Sanctuary For Illegal Aliens Passes Virginia Senate 40-0
By Greg L | 1 February 2010 | Illegal Aliens, Crime, Virginia Senate | 128 Comments
SB 462, Senator Janet Howell’s bill that would prevent law enforcement officers from questioning the immigration status of persons deemed to be a crime victim breezed through the Senate on a 40-0 vote today in another case of political correctness run amok. This bill would establish an unprecedented restriction on police officers doing their job that has never been extended in any other circumstance. Because we’re taking about illegal aliens, who have of late become a special protected minority in this country, they’re going to get special treatment.
Police officers aren’t prohibited by law from asking anyone about anything, and there’s good reason for that even when department policies generally establish restrictive guidelines in some circumstances. They’re paid to ask questions, and in so doing uncover unlawful activity. We can’t possibly foresee when in every case it is not a good idea for law enforcement officers to ask or not ask questions, but that’s exactly what this bill does. If this is enacted, and if an officer with good reason asks someone about their immigration status for any reason whatsoever, that police officer has just committed a crime. For doing their job.
Many departments have policies that essentially impose a similar restriction, but those are policies, and policies not only have exceptions but they don’t carry the criminal consequences of being part of the Code of Virginia. If a police officer violates a policy, and is able to sufficiently explain to his superiors that it was necessary to do so, those actions can be excused. If he can’t, there are a wide variety of sanctions the department can impose. No one has been able to explain why those policies are inadequate and why the punishments for violating such a policy in this case — which could result in getting fired — need to be elevated to the level of codified criminal conduct. Fact is, there is no reason other than to give illegal aliens and their supporters the warm and fuzzy feeling (and potential weapon) that if a cop asks him about his immigration status under the wrong circumstances, now that police officer can get slammed with a criminal complaint themselves.
A police officer can ask a crime victim any other question. He could ask a crime victim about whether they abuse drugs, whether the reason they were attacked was because they themselves had violated the law, or any other host of questions. No one was ever concerned before that crime victims needed to be shielded under penalty of law from being questioned about any kind of behavior they’ve engaged in lest it prevent crime reporting. But now, for this one special class of not only non-citizens, but specifically for illegal aliens, they get legal protection to prevent someone asking them about their behavior.
This is the insanity of political correctness that occasionally grips otherwise rational elected officials. In order to put a stop to this outrage, constituents are now going to have to start banging on the doors of their representatives in the House of Delegates and see if they can act a little more responsibly than their colleagues in the Senate.
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.
You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed. You can also pingback or trackback from your own site.
128 Comments
Leave a Reply
Views: 1369
Loading ...
utterly amazing how illegals get more benefits than the average taxpayer in this county, totally amazing…
Absolutely insane! Are we now turning Virginia into a sanctuary state?
Ancient Sparta - they had the right form of government - a Timocracy. If our system were modeled after their system, this nonsense would never take place.
I take it that there are forty Senators in that body in Va. Thus, there are forty traitors in that legislative body.
Next push will be to begin fining citizens - just for being citizens. Those whose ancestors can be traces back to Colonial times will face the highest fines!
Greg- A small question– How did all 40 Senators vote for this? Is there not even one that could see this as a camel nose under the tent?
Some apparently had no idea what they were voting for and just fell for the PC garbage. No one these days wants to be seen as being mean to minorities, and I imagine this was seen as their opportunity to demonstrate a softer side to them.
Still, I don’t accept ineptitude or incompetence as an excuse here. They should have understood what this really was.
Perhaps they read the bill and saw that it was a law and order measure intended to prevent victims from being discouraged from cooperating with police for fear that their immigration status would turn a crime report into some kind of punishment or deportation. That’s just a theory to explain how this would go through with nary a negative vote, but it is a theory based on the words in the bill, unlike the commentary on this, which appears to be based on . . . . [?]
Now that you all know what the bill was, I’m sure it has 100% support around here. Right?
Most police agencies already forbid officers from asking this question to victims already so this bill is no big deal. I am for closing the border and toughening our laws on illegal immigrants but I have no problem with this law. Think about this. Street robberies are conducted by punks of all colors. Yes, a large number of victims are Hispanics as they are known to carry lots of cash. But they also rob regular citizens as well. Would you now want these victims, even if illegal, helping local LE to catch and prosecute these bad guys? If you allow the victims to be questioned regarding their citizenship then what motive do they have in helping the police? I for one want their help. Some of you are so uptight that you can’t see that not all laws written to benefit a particular group are always bad.
Let police departments have the policies that work for them, even if I don’t agree that letting illegal aliens know that they’re protected in any way is productive in the least. I just can’t imagine prosecuting a police officer for a violation of the Virginia Code if he feels the need to simply ask a question is a good idea and would have been permissible as an exception to a local policy.
Besides, if departments have these policies, why is there a need to criminalize this? Maybe we should criminalize other actions of police officers when we the public might not agree with what they’re doing? Maybe next we make it a crime for a police officer to issue a warning for seat belt violations because someone thinks citations are handed out differentially based on race or ethnic origin?
Something like that could well be next.
Greg.
I would pick and choose my battles a little better if I were you. It gets to a point that you can’t really be taken serious at times.
Greg’s post may have been a satire or parody on extreme anti-immigrant sentiment that sometimes appears in Virginia and other parts of the United States. Humor sometimes doesn’t come across well in the flat, voiceless medium of the internet. I’m sure that he was trying to poke fun at people who would find fault with a measure like this.
Nice effort to reach out to the liberals and “compromise” (surrender) in order to show how enlightened you are. I’m sure the illegal aliens who say they want to reconquer the US appreciate your kind gesture.
If this is such a good idea, why are police officers not prevented from asking any other questions? Are illegal aliens the only people we’re interested in protecting in this country? Hell, victims of domestic abuse don’t even get this kid-glove treatment.
Vote the BUMS OUT!! Maybe the Govenor and GA have the political will to not support this. Heck if the Commonwealth is this liberal, lets secede, at least then all of the northern VA money will stay in northern Virginia.
I certainly believe the United States should have a coherent immigration policy (which it does not) and that it should be enforced. But this law represents simple common sense. There is a reason it passed unanimously. It is good law.
If a crime victim is here illegally and does not report a crime for that reason it is damned hard for the police to catch the criminal because no investigation will be initiated. How could it be? No report of a crime will have been made.
Let’s personalize it a little bit for those babbling on about “special rights for illegals” and “penalizing citizens”. Suppose a woman who is here illegally is raped and badly beaten by a particularly violent individual. And suppose that if she had reported that crime promptly that the perpetrator would have been arrested and taken off the streets. Now suppose she does NOT report it out of fear about her immigration status. The rapist is still at large because of this. And now suppose that the rapist’s next victim is your wife or your daughter.
