impel us to do the same for Americans here in Virginia? If so, are we morally obligated to overhaul Virginia’s criminal justice system so mothers are never again separated from their young children before they are convicted of a crime and sent to prison?

Taking President Trump out of the equation so we can think calmly and rationally, not viscerally, what criteria do we apply? What is the proper balance between having a humane criminal justice system and one that expeditiously carries out the laws of Virginia? Do we apply one set of rules to immigrants and a harsher set of rules to native-born Americans? Or do we overhaul criminal justice across the board, not just at the border? I don’t see how we avoid asking these questions now.

Fudging Differences between Legal and Illegal Immigrants

Big difference in educational attainment between legal and illegal immigrants.

The big difference in educational attainment between legal and illegal immigrants doesn’t come through in this graph. Credit: Commonwealth Institute

Immigrants residing in Virginia are better educated and more entrepreneurial than commonly perceived, says a new report by the Commonwealth Institute (CI), “Virginia Immigrants in  the Economy.”

That’s true.

Yet immigrants’ contributions to the U.S. economy are often minimized by “some state and federal lawmakers,” adds a press release accompanying the report. In truth, immigrants make our communities and economy stronger, says Laura Goren, CI research director and co-author. “Too many politicians are using scare tactics and divisive rhetoric about immigrants to advance their own agendas.”

Grrrr. I must take issue.

In attributing “scare tactics and divisive rhetoric” to shadowy others, Goren is guilty of the very behavior she decries. Whether due to simple naivete or deliberate obfuscation, I don’t know, she conflates legal immigrants with illegal immigrants. Thus, legal immigrants, who make a large positive contribution to Virginia’s economy, provide statistical cover for illegal immigrants, whose net contribution is problematic.

That’s an turn-off to readers who otherwise might find value in the report, which does contain some useful information. Foreign-born inhabitants now constitute 12.2% of the state’s population, for instance, with the heaviest concentration in Northern Virginia. More than half the foreign-born population has become naturalized.

…Neither does the difference in entrepreneurial vitality.

Virginia immigrants are more likely than native-born Americans to hold a college degree, the report informs us. They have slightly higher incomes, and they are more likely to be self-employed or own a business.

“In sum, Virginia immigrants are relatively young, well educated, fluent in English, and more likely to participate in the workforce,” says the study. “This powerful combination reflects the substantial capacity for immigrants to contribute to the state’s economy.”

But average numbers obscure important differences between different categories of immigrants. Forty percent of Virginia immigrants are well educated (college or graduate degrees) and wind up working in professional and technology fields. But, according to CI’s data, 20% lack a high school degree, a much higher percentage than for the native-born population. In other words, we are looking at two very different groups — one highly educated and affluent (mostly legal) and one ill-educated and poor (mostly illegal).

I know of no respectable voices in Virginia who say we should clamp down on all immigrants. (There might be a tiny percentage of white nationalists who advance that argument, but their numbers are insignificant.) The controversy over immigration focuses on poor, ill-educated immigrants, mostly though not exclusively from Latin American countries, who compete with similarly poor, ill-educated native-born Americans. These immigrants (mostly illegal) drive down wages of unskilled occupations, and put a burden on educational and social services.

I’ve never heard anyone hint that there’s too darn many Indians, Chinese, Vietnamese or Koreans in Virginia. That’s because Asian-Americans quickly learn English, rapidly assimilate to mainstream norms, become educated, launch job-creating businesses, and place minimal stress on the welfare state. Their presence is indisputably a net benefit to society.

By contrast, the Commonwealth Institute concedes that there are “challenges” associated with between 275,000 and 300,000 unauthorized immigrants. Nearly one in five live below the poverty line, and 58% lack health insurance. When one calculates the impact of illegal immigrants on the wage levels of unskilled workers, on schools, on the welfare state, and on the criminal justice system, this sub-set does not look like a net benefit to American society.

The study contends that illegals make a positive contribution, contributing $250 million in state and local taxes. If provided a path to citizenship, they could generate an estimated $100 million more. To the Commonwealth Institute, the problem isn’t foreigners illegally entering the U.S., but the mean people who treat illegals as second-class citizens. Says the report: “Lack of access to health care and threats of deportation and discrimination all make unauthorized immigrants and their families less able to contribute to the communities in which they live.”

