How to spot an illegal beagle

RT-D Jeff Schapiro wrote, “Through press secretary Delacey Skinner, Kaine, the Democratic nominee, indicated that he, too, believes Virginia government should get tough with businesses that put illegal immigrants on the payroll.

‘If we discover a business is willfully violating immigration laws by hiring illegal immigrants, they should not be rewarded with state benefits, such as contracts,’ Skinner said.”

Oh, please! Democrat Tim Kaine is Pro-Herndon Day Labor center but against illegal immigration?

And the flip-flopping list goes on and on and on…

Pro-revenue but anti-property tax…
Pro-choice but anti-abortion…
Pro-gun but pro-Restrictions on Hand guns…
Tough on Crime but anti-Death penalty…
Pro-Gay & Lesbian but against same-Sex Marriages…
Pro-transportation but pro-Environment and controlled growth…

Exactly what does the flipping Democrat Tim Kaine stand for?

~ the blue dog


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

  1. Anonymous Avatar

    The point that is being made is that it is as illegal to hire undocumented workers as it is to enter the United States without proper documents. The reason that illegal aliens are here is that they are seeking employment. If the federal government will not stop them at the border, then it is appropriate for the State government to enforce employment laws and cut off the very reason why the aliens come here. Arresting and deporting these men is meaningless, they only come back. They won’t come back if there isn’t a job waiting for them. I have driven around Northern Virginia extensively and seen the large groups of day laborers hanging around waiting for employers — don’t blame Herndon for wanting to get these men off the street and out of sight. The federal and state governments have to start enforcing their laws — all of them.

  2. Anonymous Avatar

    And thanks to the prompt action of our governor, we have a concentration–I mean detention–camp all ready for those nasty wetbacks at Ft. Pickett. That will hold the illegals picked up on the first weekend. Where to we put the rest of them? Appropriate all the hotels in Williamsburg?

    This is hilarious. And both K and K have crawled out on this limb together. Should the state decide to get into primary enforcement of this, the response of employers will be to hire nobody of Hispanic descent, nobody of South Asian descent, unless they provide absolute proof, and even then there is the danger of forgery or a status change after the person is hired. Many perfectly legal workers will be out.

    Bacon: Forget your plans to privatize roads or road maintennce. Wipe out the illegals and our construction industry comes to a halt.

    Sisson: The farm economy in your part of the state comes to a grinding halt.

    Your beach hotel room will get a little rank with no maid service; the next bid to paint your house will be 20 percent higher.

    I could go on, but this is just too funny. If there is a way to get Potts up to 15 percent, these boys may have found it.

  3. Anonymous Avatar

    The juice is still pumping —

    Okay, so if it turns out that some local foreman hires an illegal to work as Dominion Power lineman, does that mean the state will buy its power from the coops or set up windmills?

    If Dell has some illegal working in a plant in another state, hried wink wink by his cousin who is also from that other country, will Virginia agencies and local goverhments be bared from buying Dell computers?

    If Hunton and Williams hires a legal secretary based on false documentation, paperwork that a sharp eye would have spotted as fake, will be it prevented from outside counsel legal work? Or should it even lose its firm license and go out of business.

    Racism isn’t the problem here. This us just plain dumb.

  4. James Young Avatar
    James Young

    To answer your question: ELECT ME!

  5. James Young Avatar
    James Young

    OK, that was the flippant answer.

    To address the issue, Kaine’s position is little more than dishonest posturing, since it is quite likely illegal.

    The Supreme Court ruled long ago (I believe that it was in a case called Gould v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission) that a state cannot deny benefits based upon an entity’s violations of federal law (in that case, federal labor law), holding that such actions are preempted by federal control. I haven’t researched the likely outcome of this specific proposal, but it took me about ten seconds to contemplate this challenge.

    Kaine is an attorney (God knows if he ever really practiced) and federal preemption is a rather basic principle. I seriously doubt that he is so ignorant of the law that he doesn’t know that any such action would be preempted under Federal law, or at least subject to a serious challenge in Federal court. Thus, this is likely craven posturing designed to secure votes, but not a proposal that could be seriously considered.

    This is politics at its worst.

  6. Anonymous Avatar

    Mr. Young. Attorney Kaine ignored federal precedent in calling for state punishment of employers for a federal offense only after Attorney Kilgore made that proposal first. Kaine was just following his standard “me, too” tactic.

    I don’t know if there is a state law against hiring undocumented aliens that parallels the federal statute. If there isn’t, now somebody will put it in.

