WP Editorial: Prince William, a Year Later
According to the Washington Post,
Prince William, a Year Later
A crackdown’s toxic effectsONE YEAR after Prince William County launched its drive to hound, harass and humiliate illegal immigrants, the toxic effects of the policy — on the county’s reputation, social cohesion, political discourse and neighbors — are increasingly clear.
Across the nation, Prince William has become synonymous with an ugly strain of nativist intolerance that has deep roots in American history but which is a slander on the county’s generally well-educated and diverse population. In this region, almost every other major jurisdiction has spurned Prince William’s approach.
Minorities account for almost half of Prince William’s 370,000 people, and a large slice of that population — around 20 percent — is Hispanic. Most of them are legal residents, but many also have ties of kinship, friendship or employment with others who are undocumented. Many say they have been made to feel unwelcome in Prince William. This year, several dozen religious leaders in the county wrote to local elected officials, warning them of the divisive consequences of the county’s venomous campaign.
Predictably, they got the brushoff from Corey A. Stewart (R-At Large), chairman of the Board of County Supervisors, who has done more than anyone else to plant seeds of discord and hatred in the county. Mr. Stewart is an avid opportunist and manipulator who has an arm’s-length relationship with public candor. Not long ago, he said that a plan to install cameras in police cars — a precondition for his preferred policy of allowing officers to ask suspects about their immigration status almost at will before arrest — would be dropped “over my dead body”; then he dropped it. Lately, he has tried to link a decline in crime to the harsh policies he has advocated. Trouble is, much of the drop is attributable to a fall in robberies that predates the crackdown on illegal immigrants and that probably stemmed from an aggressive anti-robbery campaign by the police.
So what has the county achieved with its effort to intimidate undocumented newcomers by ordering checks on the immigration status of all detainees after arrest and by denying certain social services to illegal immigrants? Without doubt, it has prompted hundreds of Hispanics — legal and illegal — to depart the county. Many of them have moved to surrounding jurisdictions, where they are enrolling in public schools and turning to local government services or nonprofits for help. To Mr. Stewart and his allies, this beggar-thy-neighbor policy is a success. In fact, it has simply branded Prince William as the one locality in the Washington area where demagoguery by elected officials has gotten the better of coolheaded public deliberation.
Like I said before, 287(g) and mandatory checks on those arrested and still all this BS. What gives? Is there another agenda?
Mando,
Do you realize that the Resolution is not the 287(g) program? I’d just like to make sure we are clear on this fact. I am sensing some confusion still from some that suggest that the resolution is the 287(g) program.
The real question is what can we do with those “documented newcomers”? (This does not apply to all). The guilty parties know who they are.They seem to be the ones wanting to push THEIR agendas. They must have liked something they saw or why else did they move here.
Good question Mando – is the editorial complaining that the 287(g) and mandatory checks on those arrested should be discontinued?
“Without doubt, it has prompted hundreds of Hispanics — legal and illegal — to depart the county. Many of them have moved to surrounding jurisdictions, where they are enrolling in public schools and turning to local government services or nonprofits for help.”
I imagine that is the source of most of the teeth gnashing. They shoulda saw it coming is all I have to say. Welcome matts are welcome matts.
“Good question Mando – is the editorial complaining that the 287(g) and mandatory checks on those arrested should be discontinued?”
Sounds like it to me. Re-read the last paragraph.
Mando – agreed, that’s how the last paragraph reads to me as well. Actually, the comments section on the editorial is most interesting – there’s not too many comments agreeing with the Post’s editorial.
It is interesting it sounds like they are complaining about the movement of illegal residents to other counties from PWC. They can’t have it both ways – which it sounds like they are trying to do with the sentence “Many of them have moved to surrounding jurisdictions, where they are enrolling in public schools and turning to local government services or nonprofits for help.” Seems to me they would have just pointed out that they are moving to other jurisdicitions, but the rest of the sentence leads me to believe they are unhappy about the use of local government services by these people. Maybe I’m reading too much into it.
It’s more tripe to add to the garbage can. Does nothing more then piss people off and promote more histeria. I guess some on this site get some mouth-watering satisfaction out of it.
“Seems to me they would have just pointed out that they are moving to other jurisdicitions, but the rest of the sentence leads me to believe they are unhappy about the use of local government services by these people. Maybe I’m reading too much into it.”
Bingo. It’s getting hard for them to hide their hypocracy.
That’s the problem lately some in the county just want to “win” all the time. It’s really quite a childish approach.
Mando,
Please see my response in the MJM thread.
Honestly, I’m glad for this editorial. I want to do EVERYTHING POSSIBLE to get the illegals to think this is an unfriendly area. The collaterall damage of a bunch of leftist snots who take Washington Post editorials seriously thinking we’re bigots does not bother me. I welcome and embrace the reputation of a place where the law occasionally gets enforced to the point that illegals don’t feel comfortable here.
I know that is troublesome to some of you but it’s my best-case scenario.
Furthermore just watch and see how this plays out locally – how the other counties react when masses of illegals settle next to them – and nationally – when one of these two tools running for President tries to implement Amnesty yet again.
An Observer,
Same to you, do you not realize the 287(g) program is not the resolution? You and Mando have been long participants in this discussion, is this simple fact unclear? The resolution is not nor has it ever been the 287(g) program. The resolution, has always been what goes beyond the 287(g) program, including the restriction of the services and everything that goes beyond checking immigration status at the jails. It’s concerning that there is still this misunderstanding of what the resolution actually is and isn’t.
Let’s see if we can find a link to the PWC website that spells this out.
Here’s the link to what the county has to say about the Resolution. It has the history of actions taken by the board.
http://www.pwcgov.org/default.aspx?topic=040050002380002294
Alanna,
Agreed with the misunderstanding of the resolution. I hope all look at what the county has to say on their website. There’s been plenty of spin put on the issue.
Alanna – I never mentioned “the resolution” in any of my posts on this thread. And it was the Washington Post editorial itself that has the sentence “So what has the county achieved with its effort to intimidate undocumented newcomers by ordering checks on the immigration status of all detainees after arrest and by denying certain social services to illegal immigrants?”. OK, I will agree they are complaining about denying certain social services, which IS part of the resolution, but they are also complaining about “ordering checks on the immigration status of all detainees after arrest”.
