Comments on: Deane Gets It Almost Right http://www.bvbl.net/index.php/2007/10/19/deane-gets-it-almost-right/ Blog-Fu for Prince William, Manassas and Manassas Park politics. Mon, 13 Feb 2012 11:40:18 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.3 By: NoVA Scout http://www.bvbl.net/index.php/2007/10/19/deane-gets-it-almost-right/#comment-33952 NoVA Scout Mon, 22 Oct 2007 02:11:44 +0000 http://www.bvbl.net/index.php/2007/10/19/deane-gets-it-almost-right/#comment-33952 AWC: You said that "we were told" that there was a Sanctuary Policy. My query is: was there a Sanctuary Policy? If not, who told us that there was one? I don't think there was any such thing in PW or in any of the other major jurisdictions around here. I don't read this blog minutely, but I don't recall any post or comment that specified that the County had adopted a "sanctuary policy." Usually when I encounter that term, it's not because the elected officials have opted for an official "Sanctuary Policy," but it is a kind of incendiary polemic (on the same low level as the "amnesty" foolishness) hurled to indicate resistance to taking over federal duties at the local level. Frankly, I think the purpose of the resolution (leaving aside the electoral purpose of the contested supervisors) was to appear to be doing something without doing anything. This is particularly important given the constitutional limitations on local governments doing anything in this subject matter. Nonetheless, there are a number of radical liberals who comment here who would love to see the local police be able to pull over my hypothetical guy leaving the Salvadorean take-out place, demand proof of lawful immigration status, and detain him for deportation if he can't cough it up. AWC: You said that “we were told” that there was a Sanctuary Policy. My query is: was there a Sanctuary Policy? If not, who told us that there was one? I don’t think there was any such thing in PW or in any of the other major jurisdictions around here. I don’t read this blog minutely, but I don’t recall any post or comment that specified that the County had adopted a “sanctuary policy.” Usually when I encounter that term, it’s not because the elected officials have opted for an official “Sanctuary Policy,” but it is a kind of incendiary polemic (on the same low level as the “amnesty” foolishness) hurled to indicate resistance to taking over federal duties at the local level.

Frankly, I think the purpose of the resolution (leaving aside the electoral purpose of the contested supervisors) was to appear to be doing something without doing anything. This is particularly important given the constitutional limitations on local governments doing anything in this subject matter. Nonetheless, there are a number of radical liberals who comment here who would love to see the local police be able to pull over my hypothetical guy leaving the Salvadorean take-out place, demand proof of lawful immigration status, and detain him for deportation if he can’t cough it up.

]]> By: AWCheney http://www.bvbl.net/index.php/2007/10/19/deane-gets-it-almost-right/#comment-33934 AWCheney Sun, 21 Oct 2007 23:25:19 +0000 http://www.bvbl.net/index.php/2007/10/19/deane-gets-it-almost-right/#comment-33934 Status violation by itself is not, nor was it, the purpose of the Resolultion. If you look back in the archives here, you'll see some of the information from whense that "sanctuary county" impression arises. Status violation by itself is not, nor was it, the purpose of the Resolultion. If you look back in the archives here, you’ll see some of the information from whense that “sanctuary county” impression arises.

]]> By: NoVA Scout http://www.bvbl.net/index.php/2007/10/19/deane-gets-it-almost-right/#comment-33929 NoVA Scout Sun, 21 Oct 2007 21:41:24 +0000 http://www.bvbl.net/index.php/2007/10/19/deane-gets-it-almost-right/#comment-33929 AW: I doubt that if they saw two drunks driving under the influence, they were citing the citizen and letting the non-citizen walk. I also doubt that there was a "sanctuary" policy. I certainly never saw that posted on the PWC website. If you needed something to remind the police to enforce the laws equally, that's all you had to do. The resolution could have been a dozen words long. Everyone in the county would have supported it and it wouldn't threaten to break the bank. But I never heard it said (even here) that the problem was that the police were giving passes to illegals for infractions that were landing citizens in the calaboose. But my point in response to the post was that Greg shouldn't be furrowing his brow too much trying to create a legal justification for the police to arrest someone on a status violation. Chief Deane was right about that. AW: I doubt that if they saw two drunks driving under the influence, they were citing the citizen and letting the non-citizen walk. I also doubt that there was a “sanctuary” policy. I certainly never saw that posted on the PWC website. If you needed something to remind the police to enforce the laws equally, that’s all you had to do. The resolution could have been a dozen words long. Everyone in the county would have supported it and it wouldn’t threaten to break the bank. But I never heard it said (even here) that the problem was that the police were giving passes to illegals for infractions that were landing citizens in the calaboose.