Use the brain God gave you for a change and see this law for what it is. It has absolutely nothing to do with illegal immigration and everything to do with fighting crime and keeping the community safe.
Some of you folks are going to need artificial knees at a very early age with all the knee jerk reacting you do. Try thinking every once in a while.
We just elected a republican governor - or did we?
I would assume he can veto this - but if he can - and he doens’t
Its going to be a very unpleasant 4 years for him.
BVBL: “Senator Janet Howell’s bill that would prevent law enforcement officers from questioning the immigration status of persons deemed to be a crime victim breezed through the Senate on a 40-0 vote today in another case of political correctness run amok.”
ALL together now, ONE more time: “Politicians don’t SOLVE problems, politicians FUND problems!!!”
Former Officer,
So, the State just took away DISCRETION. When discretion is removed, it becomes a slippery slope. The law makes it illegal with criminal prosecution ramifications if violated. So, the State wants to remove the ability to judge each case on the facts at hand and make a blanket law which allows an officer no latitude based on the circumstances at the scene.
To me, that would be like the State saying, “We have done a study on pursuits. We have determined that they are dangerous in all circumstances. With modern technology available to police, we no longer feel that pursuing vehicles outweighs the potential dangers to the public. Pursuits are now prohibited in the Commonwealth of Va.” PWC has a pretty restrictive pursuit policy, but there is discretion allowed.
As a former officer, I am rather surprised that you would endorse restricting Discretion.
Hey Former Officer, I too am a former LEO. This bill is a horrible idea for our police officers and sheriff deputies.
A dept. policy is what many P.D.’s have in place telling The officer not to ask a crime victim what thier immigration status might or might not be. But a Dept. policy is much different than the State Code.
This bill however would be the first time (UNPRECEDENTED) in the Virginia State code that a LEO cant ask a specific question. This is outrageous. Think of all the un-needed stress our young patrol officers would face with the extra complaints coming in to internal affairs because they simply ASKED A QUESTION.
As a “former officer” you should really re-think the wisdom of this horrible idea.
Hey Former Officer, I too am a former LEO. This bill is a horrible idea for our police officers and sheriff deputies.
A dept. policy is what many P.D.’s have in place telling The officer not to ask a crime victim what thier immigration status might or might not be. But a Dept. policy is much different than the State Code.
This bill however would be the first time (UNPRECEDENTED) in the Virginia State code that a LEO cant ask a specific question. This is outrageous. Think of all the un-needed stress our young patrol officers would face with the extra complaints coming in to internal affairs because they simply ASKED A QUESTION.
As a “former officer” you should really re-think the wisdom of this horrible idea.
Just Sayin’, I agree with almost all of your points. In fact I dont have any problem at all with this idea being a ‘department policy’. However not all counties or cities may want this policy.
The main problem that I would hope any reasonably thinking person would be is that there is nowhere else in the code where we have legislated what a LEO may or may not ask a specific question.
I really hope the Gov. really takes a close look at this and vetoes it.
Just Sayin’, this is not knee jerk reaction. This is thinking about the un-thought consequenses of the legislation.
also a former officer, I respect your opinion. However, I believe it is perfectly appropriate for this to be addressed at the state level rather than have a mishmash of local policies.
The criminals who remain at large in jurisdictions who don’t adopt this wise policy won’t be stopped by a magic force field at the county line. They will still be at large and free to enter my jurisdiction and do damage. Better to have the state adopt this common sense measure and have a uniform sensible policy statewide.
It is hardly unprecedented for the state to adopt a policy where wide discrepancies exist among jurisdictions. I recall a number of years ago when such discrepancies existed regarding concealed carry permits. In some jurisdictions if you were breathing you got a permit. In others you practically needed a signed letter from the President and a special dispensation from the Pope. The state put an end to that and you could get a permit in Fairfax County which had been damn near impossible before.
This bill is not only the proper business of the state legislature, it is very good law. I look forward to seeing it enacted.
This is ridiculous and blind bigotry….If you ask a VICTIM of a crime what there immigration status is, less crimes are reported, and thus less VIOLENT OFFENDERS are put in jail. Turn off the hatred for those without paperwork and turn on the light bulbs for a change.
***
Claims that this is turning Virginia into a ’sanctuary state’ are foolish and baseless. Dont you wonder why this received bi partisan support? Why the governor will sign it? Because the VAST majority of Americans, aside from you on the far right fringe that only care about locking up illegals apparently more than rapists and murders, would rather see crimes reported to keep the ENTIRE community safe, illegals and legals. Ignorance isnt always bliss I guess.
Additionally, the argument that “well the officer just asked a question and now is being prosecuted by this evil law.” is also baseless and foolish. There is NO reason why immigration status should be asked of a VICTIM of a crime. None, period, end of discussion. This law affirms that and makes it crystal clear to everyone that you are not in danger of being arrested for immigration status if you report a crime.
Here’s a question, did YOU read the bill?
****
“The bill does not prohibit a law-enforcement officer from inquiring into the immigration status of a victim or witness who has been arrested or charged with a criminal violation.”
****
Here is a clue for future reference…before screaming ignorance and stupidity, read the bill which specifically has exceptions outlined. You crucify members of congress for not reading the thousand-page-long healthcare bill then you dont even read a simple paragraph before you start screaming about how unfair it is?? Really?? And if you DID read it, you purposely left out the section with a clear exception to this rule for no other purpose than causing a bigger stir…kinda like the main stream media actually.
****
I guess Im going to have to start filtering what I read on here now because with this its obvious that you are not interested in the “truth” and only interested in furthering your own blind ideology.
Local gop.
Thanks for the info.
If we were to offer the argument that a VICTIM should not be queried about his/her status then we should make that argument across the board. It should not be segregated into one specific group. So, if a convicted felon becomes a victim, then that too should not be open to question???
Should ANY person who is a crime VICTIM be fearful of being arrested?
In my example the convicted felon is out past his curfew and is robbed.
Should there be restrictions on him being queried regarding his status? I mean, come on, he is the VICTIM, right? If there is no law prohibiting this, he might not report the robbery for fear that his status would cause him to be arrested for violating probation or parole.
You may think the thought process is off base, but I do believe that illegal (violating our laws) is illegal. A victim is a victim. We should apply the rules equitably.
local gop said on 2 Feb 2010 at 2:14 pm: Flag comment
“This is ridiculous and blind bigotry….If you ask a VICTIM of a crime what there immigration status is, less crimes are reported, and thus less VIOLENT OFFENDERS are put in jail. ”
And local GOP in my example, the felon is a bad check writer; not a violent robber. So out of fear the check writer doesn’t report it and the more VIOLENT criminal goes free to continue robbing.