So they are the ones muddying the waters as to what is and isn’t the resolution. Nothing in my posts on this thread did that. And, does anyone think that “checks on the immigration status of all detainees after arrest” is not a good idea? Apparently the Washington Post thinks it isn’t.
Rick Bentley wrote:
Just to clarify…Rick Bentley called me a leftist snot.
The rest of the above post is my own words.
No, the Washington Post has not muddied the waters. The waters were muddied by HSM and by our county government. The Immigration Resolution, which is NOT the 287G program, is a shell of what the former original document stated. For the record, we already had the 287G program before the Immigration Resolution was proposed on July 10, 2007.
We have spent a bunch of money during an economic downturn, to implement something that really is nothing now, but was used to spread fear in the county and to cause a great about of disharmony. I think it was to get Republicans elected.
Rick, do you really want to live in an area where a certain group of people are run off through fear tactics nor misperceptions? What happens when someone decides that you and your family are undesirables? If I recall correctly, your family is diverse? If you had lived where I lived growing up, you would not have been welcome in the neighborhood. Just something to think about. If we do it to one, we do it to all. I would prefer to do it to no one.
Now I have to ask…just what is a leftist snot? Is that worse that a rightist snot?
Things should have been done differently. Do you realize the County is going to hold hearings on the removal of trash from abandoned properties? Where was the hearing on this matter? Citizens were delegated to 1 minute and 3 minutes during Citizens’ Time to discuss this issue. It was an ambush with no opportunity for discussion. In my opinion, this has been an exercise in how not to run County business.
It was deplorable. And yes, we were all blind-sided. No public hearings. Policy was deliberately presented in a confusing way and the lines between 287g and the Immigration Resolution were deliberately blurred.
Certain elected officials had handlers who told them what to say and how to vote.
Shall we call it Resolution-gate? Corey-gate?
The most disturbing part about it has been the bullying. Speakers have been bullied, other supervisors have been bullied, ordinary citizens have been bullied, and ultimately, an entire class of citizens has been bullied. I am sure I have left out many other examples. I am just disgusted.
So apparently then, it is OK that the Washington Post isn’t in favor of the 287G program. After all, that’s what they are saying by the following sentence: “So what has the county achieved with its effort to intimidate undocumented newcomers by ordering checks on the immigration status of all detainees after arrest and by denying certain social services to illegal immigrants? ”
Apparently by this logic the county should never have adopted the 287G program, since it is intimidating all the “undocumented newcomers”.
I guess no one else has a problem with the fact that the Washington Post doesn’t support 287G.
Observer,
What is your point? Why should I have a problem with their opinion of 287g any more than I have with the fact that they think we are all horses’ asses because we live in Prince William County and elected a buffoon as a chairman of the BOCS?
They probably don’t understand the difference. Most of the county doesn’t understand it because it was obviously presented as a package deal, which it is not. I bet you don’t know the difference either.
Moon-howler: My point is apparently the Washington Post doesn’t even like the 287g program. To me that IS an important point.
And I don’t know why you and Alanna keep saying I don’t understand the difference between the resolution and 287g. For some reason you keep insisting that, and I’m not sure quite why, since it was the Post’s editorial that clearly confuses the two – not me.
It is also clear the Washington Post didn’t even research things properly, since they fail to understand that 287g is not part of the resolution.
Hopefully the writer of the editorial will come down here to the film viewing so they can get matters straightened out.
I think the overall point they are making is stated in the first two paragraphs.
After that is stated, what else do we need?
After all, it is an opinion piece, not a news article. Perhaps I should be asking you, Observer, if this opinion doesn’t make you wince just a little?
I am not sure I understand why anyone thinks the WaPo opinion piece dislikes the 287g program. Whether they do or they don’t, the opinion was about the process of ridding a county of what some consider undesirables. That is the part the paper takes issue with:
A leftist snot is when Ricardo Bentley gets so afraid of being challenged that his neck muscles involuntarily contract twisting his head to the left and his mucus membranes begin to convulse rapidly leading to violent and uncontrollable nasal explosions all over himself, his monitor, and his keyboard.
“Rick, do you really want to live in an area where a certain group of people are run off through fear tactics nor misperceptions? ” Yes it beats living in a neighborhood full of illegal boardinghouses and in a community with two sets of rules and languages and standards for accountability.
“What happens when someone decides that you and your family are undesirables? If I recall correctly, your family is diverse?” I understand your point. But I don’t let it freeze me into inaction when the elites start using illegal immigrants as pawns to further the gap between rich and poor.
While I will agree that the opinion piece was “about the process of ridding a county of what some consider undesirables” the last paragraph makes it clear the person who wrote the editorial thinks the 287g program is part of that process. I find it hard to believe anyone can disagree with the need to check the immigration status of all those who end up in jail. That is the point I’m making. In any event, fine, the writer may be wrong in his/her impression that 287g is part of the resolution. I wonder then if the writer understood that 287g is not part of the resolution, how that would have changed the last paragraph of the piece.
@ Alanna
“Mando,
Do you realize that the Resolution is not the 287(g) program?”
Yes.
Do you agree with this author’s view on 287(g) and mandatory checks for those arrested?
It doesn’t say conclusively that they disapprove of the end result. I think the denunciation is aimed at the process and the general feeling one now has about PWC after a year of anti illegal immigration rhetoric.
I do not think you do the piece justice if you pick it apart sentence by sentence. I also don’t think one has to agree with every word.
To answer your question: I know of no one against the 287g program. However, there are many people I do not know.
This piece deserves no justice. It’s crap.
“It doesn’t say conclusively that they disapprove of the end result.”
The implication is obvious to me.
I agree Mando, to me it does sound like they disapprove of teh 287g program.
Maybe they disagree with 287(g) outside the jails. Not the entire program. Very expensive way to run things. Jailers cost less salary wise and taking “officers off the street is counterproductive”…… just a wee thought.
