15 Thoughts to “Brookings Institution Report on PWC & Illegal Immigration”

  1. Rick Bentley

    The report has its moments, it does try to describe the phenomenon accurately. But to make that direct link between the mortgage crisis and the Rule of Law is just pure crap.

  2. Lucky Duck

    I am a little confused, Brookings stated the change was enacted…”without a public hearing”? I like accuracy in all reports – from either side of the debate, but I am disappointed the Brookings Institute failed to realize there was a marathon 14 or so hour public hearing on the issue. Yes, I think the supervisors had their minds made up to a large degree, but a public hearing was held none the less. Brookings Institute, by missing this fact, only taints their entire report.

  3. Moon-howler

    Lucky Duck, technically that marathon was billed as citizens time and not a public hearing. Technically they are correct. Practically, they are a little off.

  4. They made up their minds before ever listening to the public. Citizen’s Time was for show.

    Lets not imply the supervisors did it the right way when they didn’t. They don’t deserve that. They didn’t earn it.

  5. Slowpoke Rodriguez

    Looking for truth or facts in a Brookings Institute Report? That’s cute. Might as well have the words “paid for by La Raza” on it. God knows they’re getting enough pork from Obama to pay for it a thousand times over.

  6. hello

    The fact that the report contains such obvious error’s (without a public hearing) kills any credibility it may have had.

  7. Alanna

    We did not have a public hearing. Citizen Time is not a public hearing. What we had was a circus. I’ll find out more information on what qualifies as a public hearing.

  8. Alanna

    Jenkins talks at some length about how there that was no public hearing. In fact, going so far as to state that it could have been well advertised in a couple newspapers for $1600. Of course, Corey had sent out the mass postcard mailings at a cost of $30,000 instead.


    He talks about how we could have had a proper procedure but how instead we had the matter conducted in a highly politicized manner.

  9. Slowpoke Rodriguez


    Make sure you look real hard what qualifies as a public hearing. Lots of nuances, there!

  10. Alanna

    Again, 3 minutes of Citizens’ Time is not a public hearing. That’s all. There’s a difference. For being all ‘rule of law’, some of you people have a real hard time with the nuances.

  11. I think a true public hearing would have been conducted over an extended period of time. Probably multiple townhall meetings in various parts of the county in order to get a complete picture.

  12. Moon-howler

    There is a distinct legal difference. I believe it has to do with time the topic is advertised and citizen access addressing the topic.I am trying to get clarification. But there was no public hearing.

  13. Second-Alamo

    For God sakes, hundreds of people voiced their opinion on the Resolution in front of the BOCS. Who cares what the technical term is. Save it for the lawyers. The report should have at least stated that people had their say, and not give the impression that this was conducted without public input!

  14. Alanna

    It’s true, just as Linda Chavez stated during the Human Rights Commission meeting. There were no experts consulted. There was no attempt at a fact finding mission. No empirical evidence offered. It was a combination of pull it out of your ear together with the argument that people were nervous because too many brown people were living next door.

    Well, there’s exciting news on the federal level for Comprehensive Immigration Reform. I hope to be able to share more in the not so distant future.

  15. Censored bybvbl

    Anyone who thinks that the marathon Citizens Time is a legitimate excuse for a public hearing should ask Ross Horton if PWC should simply do away with public hearings and substitute the opinions offered during Citizens Time for informed and advertized presentations.

    Corey Stewart used public safety as the excuse for pursuing the Immigration resolution. He offered Linda Chavez nothing but constituents’ stories (cherry-picked from HSM’s playbook) as an excuse for pursuing his resolution. Public safety – how’s that working out for him?

Comments are closed.