Prince William Supervisor John Stirrup’s (R-Gainesville) resolution to deny county benefits to illegal aliens splashed onto Page One of the WashPo today.
Stirrup said the resolution’s goal is to deny services to illegal immigrants — including most forms of medical care and public education. “If they’re here illegally, we have no responsibility to educate them,” he said. In the case of emergency medical care, he said patients would be treated but promptly reported to the federal immigration agency.
Kathleen Walker, president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, said such measures would be “extremely harsh” and at odds with the 1982 Supreme Court decision Plyler v. Doe, which prohibits states from denying education to undocumented immigrants. “You can’t prevent a child from going to school,” she said.
Plyler v. Doe — decided 25 years ago in 1982. That was a much, much different court. In fact, not one of the members of today’s court majority of conservatives had yet been appointed to the court. Even back in 1982, this was a 5-4 decision with Justices William Brennan, Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun, Lewis Franklin Powell, Jr. and John Paul Stevens ruling in favor of illegal aliens. Justices Warren Burger, Byron White, William Rehnquist and Sandra Day O’Connor all dissented. Out of these nine justices, only John Paul Stevens remains.
I’d say that there is a better than even chance that this case will be overruled by John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito. Prince William County may be the jurisdiction that opens the way for the court to do so. That case was decided four years before the 1986 amnesty bill passed. Those two actions coupled together can be viewed as largely being responsible for encouraging the estimated 12-20 million illegal aliens who have entered the U.S. over the past 20 years.
Anyway, as one would expect from the WashPo, they have to end it with a “man on the street” type of comment to back up their own viewpoint.
For Hispanic immigrants in Prince William, the resolution could portend heightened cultural and ethnic tensions.
“There’s a lot of hate in this county,” said Tulio Diaz, a native of Puerto Rico who has lived in Prince William since 1972. He also suspects another motive behind the measures.
“It’s an election year, and it’s a great wedge issue,” he said. “So who do you pick on?”
There are several things wrong with this statement. First, yes, it is an election year, but all of the supervisors are unopposed at this point or may as well be (Sharon Pandak, John Gray and Corey Riley are all joke candidates who people take seriously at their own risk.) For all intents and purposes, there is no need for any wedge issues. Secondly, this has nothing to do with hate (such charges are always the last, desperate claim hurled by those with nothing else to support their own position.) Third, if PWC is so terrible, why has Mr. Diaz subjected himself to these conditions for 35 years? Maybe because it isn’t. Finally, even though Mr. Diaz is a native of Puerto Rico, residents of Puerto Rico are U.S. CITIZENS. This isn’t the first time that I’ve seen the WashPo make it sound as if P.R. is a separate country or at least that those from there are not already U.S. citizens.
Filed under: Immigration, Prince William County Politics
John Stirrup has my support, 100% !!!
I agree that Plyer v. Doe was decided during a very different time. We didn’t have masses of illegal aliens running amok, it was not then unlawful for employers to hire illegals, and there wasn’t any basis at the time to conclude that illegal aliens were imposing significant burdens on the school systems. Conditions have dramatically changed since then in law and facts on the ground, so this would be a decision ripe for revisiting.
The resolution John Stirrup offered doesn’t try to deny any children an education, however. About the only relevance this case might have would be whether we can collect statistics on the burdens illegals are imposing on the school systems, and it’s pretty easy to make a “compelling state interest” claim that understanding the scope of the problem is a reasonable interest of a local school board.
There should be some interesting discussions about the law connected with this proposed legislation. How durable is precedent when conditions have dramatically changed, and can it be extended in those circumstances?
I don’t follow the part about why Mr. Diaz’s citizenship undermines his opinion that “there’s a lot of hate around here” or that this is a wedge issue in an election year. All these supervisors are political animals to one extent or another, no matter how weak or strong their opposition is. The immigration issue seems like a real good ride with no near-term downsides (the budgetary, law enforcement, constitutional, tax and economic consequences won’t come due in dramatic fashion for a couple of years and by then, these guys figure that they may luck out and move on to bigger things).
Mr. Diaz’s citizenship is separate from refuting his other points. In fact, that comment was aimed squarely at the WashPo. They have on multiple occasions now gone to quotes from people originally from Puerto Rico on immigration matters — Puerto Rico is a U.S. Commonwealth that is represented by a non-voting delegate in the U.S. House of Representatives. Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens who do not need a passport since they are already in the U.S. Heck, they even send delegates to the GOP and Dem conventions to nominate their presidential candidates. So, it is very puzzling that the WashPo persists in doing this. Why not interview a legal immigrant from Mexico, El Salvadore, Honduras or even someone who legally entered the country from some other part of the world whether that be Korea or Ireland or Chile or Russia.
The fact that this is an election year is pretty much irrelevant in that most of the elections were decided on June 12 in PWC and this is taking place after that time. Doing this now is the equivalent of doing this in December after the Nov. elections. His comment about the “hate” is strange given that he has lived in the county for over 30 years. Has it been this “hate-filled” the entire time? If so, why does he continue to subject himself to such a climate? Or is this a more recent occurence with the arrival of more urban dwellers seeking out suburban living as they marry and begin raising families who tend to be more open-minded and accepting of diverse neighborhoods?
Finally, the “budgetary, law enforcement, constitutional, tax and economic consequences” of NOT having such a policy are coming due right now.
I keep waiting to see the numbers on those consequences. Stirrup obviously knows what they are given his resolution, but they have been singularly inept at getting the numbers out into the open for examination and comment.
I agree. These numbers should be released. I suspect they are probably even higher than most people think they are.
[...] fact, I hope that PWC challenges the ruling in Plyler v. Doe regarding education. As we previously noted, that case was decided 25 years ago and was a 5-4 decision. At that point in time, Reagan had [...]
[...] It sounds as if they are going to extend their ban to public education and challenge Plyler v. Doe. (H/T [...]