Can States Regulate Immigration? Part 5
Results from the 'election market' in Virginia

7 Nov 2007 in Regulatory Policy

Economists often treat elections as markets; candidates are the "supply," voters provide the "demand," and the outcome determines which "product" the public "buys." Perhaps second only to traffic, immigration has become the top local issue in Prince William County, Virginia. We've posted on Prince William County's efforts to indirectly regulate the numbers of illegal aliens whjo reside in the county.

Yesterday elections were held statewide in Virginia. What did the market say?

Unofficial results (PDF) of the elections for county supervisorial posts are listed in the table below. All incumbents standing for reelection had voted to restrict illegal aliens. Four of eight supervisorial candidates were unopposed. Winners who faced single opponents received 55% to 67% of the vote.

The Woodbridge district was an open seat. In his campaign, the winner campaigned against the recent supervisorial vote. However, he also said he would be "tough on illegal immigration" (PDF) and in favor of "[s]trict enforcement of our neighborhood zoning laws and increased fines and penalties to employers who hire illegal immigrants." From his campaign website, it's clear that "neighborhood zoning laws" refers to illegal (but apparently common) conversion of single family homes and townhouses into de facto boarding houses.

Local governments have the authority to enforce housing occupancy ordinances, though occupancy limits can be contested under federal law as discriminatory if they are not "reasonable" or have a "disparate impact" on groups protected by the federal Fair Housing Act. The authority of local governments like Prince William County to fine or impose other penalties on employers of illegal aliens is unclear.

[add a comment]

Add a Comment