It also in the last paragraph blames the 287g program and the cutting of some social services for Hispanics leaving the county, and then further in that same paragraph says those Hispanics are now moving to other counties and turning to local government services in those counties for help, as well as enrolling in the schools in those counties. To me, I’m not sure they would have mentioned all of that when just to say they are moving to other counties would have sufficed. Other than to imply they are causing a drain on local govenments in those counties. Altogether, that last paragraph seems to have a lot of flaws in it that isn’t helping the argument the piece is trying to make.
Juturna said “Maybe they disagree with 287(g) outside the jails”.
Actually, the article never specifically called it out as 287(g) – that term was just used in this thread. The exact sentence in the article’s last paragraph is “So what has the county achieved with its effort to intimidate undocumented newcomers by ordering checks on the immigration status of all detainees after arrest and by denying certain social services to illegal immigrants? ”
Sounds to me the author disagrees with the INSIDE the jail part.
Haven’t run into too many people liberal or conservative (or what ever is the polarizing terminology of the day) that disagree with running this program post arrest in the jails. Most seem to object to the “hunting them down” approach that has been intertwined with the phraseaology “287(g)”.
“Most seem to object to the “hunting them down” approach that has been intertwined with the phraseaology “287(g)”
Whom is hunting anyone down?
“Haven’t run into too many people liberal or conservative (or what ever is the polarizing terminology of the day) that disagree with running this program post arrest in the jails.”
See Rod2155 apparently.
There are checks into immigration status that take place apart from the 287(g) program (which is in place at the Adult Detention Center). Those additional checks (which were once to be applied to all who had any dealing with the police then changed to “probable cause” then changed to the current status) are part of the now infamous resolution (and are that whole section that either strengthened or weakened the resolution depending on who you talk to).
I think you will find few who believe that the 287(g) program is misguided. If you rob, steal, rape, murder, etc., and you are here illegally, by all means let’s boot you out. The breakdown comes in the extremes the resolution goes to and to the cover it gives to those whose motives are less pure than a simple issue of legal versus illegal.
For example, the resolution does absolutely nothing about the prevalence (good or bad) of languages other than English being spoken and used in the public commons. Yet people like Mr Bentley continue to lump culture and language into the discussion of the resolution:
It’s when the resolution is spun in these terms that the more nefarious aspects of its purpose are exposed to light. This is about more than legal versus illegal. This is about preserving what some see as a specific culture and way of life from those they see as threatening to it regardless of the legal status of that threat. Many who support the resolution (including some of those who drafted it) seem to be using the legal versus illegal argument as convenient cover for their own biases and fears. It is this covert messages (which are sometime not so covert) that have helped to paint Prince William as a community of intolerance and bigotry.
And here’s something interesting on in yesterday’s Washington Post:
The Nation
Monday, July 21, 2008; A02
ATTENTION RIGHT AND LEFT
The mayor of Hazleton, Pa., who drew nationwide attention as well as local support, at right, for his 2006 crackdown on illegal immigration, has been named the state’s Mayor of the Year. In honoring Lou Barletta, the Pennsylvania State Mayors Association cited the crackdown and his method of combating crime.
SOURCE: Associated Press
IN FACT Barletta (R), a three-term mayor, is now running for Congress
There are several people here missing the totality of what it means when the Washington Post and the Washingtonian Magazine “out” you as intolerant. Your reputation goes in the toilet even more. Clearly, the perception, thanks to Greg and Corey and others, have promoted the perception that we are unwelcoming to a certain community. Corey’s ties to Greg are unacceptable and only further the notion that our Chairman takes advice from a Nativist and allows our public policy to be dictated by the like of Robert Duecaster. Does anyone believe that this publicity will attract “high end retail” and quality commercial ventures? I am pretty sure that it have the opposite effect!
“It’s when the resolution is spun in these terms that the more nefarious aspects of its purpose are exposed to light. This is about more than legal versus illegal.”
Assuming there are nefarious aspects. Everyone has an agenda. Some sinister some not. The paintbrush is arbitrary. Rhetoric from either side means little to those of us who feel the effects of illegal immigration on a personal and daily basis. The “us” are those that live in these communities and the ones that vote. I find it hard to believe that the majority of us have sinister intentions.
The resolution is a result of pent up frustration and nothing more then a paper tiger as far as I can tell. Editorials and sites like this give that paper tiger it’s fangs.
“Does anyone believe that this publicity will attract “high end retail” and quality commercial ventures? I am pretty sure that it have the opposite effect!”
“High end retail” and quality commercial ventures follow the money. Pure and simple.
Pretty scathing editorial, it touched on all the important issues too.
2 publications both giving the county negative exposure whether you agree or disagree is cause for concern. PWC is also listed in many places as being in the top 10 real estate foreclosure sites.
Mando and observer can sit there and do the amen chorus thing at each other all they want, it doesn’t change the negative publicity end of things. I see several errors in the WaPo editorial. The bottom line is, it doesn’t matter squat what I see. How does the rest of the region view it. That should be our concern.
Too bad about the ac malfunction at McCoart. I would have liked to have seen the look on a few faces when those bad-boys were read.
andy,
I don’t think Pennsylvania is particularly well known as a bastion of racial tolerance. Lou Barletta is a disgrace to Italians just like that schmuck Joey Vento and his worthless cheesesteaks. Please don’t go to Joey Vento’s place. Go to Tony Lukes and order a cheesesteak with fried onions, mushrooms, green peppers, and (the most essential ingredient) sharp provolone. Bathe it in mustard and bring it back for me would ya?
“How does the rest of the region view it. That should be our concern.”
Why?
Just got back from the BOCS meeting. Only three citizens speaking! Wow.
I kind of liked the room they used. It’s in the Service Authority building–all light wood. Not half as foreboding or dark as the regular chambers. It was still crowded, though.
Here’s a good series of debates where Geraldo eviscerates that schmuckboy joey vento.
Ayyye, Yo Adrian!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkqSvyLRsfo
Mando, some of us would like to be proud of where we live, not embarassed with the stigma of being back-woods bigots (which is the name we have earned for ourselves).