Give the police discretion and guidelines. NOT new laws that do not apply across the board.
Heres is a question begging to be asked. Can any of you self describe leos/former leos answer this honestly?
Is there any question that cannot be asked of a real citizen of Virgina that would get a leo in trouble?
Well, just what does the Bill say or not say?
Would think that a LEO could quickly detect if someone is an illegal. And, I would bet money that a LEO would be right over 99 percent of the time.
local gop said on 2 Feb 2010 at 2:14 pm: Flag comment
This is ridiculous and blind bigotry….If you ask a VICTIM of a crime what there immigration status is, less crimes are reported, and thus less VIOLENT OFFENDERS are put in jail. Turn off the hatred for those without paperwork and turn on the light bulbs for a change.
If an illegal alien is raped (or a family member is) and is more worried about whether they will be deported if it is found out during an investigation that they are here illegally, and don’t report the crime, they have a real problem. If they were not here illegally in the first place, said crime would have occured in the first place. Right?
Sam, now that is a difficult question to answer because it is not a “yes” or “no” answer. And I’m not trying to skirt the question.
As a matter of criminal law in the VA Code, there is none that I am aware of until now.
As a matter of Departmental policy, there are some that are discouraged or not allowed based on specific circumstances. For instance, in PWC, racial profiling is NOT allowed so questions / actions based solely on race are not allowed. The same goes with sex, ethnic origin, and so forth.
Of course, there are also those questions that are regarded as “conduct unbecoming an officer” which are subject to disciplinary action.
But, these are guided by Department; not by State or Federal law. If an officer exceeds his/her authority, they are open to federal, state, and local ramifications (Many are civil suit in nature).
There are checks and balances in place without the State making it against the law to ask questions. When you take away discretion, you chip away at good police work.
And many are losing sight of the fact that the police are the ones who want to protect their citizens and victims. Not persecute them.
Prosecute criminals; not persecute citizens and victims.
To answer your question. The status of the victim doesnt matter in determining whether or not a crime has been committed. If a felon, ex con, is murdered on the streets, it is still a murder.
***
Yes, if the ‘victim’ happens to be a felon too, their immigration status cannot be questioned in that particular investigation.
If an illegal alien is raped (or a family member is) and is more worried about whether they will be deported if it is found out during an investigation that they are here illegally, and don’t report the crime, they have a real problem. If they were not here illegally in the first place, said crime would have occured in the first place. Right?
****
Im not even going to honor this drivel with a response.
local gop said on 2 Feb 2010 at 2:14 pm:
“This is ridiculous and blind bigotry….”
Really? Asking people who may have broken our laws and are taking jobs from our citizens (I have a friend who is a painting contractor — more details on request) about their status is “bigotry?” Get in touch with reality! Maybe that is why the national GOP is doing so poorly…. you’ve all sold your fellow citizens out to the chamber of Commerce for a few more dollars on the balance sheet.
Bottom line: if you are here illegally and are attacked, you have a choice — stay quiet and live with it, or report it, get help but face the consequences of YOUR previous actions. If you don’t like those choices, go back to your native land and maybe you’ll be better treated there… there are plenty of people who are willing to play by the rules and take your place!
No, asking victims of crimes what their status is is bigotry.
Here’s the disconnect I can’t fathom, coming from someone who claims to be a member of the Republican party that has a platform that speaks to upholding the rule of law: How can asking someone, in rare circumstances, about whether they’ve broken the law during the investigation of a crime, possibly be “bigotry?” Bigotry involves beliefs based on the outward appearance of a person. Why would anyone assume that outward appearances have anything to do with this?
Or do you somehow believe that all illegal aliens share a consistent common outward appearance, and the only people who could possibly be an illegal alien happen to appear Hispanic?
Seems like the bigotry label might apply somewhere it wasn’t intended…
Would “probable cause” still apply?
It seems kinda silly that a illegal could call the police because someone stole their car stereo, all the while being a member of a violent gang and the police cannot do anything because of this bill. Even if the officer knew this was a dangerous gang member how would he be labled when the local media finds he violated this bill.
It’s against the law to drink and drive, it’s against the law to cross into America illegally. Whats the difference between asking, “have you been drinking tonight?” and “are you in this country legally?” Maybe I really am just a dumb truck driving republican but I don’t get it…
What the hell does “illegal” mean anymore?
Probable cause always applies to everything police do. In regards immigration to status 8 USC 1373 dictates that no state or local government can interfere with the transmission of information to, or receipt from the Department of Homeland Security regarding the immigration status of any individual, which would also cover collection of that information since you can’t transmit what you cannot collect.
That was the legal argument used to get PWC to overturn the sanctuary policy that Chief Deane secretly established prior to the Rule of Law Resolution.
Under the Constitution, immigration status issues are federal matters. I find it hard to imagine a situation where local police officials would ever be concerned with immigration status. They’ve got plenty of important stuff to do without blurring well-established lines between state, local and federal authority. But, to get back to the original post, the measure passed unanimously because it makes good sense from a public order standpoint.
Here’s the actual text, and in particular see (B):
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:
1. That the Code of Virginia is amended by adding a section numbered 19.2-11.02 as follows:
§ 19.2-11.02. Prohibiting inquiry into the immigration status of certain victims or witnesses of crime.
A. No officer or agent of any state or local law-enforcement agency shall, in connection with the report, investigation, or prosecution of a criminal violation of state or local law, inquire into the immigration status of any person who (i) reports that he is a victim of the crime or is the parent or guardian of a minor victim of the crime or (ii) is a cooperating witness in the investigation of the crime or the parent or guardian of a minor witness to the crime.
B. Nothing in this section shall prohibit a law-enforcement officer from inquiring into the immigration status of a victim or witness when (i) such person has been arrested or charged with, or is being investigated for, a criminal violation of federal, state, or local law or (ii) such inquiry is required by federal law or is essential to the investigation or prosecution of the crime to which the person is a witness or of which the person is the victim.
C. For purposes of this section, “immigration status” means the status of a person’s United States citizenship or citizenship of any other country, his legal right to reside or otherwise be present in the United States, and the time or manner of a person’s entry into the United States.
Well, well, the NOVA is around again. If anyone wants to know what kind of person supports illegals who rape and murder children, just look at NOVA. Oh sure, he’ll try to wordsmith his way around the issue and appear as if he does not support illegals, but his dollar words can’t hide his hatred for laws and his love for law breakers.
However, don’t worry. Regardless of how much NOVA supports illegals, the House is never going to pass this bill.
The Feds are also supposed to protect us, and they don’t. So, it only makes sense that local law enforcement pick up the slack when the Feds fail to do their jobs.