But my point in response to the post was that Greg shouldn’t be furrowing his brow too much trying to create a legal justification for the police to arrest someone on a status violation. Chief Deane was right about that.

]]> By: AWCheney http://www.bvbl.net/index.php/2007/10/19/deane-gets-it-almost-right/#comment-33884 AWCheney Sun, 21 Oct 2007 15:10:56 +0000 http://www.bvbl.net/index.php/2007/10/19/deane-gets-it-almost-right/#comment-33884 "Those types of violations are as readily enforced against illegal aliens by your local police force as against citizens." THAT, NoVA, has been the problem...they haven't been equally enforced. It's almost like the police were specifically told "hands off," prior to the Resolution. When this became apparent, we were told that PWC had a Sanctuary Policy...and that is what led to the current efforts to insist upon the enforcement of the law equally among non-citizens as well as citizens. The Resolution wasn't redundant...it was necessary. “Those types of violations are as readily enforced against illegal aliens by your local police force as against citizens.”

THAT, NoVA, has been the problem…they haven’t been equally enforced. It’s almost like the police were specifically told “hands off,” prior to the Resolution. When this became apparent, we were told that PWC had a Sanctuary Policy…and that is what led to the current efforts to insist upon the enforcement of the law equally among non-citizens as well as citizens. The Resolution wasn’t redundant…it was necessary.

]]> By: NoVA Scout http://www.bvbl.net/index.php/2007/10/19/deane-gets-it-almost-right/#comment-33773 NoVA Scout Sat, 20 Oct 2007 15:32:26 +0000 http://www.bvbl.net/index.php/2007/10/19/deane-gets-it-almost-right/#comment-33773 Why is this even being discussed? This is so fundamental a point, that one would think, particularly after all the sturm und drang of the past few months, that everyone would understand it perfectly. Chief Dean is absolutely correct. It isn't a close call, it isn't a nuanced or complicated issue. Being out of status or being an uninspected entrant is not a crime. We deal with it civilly at the federal level using federal officers designated under federal law to take care of these things. Federal authority is paramount and preemptive in this area. Of course, local governments have police powers to enforce local ordinances against many of the behaviors complained of here: public drunkenness, littering, overcrowding in homes, driving while intoxicated, sexual assault, etc. Those types of violations are as readily enforced against illegal aliens by your local police force as against citizens. If Roberto is weaving down the road, he can be stopped just the same as Bob. Roberto can't be stopped, however, because a local officer saw him picking up a carry out order of black beans and rice and suspects that such food is consumed by persons likely to be illegal immigrants (although that would get me stopped now and again, also). The overriding point, however, is that you don't need new authority (not that there's any way of getting it short of amending the constitution in ways that would wreck the Republic) to control these behaviors. That's the bedrock reason that so much of this drama is pure, hysterical silliness. Local governments can't excuse themselves from the federal structure and grant themselves authority that only resides at the federal level. Conservative Constitutionalists get this stuff. High school students get it. Federal courts get it. Chief Dean gets it. It's basic and central to the federal structure created by the Constitution. Why is this even being discussed? This is so fundamental a point, that one would think, particularly after all the sturm und drang of the past few months, that everyone would understand it perfectly. Chief Dean is absolutely correct. It isn’t a close call, it isn’t a nuanced or complicated issue. Being out of status or being an uninspected entrant is not a crime. We deal with it civilly at the federal level using federal officers designated under federal law to take care of these things. Federal authority is paramount and preemptive in this area. Of course, local governments have police powers to enforce local ordinances against many of the behaviors complained of here: public drunkenness, littering, overcrowding in homes, driving while intoxicated, sexual assault, etc. Those types of violations are as readily enforced against illegal aliens by your local police force as against citizens. If Roberto is weaving down the road, he can be stopped just the same as Bob. Roberto can’t be stopped, however, because a local officer saw him picking up a carry out order of black beans and rice and suspects that such food is consumed by persons likely to be illegal immigrants (although that would get me stopped now and again, also). The overriding point, however, is that you don’t need new authority (not that there’s any way of getting it short of amending the constitution in ways that would wreck the Republic) to control these behaviors. That’s the bedrock reason that so much of this drama is pure, hysterical silliness. Local governments can’t excuse themselves from the federal structure and grant themselves authority that only resides at the federal level.

