Isn't it amazing, that on December 23rd, 2002, this legal residency rule had to be written in Virginia?
Or that there is no equivalent rule in some of the other States, such as California?
Posted on 12/17/2002 11:19:19 PM PST by kattracks
Edited on 07/12/2004 3:59:42 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Senator Whipple, the DMV is in the business of licensing drivers to operate motor vehicles.
I cannot believe that the employees of DMV are capable of making decisions on immigration," she (Sen. Whipple) said.
Senator Whipple, you should neither underestimate nor insult the employees at your state's DMV offices by making such a ridiculous statement.
A ridiculous statement on its face.
There are only a few INS forms which show legal residency.
There is the form if you are here as a student, the green card, the tourist visa, etc. etc. If you are an American citizen, there is the birth certificate and so forth.
The real reason Demoncrats are against curbing illegal immigration is that they profit from selling out our country.
What a flimsy argument to try and retain the illegal immigrant vote. This woman should be thrown out of office.
Never too early to start the Kilgore for Governor Campaign. Any help will be appreciated! Latest email from Jerry Kilgore's PAC
I hope all is well with you this holiday season. I thought you might be interested in this commentary written by the former chairman of the Democrat Party, Paul Goldman. Please feel free to forward to anyone you think might be interested as well.Sincerely,
Ken Hutcheson
Executive Director
Virginians For Jerry Kilgore PAC
King Kong KilgoreMild-mannered Jerry Kilgore may not roar and beat his chest, but he has become Virginia's most powerful first-year attorney general in modern times.
I am the law in this County said legendary Texas hanging Judge Roy Bean. Sorry, Mr. Bean. Time for you to move over because there is another hombre in town. His name is Jerry Kilgore and he is the law not just in one county, but in the whole state of Virginia.
The boy from Scott County has become The Man in Richmond, where he rules the legal roost as the state's top legal officer. If there has ever been a more powerful first-year Attorney General in Virginia history, my research couldn't find one. In this past year, he has overruled at least three formal opinions of previous Attorneys General. This is highly unusual if not unprecedented. Now, in defiance of tradition, he has taken the Virginia Supreme Court to court, challenging one of its most controversial decisions before the United States Supreme Court. Moreover, this constitutional lawyer says Mr. Kilgore should win, and will win, his appeal of the Virginia high court's misguided 4-3 decision in the KKK cross-burning case. If he does, it will be a huge victory, with national repercussions.
This leads to the question: Why is Mr. Kilgore becoming so powerful?
Look at the 2001 election returns. Kilgore is the first Attorney General candidate since 1969 to win election while his Party's standard-bearer was losing the race for governor. His victory margin was the best-ever for a GOP candidate for the state's top elected legal job.
So yes, he won big, and this no doubt is something he has used very successfully. But it fails to explain the reluctance of Democrats to challenge his more questionable legal rulings. Except for the law suit brought by Hillsville lawyer Jonathan McGrady in the case of Marye vs State Board of Elections, the Attorney General has been given a virtual free pass in terms of legal matters initiated during his first few months in office.
Right now, his legal boys, as indicated above, are in the United States Supreme Court, challenging the legal ruling of the Virginia Supreme Court voiding convictions of several KKK members for violating the Old Dominion's statute outlawing cross burnings in certain circumstances. The Virginia high court had declared the criminal statute unconstitutional in an emotionally charged 4-3 decision. Kilgore decided, on his own, to appeal the decision to the Supremes in Washington.
Earlier this week, the AG's office made a very impressive legal argument before the nine black-robed sages sitting in the house Virginian John Marshall built. The Klan says the First Amendment, written by Virginian James Madison, protects their right to burn crosses even if in so doing, their actions and words evidence a clear intent to intimidate others; indeed, in the case at issue, a witness to their "ritual" and hateful, kill-the-"n------" declarations, said she was scared for the safety of herself and her children.
Kilgore disagrees with the Klan, as does Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas who, awaking from his 11-year slumber, called the Virginia Supreme Court majority wrongheaded and declared the anti-Klan law constitutional. The final outcome awaits the formal ruling of all 9 Justices.
To this constitutional lawyer, Kilgore and Thomas are right, although we may differ on the precise reasoning [this is for another article]. Virginia's anti-cross burning law does not infringe on the First Amendment rights of the Klan, or any other bigoted and hateful group.