I don’t believe in demonizing illegal immigrants for the sin of wanting to build better lives in Virginia. I don’t bear them any animus. I think it is wrong to abuse or mistreat them. But I also believe that a sovereign state has the inherent right to choose who can enter the country and upon what terms and conditions they do so. Foreigners have no right to live in the United States. One can make an argument that the U.S. should expand opportunities for foreigners to enter the country legally, but only on the purely utilitarian grounds that their presence benefits the rest of us. Accordingly, I think we should give preferential treatment, as many other countries do, to those who can contribute to the national wealth and well being over those who cannot.

Having a rational conversation requires that we draw distinctions between immigrants on the basis of education, skills, wealth, age, ability to assimilate, and proclivity to become a burden on the state. It is difficult to have that conversation when we lump all “immigrants” together.

The Left’s War on the Poor: Sanctuary City Edition

Declaring Richmond a sanctuary city would protect criminal elements of the illegal alien population from deportation

Declaring Richmond a sanctuary city would protect criminal elements of the illegal alien population from deportation. Data source: Richmond Times-Dispatch

In February a debate erupted over the City of Richmond’s approach to dealing with illegal immigrants. Mayor Levar Stoney issued a directive reiterating a city policy prohibiting police from asking people about their immigration status in the normal course of business.

But that wasn’t good enough for protesters who called for the city to declare itself a sanctuary for illegal immigrants, members of the LGBTQ community, Muslims and African Americans. Under state law, Richmond authorities are supposed to send the immigration status of jail inmates to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Protesters demanded that the city deny ICE officials access to the jail unless they have a warrant from a judge.

It’s not clear how LGBTQs, Muslims and African Americans would benefit from sanctuary-city status, but let’s not let this ritualistic invocation of other victim groups detain us here. And let us not get dragged into a discussion of President Trump’s polarizing rhetoric regarding illegal immigrants or the wisdom (or lack of it) of building a big, beautiful wall. Let us turn our attention to the very people the protesters profess to be concerned about — immigrants.

In an excellent piece published over the weekend, Mark Bowes with the Richmond Times-Dispatch provided detailed data on the number of illegals held in Virginia jails. Since 2008, local and regional facilities with the ten largest illegal-immigrant populations have held nearly 13,800 illegal immigrants, of whom 4,700 were set for deportation. These numbers do not include inmates whose immigration status could not be determined,

Bowes interviewed Juan Vega, a naturalized citizen who was born in Nicaragua and came to the United States with his family as a young boy. As a Spanish-speaking Chesterfield County prosecutor, Vega interacts daily with the county’s growing Hispanic community that included more than 27,000 legal and illegal residents in 2005.

“Many politicians and other people in the community throughout the nation are really going out on a limb for these violent individuals, to keep them here, and I thought, this is kind of disturbing where I am coming from, with what I see here in the courtroom every week,” the prosecutor said.

He feels a responsibility to speak out, Vega said, because a non-Latino would be labeled a racist.

Academics can argue back and forth over whether illegal immigrants are more or less violent than native-born Americans — there is evidence cutting both ways — but there is no denying that some illegal immigrants are violent. And when Hispanic illegals come to Virginia, they live amidst other Hispanics. Said Vega: “They go to those Latino communities where there are a lot of legal Latinos, who they prey upon.”

In the article, Bowes highlighted several high-profile Chesterfield County crimes involving illegal immigrants. Broadly speaking, these crimes fall into two categories. One consists of drunk driving, in which victims appear to be random members of the community. The other consists of robbing, stabbing, raping, shooting and general criminal mayhem, in which the victims are usually known to the perpetrators — in other words, the victims are usually other Latinos.

For example, in 2011 Melecio Hernandez, an illegal Mexican immigrant, was convicted of crawling through the window of a female neighbor and sexually assaulting her. In 2012 Felix Carillo-Fuentes, an illegal immigrant from El Salvador, cut his pregnant fiancee and stabbed 16 times a man he believed to be a romantic rival. In 2015, a mob led by an illegal immigrant from Mexico attacked Salvador Garcia-Cruz, a legal immigrant, outside a nightclub, punching him, kicking him and stabbing him above the eye.

“Every single victim of mine — whether they’re here illegally, or are citizens or have work permits — has said it’s a good idea to deport other violent illegal immigrants,” Vega said. “They’re scared there’s going to be some kind of retribution (after the felons) serve their time and leave prison.”