I recall the same illegal supporters whining about this issue when PW County passed the anti-illegal ordience. They complained illegals would not come forth to the police, etc. How crime would go up because of it. They were wrong about that, and they are wrong on this as well.
Actually, CoM., I’m opposed to illegal immigration. I thought I mentioned that previously, but some folks have short memories and/or poor reading skills. And, just to be sure, I oppose rape and murder too, regardless of the immigration status of the perpetrator. I think this last point is something we can all rally around, n’est-ce pas?
Some could argue this legislation is in direct conflict or indirectly conflicting with existing federal law.
By preventing a police officer from this type of inquiry, it could be seen as obstructing the victim’s access to federal protections offered by the …
Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000.
One of the highlights of this act….
• gives prosecutors and agents new tools to get legal immigration status for victims of trafficking during investigation and prosecution
After all, just because the federal government chooses to inadequately enforce some immigration laws, this inconsistency will not prevent it from enforcing laws it feels like.
http://www.justice.gov/crt/crim/traffickingsummary.php
To anyone who thinks this might conflict with federal law, please actually take time to read the bill which explicitly outlines a few exceptions to this rule i.e. in cases when the federal government is in the investigation…
Understood. But how are they getting into the investagation?
Is this the exception ?
“….or is essential to the investigation or prosecution of the crime to which the person is a witness or of which the person is a victim.”
Will the officer be able to make that determination on site or will they need approval? Will they be subjected to second guessing out side of the department whenever it is done?
My opinion is this is no more than a veil of mixed signals aimed at disrupting the abilities of law enforcement in order to gain the gratitude of a specific sector of our population.
I think you are over reading this law and the exception. Let’s break it down piece by piece:
1) such person (said victim or witness) has been arrested or charged with, or is being investigated for, a criminal violation of federal, state, or local law
2) such inquiry (the LEO asking them about their status) is required by federal law or is essential to the investigation or prosecution of the crime to which the person is a witness or of which the person is the victim.
***
90% of law enforcement is about discretion. The officer will be trained with this law and will understand it intimately. It is still up to them to make a judgement call. As long as they can back up their judgement, they are fine.
***
Really, after reading the exception, this is a huge loophole that those squawking about the law probably didnt realize.
“But how are they getting into the investigation”
***
I assume by ‘they’ you mean the feds. There are a whole host of reasons why they may. Perhaps the illegal is reporting a kidnapping, then after investigating authorities find that the kidnapper has crossed state lines, thus placing the crime in federal jurisdiction.
Citizen12 said on 3 Feb 2010 at 3:47 am: “Is this the exception ?”
Whatever it is, get ready for all the MEXICAN MOTELS (O.K., I know they’re not all Mexican) to open back up in YOUR neighborhoods!!!!!
Why is it that Sheriff Arpaio (Maricopa County, AZ) doesn’t seem to intimidated by this fictitious preemption nonsense and takes his job seriously?
I think local Sheriffs could look at what he is doing, rather than hiding their heads in the sand - while legal constituents are brutalized.
Let some one tell Joe Arpaio that he can’t enforce illegal immigration laws - or that he can’t arrest employers.
He has some tents and pink underwear for you to wear.
Bristow - being black. white, brown or green is not a crime. Being gay is not a crime.
Being an illegal IS a crime.
It seems that our legislature has bent over backwards, once again, to confer special rights on the criminal class that honest people don’t have.
Very, very disturbing.
I have made this argument before:
If I am speeding through a subdivision which is being built by a majority of liiegals - where does the moral authority come from to write me a summons while ignoring the larger illegal activity in plain sight?
Sam,
Obviously you arent a lawyer or educated in legal studies because you would know that your statement is, well, stupid. Speeding is more dangerous than not having your paperwork in order. Be smart.
Sam: the local police will write you up for speeding. The federal authorities will deal with the 2Is. If the local police aren’t there to rein in your driving exuberance, an immigration agent is not going to do it for them. If the federal immigration authorities aren’t catching the illegal immigrants, the local cops can’t take care of that for them (unless the 2Is are speeding). That’s the way it works in this country. There are good constitutional reasons for it. Conservatives understand, respect and defend the Constitution. Liberals often prefer to ignore it. What’s worrying to many of us conservatives is that there is a great deal of ignorance and phony “conservatism” abroad in the land that supports an attitude of irreverence for the Constitution and the federal structure.
As for Sheriff Joe, I hope we are not at the stage where he throws people in jail for their expressing a view that he’s acting illegally. I hope you aren’t saying that that’s a good thing. In any event, the officials in our system who are authorized to tell him he is acting unlawfully wear black robes (BTW, hasn’t he already been pulled up by the courts on some of his activities?). If he tries slamming them in his camps, he’ll soon be doing some hard time himself.
Well boys and girls, hiring illegal immigrants is against Va code.
Arpaio tells the feds to pack sand, and Virginia law enforcement cower in front of the feds.
I am not a lawyer, but I am smart enough to know that.
I doubt Arpaio will be doing time anywhere - unless upholding your oath of office is crime.
My analogy for speeding vs illegal presence I feel is an apt one. A couple of miles over the speed limit endangers no one.
Identity theft can potentially affect all of us. Illegals stealing jobs in these days is serious. Consider - its only to enrichen criminal contractors who somehow have teflon suits.
local gop said on 3 Feb 2010 at 6:46 am
Really, after reading the exception, this is a huge loophole ………
****************************************************************
Thanks for the reply. That seems to confirm what I thought I was reading. Leislation that provides more confusion and no real solution to a situation which is directly traceable to the undermining efforts and lack of enforcement of existing immigration law.
“Actually, CoM., I’m opposed to illegal immigration.”
Stoners are opposed to illegal drugs, too.
local gop, please dont call me a bigot, as I am not. In fact I support the basic idea of this bill as a model “department policy”.
Putting into law is a horrible idea. “sam’s” post earlier asked it perfectly.
“Is there anywhere else in the state code where a LEO would get in trouble for asking a question?”
THERE IS NO WHERE IN STATE CODE THAT GETS A POLICE OFFICER OR DEPUTY IN TROUBLE FOR ASKING A QUESTION.
THIS IS INSANITY.
As I have already said, the policy of not asking a crime victim about thier immigration status is a very good idea. I support the policy strongly. Its completely different to legislate what a LEO can or cannot ask.
Nova,
You support illegals, end of story. You say it’s the Feds responsibility to take care of immigration issues, and that is true. However, you also know they are not doing their job, which is exactly what you want anyway. Which leads to why you do not support local and or State law enforcement to get involved in immigration affairs, because you know, unlike the Feds, that State and local law enforcement will follow through on the issue.