Conservative Constitutionalists get this stuff. High school students get it. Federal courts get it. Chief Dean gets it. It’s basic and central to the federal structure created by the Constitution.

]]> By: MaaddMaaxx http://www.bvbl.net/index.php/2007/10/19/deane-gets-it-almost-right/#comment-33751 MaaddMaaxx Sat, 20 Oct 2007 13:58:39 +0000 http://www.bvbl.net/index.php/2007/10/19/deane-gets-it-almost-right/#comment-33751 Advocator, Read further, Title 8 of the US Code, Section 1325, 1324a, &1324c, which states,"all officers whose duty it is to enforce criminal laws shall have authority to make arrests for violation of any provision of this section." - and - ***** Section 1644 states, " No local ordinance, rule, or measure shall stop law enforcement officers from enforcement of this section." - (Affirmed SDCNY, US vs. Rudy Giuliani, 1996). ****** Chief Dean is wrong. He should do his duty properly or resign. This is also true of every member of law enforcement. Advocator,

Read further,

Title 8 of the US Code, Section 1325, 1324a, &1324c, which states,”all officers whose duty it is to enforce criminal laws shall have authority to make arrests for violation of any provision of this section.” - and -

*****

Section 1644 states, ” No local ordinance, rule, or measure shall stop law enforcement officers from enforcement of this section.” - (Affirmed SDCNY, US vs. Rudy Giuliani, 1996).

******

Chief Dean is wrong. He should do his duty properly or resign.

This is also true of every member of law enforcement.

]]> By: Advocator http://www.bvbl.net/index.php/2007/10/19/deane-gets-it-almost-right/#comment-33626 Advocator Fri, 19 Oct 2007 21:03:25 +0000 http://www.bvbl.net/index.php/2007/10/19/deane-gets-it-almost-right/#comment-33626 Greg: I think you're parsing a bit too much. Yes, bank robbery is against state law. How could you actually commit bank robbery without entering and intending to commit larceny? [Might be better if you don't answer that on line, we could discuss some interesting possibilities tomorrow]. Furthermore, as another poster pointed out, Virginia's robbery statute would also cover a bank robbery. The charges are usually federal, because the feds are the victims in a bank robbery. Nothing prevents the state from prosecuting under this statute, though. Before we get hung up on bank robberies, though, let's get back to the original point. Charlie Deane's boys and girls cannot stop, detain, and interrogate merely for the charge of unauthorized presence in the country. That's a federal offense and the above cited law under Title 8 gives authority to enforce it only to members of the "Service." If Congress wanted to give authority to any other police force, it would have called out that force in the law. I concede that there are other legal theories that would conclude the opposite. My point is that, until one of those theories is adopted by the Eastern District of VA or the entire 4th Circuit, the County is prudent not to pursue that practice as a matter of policy. I'm off the 'Net. Hasta manana, mi amigo. Miller tiempo. Greg: I think you’re parsing a bit too much. Yes, bank robbery is against state law. How could you actually commit bank robbery without entering and intending to commit larceny? [Might be better if you don’t answer that on line, we could discuss some interesting possibilities tomorrow]. Furthermore, as another poster pointed out, Virginia’s robbery statute would also cover a bank robbery.

The charges are usually federal, because the feds are the victims in a bank robbery. Nothing prevents the state from prosecuting under this statute, though.

Before we get hung up on bank robberies, though, let’s get back to the original point. Charlie Deane’s boys and girls cannot stop, detain, and interrogate merely for the charge of unauthorized presence in the country. That’s a federal offense and the above cited law under Title 8 gives authority to enforce it only to members of the “Service.” If Congress wanted to give authority to any other police force, it would have called out that force in the law.

I concede that there are other legal theories that would conclude the opposite. My point is that, until one of those theories is adopted by the Eastern District of VA or the entire 4th Circuit, the County is prudent not to pursue that practice as a matter of policy.

I’m off the ‘Net. Hasta manana, mi amigo. Miller tiempo.

]]> By: Greg L http://www.bvbl.net/index.php/2007/10/19/deane-gets-it-almost-right/#comment-33619 Greg L Fri, 19 Oct 2007 20:42:13 +0000 http://www.bvbl.net/index.php/2007/10/19/deane-gets-it-almost-right/#comment-33619 Advocator, thanks for the cite. I hadn't seen a reference to this ever being prosecuted, and the charges on this crime always seem to be federal ones. So entering a bank with intent to commit larceny is against Virginia law, but actually committing bank robbery isn't and is covered under federal statutes, instead. Is this accurate? Advocator, thanks for the cite. I hadn’t seen a reference to this ever being prosecuted, and the charges on this crime always seem to be federal ones.