As far as how the rest of the region views it? Reading the comments section in response to the Washington Post editorial – it would seem there are more comments against the editorial than for it. Admittedly, that is not a scientific sample, but it is an interesting discussion going on over there in response to the editorial. It would definitely be a stretch to say the rest of the region wholeheartedly agrees with that editorial.
Not to rehash that old argument, but PWC has ALWAYS had that stigma. You’re way late in this game.
“Back-woods bigots” – more like the name some of you have painted on yourselves.
In terms of high end retail following the money, we have or had one of the highest income earning Counties in the Country, but all we have spawned is an increasing amount of residential development which has not been a wise way to plan our communities. The fault for these failures falls squarely on our elected officials.
The WP comments don’t represent any majority or minority. They represent mostly people who rant on the WP. I post there all the time, but I hardly think it matters in the long run because there is so much crap posted there. It’s almost impossible to sort through most of the crap to get to some actual thought!
High end retail and businesses have spurned the county long before the resolution was even thought of – that has been a problem for years and years – it is nothing new as a result of the resolution.
“Not to rehash that old argument, but PWC has ALWAYS had that stigma.” Back-woods, yes, but bigots, no. At least, I’ve never thought of the county in that way.
I don’t mind back-woods. But I do mind bigotry.
“In terms of high end retail following the money, we have or had one of the highest income earning Counties in the Country, but all we have spawned is an increasing amount of residential development which has not been a wise way to plan our communities. The fault for these failures falls squarely on our elected officials.”
Been in the Gainesville area lately? How about down Liberia in Manassas towards the PWC parkway?
“I don’t mind back-woods. But I do mind bigotry.”
Unfortunately, stereotyping is a relished passtime of some. See article above.
An Observer, the response section to WaPo articles on immigration only drives home the point that PWC residents are a bunch of uncouth, name-calling (haha…I get the irony), angry bigots. A year ago the responses were rather unemotional, even-handed. Now it’s as though all the rational thought is gone and vitriol and party (FAIR) talking points rule. It’s become such a cess-pool that I asked the editor to consider the response section to immigration articles for further study…and articles.
Mando,
Let’s just take a look at Gainesville, Route 29 has been 2 lanes in each direction for as as I can remember, and I’ve lived in the area since 1976. Look at all the development in Fauquier County and Linton Hall which allowed huge developments without requiring adequate infrastructure to be developed.
If you’re suggesting another retail development establishment qualifies as a business, if so, I would hope that we(PWC) could attract corporations instead of forcing residents to commute hours on ends to points east of us.
Censored: How do you even know that the responses to the article are from PWC residents? I would say the responses are probably from all over the DC area – so in that case what you say would be for the DC area, not just PWC.
Alanna – definitely agree that what PWC needs are corporations to move in here – not more retail which there seems to be plenty of. If some of the corporations that occupy office buildings in Fairfax County would move to PWC, that would help tax revenue as well as provide jobs that wouldn’t be such a long commute. Unfortunately, for years PWC has been hoping to attract that kind of business and has not been successful. The Innovation@Prince William area was only a partial success, there is still a lot of land out there that has not been leased. We need a lot more of that kind of industry.
PWC has always been marketed as and has always been a bedroom community for commuters. What you’re asking for is a total economic shift. This has nothing to do with the resolution and perceptions and everything to do with tax incentives and economic planning.
Why are we confusing the two?
An observer, there probably are a lot of responses from outside the county, but some of the same names appear in local letters to the editor at MJM and some have posted for a year or so on the WaPo website and claimed to be PWC residents. I think the arguments have gotten angrier as they’ve lost ground – perhaps personally as well as in changes made to the immigration resolution. And, of course, neither presidential candidate will appeal to most of those posters so they’re frustrated. But the responses do make the residents here look like a bunch of loons and reinforce the editor’s comments – if only in displaying the divisiveness and hatred in the community.
When I asked the editor about doing an article about the response section, I asked if it were possible to tease out the residents and individuals from any mass-mailing response. I haven’t heard anything and don’t know whether I will hear anything. It interested me.
The irony is, if the comments were reversed this would be a crystal clear indication that PWC residents are against the actions of the BOCS.
Spin is a funny thing it is.
Mando, we can’t draw any real conclusions from the WaPa responses as to residence – other than for a few people. However, the anger and vitriol are there for anyone to see. The BOCS meeting (last October) was the nearest thing we have to the consensus of the population. They signed in and gave their addresses. HSM and co-horts were outnumbered.
Turn PWBlue,
Nice to see you again. And I couldn’t agree more with your comment.
287g has more teeth than the resolution.
dont think the resolution is anything more than a scare tactic, however the 287G is actually quite a nice program.
dont know what wapo really is getting out, if the illegals are scared to live here then so be it, they should be scared to live ANYWHERE.
“Alanna – definitely agree that what PWC needs are corporations to move in here – not more retail which there seems to be plenty of.”
YES! And make them PRETTY. But they won’t come here if they think it will be impossible to enforce EEO and non-discrimination policy in their corporations–not with the rap we are getting as a bunch of white-hooded-crazies!
Just some news from a city that once embraced undocumented persons and scorned the acts of PWC:
FAIRFAX, Va. — Fairfax County supervisors are considering criminalizing some zoning violations, meaning landlords who operate illegal boarding houses could go to jail.
The proposal would turn what would normally be a civil penalty into a criminal one, if the civil fines for the violation are worth at least $5,000. Supervisor Jeff McKay said it would be up to the judge hearing the case to decide whether the offense deserves jail time.
http://www.nbc4.com/news/16954858/detail.html?dl=headlineclick
Is the former sanctuary County of Fairfax turning racist?
HSM was outnumbered at the BOCS meeting because they have jobs and couldn’t stay up for the circus no matter how entertaining. Especially that part at the end where the interpreter flipped out. I recorded most of the meeting just for historical purposes. I figured a couple bucks worth of DVD’s would be well worth the ability to show anyone just how badly the county’s situation had gotten. Hopefully we won’t see one of those any more, unless of course it’s from within the Fairfax BOCS meeting chambers!