Bacon’s bottom line: It is a core belief of the Left that America is a hopelessly racist, misogynist, homophobic society. The Left is always on the lookout for victims who fit that narrative. Thus, we see black high school students who disrupt the educational experience of their classmates elevated to victim status on the grounds that they are suspended at disproportionate rates compared to other races. Similarly, we see illegal-immigrant criminals elevated to victim status on the grounds that… frankly, I’m not sure what grounds… Because racism. Because Trump. It makes no sense to me.

Whatever the logic or illogic in spinning these narratives, lefties ignore the invisible victims, be they black students who find themselves in classrooms where no one can learn or legal Latino immigrants who are preyed upon by the criminals in their midst.

Thus the real racists — racist in the leftist sense of propounding policies that have disproportionate impact on minority groups — are the leftists themselves. In the case of Richmond as sanctuary city, those who would keep illegal-immigrant criminals here in Virginia are allowing them to continue abusing law-abiding Latinos (whether here legally or illegally). If the goal is to help the poor and downtrodden, Richmond should not only reject sanctuary city status, it should do precisely the opposite — declare its intention to cooperate fully with the ICE and deport the bad actors.

Illegals Pay up to $300 Million in State-Local Taxes. In the Final Analysis, So What?

Illegal aliens? We don't have no stinkin' illegal aliens.

We come in peace.

by James A. Bacon

There are an estimated 260,000 to 290,000 illegal aliens (“undocumented workers” to those inclined to politically correct thinking) in Virginia. Each year, they pay between $200 million and $300 million in state and local taxes, according to a new report by the Commonwealth Institute. That constitutes between 6.6% to 7% of their household income.

Illegals pay many taxes because they are impossible to avoid, observe authors Aaron Williams and Michael Cassidy. If someone buys grapefruits or gasoline, sales tax is collected regardless of his or her immigration status. Illegals, they say, pay between $106 million and $135 million from this source each year.

Similarly, property taxes cannot be ducked. If an illegal purchases a house, he pays a real estate tax the same as everyone else. If he rents instead, his landlord still pays the tax. While some illegals work off the books, the Commonwealth Institute estimates that between 67% and 75% work for employers who withhold state income taxes from their paychecks. (These pay federal taxes as well, despite being ineligible for Social Security and Medicare benefits.)

Conclude Williams and Cassidy:

The bottom line is that undocumented immigrants make significant contributions to the Virginia economy and tax rolls despite being ineligible for many of the services and benefits they contribute to. In order to develop policies that promote the prosperity of all Virginians, it is essential that debate about immigration broaden to include these important contributions.

Bacon’s bottom line: The Commonwealth Institute provides an important reminder that undocumented workers may be here illegally but they do pay taxes, undercutting the notion that they constitute a fiscal drain on state and local government. In a similar vein, other studies have shown that illegal immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than native-born Americans. There are legitimate reasons for opposing illegal immigration, and there are illegitimate reasons. The notion that illegals don’t pay taxes is not a legitimate reason.

We should not demonize people who are just trying to better their lives. I would not go as far as Jeb Bush as to say that illegal immigrants are performing “an act of love” by slipping illegally into the country, but I find it hard to fault someone for looking for an opportunity to work.

However, the fact that the motives of illegals are sympathetic does not make it OK for them to be here. The biggest problem, to my mind, is that they compete for jobs with native-born Americans, especially lower-income Americans. If I were a meat packer or construction worker who found his wages depressed by a glut of immigrants who think $8.00 an hour is pretty good money, I would be fully justified in getting up in arms.

The idea that there are “some jobs that Americans just won’t do” is a lot of hooey. There may be some jobs that Americans won’t do at $8 an hour, but Americans will do them for $10 or $12 an hour. Unless someone repealed the law of supply and demand while I wasn’t looking, illegal immigrants put downward pressure on wage levels in lower-income jobs. If you’re looking for inexpensive landscaping or domestic help, that’s a good thing. If you are the landscaper or domestic help, it’s a bad thing.

Where I depart from the Commonwealth Institute analysis is the proposition that we should develop policies to promote the prosperity of “all Americans” — illegals included. No, regardless of how much they pay in taxes, illegals are not our responsibility. Our prime responsibility is to hundreds of thousands of low-income, native-born Americans. Our responsibility is to find ways to raise the wages of Virginians at the bottom of the income ladder without resorting to gimmicks like minimum wage that distort the labor market.

