Thursday, July 12, 2007

Prince William County to reserve taxpayer services for taxpayers

Officials in Prince William county, just outside of DC, have voted unanimously to require proof of legal residency status before people use a host of public services:
The Prince William County board voted Tuesday on whether to adopt tougher measures that would target illegal immigrants.

The proposed measure requires that immigration status be checked before someone could use public services such as schools, libraries and swimming pools. The bill also requires police to check the residency status of anyone suspected of breaking the law. The measure would also force county police to ask about immigration during routine traffic stops.
This is a great idea. Why should those who've not paid their taxes in full be able to use these taxpayer-funded services? These services are paid for through a combination of taxes at the federal, state, and local levels. They are suffering from greater user strain while being subsidized in the form of higher tax rates for legal residents of Prince William county for the benefit of illegal immigrants.

The county is among the nation's most affluent. It is comprised of lots of wealthy professionals who presumably approve of subsidized cheap labor to tend to their yards and retile their rooftops. Yet in a 8-0 decision, the board approved the commonsensical measures.

This isn't surprising. Even among the well-off, opposition to unskilled immigration and the host of costly externalities it entails is overwhelming. A detailed Zogby poll found that among households making more than $75,000 a year, by a margin of 60% to 33%, Americans believe it is time to reduce immigration, both legal and illegal.

These measures are difficult to cobble together an apology for--they work to reserve the use of taxpayer-funded services for those who actually pay their taxes. The law enforcement angle is the least 'controversial' way of advocating for immigration reform. Still, the bill is predictably being derided:
Opponents of the proposal have argued that the bill would promote profiling by authorities based on race and ethnicity. More than 150 protestors rallied outside during the voting.
NPR's Morning Edition archived the story under the heading of "Race" rather than "Immigration" or "Law enforcement".

This opposition illustrates how fallacious the deportation strawman is. Open borders enthusiasts would have you believe that 'mass deportations' are Gestapo-esque and logistically impossible. That's not the case, but it doesn't matter. By withholding taxpayer services from illegal immigrants and reporting them to ICE upon discovery of their illegal status after citing them for engaging in some other lawbreaking activity, the prospect for future subsidized migrants becomes bleaker. Others leave voluntarily through attrition. Many more will leave of their own volition than will ever need to be deported. During Operation Wetback, between seven and eight left for each person who was actually deported.

That the bill includes restrictions on the use of public schools may have struck the astute reader as problematic. A quarter-century ago, in Plyler vs. Doe, the Supreme Court ruled that illegal immigrants are guaranteed--indeed, mandated to receive--a public education in the US with the bill being footed by the net taxpayer. Verification of legality is only to be permitted when a school district is ensuring that a student actually lives within the district's boundaries.

Private schools are not implicated. Federal vouchers for education in the form of an income tax credit would overcome this anti-sovereignty decision.

As the bill inevitably faces legal opposition, there is a chance that it will make its way to the contemporary Surpreme Court. Ideally, it will coincide with the heat of the '08 Presidential and Congressional elections.

The Whitehouse and the upper chamber of Congress are not allies of the pro-sovereignty majority. The current House has yet to be tested, but it is hardly a surefire bulwark against turning the US into another Latin American country. The desire for a more pliable, conflicted, and destitute population--a population that has an increasingly greater need for government intervention--is too tempting to pass up. State and local governments must be the impetus for greater immigration restriction. Contact the eight board members and thank them for taking the stand that they did.

5 comments:

JSBolton said...

The Plyler case is one of the worst and most momentous, instances of judicial usurpation of power. The free education for illegals' children, with no questions allowed to be asked, has been instrumental in the result where now we have 10% of births being to illegals. Hopefully this issue will be re-argued with a more patriotic group of justices.

MensaRefugee said...

I didnt know libraries were at risk of being used, let alone by illegals O_o;

agnostic said...

I didnt know libraries were at risk of being used, let alone by illegals

I was thinking that too, since I live in the DC metro area, and I tend to see lots of newly arrived Latin immigrants pouring into the local library. Way more than you'd expect based on literacy, propensity to read literature, etc.

Guesses: public libraries have free internet access, air conditioning in the hot & humid DC summer, as well as lots of low-brow material to peruse or check out (movies, CDs, magazines, and so on).

I'm guessing lots of ESL studying goes on as well, especially if the library has nice private rooms where their tutor teaches them English at public expense.

Audacious Epigone said...

Agnostic,

Free internet usage as a reason makes sense. It's generally cable or DSL and for no cost.

I can't remember the last time I've been in a library, but used to go on a regular basis to the one right across the street from my old girlfriend's home for internet access.

Anonymous said...

So you were using her for internet access?