  7. Anonymous Avatar

    Oh, and many defendents with far lighter wallets these days will tell you Kaine has plenty of real law practice behind him. One case involved a $100 million judgment, as I recall.

  8. See that is the problem.
    The government shouldn’t not buy stuff from companies who hire illegals, we should fine the hell out of them.
    As one of the anons said, if we are really worried about ending the illegal immigrant problem we have to stop the employment of them.
    We do that with VERY STIFF fines.
    Wal-Mart employed thousands of illegals and was fined 1 million dollars. Wal-Mart makes more than that an hour.
    Fine them $1 billion and see if they do it anymore.
    Thats the problem with all our fine systems, we don’t have tough enough penalties to stop it.

  9. And anon 9:58, are you saying Kaine is another Ambulance chasing lawyer like John Edwards, or was it some other lawsuit Kaine won for someone(and moreover himself)?

  10. Questioner Avatar

    Can someone help me here? Can someone point to a section of the Virginia Code that (1) prohibits the presence of illegal immigrants in the commonwealth (2)prohibits and punishes the hiring of illegal immigrants or undocumented workers?

    I had been of the impression that control and regulation of the immigration and naturalization process had been the province of the federal government.

  11. Anonymous Avatar

    GOP Hokie: Your question underlines the frustration of this campaign. Nobody really knows anything about these guys. Is it news to you that Kaine had a successful practice as a plaintiff’s lawyer? The $100 million verdict (and it might have been reduced on appeal) I think was against a big insurance firm accused of red lining in minority neighborhoods. I’m sure Kaine and colleagues got well paid. You could look it up. Kaine’s legal competence is established, as are his plaintiff’s lawyer leanings. Not all plaintiff’s lawyers are “ambulance chasers.”

  12. James Young: Tim Kaine was a civil rights attorney. He stood up for those facing housing discrimination. In 1998 he won a suit with an insurance company that discriminated against predominantly black neighborhoods. Standing up against race discrimination is VERY important.

    Tim Kaine stands up for people. That is what Virginians need. Virginia needs a Governor who cares about the Commonwealth, and those who call Virginia home. We need a strong leader. Tim Kaine is that leader.

  13. Anonymous Avatar

    Steve, no offense, but you’ve lost your edge. You’re predictable. Yes, we get that you hate Kaine because one of his press people blew you off. But don’t patronize us with trying to pretend it’s about policy or some principle. Your laundry list of flip flops makes no sense.

    The fact is, Kaine stands for the moderate, reasonable positions on all those issues. Trying to paint that as “flip-flopping” just goes to show how little you belong on a serious policy-focused blog like this. You were a lot funnier and more interesting when you weren’t anyone’s shill.

  14. Anonymous Avatar

    Illegal immigration is such a red herring issue and ranting about it is too. Businesses and other richies love illegal immigrants ’cause they do grunt work for pennies and don’t flirt with unions or ask for sick leave, or fair working conditions. But since the zenophobic Bubbas hate Latinos, the politicians try to win their votes by saying they hate illegal immigration but meanwhile making sure not to anger Big Agribusiness, who needs cheap subsurvient labor.
    CosmicMojo
    (wish we could respond with an identity w/o making a blog page. that’s why we choose the “anon” option, not because we don’t stand behind what we say. We just don’t have a blog page.)

  15. Questioner Avatar

    I am aware of Section 40.1-11.1 of the VA. code which makes it a Class 1 misdemeanor to “…knowingly employ,continue to employ, or refer for employmentany illegal alien who cannot provide documents….”

    Curiously, the section requires that employment application forms “ask prospective employees if they are legally eligible…” but then recites that no employer shall be required to use “employment application forms.”

    Well now, talk about “don’t ask, don’t tell!” Looking after those ole “right to work” employers…eh, Jim Young?

    Anyone who knows of a prosecution under this statute…please raise your hand!

    But is there anything in Virginia law that makes the illegal’s presence per se illegal?

  16. Anonymous Avatar

    § 40.1-11.1. Employment of illegal immigrants.

    It shall be unlawful and constitute a Class 1 misdemeanor for any employer or any person acting as an agent for an employer, or any person who, for a fee, refers an alien who cannot provide documents indicating that he or she is legally eligible for employment in the United States for employment to an employer, or an officer, agent or representative of a labor organization to knowingly employ, continue to employ, or refer for employment any alien who cannot provide documents indicating that he or she is legally eligible for employment in the United States.