Yes, we should help illegal immigrants but we should do it by encouraging their countries of origin to adopt economic policies that support job creation and wage growth. Mexico has done so well in this regard that there is a net flow of immigrants from the U.S. back to Mexico today. Central American countries are much bigger net contributor of illegals these days. Not surprisingly, Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador are dysfunctional societies. The preferable solution is to help those countries achieve political and economic stability, not accommodate ourselves to a continued outflow of illegal migrants.

The Ironies of Virginia's Growing Diversity

Midlothian’s New Grand Mart taps state’s growing diversity

 By Peter Galuszka

Suddenly immigration is popping up as a major issue in Virginia and the nation.

Virginia Beach has been dubbed a “sanctuary city” for undocumented aliens by Fox News and conservative Websites. GOP presidential hopeful Donald Trump is scarfing up poll number hikes by calling Mexicans trying to enter the U.S. illegally “rapists” and proposing an expensive new wall project to block off the southern border. Pro-Confederate flag advocates are pushing back against anti-flag moves, but they can’t escape the reality they are conjuring up  old visions of white supremacy, not their version of respectable Southern “heritage.”

So, if you’d like to look at it, here’s a piece I wrote for The Washington Post in today’s newspaper. When I visited a new, international food store called New Grand Mart in Midlothian near Richmond, I was impressed by how large it was and how many people from diverse backgrounds were there.

Looking further, I found one study noting that Virginia is drawing new groups of higher-income residents of Asian and Hispanic descent. In the suburbs, African-Americans are doing well, too.

The Center for Opportunity Urbanism ranked 52 cities as offering the best opportunities for diverse groups. One might assume D.C. and Northern Virginia would rank well, and they do. More surprising was that Richmond and Virginia Beach rank in the top 10 in such areas as income and home ownership. True, mostly black inner city Richmond has a 26 percent poverty rate but it seems to be a different story elsewhere.

Stephen Farnsworth of the University of Mary Washington says that economic prosperity and jobs that had been concentrated in the D.C. area, much of it federal, has been spread elsewhere throughout the state. It may not be a coincidence that New Grand Mart was started in Northern Virginia by Korean-Americans who undertook research. It revealed that the Richmond area was a rich diversity market waiting to be tapped. They were impressed and expanded there.

Other areas that do well in the study are Atlanta, Raleigh, N.C. and ones in Texas, which show a trend of job creation in the South and Southwest outpacing economic centers in the Northeast, Midwest and in parts of the West. Another story in today’s Post shows that there are more mostly-black classrooms in Northern cities than in the South. The piece balances out the intense reevaluation of Southern history now underway. A lot of the bad stuff seems to have ended long ago, but somehow similar attitudes remain in cities like Detroit and New York.

This progress is indeed interesting since old-fashioned American xenophobia is rearing itself again.

In Virginia, the long-term political impact will be profound as newer groups prosper. They may not be as inclined as whites to embrace Virginia’s peculiar brand of exceptionalism, such as their emotional mythology of Robert E. Lee and Thomas Jefferson. Their interest in them might be more dispassionately historical.

And, as the numbers of wealthier people from diverse backgrounds grow, they may be less willing to keep their heads down when faced with immigrant bashing. That’s what people of Hispanic descent did in 2007 and 2008 when Prince Williams County went through an ugly phase of crackdowns on supposed illegals. They could strike back with their own political campaigns.

Whether they will be blue or red remains to be seen. It’s not a given that they’d be Democratic-leaning. Farnsworth notes, however, that as more diverse people move to metropolitan suburbs, whites in more rural, lower-income places may become more reactionary out of fear. Hard-working and better-educated newcomers might be out-classing them in job hunts, so they might vote for politicians warning of a yellow or brown peril.

In any case, New Grand Mart presages a very crucial and positive trend in Virginia. It shows the irony of the hard right echo chamber peddling stories designed to inflame hatred and racism, such as the one about Virginia Beach being a “sanctuary” for illegals. In fact, the city is attracting exactly the  well-educated and hard-working newcomers of diverse backgrounds upon whom it can rest its future.

But we’re in an age of bloated billionaires with helmet hairdos and no military experience claiming that former Republican presidential candidate John McCain, a shot-down Navy pilot who spent five years in a brutal North Vietnamese prison, is not a hero. If Virginia can ignore such time-wasters and embrace diversity, it will be a better place.