So entering a bank with intent to commit larceny is against Virginia law, but actually committing bank robbery isn’t and is covered under federal statutes, instead. Is this accurate?

]]> By: Henry http://www.bvbl.net/index.php/2007/10/19/deane-gets-it-almost-right/#comment-33607 Henry Fri, 19 Oct 2007 20:18:12 +0000 http://www.bvbl.net/index.php/2007/10/19/deane-gets-it-almost-right/#comment-33607 18.2-58. You don't rob a bank, you rob a person (teller) at a bank - Federal law comes into play because they insure the money that was taken [ by force ] from its custodian, a person i.e., teller. 18.2-58. You don’t rob a bank, you rob a person (teller) at a bank - Federal law comes into play because they insure the money that was taken [ by force ] from its custodian, a person i.e., teller.

]]> By: Advocator http://www.bvbl.net/index.php/2007/10/19/deane-gets-it-almost-right/#comment-33600 Advocator Fri, 19 Oct 2007 20:00:14 +0000 http://www.bvbl.net/index.php/2007/10/19/deane-gets-it-almost-right/#comment-33600 "What Virginia statutes does bank robbery violate? I looked, and didn’t find any." Come on Greg. § 18.2-93. Entering bank, armed, with intent to commit larceny. If any person, armed with a deadly weapon, shall enter any banking house, in the daytime or in the nighttime, with intent to commit larceny of money, bonds, notes, or other evidence of debt therein, he shall be guilty of a Class 2 felony. “What Virginia statutes does bank robbery violate? I looked, and didn’t find any.”

Come on Greg.

§ 18.2-93. Entering bank, armed, with intent to commit larceny.

If any person, armed with a deadly weapon, shall enter any banking house, in the daytime or in the nighttime, with intent to commit larceny of money, bonds, notes, or other evidence of debt therein, he shall be guilty of a Class 2 felony.

]]> By: Henry http://www.bvbl.net/index.php/2007/10/19/deane-gets-it-almost-right/#comment-33598 Henry Fri, 19 Oct 2007 19:57:29 +0000 http://www.bvbl.net/index.php/2007/10/19/deane-gets-it-almost-right/#comment-33598 Just plain common law robbery. Just plain common law robbery.

]]> By: Greg L http://www.bvbl.net/index.php/2007/10/19/deane-gets-it-almost-right/#comment-33595 Greg L Fri, 19 Oct 2007 19:44:59 +0000 http://www.bvbl.net/index.php/2007/10/19/deane-gets-it-almost-right/#comment-33595 What Virginia statutes does bank robbery violate? I looked, and didn't find any. What Virginia statutes does bank robbery violate? I looked, and didn’t find any.

]]> By: Advocator http://www.bvbl.net/index.php/2007/10/19/deane-gets-it-almost-right/#comment-33593 Advocator Fri, 19 Oct 2007 19:42:26 +0000 http://www.bvbl.net/index.php/2007/10/19/deane-gets-it-almost-right/#comment-33593 Anonymous (or should I say "Ananymous"): "Advacator, what gives a local police department the authority to capture and arrest a bank robber (a federal crime?)" Many crimes are both state and federal crimes, or the act itself constitutes several crimes, one of which may be a state crime. The act of robbing a bank violates many state statutes, as well as a federal one. Thus, a state or local police could stop and arrest a bank robber. Try typing your comments on a Word file first, then hit the F7 (for the etymologically challenged) button. Then block and copy to the website. Anonymous (or should I say “Ananymous”): “Advacator, what gives a local police department the authority to capture and arrest a bank robber (a federal crime?)”

Many crimes are both state and federal crimes, or the act itself constitutes several crimes, one of which may be a state crime. The act of robbing a bank violates many state statutes, as well as a federal one. Thus, a state or local police could stop and arrest a bank robber.

Try typing your comments on a Word file first, then hit the F7 (for the etymologically challenged) button. Then block and copy to the website.

]]> By: PWCHomeowner http://www.bvbl.net/index.php/2007/10/19/deane-gets-it-almost-right/#comment-33575 PWCHomeowner Fri, 19 Oct 2007 18:33:19 +0000 http://www.bvbl.net/index.php/2007/10/19/deane-gets-it-almost-right/#comment-33575 Anonymous 2:08, thanks. Anonymous 2:08, thanks.