    Permits issued by the United States Department of Justice authorizing an alien to work in the United States shall constitute proof of eligibility for employment.

    All employment application forms used by State and local governments and privately owned businesses operating in the Commonwealth on and after January 1, 1978, shall ask prospective employees if they are legally eligible for employment in the United States.

    The provisions of this section shall not be deemed to require any employer to use employment application forms.

    (1977, c. 438; 1979, c. 472.)

    Presumably enforcement is left to the local Commonwealth’s Attorney, who can bring an indictment. I don’t think anybody at the state level could do a thing on this and there is no way to make a local CA bring these cases. The Class 1 penalty is I think one year in jail and $2,500 fine.

    So what do Kaine and Kilgore want to do: Give the state original jurisdiction to bring charges? Or just enchance the penalties?

  17. Jim Bacon Avatar

    Anonymous 11:30. You seem to speak for many others when you say, “Businesses and other richies love illegal immigrants ’cause they do grunt work for pennies and don’t flirt with unions or ask for sick leave, or fair working conditions. But since the xenophobic Bubbas hate Latinos…”

    So many inflammatory statements in so few words!

    I would agree with you that “businesses and other richies” love illegal immigrants because they work for so little. I would add that the rich people who love illegals include many liberals who rely upon nannies, housekeepers, gardeners, cooks and others to take care of their daily needs. The very same Barbra Streisand types then turn around and criticize business/Bush/ Republicans — the usual suspects — for the stagnant/declining wages of America’s poor and working classes.

    Here’s the dirty secret: Illegal immigrants depress wages for native-born Americans. What a deal! Rich liberals can exploit cheap labor in their homes — and then blame Rebublicans for low wages! Pretty sweet deal, if you can get away with it.

    Other white liberals — ordinary ones, not the rich ones — love illegals for another reason. They see poor ethnics as their electoral allies. Pit the Bubbas against the Hispanics, and that means Hispanic votes for the Democratic Party. Ironically, white “Bubbas” aren’t the ones hurt most by competition with illegal immigrants. The biggest losers are African-Americans, who are a step lower on the economic ladder. How do liberals deal with that? By screaming “racism” louder and louder.

    Eventually, African-Americans will catch on to the Dems’ race mongering. I hope I live long enough to see the fallout.

  18. Anonymous Avatar

    Not inflammatory, just efficienty. There’s actually a marketing system that identifies market segments by catchy names and “Bubbas” is one of them. We all know what I meant when I said it and I didn’t have to write a long explanation of the socio-politio-economic meaning. A cookie to the first person to remember the name of the system.

    Bake, funny you assume I was dissin’ conservatives. I said “richies love illegals.” I didn’t specify just conservative richies. defensive? And I meant on a larger corporate scale more than a household scale.

    I think if we did a study of who has more maids and gardeners, it would be republicans, but that smackdown isn’t important here. Yep, there are rich liberals too. Is there suppose to be a loud noise or bright light now that I admitted that? Will I live?

    What is important is that we stop using racial fears as the motivator in immigration discussion and get to the economic realities in order to discuss it. And stop using those racial fears of illegal immigrants as a way to rally voters around a candidate who doesn’t care about immigration one way or the other.

  19. Anonymous Avatar

    yeah, just want is perjoritive about “Bubba”?

  20. Questioner Avatar

    This entire argument is a red herring. Immigration is the job and function of the federal government. The determination of what constitutes an “illegal alien” is determined by federal law.

    It is not the job of the state to enforce federal law. The federal government should appropriate the funds for that enforcement! Write your congressman.

    Now how about education, health care, transportation and a few issues that affect the government of this Commonwealth?

  21. James Young Avatar
    James Young

    Wow! Nice to have provoked some comments. A few rejoinders:

    Anon 9:56: If Kilgore proposed it, it was obviously a bad idea, too. That hardly excuses Kaine’s me-tooism. Indeed, one would have thought he would point out the flaw in Kilgore’s idea, if he weren’t interested in a pandering flip-flop on an issue on which Dems are only slightly worse than Republicans. As for your suggestion, I have my doubts about the constitutionality of such a state law, for the reasons stated above.

    Anon 9:58: Thanks for the info. Didn’t know. Anon 10:43: Didn’t really care until now. That both of them have taken this position does not do credit to either of them.

    GOPHokie — Well, I don’t disagree with you, but it was the Federal government which did so.