That scares you, because unlike the Feds, the locals are held accountable by local and or State law, and local Citizens who have an easier time contacting their local elected officials then they do with their Federal elected officials. Which means what we have seen in PW and Manassas. The board of Supervisors and the City Council can’t run and hide like our Senators and Congressmen can.
“Is there anywhere else in the state code where a LEO would get in trouble for asking a question?”
Actually, what I asked was ‘Is there any question that cannot be asked of a real citizen of Virgina that would get a leo in trouble?’
My point is that there is no question that can’t be asked of a legal citizen - and if he or she decline - depending on the level of psychosis of the leo - it will only go down hill from there.
But deal with an illegal - and all of a sudden, you are on very tenuous ground.
If Jill Vogel is reading this blog, maybe she can chime in.
Suppose one spins it this way:
I think that LEO should be able to ask any question - germane to the situation at hand - they want when making arrests or investigating a crime or suspected crimes. This includes victims as people who claim to be victims are often not victims. The fact is the Officer does not know what is up until he investigates. To investigate he/she will have to ask questions. Obviously, the LEO must use his/her judgment when conducting an investigation.
In performing their duties, LEO have to read and interpret responses to questions. Over time - from the experience gained by being on the job, they have honed their interpretative and questioning skills to the responses to their questions they asked to a high and very effective level. Thus, I have to conclude: Not using or restricting their questioning skills hampers effective law enforcement.
Elected officials and the upper echelons of law enforcement can never foresee all the scenarios that may arise. Thus, laws and policy can never address all the scenarios that a LEO might have to handle.
Law enforcement is not a clerical task
Not arguing, just speculating:
If you review the relevant judicial precedents, I’m not sure that the new legislation represents anything more than a summary of existing federal and state constitutional law.
If so (and that’s an admittedly big IF), then having a legislatively sanctioned summary in one place can actually provide better (albeit not perfect) guidance to an officer than do existing judicial precedents that are scattered about.
This, at least, would provide a plausible explanation why folks on all sides of the aisle supported it. Of course, only those who voted for it know why they voted for it.
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:
1. That the Code of Virginia is amended by adding a section numbered 19.2-11.02 as follows:
§ 19.2-11.02. Prohibiting inquiry into the immigration status of certain victims or witnesses of crime.
A. No officer or agent of any state or local law-enforcement agency shall, in connection with the report, investigation, or prosecution of a criminal violation of state or local law, inquire into the immigration status of any person who (i) reports that he is a victim of the crime or is the parent or guardian of a minor victim of the crime or (ii) is a cooperating witness in the investigation of the crime or the parent or guardian of a minor witness to the crime.
B. Nothing in this section shall prohibit a law-enforcement officer from inquiring into the immigration status of a victim or witness when (i) such person has been arrested or charged with, or is being investigated for, a criminal violation of federal, state, or local law or (ii) such inquiry is required by federal law or is essential to the investigation or prosecution of the crime to which the person is a witness or of which the person is the victim.
C. For purposes of this section, “immigration status” means the status of a person’s United States citizenship or citizenship of any other country, his legal right to reside or otherwise be present in the United States, and the time or manner of a person’s entry into the United States.
The bill doesn’r look all that bad. “He who doesn’t read has little advantage over he that cannot read.”
Actually CoM, if you followed things around here (or retained them) you’d know that I think the federal government has been completely remiss in its approach to immigration policy, including enforcement and border security. Not sure why you think I “want” this kind of incompetence. But, having said that, there’s no possibility that it’s good policy or good constitutional law to have local police forces, forces that are significantly burdened in the best of circumstances, running around trying to enforce laws they have no authority to enforce. Put another way, local police can’t “follow through on the issue,” to use your phrase. They have utterly no power to “follow through.” And there’s no way to get it other than doing violence to the federal system under the Constitution.
I also have no idea where you get the idea that I “support illegals.” You have lapsed into that before. Pity. Reading comprehension issues is my best guess.
Just watched the school budget cuts. Anybody see how much the county pays to educate esol students? Also, they stated that 1/3 of our students are on the free and reduced lunch program. I wonder who most of the 1/3 is?
Nova scout - leos DO have the authority to go after the employers, who by and large are citizens, and by and large have assets which can be removed from their custody to enforce the idea that what they are doing is illegal.
Its interesting how other states are not mesmerized by preemption and just do their jobs.
Maybe only Virginia has a special preemption law which is unique.
Sam: are there local or state laws in Virginia that make it a state or local crime to hire unlawful entrants or out-of-status non-citizens? That surprises me, but it’s possible that there are. I would question the constitutionality of such measures. If there are no such laws or ordinances, the local law enforcement officers have no authority to “go after” employers. Even if there are such laws, they may not have the authority if the laws conflict with federal prerogatives. In that case, the state or municipal measures would be void and unenforceable.
Pre-emption is not something that varies from state to state, locality to locality. It flows from the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. The states don’t have laws about it and they can’t act to change preemption analysis. No state or locality has any more or less authority vis-a-vis the federal government than any another under proper preemption analysis.
Again, sorry to bring a conservative constitutional perspective to the picnic, but sometimes we all need to be rousted out of sloppy habits of thinking.
nova - I thought the language was contained in Va Code 40.1-11.1, but I can’t find it now.
In any event, where in the constitution is the right defined to hire non citizens.
I wonder, illicit drugs were not part of our forefather’s lives - does that mean that leos cannot “go after” drug dealers?
I am aware that the laws in this case are not state specific - so one has to wonder why all of the usual parasites have not bogged down Arpaio.
States and localities actually do violate the supremecy Clause with gun bans.
Good debate.
“where in the constitution is the right defined to hire non citizens.”
***
Sam,
You are either grasping at straws, or grossly mis-informed about the role of the constitution. The constitution is not a laundry list of rights that if not written there in must not be in existence. Just because something is not explicitly written in the constitution does not mean it is or is not a ‘right.’ Additionally, just because it is written in the constitution does not mean it cannot be restricted or regulated for the good of society as a whole.
***
As for the gun ban, yes, banning guns has been ruled unconstitutional by the SC, but restricting them and regulating their use and sale is not. For example, a hand grenade is an ‘arm’ as described in the 2nd amendment, should i be able to walk into walmart and pick up a dozen grenades? No. That is a reasonable restriction.
***
The constitution is merely a framework, a template for how the government runs and how to make laws. The bill of rights does specifically outline a few rights that apply to individuals, but the rest of the Constitution is all about how the government operates.
GOP - you are a fool and wasting your time with your pro criminal drivel.
Share it somewhere else.
Sam - this liberal judicial activism you espouse really is dangerous. Obviously, you view the constitution as a “living document” that can be tailored and shaped to the moment, as opposed to a statement of bedrock principles of governance and individual rights.
