Report Labels Proposals as Costly, Burdensome and Ineffective Long-Term
By Nick Miroff
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
The Prince William Human Rights Commission has warned that the county's tough new policies on illegal immigration could lead to racial discrimination and costly litigation that would mar the county's reputation.
A subcommittee of the commission was convened in July after the Board of County Supervisors unanimously approved the most aggressive local measures in Virginia against illegal immigrants. Its report was released in advance of the board meeting today at which supervisors plan to vote on proposals that would curb access to specific county services for illegal immigrants and police policies designed to increase residency checks and deportations.
According to the report, the measures would be burdensome to legal residents, expensive for county taxpayers and "do little or nothing to relieve the longer term, underlying problems of assimilation." The report compares the policies with past discrimination in the United States against Native Americans and African Americans, claiming that "Prince William County has been fractured in ways not seen since the1950s."
County officials had anticipated that the report would not look favorably on their crackdown. The advisory commission, which was created in 1992 to ensure that Prince William residents are treated fairly and provided equal protection of the law, was cautioned by supervisors in August not to criticize the county's illegal immigration policies. In a letter to the subcommittee, the supervisors asked for guidance with implementation, not criticism.
Board Chairman Corey A. Stewart (R-At Large) belittled the findings yesterday as "useless."
"It's a tremendous waste of an opportunity," he said. "This report is nothing but a litany of complaints. . . . Comparing the atmosphere in Prince William today to the South in the 1950s is insulting and ridiculous."
Human Rights Commission Vice Chairman Carlos Labiosa, who led the subcommittee, said the report was not meant as criticism but as "a recommendation." He said the panel hadn't felt pressured by supervisors or a flood of angry letters and e-mails.
"We made our suggestions, and we're leaving it up to the county board of supervisors," Labiosa said.
In preparing the report, the subcommittee provided a forum for advocacy groups on different sides of the immigration debate, most of which opposed the measures.
"The county is changing, and I understand change is difficult for some people," Labiosa said. "But you cannot stop change."
The report cautions that the supervisors' goal of driving out or deporting illegal immigrants would also shrink the county's tax base. "It will be virtually impossible to implement this legislation in a non-discriminatory manner unless every resident of Prince William County is required to prove his or her legal residency at all county service points," it says.
The subcommittee recommended that the county issue some form of standard documentation for all county residents. Stewart dismissed that proposal as further evidence the report was not a serious effort.
The gulf between the board's determination to implement its policies and the subcommittee's concerns raised questions about the purpose of the advisory panel, which was created to ensure that "each citizen is treated fairly, provided equal protection of the law and equal opportunity to participate in the benefits, rights, and privileges of community life," according to the law that established the commission.
But retiring supervisor Hilda M. Barg (D-Woodbridge) said the Human Rights Commission was like any advisory body in the county.
"We don't always do what is advised by the Planning Commission, do we?" she said. "But we appreciate the work, and the board needs to make a decision in the best interest of Prince William County."
View all comments that have been posted about this article.