    Jen — Gee, well there’s something we have in common. But please save the platitudinous BS (“Standing up against race discrimination is VERY important”; etc.) for a less-educated forum. I’m still not voting for him.

    Anon 11:30 — Actually, unions frequently victimize illegal immigrants and non-English speakers. Unfair labor practice charges have been successfully pursued in LA against SEIU, which made misrepresentations to such individuals and then tried to fine them when they wanted to work during the union’s strike. I have represented farmworkers in Ventura County against the UFW, which failed to inform employees of their rights to refuse to support the union’s political agenda. It’s not just those “eeeeevil corporations” exploiting immigrants (legal or not); labor unions do so with at least equal frequency.

    Questioner 11:40 — Your question indicates that you either don’t know or don’t care about what the agenda of the organization which employs me is. We stand for one thing and one thing only: that every person should have the right, but no person should be required, to join or pay dues to a union as a condition of keeping a job. We don’t take a position on any other issue (the opinions expressed here are my own).

    As for the ideas discussed by the candidates and these comments, I wouldn’t say it’s a bad idea for the Congress to allow States to debar from public contracts employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens. Much better that Congress got in the business of defending our borders. But my understanding of current law is that it’s not authorized, and for either candidate to suggest that they can do it is simply wrongheaded.

  22. Let’s clear up the legal issue first:

    1) the Gould case is a case that defines the scope of federal preemption under the National Labor Relations Act. In that case, the Supreme Court said that the state couldn’t enact a debarment law that served as a supplemental sanction for NLRA violations. The Gould case would only be applicable to this debate if the court were to find that federal regulation of immigration was a comprehensive regulatory scheme that preempted any state action, such as the debarment proposal made by Kaine and Kilgore.

    2) IF the court were to decide that federal regulation of immigration were such a comprehensive scheme that it preempted any state action like the debarment proposal, then the state statute cited in the comments above, 40.1-11.1, that makes it a separate state crime to employ an illegal alien would also be preempted as would ANY other state statute that conflicted with or “supplemented” the federal regulatory scheme, including HB 1798 restricting state benefits or any proposal to prohibit local governments from funding day labor sites. Such complete federal preemption operates like the Dillon Rule — if the feds haven’t said you can do it, you can’t.

    3)So, if Young were right about preemption, the only actions the state could take to sanction employers or aliens for violations of federal immigration law would be those specifically authorized by Congress such as the proposal in pending legislation to specifically authorize all local law enforcement officials to enforce federal immigration laws.

    Conclusion, if you’re for preemption of debarment, I guess you’re for preemption of other state sanctions/penalties, etc for immigration violations unless authorized by Congress.

    Can’t have it both ways.

  23. James Young Avatar
    James Young

    I agree with CG2’s legal analysis. I simply wasn’t going to write a legal brief where shorthand should have been adequate.

    I didn’t comment about the criminal sanctions. I agree with CG2 that they’re probably preempted to the same extent that debarment would be.

  24. JY, Yea I know it was the feds so we cant control that here.
    Jim, I love your analysis. I couldnt have said it better myself.
    I think this “give us a chance and we will give you a choice” may start to reasonate among the african-american community in the next decade or so if we stay with it.

  25. James Atticus Bowden Avatar
    James Atticus Bowden

    CG@: Thanks for legal info. But, re: Such complete federal preemption operates like the Dillon Rule — if the feds haven’t said you can do it, you can’t.

    Isn’t that exactly opposite of the 10th Amendment? The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

    I’m not a lawyer. Don’t play one on TV either.

  26. CG2: Illegal immigration is a political football in the Commonwealth.

    Kilgore is the Quarterback on the issue, while Kaine can only drop punt.

    I’m not a politician. Don’t play one on the blogs either.

    ~ the blue dog

  27. NoVA Scout Avatar

    I make part of my living arguing that federal powers are few and precise, BUT, where they are enumerated in the Constitution, they are paramount and sweep aside efforts by the states to interfere with their exercise. Immigration is very much within the federal bailiwick.