Thus, in my view, Attorney General Kilgore is soon to win a huge victory in the United States Supreme Court, one where he stood up not only to the Klan, but also to the cavemen of the Virginia high court who must think they live in the same world as Mississippi Senator Trent Lott.
Kilgore's "I am the law" persona, whereby he has now stared down the Governor, the Virginia Supreme Court and the General Assembly on major legal issues, hardly seems to square with his mild-mannered personality.
This political observer cannot determine if he is merely the one-eyed lawyer in the land of the jurisprudentially blind, or one of those individuals whose grit is easily underestimated by others.
In that regard, the next few years will tell the tale of the tape, as they say in boxing. Lieutenant Governor Kaine is a very gritty politician despite his friendly and laid-back manner. So he, too, is easily underestimated by those who associate steely resolve with the macho-man image.
In recent years, sitting attorneys general and incumbent lieutenant governors have faced each other 5 different times on the path to the Governorship. LG Robb defeated AG Coleman in the 1981 gubernatorial race. In 1985, AG Jerry Baliles upset LG Dick Davis for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination, and then went on to a landslide win in the General election. Sitting AG Mary Sue Terry, encouraged by Robb and Baliles to challenge incumbent LG Doug Wilder for the 1989 Democratic gubernatorial nomination, decided against committing political suicide for the cause. She let Wilder run for Governor, and went along for a re-election ride as the LG won the biggest upset in American gubernatorial history.
In 1997, sitting Republican AG Jim Gilmore went fender-to-fender against LG Don Beyer in a gubernatorial race decided by the GOP candidate's successful advocacy for the repeal of the local car tax. In 2001, Republican AG Mark Earley easily bested GOP LG John Hager in an intra-party fight for the right to run against Democratic candidate and future Governor Mark Warner.
So, in the last six gubernatorial election cycles, the sitting AG has bested the sitting LG 3 out of 5 times in head-to-head races either in a general election or an intra-party contest. Thus, history provides no guide as to the likely winner in any Kaine vs. Kilgore match-up in 2005.
In the fullness of time, hindsight will be 20-20 in that regard. But no hindsight, or even foresight, is currently needed to assess Mr. Kilgore's image as attorney general. He is, without question, the most powerful attorney general in modern times.
If this isn't clear to Virginia political observers by now, it will be when he slam dunks the KKK, the Virginia Supreme Court, and all those in the government who urged him not to appeal the cross-burning case.
-- December 16, 2002
Paul Goldman was chief political strategist for the past two winning Democratic governors in Virginia and was credited with leading a "revolution in American politics" by The New York Times for his role in breaking America's 300-year-old color barrier in national politics.
For the Virginians...
Dec 19, 2002
Kilgore's policies criticized
Immigrant groups seek college access
BY PAUL BRADLEY
TIMES-DISPATCH STAFF WRITERARLINGTON - Furious with Attorney General Jerry W. Kilgore's efforts to hinder illegal immigrants from attending state colleges, immigrant advocates are planning to fight back when the General Assembly convenes in Richmond next month. [get ready, folks]
Yesterday, during a forum on Kilgore's initiatives, representatives of immigrant groups said the attorney general's proposals ignore the hurdles that children of illegal immigrants face in becoming American citizens.
The forum drew about 100 people to the Arlington Education Center.
By seeking to exclude undocumented students from state-funded schools, Kilgore thwarts efforts by Republican colleagues to help the children of immigrant parents, his critics added.
"We are talking about children who have done nothing wrong, who came here with their parents, who in many cases have lived nearly all their lives in Virginia," said Tisha Tallman, counsel to the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund.
Earlier this week, Kilgore announced he will submit legislation to clarify that illegal aliens are ineligible for in-state tuition rates at state-funded colleges and universities.
The reduced rates can amount to a savings of $6,000 a year, officials said.
Yesterday, Del. Karen L. Darner, D-Arlington, said she will introduce a proposal to compete with Kilgore's. Her dis- trict is about 40 percent Hispanic.
She said her legislation would put into law Virginia's past practice of allowing undocumented students who live here to pay reduced in-state tuition rates. It would mirror similar laws enacted in New York, Utah, California and Texas, she said.[*]
"At a time when other states are recognizing the value of educating all their students, we here in Virginia are facing another form of discrimination," she said.