“Under the Constitution, immigration status issues are federal matters. ”
True, but with about 1500 ICE agents for an estimated 15 million illegal aliens (”immigrants” are those who got here playing by the rules”) these folks are outnumbered. In fact, I believe that those who make this arguement are being deliberately disingenuous, and what they should be saying is “leave it to the feds, and then it will never get resolved.” Everyone is entitled to a point of view, but at least be straightforward. When John McCain said he was for “border control” what he was really saying was to build fences instead of going after those who employ illegals. If the sanctions for employers who hire illegals were (1) stringent and (2) consistently enforced, we’d have a much easier time with border control — but a lot of Chamber of Commerce members would have to hire Americans (native born and legal immigrants) and perhaps even pay them a fair wage…
liberal judicial activism?
Do I sense the faint aroma of satire?
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/02/05/20100205employer-sanctions-law-arizona-immigrants.html
It can be done by states which are serious about protecting their legal citizens over the criminals - but there is always the chance of a liberal judicial activist throwing a monkey wrench in the works.
Hazegray,
Right on! However, I think the 15 million estimate is low. More like 20 million at least and would not be surprised if it were as high as 60 million.
How about the 287(g) Program - that allows local and state law enforcement to assist the Feds. with enforcement of federal immigration laws.
By supporting and promoting the hiring and hiring illegals, how many federal laws are these traitors ( Chamber of Commerce members) breaking?
Cynic, if you’ve read this site regularly for any amount of time, your 60 million estimate is probably far too low. I would think somewhere in the 3 gazillion range is more accurate.
I don’t think there is any federal law that forbids taking a position on a policy matter (your “supporting and promoting” options). Employers are required to ascertain that employees are either citizens or have appropriate visas/permits. Violation of those laws is not treason, but it is, I believe, a misdemeanor violation that is subject to monetary penalties and, in some circumstances, imprisonment.
1) “chance of a liberal judicial activist throwing a monkey wrench in the works”–the federal government cant make rulings on cases that arent appealed to the federal level. In this case, the case was filed in federal court and the court has an obligation to review it. Because of the nature of the case, the Supreme Court is reviewing the case because of the national implications that it will inevitably have. To assert that this is a bunch of ‘liberal judges’ is ignorant. As the constitution, that conservatives claim to champion, explicitly states, immigration is federal jurisdiction, perdio, end of discussion. States do not have a constitutional right to touch immigration enforcement. This is why both ICE and borderpatrol are federal departments. States enforce existing federal immigration laws and regulations, that isnt in debate, the debate is to what point does state and local jurisdiction go too far and cross into federal legislation. The courts have to make that decision, as that is why we have courts.
2) The 287 program is not a simple authorization of local and state agenices to enforce immigration standards and arrest illegals. It is a partnership between ICE and local/state officers that wish to be incorporated into the program. After 4 weeks of ICE training, they are given a cross-designation and work UNDER ICE and report to ICE in their immigration functions. It is essentially a way for ICE to beef up enforcement without having to hire and train more officers. Currently in VA there are only a handful of agencies that have entered into partnerships with ICE under this program. This means that ONLY these few agencies have authorization to enforce immigration reforms on the federal level, which is where immigration lies. Further, the Senate Bill specifically exempts federal investigations from the law.
3) State and local agencies have the authority to investigate immigration violations in compliance with state laws. They do not have to receive federal approval.
4) This bill is being twisted and sometimes outright lied about to make it seem worse than it is. It simply barrs local and state officers from asking if a VICTIM of a crime is illegal. Nothing stops an investigation of illegals, some agencies already have a policy barring this, you dont seem to have a problem with that so obviously you dont care if officers cant ask about it, you’re just mad that its a mandatory law and not an optional policy, thats silly really.
NS,
My position is that anyone or any group that supports amnesty for illegals and hiring illegals is a traitor. Saying this to people does get me into quiet a few fights, but so what, it is worth it.
When hiring illegals, the person or company hiring them usually breaks a few laws - like paying below the minimum wage and failing to pay unemployment insurance and workers compensation insurance on the wages earned by the illegals - just for starters.
3 gazillion - Am not a math major so I am not familiar with numbers in the 3 gazillion range. If it does not interfere with your Bar Stool Time at that Watering Hole you frequent, could you please enlighten us on this matter. Like how many zeros does it have?
Thanks.
Cynic,
“anyone or any group that supports amnesty for illegals and hiring illegals is a traitor.”
****
SO, CYNIC, LETS HEAR YOU STICK BY YOUR WORDS AND POST THAT RONALD REAGAN IS A TRAITOR.
****
Because if anyone who supports amnesty for illegals is a traitor, then Ronald Reagan, who not only supported, but gave, amnesty to illegals as President, must be a traitor.
****
Like the great Republican champion of conservative values Ronald Reagan said, “The legalization provisions in this act will go far to improve the lives of a class of individuals [illegals] who now must hide in the shadows, without access to many of the benefits of a free and open society. Very soon many of these men and women will be able to step into the sunlight and, ultimately, if they choose, they may become Americans.”
****
Call me a bleading heart, but I believe that America is a free and open society that has no place for bigotry and discrimination based on immigration status. We as a free society have an obligation to provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare as outlined in the constitution, and part of that means basic police services. The police cannot do their jobs if crimes go unreported out of fear, and this bill is aiming at alleviating that fear. Yes, it is fear from those who are curently breaking the law, but none the less their reports could save lives, lives of anyone, legal or illegal.
****
Allowing this underground world of illegals to fester in America, or any society for that matter, is not good for anyone. And its people like you, people that would have no problem with police squads rounding up illegals in the middle of the night and deporting them probably without due process, that are the cause of these underground worlds of violence, crime, and fear. No one should have to live in that world, especially not in America, the freest and greatest country in the world.
****
To oppose this bill, you must either be a blind ideologue who would risk the safety and welfare of an entire community to see a misdemeanor be prosecuted, or you must be so devoid of simple logic and intelligence that you cannot comprehend basic english and process it in a fashion that renders you nothing short of ideotically ignorant.
****
I’m sure that will anger you, or at least annoy you, but I could really care less. As long as people continue to perpetuate a message of ignorance, bigotry, and hatred of a group of people I will fight it because that is not the America into which I was born, and if I have anything to say about it will not be the American in which I live.
No basis for discrimination based on whether someone breaks the law or not? What sort of lefty kool-aid are you drinking, “local gop?” That’s a talking point straight out of La Raza!
local gop said:
“Call me a bleading heart, but I believe that America is a free and open society that has no place for bigotry and discrimination based on immigration status.”
1 - Apparently you equate illegal immigration with immigration.
2 - Besides holding the position that equates Amnesty with treason, I also hold the position that there should be no immigration, whatsoever.
