Thread: Getting Tough On Illegal Immigration--Sort Of

Getting Tough On Illegal Immigration--Sort Of
By Austin Hill
Sunday, October 7, 2007

http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/Aust ... 2007/10/07

For a while, it looked like the people of Prince William County, VA were serious.

The Board of Supervisors there appeared poised to demonstrate to that local government can do more to address the problem of illegal immigration. They had already moved to cut funding of public services to illegal immigrants, and to beef-up police resources, last July.

Then, the board voted unanimously to support a new policy that increases “residency checks,â€

I'll buy every word you said in the first half of this post. I am one of those citizens and actually showed up to one of the hearings. I think you captured what most of us feel, but you left out one...above the disappointment or anger is an issue of trust. The legal residents here had started to think they finally found politicians that a link of trust could be established. Well, so much for that.

I follow your analysis about the small business owner, but I fail to see once again, why we don't hold the federal government accountable? Recalling local supervisor's isn't the answer, holding President George Bush and Nancy Pelosi and crew accountable would be the first right step in my estimation. For example, we know that the Social Security Office knows when someone is misusing a legal citizens social for employment, yet refuses to send out "mis-match" letters. Why not just take action against every federal entity until they get the message? I'm sure this has something to do with the fact you can't sue the government, but something has to change...

The solution would seem to be simple. Applicants must provide proof of citizenship, a green card (required to be on a resident aliens person at all times by law), or a right-to-work card received from the USCIS for legitimate visa holders when applying for work anywhere in the US. Wherein lies the potential discrimination in following the rule of law if this simple requirement is applied to all applicants? I didn't read that anywhere in the hypothetical. Could someone please pass the info along to the less than astute author Mr. Hill?