Driving liberals, dhimmis and illegal alien apologists absolutely insane since 2005...

John Jenkins Considers Endangering Public Safety

By Greg L | 25 April 2008 | Prince William County | 23 Comments

An article in the DC Examiner quotes Neabsco Supervisor John Jenkins as being open to changing the Rule of Law Resolution to focus on “‘the worst of the worst’ instead of traffic violators,” as if returning the focus of having law enforcement clean up the mess after a tragedy is a better policy than preventing that mess in the first place.  Given the kind of unlawful behavior we’ve seen from illegal aliens over the past few years, I can’t imagine why anyone could responsibly argue that playing catch-and-release with illegal aliens under any circumstances is anything that approaches responsible public policy.

This past month Prince William County Police apprehended an illegal alien during a traffic stop who had skipped bail on an attempted murder charge in Montgomery County, MD, and the Department’s policy of checking the immigration status of all suspected illegal aliens is credited as the reason why this one of the half-million illegal alien absconders running loose in the country was finally caught.  A triple homicide in Woodbridge last year was committed by an illegal alien who had previous interactions with county police officers for non-arrestable offenses.  In all too many cases, illegal aliens who ultimately murder, rape, assault or otherwise violently harm Prince William County residents have been pulled over for traffic violations before they committed their crimes just as one of the 9-11 hijackers had been pulled over by the New Jersey Highway Patrol before he assisted in the murder of over three thousand innocent Americans.  Catch-and-release is a terrible policy, with deadly consequences.

Some of those consequences are less deadly, but far more frequent.  Persons driving without a license and insurance have been a constant complaint of county residents who were fed up with non-english speaking drivers fleeing accident scenes such as the one where Prince William County Police Lieutenant Harrover was nearly killed by a drunken illegal alien driver without a license.  I’ve talked to at least a dozen county residents who have had their parked cars hit by persons who couldn’t speak English and had no drivers license and who tried to flee the scene of the accident, leaving them to shoulder the expense of getting their property repaired.  The problem is so common that Mexicans Without Borders pleaded with their illegal alien membership days before the Rule of Law Resolution went into effect to stop driving without a license lest they end up getting deported if caught by the police.  The public safety issue here is enormous.

Before the Rule of Law Resolution went into effect, traffic court at the Judicial Center in Manassas was inundated with foreign nationals of uncertain legal status who had been charged with driving without a license.  Often, these persons were charged a nominal $50 or $100 for driving without a license and released, making the consequence of willfully violating our laws so minimal that it utterly failed to deter this dangerous behavior.  As a direct result of this complete unwillingness to ensure that our laws were respected, our government encouraged dangerous behavior on our roads and a tolerance towards unlawful behavior that encouraged illegal aliens to violate the law.  Now that illegal aliens are aware of real potential consequences for the willful violation of our laws, a significant number of them aren’t driving in the county, and many of them have left.

Now John Jenkins is considering taking the policies that have dramatically increased public safety and put an end to this outrage, and throwing them away.  This is terribly irresponsible, and I would hope that county residents would ensure that he is made clear on just how insane an idea this actually is by calling him at 703-792-4668 (his aide can be reached at 703-792-4667) and mailing him and his colleagues at bocs@pwcgov.org.  If we wait for the not-so-worst to actually become the “worst of the worst” we put our citizens in grave and deliberate danger that we have proven is avoidable.  If we demonstrate that breaking the law carries no meaningful consequences, we effectively reward unlawful behavior to the detriment of our security and safety.  As a policy initiative, this just plain stinks.



The opinions expressed here are solely the views of the author, and not representative of the position of any organization, political party, doughnut shop, knitting guild, or waste recycling facility, but may be correctly attributed to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. If anything in the above article has offended you, please click here to receive an immediate apology.

BVBL is not a charity and your support is not tax-deductible.

You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed. You can also pingback or trackback from your own site.

23 Comments

  1. park'd said on 25 Apr 2008 at 2:49 pm:
    Flag comment

    They are waffling. Maybe they only passed the resolution knowing full well 6 months later that they could rescind it and the repercussions would be less? I’m sure they had some kind of agenda because frankly I was surprised that they even passed it when they did. Never underestimate the trickery of a politician. They are like a chess player and are always thinking 10 moves ahead.

    Their corporate sponsors must be crying the blues over this and they think that they won’t catch as much heat from their constituents as they will from their benefactors. Follow the money trail and hold their feet to the fire. They have to find out that there will be stronger repercussions from angry citizens than there will be from corporate sponsors and they will stay the course.

  2. AWCheney said on 25 Apr 2008 at 3:04 pm:
    Flag comment

    I’ve said it before when the issue came up as to whether John Jenkins would support the resolution or not…John is a pragmatist. If he believes that his constituents strongly support the Resolution, he will as well. He needs to hear from those in his district.

  3. Advocator said on 25 Apr 2008 at 3:06 pm:
    Flag comment

    I think you’re “right on the money,” Park’d. And there will be stronger repercussions.