2a -Give me one good reason why we should be adding more people to an already Overpopulated Country?
3 - You have not angered me. I am always angry. Not sure as a citizen, that I have a constitutional right to be always angry as the illegals have first claim on constitutional rights! Nor have you annoyed me. You are a member of the local gop, wherever that happens to be. I am not a member of one of the corrupt, pandering, political parties. In fact I seldom vote. My position is that all politics is totally corrupt - some more than others, but it always has been; always will be (corrupt). That’s one of the reasons why I am a Cynic. Being a Cynic is not for everyone! Just like being an Optimist is not for everyone. I could never be an Optimists so I do not try to be one.
4 - There is one political system that I almost could admire. That is the system that ancient Sparta employed. Think they called it a Timocracy. If you check it out, you will see that women held high Office in that system. And, this was not the case in liberal Athens where they relegated women to “the kitchen”. When we first became a Country, we embraced some of principles employed by the government of Sparta - like allowing only people of property to vote. Like today even people on welfare can vote. Voting should be limited to people who have a net wealth of $50 million or more, are natural born citizens, and over the age of 35.
5 - No, I would not be eligible to vote if the above criteria were law. But, remember I’m not a politician so I am trying to win a popularity contest.
6 - Also, as you say: America is a free and open society. Thus,,I do not need your permission to take a position that differs from your position.
Cynic,
Thanks for sticking to your words and calling Reagan a traitor….oh wait….
****
I never said you couldnt have your own opinion….just dont spread hate.
Greg,
You and I both know there are dozens of different levels of law breaking. No, I do not lump every criminal into the same category.
local gop said:
“I never said you couldnt have your own opinion….just dont spread hate.”
Spread Hate - No I will leave the Hate to the left wing Hate Groups like the ACLU, Southern Poverty Law Center, La Raza, and others of the ilk. However, they have every right to Hate and to raise funds in the process. As long as there are a sufficient number of people out there who fall for their spiel, they will be in business.
You forgot to include all the other politicians who support Amnesty- like the current President, the immediate past President, and the losing candidate in the last Presidential election. Not to mention the US House and US Senate members.
I’m sure some of them believe/believed that they are/were supporting a well-meaning policy. But, just because they think/thought it is/was a good policy; does/did not make it so. The others are/were just the usual politicians using an issue to pander to constituents and supporters for votes and/or donations.
Again cynic, thanks for posting that Reagan is a traitor….oh wait…again you danced around it.
Reagan admitted the 1986 amnesty was his greatest mistake and he regretted it. He later said “The simple truth is that we’ve lost control of our own borders, and no nation can do that and survive.” …
“I guess if you traced the immigration debacle, you’d have to go back to the Carter administration, and the Reagan administration as well,” Steven Camarota, a lead researcher for CIS, tells NewsMax.com. He adds that the immigration problem has only worsened since.
The Reagan administration led the next big change in immigration policy. One reformists believe was an even bigger mistake than the policy changes of the 1960s.
In 1986, Congress passed and Reagan signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act. One tough measure made it a crime for any employer to knowingly hire an illegal alien. But the law also granted an amnesty to all illegal aliens currently in the country, and it created a new classification of “seasonal agricultural worker.”
Rather than solve the problem of immigration, the law only increased it. Formerly illegal workers who had been given amnesty and could now remain in the U.S. left the low-paying jobs they had previously filled. That left many unfilled positions, which meant a new crop of immigrants were needed to fill them again.
In short, the 1986 amnesty established a vicious circle of immigration.” …
“If you start with the ‘Immigration Reform and Control Act’ of 1986, it was a bitter pill to swallow for those of us who believe in enforcing our immigration laws,” he said. “The only way we were able to get laws on the books that fine employers for hiring illegal aliens – which was a first in American history – was to accept a compromise to grant amnesty for up to three million illegal aliens who were currently in the country.”
http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/solviing.htm
And here we are today - with unenforced immigration laws - millions more illegal aliens turning our nation into the worlds flop house -and our state lawmakers forcing the police that we citizens pay for to play creeping amnesty PC footsie with this criminal element.
“creeping amnesty PC footsie ”
****
Dont be foolish. there is no merit to this statement, it is ideologically charged and based on emotion only. there isnt even a mention of illegal immigrants in the bill. it states that victims are not to be asked about immigration status unless it is absolotely necessary. Sorry, but the police roaming the streets and rounding up illegals isnt consistent with the interests of justice. maybe the interest of paranoid anti-immigration wack nuts…but not the interest of america as a whole.
Where in Virginia do “police roam the streets rounding up illegals?” Where in Virginia is it proposed that police do so? Holy, moly this is the kind of insane rhetoric Mexicans Without Borders kept trotting out, and this is coming from a self-identified Republican?
I’m beginning to wonder what they’re feeding you folks at George Mason. Whatever it is, it ain’t good for you.
Give it a rest, local gop. We know the score. We know how the game is being played. We have heard all the emotional blackmail before. You want a hard, cold unemotional fact?:
“It is simply impossible to stay in this country illegally without committing other crimes, like tax fraud and identity theft.”
And the police are simply being told to overlook/accommodate the crimes of one group of criminals while they must also protect said group from another set of criminals. My idea of justice? That no local or state police or citizen civilian should have to contend with anyone who in our country illegaly - wether they be witness, victim or perp.
“President Barack Obama’s Aunt Zeituni admits she illegally overstayed her visa. Instead of obeying the law, she went to a judge in 2003 with a bogus request for asylum. She was turned down. She ignored the deportation order and instead filed an appeal. She was told again: It’s illegal for you to stay.
She’s still here.
Aunt Zeituni donated $260 to her nephew’s campaign for president — which is also against the law because she’s not a U.S. citizen. How against the law is it? Remember when the president launched his unprecedented attack against the Supreme Court during his State of the Union? His complaint was that foreigners might donate money to influence U.S. elections.
All these crimes extend from the first crime — violating our immigration laws. It is simply impossible to stay in this country illegally without committing other crimes, like tax fraud and identity theft.
But it’s not the illegal stuff that Aunt Zeituni’s doing that’s so outrageous. It’s what she’s apparently able to do legally and openly.
She is shamelessly — and happily — living in taxpayer-subsidized housing intended for citizens and legal immigrants. Is there some poor American veteran living in a shelter because she’s got this apartment? Aunt Zeituni doesn’t care — why should she? [Boston Mayor Tom] Menino and the Boston Housing Authority don’t.
And now she’s back in court, using taxpayer resources with another bogus bid for asylum. She says she can’t go back to Kenya because of “political turmoil.” Sorry lady, but if that’s the basis for an appeal, nobody would have been allowed back in the White House since Scott Brown’s election.