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.bvbl.net/index.php/2007/10/19/deane-gets-it-almost-right/#comment-33570 Anonymous Fri, 19 Oct 2007 18:17:23 +0000 http://www.bvbl.net/index.php/2007/10/19/deane-gets-it-almost-right/#comment-33570 You gotta love this guy (Sheriff Joe.) Don't see too many lawsuits filed against him. http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2007/10/15/daily19.html You gotta love this guy (Sheriff Joe.) Don’t see too many lawsuits filed against him.

http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2007/10/15/daily19.html

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.bvbl.net/index.php/2007/10/19/deane-gets-it-almost-right/#comment-33565 Anonymous Fri, 19 Oct 2007 18:08:08 +0000 http://www.bvbl.net/index.php/2007/10/19/deane-gets-it-almost-right/#comment-33565 Advocator on 19 Oct 2007 at 1:03 pm: PWCHomeowner: Upon what authority can PWC police “obviously detain people with probable cause for any … federal crime?” Advacator, what gives a local police department the authority to capture and arrest a bank robber (a federal crime?) Advocator on 19 Oct 2007 at 1:03 pm:

PWCHomeowner: Upon what authority can PWC police “obviously detain people with probable cause for any … federal crime?”

Advacator, what gives a local police department the authority to capture and arrest a bank robber (a federal crime?)

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.bvbl.net/index.php/2007/10/19/deane-gets-it-almost-right/#comment-33561 Anonymous Fri, 19 Oct 2007 18:02:04 +0000 http://www.bvbl.net/index.php/2007/10/19/deane-gets-it-almost-right/#comment-33561 PWC officers do not have the authority to stop or detain anyone Just because they suspect they are an illegal immigrant. Regarding this statement from above: Greg L. Stated: "Just because that section extends powers to the “Service” does it necessarily revoke those powers from state and local governments? If congress wanted to do that, they would have said so." In the opinions below Greg L, at least a few Attorney's have stated that the Constitution did revoke those powers from locals. Our State Attorney General said that clause does not apply to state or local police. That opinion (along with the County Attorney's Office) is the basis of the PWCPD action. It also is the basis of Herndon's and soon to be Loudoun's action. PWC officers do not have the authority to stop or detain anyone Just because they suspect they are an illegal immigrant.

Regarding this statement from above:
Greg L. Stated:

“Just because that section extends powers to the “Service” does it necessarily revoke those powers from state and local governments? If congress wanted to do that, they would have said so.”

In the opinions below Greg L, at least a few Attorney’s have stated that the Constitution did revoke those powers from locals.

Our State Attorney General said that clause does not apply to state or local police. That opinion (along with the County Attorney’s Office) is the basis of the PWCPD action. It also is the basis of Herndon’s and soon to be Loudoun’s action.

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.bvbl.net/index.php/2007/10/19/deane-gets-it-almost-right/#comment-33559 Anonymous Fri, 19 Oct 2007 17:56:36 +0000 http://www.bvbl.net/index.php/2007/10/19/deane-gets-it-almost-right/#comment-33559 Advocator, as a strict constructionist would you not agree that the State has this right under the 10th amendment? The law you stated shows the powers granted the service (federal). The States still have some authority (I hope). Advocator,
as a strict constructionist would you not agree that the State has this right under the 10th amendment? The law you stated shows the powers granted the service (federal). The States still have some authority (I hope).

]]> By: Gone Fishing http://www.bvbl.net/index.php/2007/10/19/deane-gets-it-almost-right/#comment-33552 Gone Fishing Fri, 19 Oct 2007 17:30:11 +0000 http://www.bvbl.net/index.php/2007/10/19/deane-gets-it-almost-right/#comment-33552 Patriot, are you kidding? Deane is not going to ask Sheriff Joe anything.... Patriot, are you kidding? Deane is not going to ask Sheriff Joe
anything….

]]> By: The Patriot (Got E-Verify?) http://www.bvbl.net/index.php/2007/10/19/deane-gets-it-almost-right/#comment-33541 The Patriot (Got E-Verify?) Fri, 19 Oct 2007 17:12:57 +0000 http://www.bvbl.net/index.php/2007/10/19/deane-gets-it-almost-right/#comment-33541 What Deane needs to do is contact Sheriff Joe and ask him what his procedures are. Would Deane be up to this? Or....does he really NOT want to do anything? What Deane needs to do is contact Sheriff Joe and ask him what his procedures are. Would Deane be up to this? Or….does he really NOT want to do anything?

]]>