Earlier in the year, Kilgore's office issued a memorandum urging college presidents to deny admission to undocumented students and to report undocumented students to the Immigration and Naturalization Service.
"As a matter of policy, we just don't think it's too much to ask that people obey the laws of society before they take advantage of what that society has to offer," said Kilgore spokesman Tim Murtaugh.
"To move people who have not followed the law in front of those who have is offensive."
Yesterday's forum was held in part to put a human face on those who would be affected by changes in how illegal immigrants are treated by higher education institutions in Virginia.
Far from being freeloaders or criminals, the vast majority entered the country illegally as small children with their parents, immigrant advocates said.
They have attended Virginia public schools and earned grades good enough to be admitted to college. They speak English and consider themselves Americans, speakers said.
But because their parents came here illegally, the path to citizenship is impeded by sometimes contradictory immigration laws, the advocates said.
For example, before an immigrant becomes a citizen, he must first be a lawful permanent resident for five years. To obtain a permanent resident visa - commonly called a green card - an immigrant must be sponsored by either a family member who is a citizen, or by an employer.
But obtaining a green card is difficult for undocumented students. That's because under immigration law, any person who has been in the country illegally for as little as six months is barred from receiving a visa and subject to being deported.
"A lot of people believe it's just a matter of students not having the will to become citizens, and that's just not so," said Samuel McTyre, chairman of the Immigrant Educational Rights Coalition.
Some congressmen have begun to recognize the barriers facing immigrant students who are undocumented because of actions of their parents.
U.S. Rep. Christopher B. Cannon, R-Utah, sponsored legislation last year that would have allowed some undocumented students to become lawful permanent residents. They would have to be under age 21, be enrolled in the seventh grade or above, reside in the United States for at least five years and demonstrate good moral character.
Though Cannon's legislation was unsuccessful, he plans to try again next year.
"Many of these students have received scholarships and been recruited by colleges and universities, but they have little hope of achieving their goals," Cannon said.
"We should provide a track for these students to obtain legal status so they can pursue their higher education without uncertainty hanging over their heads."
Murtaugh said Kilgore is aware of the federal efforts, but they would not affect his initiatives in Virginia.
"We just want people to obey the law," he said.
Contact Paul Bradley at (703) 548-8758 or pbradley@timesdispatch.com
RTD* These Democrats are going to kill us with their handouts. Those of us who pay the taxes cannot keep this up!
Two stories in today's WP:
Fairfax Schools Target Crowding: Seven New Facilities, Renovations Proposed
Would you know of any sources where Mr. Kilgore's position on economic & social issues can be found?
Here's the link for his official site now. His Virginians for Kilgore PAC has an email list but no website yet according to Google. I know he campaigned as being pro-life and against government spending, growth and pro-tax cuts. Someone else will have to chime in to help you further.
Virginia FReepers and our out of state supporters should kick off this campaign right now, and dig up all the dirt we can on Tim Kaine ( Re: MUD's post). No holds barred! Kilgore is the best friend that Virginia conservatives have had in a loooooong time.
I hopped on that bandwagon the minute I saw Earley had blown his chance last election...Kaine's a sittin' duck, panty-waist, UkropLib'ralButtLickin' RAT of the worst sort!!
We're gonna have Li'l Timmie fer breakfast, lunch and dinner...but not until he's the official nominee. In fact, I've probably already said too much...MUD
Isn't it amazing, that on December 23rd, 2002, this legal residency rule had to be written in Virginia?
Or that there is no equivalent rule in some of the other States, such as California?
California is badly in need of such a law. There are several million reasons why.
A fellow Border Patrol Agent and good friend of mine has the last name Whipple, and let me tell you something you commie, you are not worthy of the last name Whipple. Most of the illegals that I ask, are actually honest about their status believe it or not. For the DMV, it is just a simple matter of asking the question. "Are you here legally or not?"
The citizens of California passed proposition 187 which made it illegal to provide state services to illegals. It would have forced service providers such as the DMV, hospitals, and schools to deal with the "complicated process of determining whether someone had a legal right to be here". It was struck down by Judge Feltzer, a liberal judge, and when the administration changed in California, the new governor dropped the appeal. Yes, California sadly needs such a law. If the initiative process had not sought to collect all the state services in one law perhaps it would have taken longer for the liberals to knock them out because the sad truth is that the liberals are seeking to tear down this country.
Does this apply to Marvin the Martian also? lol !
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.