  4. Fed_Up! said on 25 Apr 2008 at 3:35 pm:
    Flag comment

    Need we remind Jenkins that Malvo & Co could have been stopped had his immigration status been verified at any one of their interactions with the law?

    The whole point of the Resolution is a “broken windows” theory — enforcement at the smallest level. It is a proven method of reducing “big” crime by cracking down with zero tolerance on the “small” stuff.

    We want our community back. The Resolution is working. It is imperative to stay the course!

  5. starryflights said on 25 Apr 2008 at 3:43 pm:
    Flag comment

    I am really disappointed in Jenkins. I gave him another phone call.

  6. legal2 said on 25 Apr 2008 at 4:13 pm:
    Flag comment

    Everyone who wants the Rule of Law Resolution to remain intact should send a live chicken to Jenkins, Nohe and Principi (see next thread).

  7. Laurie M said on 25 Apr 2008 at 4:14 pm:
    Flag comment

    I called Principi and voiced my opinion and my *extreme* disappointment that we have to keep fighting this battle. How many times have we been promised that the Resolution would be fully funded? I have also e-mailed the entire BOCS since we can not be at the meeting (we are temp. out of state).

    I stated in my e-mail that I would like to send a check earmarked specifically to fund the Resolution. Because of the market correction, our RE taxes are going down a bit this year. I want to send the difference to fund the resolution, and ONLY the resolution. We should all do so to communicate our commitment to funding the resolution.

  8. Bob Wills said on 25 Apr 2008 at 5:20 pm:
    Flag comment

    Stewart is the one heading up to not fully funding the Rule of Law. Is he the golden hair boy who does not wrong but lies and lies about most everything? The BOCS is raising you car decal fees to 38.00 which is over a 50% increase in this budget and no one cares about that? By the way it is to repalce lost recordation tax income and not to fund the Rule of Law. Of course this is not a tax increase according to May just taking money out of your pocket like a pick pocket does when they steal from you..

  9. Purple said on 25 Apr 2008 at 6:05 pm:
    Flag comment

    I suppose you all know that Fairfax County did away with the County Decals. They were established to track cars in the county for residency purposes. That can now easily be done thanks to Virginia’s vehicle registration system (so our tax bills may be sent out every year). Prince William County can easily do away with the decals; however, they opted to keep them to as a source of revenue. They have quietly been raising the “fee” (tax) to cover costs not related to the decal and the maintenance and administration of the decal system.

    The bottom line is that they are disguising a tax as a fee and putting residents through the annual paperwork and “decal scraping” exercise to generate a bit of extra cash. I would prefer to generate this bit of revenue somewhere else… and (as a Conservative) really don’t like paying a tax disguised as a fee. I wonder how much the County pays to administer this system?

  10. Anonymous said on 25 Apr 2008 at 6:42 pm:
    Flag comment

    The decals are a cash cow. When was the last time you saw the police checking for current decals? It’s been many years. They used to set up a check point at a four-way stop in Sudley and bag them as they came to the sign. Again, it’s been many years since they stopped checking.

  11. Laurie M said on 25 Apr 2008 at 7:03 pm:
    Flag comment

    Agreed that the decals are a “cash cow” but it seems that it is yet another example of the rules NOT being uniformly enforced and serious latitude being granted to one segment of the population.

    My daughter got stopped because her inspection sticker was expired and she was driving it to the garage to get the repair work done. Not only was she pulled over, but they did ask for her DL, reg, ins. and wrote her a ticket. I understand that this is the law and I don’t have a problem with her being pulled over, but I do have a problem with others driving around with expired tags, inspection stickers, etc and “they” are not supposed to be stopped and cited? Give me a break! I am soooo sick of the double standards. If you aren’t “legal” w/respect to the requirements to operate a vehicle on the road — valid DL, tags, registration, inspection, etc — then you deserve to be pulled over, and questioned.

    FYI, I don’t agree with the car tax as a source of revenue, I would agree that it is probably not cost-effective when you consider the admin costs. My point is, there needs to be one standard for EVERYONE and it needs to be uniformly enforced.

  12. Laurie M said on 25 Apr 2008 at 7:09 pm:
    Flag comment

    Bob,
    It is my understanding that Principi and Caddigan are the ones who are trying to repeal/blunt the resolution.

    I don’t care who is culpable; I want to hold their feet to the fire and ensure that they follow through on their commitments and fund and enforce the resolution.

    The “other” side had their opportunity to roust the Board during the last election, clearly the “enforcement” supporters prevailed. It is now time to move forward.

    As far as putting Corey’s feet to the fire about fully funding and enforcing; I am mailing him a check made out to “Prince William County” with “Resolution only” in the check memo, and a note that this is a voluntary contribution to ensure that the resolution is fully funded and enforced.

  13. Bob Wills said on 25 Apr 2008 at 8:24 pm:
    Flag comment

    Purple said on 25 Apr 2008 at 6:05 pm:
    I would prefer to generate this bit of revenue somewhere else… and (as a Conservative) really don’t like paying a tax disguised as a fee. I wonder how much the County pays to administer this system?

    they spend next to nothing for the decals are sent out with the PP bill and it is only the cost of the stickers which is very little.