By the way the 19:08 post was copied from someone else’s and I posted it here FYI.
SA,
I’d personally prefer this approach over what we adopted.
I will say there still seems to be confusion over the new revised version of the resolution especially given the spin from Stewart. If I remember correctly, the spin started from the Chairman’s seat immediately prior to the passage of the revised resolution when he claimed it would result in increased checks.
I can’t believe the Hate Bunnies are on here now celebrating the fact that the Immigration Resolution was neutered and diminished to the point that one could compare it to what we had BEFORE July 10th, which was 287g in the jails only.
There is a difference, but you’d have to be interested in reality to have the patience for that, so stop reading now if you are a Hate Bunny or an Anti-Immigrant Lobby clone.
287g, which we had BEFORE our year of hate-mongering and political opportunism that earned this unfair reputation sited in the Post editorial, was recommended by our Police Chief as the best way to deal with “the worst of the worst” … that is illegal aliens who commit crimes (that is actual crimes not anti-immigrant hysteria “crimes”). 287g was sufficient for this because immigration checks were done on anyone who was incarcerated, and certainly those whom we can prove beyond a reasonable doubt is a criminal are going to match up well with those who commit crimes.
During the first four months our year of hate-mongering and political opportunism, we went from checking everyone the police comes into contact with, to checking only those they come into contact with AND have “probable cause” to think might be undocumented.
This goes WAY further than 287g, Hate Bunnies, and this is what earned us the reputation we have today.
In 2008, however, we scaled back the Resolution so that only those who are arrested will be checked for immigration violations. This is similar to 287g in that you have to have committed a real crime (not an anti-immigrant lobby hysterics crime) in order to have your status checked. It is also a heck of a lot fair because anyone who is arrested will be checked regardless of skin color or language proficiency (the general order listed language proficiency as a factor, but not skin color to be fair).
It is not accurate to say it is THE SAME as 287g because not everyone who is arrested ends up in jail. About half of the people our county arrests are released on bail. So, we are checking more people. And we are checking the right people, in general, since we are limiting the checks to people who have most likely committed a crime as opposed to people who look like they might be undocumented (which was unconstitutional and immoral in my opinion).
By the way, if the Post wanted to single out Corey Stewart as the primary reason our economy and our reputation have been destroyed by the Anti-Immigrant Lobby’s immoral agenda, all they had to do was say “go see the screening Friday at Trinity.” The things Corey says and does IN PUBLIC in that film are even more damning than any criticism, however accurate, printed on a page.
Screening info:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQeLms84uXg
Hate Bunnies, go and dare to experience this debate beyond ignorance and indoctrination. As I’ve said, the damning words come from the Chairman himself.
I’d disagree. The spin started at least the week prior to the revision when Chairman Stewart went on NewsChannel 4 claiming he had the votes to ’strengthen’ it. What I don’t completely understand is the part about the police chief in his news conference explaining the changes. I have only heard about it second-hand and was wondering will the video ever be on the internet or do we have to go to a special screening?
WHWN,
What is it exactly that makes illegal immigration so appealing to you? Are you a frustrated illegal yourself? Do you live in a trailer park, and don’t get what the big deal is? I only wish the people who are trashing the neighborhoods were white, then we could take care of business without all this bleeding heart stuff. I guarantee you would never see a large group of white men loitering at a 7-11 for long before the police would be involved. Come to think of it, what is the legal meaning of loitering anyway? I’m sure you’ll enlighten me.
So, if you live in a trailer park you don’t get the problem or if you live in Haymarket, you don’t get the problem. Any place else?
Any place ‘you don’t get the problem’!
Suzie if you’re reading this, SecondAlamo’s post above is another example of creating a “scarecrow” that is easy to tear apart when one is unable to come up with a salient argument that addresses the substance of a post. When it comes to debate skills, the Anti-Immigrant Lobby is basically a two-trick pony.
1) Conform the other person’s argument so that it fits with in the narrow confines of their preconceived and dutifully memorized talking points
2) Attack the messenger by finding some tangential part of their argument to feign outrage about, but avoid addressing the substance of any argument to which you have no answer.
Actually, I take it back. SecondAlamo didn’t muster a good example of this rhetorical last resort. But if I’m reading it right, it is an example, and a typical one.
WHWN,
What is it exactly that makes illegal immigration so appealing to you? Why can’t you answer a valid question? Try stepping down off the soap box, and ask yourself what is it that you stand for in regards to illegal immigration.
If you owned a business where people had to pay a fee such as a movie theater, and people came and watched the movie without paying the fee you’d be outraged, and legally so. That’s how I feel when people come into this country without ‘paying the fee’ so to speak. This country is also a business enterprise that has been paid for by generations of tax paying citizens. Some with their lives, and no one from any other country has a ‘right’ to come here illegally, period!
Just as I thought, no reply from WHWN. I’m hitting the sack so I can get up for work tomorrow and earn enough money to pay my taxes to help support even those here illegally. Only in America!
SecondAlamo, I stopped reading and started skimming when you introduced your “argument” with a false premise.
I don’t know anyone who finds illegal immigration appealing and neither do you.
The remainder of your post was also intellectually dishonest. I did respond, but only to point that out.
SA,
Please expain this statement by you:
“HSM was outnumbered at the BOCS meeting because they have jobs and couldn’t stay up for the circus no matter how entertaining”
I am wondering, exactly who were the people that did not have jobs?
Mackie,
Have you seen another favorite of mine with bill o’reily and Geraldo?!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01uMNSYhq-Y
SA, I don’t personally know anyone who thinks illegal immigration is appealing. Most of the people I associate with feel this county took an experiement, spearheaded by an outside group, and ran with it without citizen input.
Many of us are outraged and will continue to fight the forces of darkness. Illegal immigration is just the carrier. Abusive government is actually the issue. Much of this issue is really about power and control by a few, at the expense of many.
I could have lived without citizen input if they had just done their homework and researched the whole thing first. Why in God’s name did they trust Robert “Duecaster” Disaster, Gospel Greg Letiecq, and that guy from F.A.I.R. more than they trusted Chief Deane????