    Much of what we’re hearing now from politicians in Virginia is pure opportunistic demagoguery. It may work in a parochial, get-my-ass-elected sense, but it is largely hollow rhetoric. If citizens care about this issue, they’ll focus on their Congressmen and the federal Administration. They would be well-advised to define exactly what the problem is and how to resolve it in a way that minimizes economic and human damage. For all the words that have been blogged on this, I have seen very little good data on how much of an issue illegal immigration is in various locales around Virginia. (How many illegals are there now, How many were there a year ago, ten years ago? What economic impacts (plus and minus) are illegal having in various parts of Virginia? Does the balance shift in different parts of the state)? Is it better to deny all privileges and benefits to illegals than it is to make sure these people are in the system (e.g., drivers licenses)? Is it better to let their children receive educational benefits than it is to deny them those benefits? How does that cost out? I have seen very little about how local law enforcement authorities can effectively deal with immigrant communities (gangs, domestic violence, housing violations) if they become agents of immigration credential enforcement? If the K-boys want to tangle with this issue, they had better start talking sense on this and taking the issue seriously. If they keep treating the voters like idiots they’ll miss a great opportunity to make things better for legal immigrants and descendants of immigrants (legal and illegal). Kilgore particularly risks setting the GOP back by treating this issue as a simplistic “car tax” gimmick. He has some time to get the nuance into the debate if he sincerely wants to do something positive on this issue, but he had better start.

  28. Anonymous Avatar

    The constitution grants to the federal government the determination of citizenship and status within our country.

    One state (maybe New Hampshire) tried to say that since illegal immigrants were not legally in the country, they could not legally have permission to be on state property, and started arresting illegal immigrants for trespassing.

    A judge slapped them down, which is consistant with those here who say we can’t punish employers for hiring illegals.

    Some comment seemed to imply that if this were true we couldn’t stop funding for a day labor center. That would be incorrect. However, it could well be that if a county set up a day labor center and tried to restrict illegals, a court could decide that the county had no right to discriminate.

    In other words, it could well be that if you don’t want your tax dollars going to help employ illegal immigrants, you might have no choice but to oppose day labor centers altogether.

    Which is just another reason why we need to petition the federal government to do SOMETHING about the foriegn invaders to our country.

    Charles R.

  29. NoVA Scout Avatar

    I don’t think anyone questions that a local government could decide not to provide centers for day laborers. But the point that is getting lost here is that in some circumstances, a local government might decide that the benefits from having an acceptable place for these folks to congregate outweighs the downside. A lot would depend on numbers, geography, traffic patterns, budgetary priorities etc. The problem with a blanket position such as the one Jerry Kilgore appears to want to ride to the Governor’s Mansion is that it mushes all those local considerations into the rubric of no tax dollars for illegal immigrants. This is one of those issues where the correct answer may be a resolute, defiant “It all depends.” Again, do we have an illegal immigration problem in Virginia? How do we measure it? What are its negative impacts? Are day laborer centers (however funded) a big issue? Or is this just more spaghetti being thrown at the walls as we approach November? I don’t know the answers, but would like to hear from those who do.

  30. As I’ve pointed out before in other blog threads on this issue, any serious discussion of the “problem” of illegal immigration in Virginia needs to start from the well-researched and cogently written report on acclimation of the foreign born in Virginia prepared by the well-respected Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission. You can find it on their website, http://jlarc.state.va.us/ along with statewide and local maps that show residential patterns.

    The JLARC report documents the positive contributions of immigrants and migrants to Virginia’s economy (e.g., 85% of farmers say that they would shut down without such labor), their needs and the associated costs of meeting the needs.

    Unfortunately, far too many enter this debate with little knowledge and too much emotion. Understanding what fuels the emotion is difficult and what insights one gets in talking or blogging with the fiercest opponents of day labor centers and proponents of state initiated immigration enforcement are disturbing.

    Here’s a reality check for those of you who think that our economy can function without foreign workers….from the US Chamber of Commerce’s website entry on essential workers:

    The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) estimates that the number of people in the labor force ages 25 to 34 is projected to increase by only three million between 2002 and 2012, while those age 55 years and older will increase by 18 million. By 2012, those aged 45 and older will have the fastest growth rate and will be the largest age-group in the labor force by far. According to estimates released in February 2005 by the United Nations, the fertility rate in the United States is projected to fall below “replacement” level by 2015 to 2020, declining to 1.91 children per woman (lower than the 2.1 children per woman rate needed to replace the population). By 2010, 77 million baby boomers will retire and, by 2030, one in every five Americans is projected to be a senior citizen.

    Now, let me see….
    which of you baby boomers or seniors plans to spend your declining years changing beds in motels, working as waiters/counter attendants in restaurants, picking crops, trimming shrubs and mowing lawns?

    None? Then, who’s going to be doing those jobs now and in 5 years?

Leave a Reply