    The county needs to generate money and I pointed out at the Board meeting how they could add just .016 to the tax rate and generate the same amount of money based on an average assesed value of 390,000 and two cars per house. If this penny and sixth hundreds of a cent were added to the tax rate then vacant land, commercial, multifamily, industrial and public facilites would being paying this income as well as the home owner. If your property was assesed for less then 390,000 you saved money or if you had more then two vehciles you saved a great deal more. The BOCS do not care what it cost you so of course they will not do this to save you one penny. Enjoy getting the shaft folks..

  14. anon in dale city said on 25 Apr 2008 at 10:57 pm:
    Flag comment

    Jenkins and Principi are doing what Jenkins and Barg have done forever.
    Which is backing interests of the developers/the building industry at all costs. Whether it results in less transportation and parks money or illegals, it has been their position for a long time.

  15. Anonymous said on 26 Apr 2008 at 12:27 am:
    Flag comment

    This smells like Charlie T. Deane is behind it.

  16. Vigilant1 said on 26 Apr 2008 at 11:29 am:
    Flag comment

    This situation sounds more everyday like “GOOD COP - BAD COP.” The resolution was passed overwhelmingly by ALL supervisors. It should stand as it was voted.

  17. starryflights said on 26 Apr 2008 at 12:17 pm:
    Flag comment

    I have emailed, called and faxed Jenkins many times over the past year. He NEVER answers my queries. I feel that he is ignoring my concerns.

  18. Dolph said on 26 Apr 2008 at 10:11 pm:
    Flag comment

    Laurie,

    Concerning your comments about :

    ‘The “other” side had their opportunity to roust the Board during the last election, clearly the “enforcement” supporters prevailed. It is now time to move forward.’

    It would be my guess that the “other” side probably can’t vote. You are ignoring many PWC residents who might not want to go to the cost and extremes that you do but who want to spend limited resources a bit differently.

    We have some very challenging economic times ahead of us in this county. Our schools will be very short changed. We will need many extra county employees to handle the added responsibilities of vacant houses. We need extra police officers to keep a vigilant watch on vacant houses and businesses.

    When you have less coming in and more to spend, something has to give. I very much support the 287g program at the jail. I want the jail to have more employees trained to do the 287g work so they don’t all quit in disgust from working 60 hour weeks. I want to keep criminals off the street.

    I don’t think we can afford to have the criminal alien unit with the police dept at the present time. When supervisors voted for the resolution, there were a few unknowns. As a county, we must use the public coffers wisely and adjust as the need arises. If that is compromise, so be it.

  19. Anonymous said on 27 Apr 2008 at 12:49 am:
    Flag comment

    We know what the citizens, the Board of Supervisors and Charlie Deane think about the Rule of Law Resolution. But I have not heard what our sheriff thinks about the resolution. I know he is not exactly a ball of fire when it comes to public safety or service to the people, but he is the only law enforcement officer we (the people) give a badge to. Does anyone know if he will support it or not? Maybe he can help the police department and cut some of the cost.

  20. freedom said on 27 Apr 2008 at 6:45 pm:
    Flag comment

    Dolph said, “When supervisors voted for the resolution, there were a few unknowns.”

    Of course there were, Dolph….and today, there are unknowns about tomorrow. However, at least a couple of things have come into clean focus: 1) Following passage of the Rule of Law Resolution, ESOL enrollment is down considerably, resulting in an annual savings which I understand to be in the neighborhood of $8M. 2) Foreclosures are up…of course they’re up on mortgages that shouldn’t have been made in the first place. 3.) Those in this country illegally are scared, and it’s Corey Stewart’s fault. Shameful; abide by the law and don’t fear

  21. Harry said on 28 Apr 2008 at 4:10 pm:
    Flag comment

    Stewart opposes the installation of cameras in the police cars, I believe this to be a mistake, the police officers need to be protected from frivolous charges, where they may be suspended pending an investigation. Seems for $3.1 million it would be worth protecting the police. 1/2 the money could be gotten if the supervisors turned over their “discretionary” funds (read slush funds, re-elect me funds, etc).

  22. AWCheney said on 28 Apr 2008 at 7:21 pm:
    Flag comment

    Chief Deane could have had those cameras in every single car years ago if he had applied for FEDERAL grants. I seem to recall that the hue and cry over grant money between Chief Deane and Sheriff Stroffrogen back in 2003 revolved only around State grants…Federal grants were never mentioned. I must wonder if the Chief has applied for ANY Federal grant money, despite the fact that billions of dollars since then have gone to local police departments all over the country through the DOJ COPS (Community Oriented Policing Services) program since then. This, alone, makes those cameras an unconscionable line item in the funding for the resolution.

  23. Anonymous said on 29 Apr 2008 at 9:00 pm:
    Flag comment

    Anonymous said on 27 Apr 2008 at 12:49 am: ” I know he is not exactly a ball of fire when it comes to public safety or service to the people”.

    You are exactly right. I would not count on the sheriff to do anything that requires him to do actual work.

Comments are closed.


Views: 1656