I can live with the fact that they thought automated faxes, plus automated emails, plus real emails added up to more citizen support for Help Save Manassas than the rest of the county.
Democracy is not a perfect system. It can be gamed, particularly when it comes to public opinion. The Iraq War should have taught us that.
But elected officials are expected to do more than just bend to the will of the most motivated and most vocal minority to ambush their chamber. They have to weigh that, and use their best judgment to do what’s best for the county, even if it isn’t exactly what Robert “Disaster” Duecaster screamed at them about at Citizens’ Time.
Eventually, they did just that. Perhaps not until more responsible citizens got organized (starting with this blog). That’s how democracy works. If you don’t get involved, you might be forced to live in a Duecaster Disaster for a year. That’s the lesson we have to take away from all of this.
The Supervisors learned another lesson. Lead, don’t follow. Even if they scream. Lead, don’t follow. Even if the emails pile up. Lead, don’t follow.
In a moment of sheer optimism and hope…I choose to post this music video by Terra Naomi:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qo8-NlgRa4
Elena,
I always saw Geraldo as a tabloid journalist and I suppose he is but on this issue he has really surprised me with his passionate defense of immigrants. He’s well informed and cool under fire. I can’t believe it but I find myself cheering for Geraldo.
Elena,
That Geraldo video was great! I expect to hear that Bill O’Reilly will do a lot of future coverage of all drunk driving incidents in the state of Virginia, being the wonderful advocate for victims that he is…or maybe I’m asking too much.
Beautiful video Diversity Gal!
You know Mackie, Geraldo wasn’t always tabloid. He first became famous(1970’s) for breaking a story about a mental health institution that was horribly abusing their wards. It was an amazing gutsy story!
Elena,
I didn’t know that about Geraldo’s start. That’s very interesting.
O’Reilly is such a tool. When he has an intelligent guest who doesn’t back down, his moral cowardice is obvious.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evjgGQJZShA
Mackie,
Very moving and powerful video…thanks for posting it. Go Phil Donahue!
WHWN said:
“But elected officials are expected to do more than just bend to the will of the most motivated and most vocal minority to ambush their chamber. They have to weigh that, and use their best judgment to do what’s best for the county….”
That is the exact statement I wish I had made about what took place at the BOCS meeting. It was a well orchestrated effort by MWB to get all those who needed an interpreter to come to the meeting to tell their tale of woe. If the BOCS didn’t give as much weight to their argument it was because the BOCS knew they where the very same people whose presence the county’s legal citizens were objecting to. You see it was well known that the numbers of people that appear before the BOCS don’t reflect the majority in terms of representative numbers. Obviously the non English speakers are a minority in PWC. That can’t be argued by anyone. Don’t forget the marches and caravan that took place before the meeting. It was as if a group of people walked into your place of business uninvited, and then started telling you how to run it because it was their ‘right’. Not so!
“Mr. Stewart is an avid opportunist and manipulator who has an arm’s-length relationship with public candor”
if this isn’t the most perfect description….
“elected officials are expected to do more than just bend to the will of the most motivated and most vocal minority ”
If you add ‘most well-funded’, it is precisely – PRECISELY – what PW BOCS does. Time and time again, on nearly every issue. Check out what they’re doing with commercial development. Wally Covington wouldn’t know how to put his pants on if Mike Garcia and Barry Braden didn’t tell him how. And you know he took his lesson from Corey, who wouldn’t know how to put on his white sheet if Greg Letiecq wasn’t there to help him with the hood.
Segundo Alamo:
My uncle has been here more than 40 years and can barely speak english. We have americans born and raised here who don’t speak english very well. English proficiency doesn’t really mean anything except to those people with limited horizons and limited contact with the world outside rural Virginia but I can assure you that that world does exist.
One thing I will give the BOCS credit for is that they can take personal attacks such as the ones on this blog, and still remain rational enough to make fairly unemotional decisions. Something that few on here could deal with. Personal attacks tend to color your post with a emotional rather than a factual presentation.
Mackie,
Give me a break, 40 years and doesn’t speak English! Now that’s a person unwilling or incapable of learning, or is it that he never ventured out into the ‘real world’. Not my problem!
Second Alamo,
You said…
“You see it was well known that the numbers of people that appear before the BOCS don’t reflect the majority in terms of representative numbers. Obviously the non English speakers are a minority in PWC.”
Should the BOS have assumed that every English-speaker in their constituency felt the same way you do? Would you have them not pay attention to the number of people in PWC who speak another language as a first language, and only pay attention to those who speak English as a first language? So the numbers of people who don’t speak English are outsiders bossing the BOS around unjustly, and only the numbers of English speakers count? Yikes!
By the way, I certainly don’t trust that at LEAST one of the members of the BOS is making “fairly unemotional decisions” that have nothing to do with attacks on a blog. In fact, I think that a pretty controversial and emotionally-charged blog is responsible for fueling a lot of that member’s actions. I think that I have seen film footage of that BOS member giving emotional, heated (almost angry) speeches about illegal immigation.
Mr. Alamo,
Perhaps for now, the greater fear comes from the attacks made possible c/o Mr. Letiecq. How many of our Supervisors have been bullied by him? or felt they would be viciously attacked if they didn’t fall in line? is that anyway to run a County? and the sad things is that they allowed it to happen.
“If the BOCS didn’t give as much weight to their argument it was because the BOCS knew they where the very same people whose presence the county’s legal citizens were objecting to.”
Do you mean that the BOCS should pay more attention to the HSM Red Circle Gang – who object to the presence of Hispanics – than it does to other residents?
SA,
When you said “Do you live in a trailer park, and don’t get what the big deal is?” aren’t you showing the same attitude that you criticize yesterday about working at McD? Can we call you an elitist for that?
Please answer the question and don’t hide as you always do.
This blog is certainly not responsible for all the vicious attacks directed towards local politicians and those running for office. I remember well those attacks on Sharon Pandek, Chuck Colgan, Frank Principi, and Jeanette Rishell. Those weren’t generated here.
