Platts’ comments about Ryan are wrong

Responding to Town Council candidate Platts’ recent letter “Ryan should reconsider his bigotry remarks,” in the April 4 Star-Exponent, nowhere did Mr. Ryan call any of his opponents a racist or a bigot, or even imply it, as Platts asserted.

Ryan had integrity and nowhere did he misrepresent facts as Platts consistently did. Nothing Ryan said could reasonably be construed that he believes “we should have no immigration laws”  and that violators “should be given a free pass”  and not prosecuted.

To the contrary, Ryan said he “believes that everyone should be legal” and that “immigration enforcement is a federal issue that doesn’t fall to local police.” Ryan gets it; Platts doesn’t.

Perhaps Platts’ claim is true that he doesn’t understand Ryan’s point of view. It is certainly true that Platts consistently misrepresented it. Nowhere did Ryan mention Platts much less “denounce” him as a racist and a bigot as Platts claimed. So maybe it is Platts that owes Ryan (and the voters of Culpeper) an “explanation and public apology” for his “ill-advised comments.”

And Platts is still asking the same hackneyed question he asked back on Jan. 28 regarding “how is asking that these laws be more strictly enforced a matter of bigotry?” That question has been fully answered.

His public statements reported in the CSE show that he doesn’t simply want “these laws” more strictly enforced. He wants new, local laws enacted and immigration laws enforced by local police even though he’s been repeatedly informed (including by the commonwealth’s attorney) that immigration law and enforcement is the exclusive domain of the federal government.

Platts is a member of Help Protect Culpeper, an organization reported to be “focused on deterring illegal immigration at the local level.”

He has said he got into the council race when “I heard HPC was looking for candidates.” Yet he claims he doesn’t have a “personal agenda.” He has said that if elected not only would he support Culpeper entering into a 287g agreement with the federal government (which has repeatedly been demonstrated to be expensive and ineffective) but also take “enforcement measures beyond that.”

Platts has said that he doesn’t see “any legal impediments” to his proposals although they are obvious and have been fully explained to him. He has said that he would “seek opinions from the commonwealth’s attorney” but still has his “own opinions on what the law says.” He has said that ultimately he would leave it to the courts to decide.

The courts have already declared many of his stated proposals unconstitutional. Need they tell us personally, of course at our expense?

It seems to me that candidate Platts epitomizes the saying “You can tell a bigot, but you can’t tell him much.”

I wouldn’t vote for him.