I remember some footage where a certain chairman of the BOCS is attending what appears to be a local meeting of a grassroots activist group looking for the life of me like some sort of storm trooper, all red in the face, sweating, and shouting. (I never took the pledge not to say storm trooper.) I actually believe that many of the BOCS are being bullied into doing the will of the order of the red circle. They have seen what happens to those who don’t march in step.
For that matter, we all know that the attempted bullying still goes on, whether it is at the local 7-11 or whether it is here, guessing at monikers, pretending to be crazed violent Latinos, or bombarding someone with emails since they have stopped drinking the kool aide. These tactics are those of a desperate group.
I just don’t understand all the talk on this site of the resolution being intolerant and amounting to bigotry. I have experienced what I am about to outline below personally and ask why should I be excepting of this kind of behavior by what are likely illegal aliens.
Overcrowded houses, where the occupants park in front of my house to the point that the only parking available to me is in my driveway (which is occupied by my boat) forcing me to park several houses away.
The occupants of said overcrowded houses emptying the ashtrays from their cars unto the streets.
Drunken men relieving themselves in their front yards, do you want your kids to see this?
Young Hispanic men using your dead end street as a drag racing strip while children are out and about.
Hispanic mothers allowing their very young kids (2 or 3 years old) to play in the street; I have almost run these children over twice in the last couple of years.
This is just the tip of the iceberg, at what point do we say enough is enough and ask that certain “rules” of our society be adhered to?
If I’m a bigot for not being accepting of the above than so be it!!
OK, this is going to be long–not apologizing, just warning…
This issue, like so many others facing our nation today, has been brought down to a sound-bite level that does none of us any good. We want to boil it down into simplistic terms and arguments–you either “get the problem” or you’re an illegal alien sympathizer…if you question cracking down on illegal immigrants, you’re racist…you’re either with us or you’re against us.
Well, folks, it’s not that simple. There are shades of grey and nuances of position.
I have a problem with illegal immigration. I don’t think it’s right. I don’t believe there should be a blind eye to what is, after all is said and done, an illegal action. But I also don’t believe that rounding up everyone without proper documentation is the answer. I empathize with those who have risked an awful lot to try to make it to the United States simply on the ideal that a better life will await them. Isn’t that, after all, the message we try to send about America? It’s the land of boundless opportunity. Further, the economist and free-marketer in me sees the value of the ready flow of labor in the economy.
So I’m torn.
On one hand you have a group that has violated the law. They are here illegally. The law and order side of me says all else is not germane to the discussion. They broke a law. They should not be here. But the human side is not irrelevant. In fact, it is the very core of who we are as a nation. Are we not a nation of immigrants? Were we not founded by people seeking to escape persecution and to live free? Is that not the very premise upon which we founded this great republic?
So here’s my plan…my modest proposal, if you will.
One, our current immigration laws are broken. The quotas we have established are arbitrary. The process to become a legal citizen is overly complex and too restrictive. We need to reset our quotas and institute comprehensive immigration reform that includes temporary worker programs. We can look to the EU for some ideas on how such programs might work.
Second, we need to establish a path to citizenship for those who are already here and have been productive, law-abiding members of our society. It is all well and good to say that they are tainted by their first act of lawlessness and not fit for citizenship, but let’s be realistic. There are at least 12 million undocumented immigrants in the United States. It is neither rational nor feasible to even ponder a course of action that does not include some way to legitimize those who, except for the “original sin” of entering the country illegally, have lived model lives. We cannot deport 12 million+, so let’s not muddy the waters by even trying to contemplate how we can do that. So who qualifies? One, longevity counts. Show proof you’ve been in the country more than five years and you can enter the program. Been here less than five years? You can apply for a temporary worker visa or go home. Two, law breakers are out. Drive drunk? You go home. Steal? You go home. Any misdemeanor or felony is a ticket to deportation. Three, pass the naturalization exam.
Third, in conjunction with reform to our immigrations laws, we need to put some teeth in our immigration enforcement. So long as a viable worker visa program exists and quotas are set reasonably, there is no reason not to tighten up the border and crack down on those who attempt to enter the country through illegal means. Additionally, we need to go after those who provide the very incentive for people to risk everything to come here–employers. As part of our immigration reform, we need to put in place substantial penalties for those who hire and exploit undocumented workers. Large fines and jail time are appropriate for the most egregious and habitual violators. Eliminate the demand for cheap, immigrant labor and the supply will dry up. Put in a system to check immigration status that actually works (the current eVerify is a disaster).
At the local government level, get out of the immigration debate. All Corey Stewart has done is pawn off the problem on someone else, create a sense of ill-will with surrounding jurisdictions, and paint PWC as intolerant (at best) and bigoted (at worst). Local government should be dealing with local issues. With all the talk about illegal immigration and the time and effort expended on this issue, other core responsibilities of local government have been ignored (to our peril). Our roads are crowded and our schools are bursting. Our tax base is too reliant on residential. Far too many of our citizens are on the road 30 minutes to several hours a day commuting outside of PWC to find gainful employment. You want to make a name for yourself in PWC politics? Find a way to fix those issues and stop looking for cheap publicity by latching on to the newest “hot topic” in confrontational governing.
Notice that no where in this proposal do I talk about language or culture. We are a nation in constant flux. Our culture is an agglomeration of the cultures of our own ancestors with some homespun spice. You cannot legislate culture. You cannot legislate acculturation. Our “American” culture has survived past influxes of immigrants (who were, at the time, considered “undesirable” and a “threat” to the American way of life). We will survive and prosper through this one as well.
TPWB, I agree.
Tom, you shouldn’t endure any of those things. But answer me this one: How did the resolution, even in its most toothsome form, alleviate any of those problems you described? I would have preferred that the money be put into zoning and neighborhood services to beef things up and start working in the neighborhoods, where residents are so frustrated.
Had the county approached problem-solving from that angle, then bad neighbors would have been targeted rather than an entire group of people. Neighborhood services cannot possibly reach all the problems with the understaffing it has today. Again, we must prioritize.
MH, again agreed. These problems can be solved in better ways. Tom, I doubt denying people meals-on-wheels would help you with your urinating male problem. Just a hunch.
Turn PW Blue for president!!! I certainly hope you have shared your proposal with our federal legislators. Your plan is the most reasonable I have heard. People who paint themselves in a corner on this issue will be the losers!
Thanks for taking the time to share your opinion on this issue. You have my 100% support with this.
Turn PW Blue,
I think we should post your suggestion as a seperate thread! Would you mind?
BRAVO!
I do have one question, for those here less than five years, what we do if they have blended family status? Legal spouse, American child, etc.
TPWB,
No apology needed for a long post when so much thought and consideration was given. You take into consideration the “human factor” which seems to be missing in much of the debate. Thank you for thinking about and looking at the “big picture”.
Elena, excellent suggestion and excellent question. This kind of proposal deserves its own thread.
I think actually that TPWB’s most valuable point is that he does have feelings that vacillate between two polar opposite views. I think most of us do. We have to deal with our mixed emotions.
There would have to be exceptions made I would think, for the blended immediate families.
Elena–
Don’t mind at all and would love to see a true discussions of solutions, not just the kind of one-upping that seems to pass for discourse.
TPWB, I just posted your solution on Citizen Tom. There’s another poster over there who thinks we’re left-wing nuts or something of the sort.
“I do have one question, for those here less than five years, what we do if they have blended family status? Legal spouse, American child, etc.”
I say, let them apply for citizenship. We don’t want to break up families. At least I don’t.
Turn PW Blue,
You seem like a very level-headed individual. It is a pleasure to listen to what you have to say, and I’m so glad you posted your proposal. Great ideas!
DiversityGal,
Turn PW Blue has a big fan club around these parts. He can always be counted on to present a cogent, well-thought out comment.
Where are the hispanic legal permenant residents who feel harassed and have left the county? It seems as if only the illegal aliens are leaving. I have yet to hear of anyone legally residing here who has considered leaving. The resolutions are working. If you don’t like it, get it changed or go to Arlington and support them with your taxes.
Segundo Alamo:
Two questions:
1. If the 1st amendment guarantees us the right to free speech, isn’t speaking the spanish language covered under this amendment?
2. If you can expect my uncle learn English, isn’t it proper for him to equally expect you to learn Spanish?
Some people literally cannot learn another language no matter how hard they try. This particularly applies to people with severe learning disabilites or another disorder.
My German great-grandmother, who came to the US sometime in the 1920s died in the late 1970s, spoke German almost exclusively. I cannot ever recall her speaking English. If she wanted to speak to her great-grandchildren or my mother (one of only two grandchildren), she would speak to one of her daughters in German, and she would tell us what she said or needed. I also recall lots of hand gesturing.
Go to Little Italy or Chinatown and you’ll still find the elderly family member who has never felt the need to assimilate (including learn English) because they essentially moved to US communities that were microcosms of their countries of origin. I also think there is a lot of fear behind that as well: fear of leaving one’s history behind for someplace totally unfamiliar, with a strange language, customs, foods, etc.
This of first generation immigrants to assimilate usually ends with them, btw. The next generation is typically bilingual (and an essential link to helping the first generation survive in the US), yet fully American. Yes, they may celebrate their family history with such holidays as St. Pat’s, Columbus Day, Chinese New Year and Cinco de Mayo — but that’s what makes America the wonderful melting pot it is.
So, SA, you’re wrong yet again.
oops! Meant to say: “This failure/inability of first generation immigrants to assimilate…”
Johnson asked:
Jeesh…I’m having all kinds of problems with blockquoting today.
My response to Johnson’s quote (in the first paragraph) is the entire indented portion below it.
Many adults have a very difficult time with a foreign language. Do any of the nay-sayers ever wonder why foreign adults seem to retain their accent so long? The second generations of all immigrant waves are the ones who become proficient English speakers.
Welcome Tom,
Are you describing illegal immigration issues, or community tension? It’s interesting you bring up young children in the street as an example. My friend, who lives in a very homegeneous community in warrenton, shared that a neighbor is always letting her 3 year olds play in the street, to the chagrin of other neighbors who fear they will hit one of them as the drive to their homes. She is “home grown” American, do you want to deport her too? Young stupid drivers come in all colors, that is simply the nature of the age. I can’t speak to peeing on lawns, but that has nothing to do with immigration status, just bad behavior! I could go on, but what you have described are neighborhood issues, which, had our county been foward thinking, should have set up a task force to really deal with tensions. I wonder, how do you know they are “illegal” immigrants?
I have a theory, Elena, as to why the blogs are so often littered with blatantly ignorant ideas like those you are trying to address with “Tom.”
Because politicians seem to be pandering to racists as, at least a significant part of their constituency, it is not hard to imagine that some people pick up on codified racism and foolishly assume that overt racism is okay too. I think they actually believe that stereotyping and anti-Hispanic hate speech HELPS their cause.
It is up to the leaders of the Anti-Immigrant Lobby (not you Elena) to explain why codified racism is better than blatant racism.
But it seems the task is simply too overwhelming and the gave up a long time ago.
I have a theory, Elena, as to why the blogs are so often littered with blatantly ignorant ideas like those you are trying to address with “Tom.”
Because certain politicians seem to be pandering to racists as part of their constituency, it is not hard to imagine that some people pick up on codified racism and foolishly assume that overt racism is okay too. I think they actually believe that stereotyping and anti-Hispanic hate speech HELPS their cause.
It is up to the leaders of the Anti-Immigrant Lobby (not you Elena) to explain why codified racism is better than blatant racism in terms of political expediency.
But it seems the task is simply too overwhelming and they gave up a long time ago.
SA: “If you owned a business where people had to pay a fee such as a movie theater, and people came and watched the movie without paying the fee you’d be outraged, and legally so.”
Yeah, and if you asked them to pay after and make it good and they did, then so what? If we assess people a fine and then get them papers to stay here and work or earn citizenship, what is the difference? This kind of “he didn’t pay” goes to Judge Judy all the time: “This is MY courtroom!”