Aunt Zeituni’s case puts the lie to the old canard that all criminal immigrants are here to work. She gets a stipend from a city program, along with her housing. In fact, as the Center for Immigration Studies points out, illegal immigrant households are far more likely to be on the dole than the average American. She also highlights the obvious truth of the Heritage Foundation study that our 12 million illegal immigrants are a $2.2 trillion net drain on the taxpayers over the course of their lifetimes.
Wait until Chairman Zero turns his attention away from destroying our economy and toward reengineering American demographics more to the Democrat Party’s liking. There will be literally tens of millions more where Aunt Zeituni came from.”
http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2010/02/portraits-in-pa.html
Anonymous,
Why give it a rest when you are slaughtering local gop?
I dont see how this relates to the bill that is in the assembly. different state, different situation. this is a typical paranoid anti-immigration talking point. picking a single case of the system and blindly claiming that it applies to the entire system. obamas aunt has nothing to do with virginia law. nice try though.
Well local gop, your diatribe is nothing more then “bleading” heart, boiler plate talking points that try to convey the message that these parasitic illegals are outstanding, model citizens. And, who, except other lefties, economic interests that benefit from illegals being here, and you, buys into that message?
And, just what is a “bleading” heart? How does it differ from a bleeding heart?
BTW local gop, currently, are you an elected official?
“It is simply impossible to stay in this country illegally without committing other crimes, like tax fraud and identity theft.”
THIS fact applies to every illegal alien in every state, including Virginia.
ALL, let me say again, ALL illegal aliens are criminals. The simple fact that they are here without a visa makes them criminals. Many may say that entering the country illegally is a minor offence, but so are a lot of laws (jaywalking, parking violations, etc.) and these are enforced vigorously.
There’s NO reason to accommodate or assuage an illegal alien’s fear of being deported any more than we should accommodate a fugitive bank robber’s fear of being arrested.
We are in big trouble when politicians start directing the police to selectively ignore certain laws in order to provide cover for individuals or groups exclusively. It’s called corruption.
The willful conflation between legal immigrants and illegal aliens is transparent BS. And Auntie ‘tuni is hardly a rare case:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/18/justice-department-fail-enforce-deportation-orders/
Obama adviser: Amnesty to ensure ‘progressive’ rule
‘Imagine 8 million new voters who care about our issues?’
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=123955
Well that decides it for me..the next voting round for Senate no existing senator will receive my vote…I’ll advocate for a complete turnover until the Senate realizes that the voice of the majority want illegal mmigration stopped..then the majority needs to vote any Senator out of offce that refuses to follow the majority wishes…its that simple, replace the Senate like Japan replaced their entire political structure for not listening to the people….
We cannot allow this country to grow without control over its population and the continuous negative impact and assault on our standard of living as a result of illegal entry….
The police force is the only government force short of Vigilantism that can reverse this illegal behavior….
Our problem is we have too many illegals and former illegals in control of our government as a result of years of lack of committment on our part to stop it…no other country would tolerate such an assault on its political and government system…
Michael,
Once the illegals become citizens and a majority voting block, they will elected themselves to elected positions. And then they will replace the “Progressives” by firing those that hold appointed positions. Wonder how the “Progressives” will respond and react to that change of events!
“all illegal aliens are criminals”—no shit.
****
The point remains that you are endangering the entire community because of your unfounded paranoia and borderline hatred of illegal aliens.
****
Jay walkers are criminals, do we treat them as we would a violent offender? No.
****
This entire debate has evolved from the bill passed by the senate that you claimed was some type of safe haven law into something completely different.
****
Can anyone provide any facts to back up the claim made that illegals are leeches that are destroying America as you claim or at least insinuate? And since we are talking about illegals in virginia, please dont post some article about illegals in California. Virginia only.
Here’s a 29 page report on the NET cost of illegal immigration in Virginia: http://www.fairus.org/site/DocServer/va_coststudy.pdf?docID=2861
$1.7 Billion dollars a year.
“The point remains that you are endangering the entire community because of your unfounded paranoia and borderline hatred of illegal aliens.”
Here’s a case where a lady had no paranoia and no hatred of illegals, but look what happened to this trusting lady.
http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/illegal-alien-burns-elderly-woman-alive-now-gets-life/blog-199987/ [Ed note: link fixed]
Of course, according to loco gop, this could never happen in Virginia.
Sorry, wrong site for the trusting lady.
This one should work.
http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/illegal-alien-burns-elderly-woman-alive-now-gets-life/blog-199987/
Greg,
Your ’source’ is an interest group that has a stake and mission to stop illegal immigration. If you can provide an unbiased source, please do. I would not provide a ’study’ by the center for american progress to back up my claims because that is biased as well.
cynic,
do you just browse the web looking for reasons articles that portray illegals in a negative light? like i said earlier, you can fin articles talking about anything, that does not in any way translate into the entire illegal population being violent offenders. Not does this bill protect the violent illegals. you are twisting it to be something it is not.
“…sanctuary policies violate two federal statutes, 8 USC 1373 and 8 USC 1644. Generally speaking, these federal laws bar any official from prohibiting any other official from communicating with ICE about any person’s immigration status.
For example, 8 USC 1644 simply states that “Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, no State or local government entity may be prohibited, or in any way restricted, from sending to or receiving from [ICE] information regarding the immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of an alien in the United States.”
In short, federal law gives individual police officers (and other local government officials) the right to ask ICE about anyone’s immigration status.”
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/More-OpEd-Contributors/Remember-Chandra-Levy-End-DCs-sanctuary-city-status-42316757.html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/usc_sec_08_00001373—-000-.html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/usc_sec_08_00001644—-000-.html
http://www.sanctuarybusters.org/about-sanctuary
http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2009/jun/third-officer-shot-illegal-alien-sanctuary-city
“do you just browse the web looking for reasons articles that portray illegals in a negative light?”
local gop - One does not have to browse very much to find many similar articles - articles that cover crimes committed by illegals against US Citizens. Sure, these crimes will be of recent vintage, since illegals commit many, many crimes and their crimes are documented - at this time. But, would not doubt that the supporters of illegals will try through Adm. decree or legislation to have their criminal records removed from the record.
“Not does this bill protect the violent illegals. you are twisting it to be something it is not.”
Twisting - Get real local gop. Many cities and states have Sanctuary Policies - implemented and enforced, of course, by traitors. These Sanctuary Policies provide protection to the illegals. (Read the above post by Anonymous). And then browse the web for a minute or two, see how many other similar articles/cases you will find where the Sanctuary Policy has protected illegals who have committed felony crimes against US Citizens.
Anonymous,
“In short, federal law gives individual police officers (and other local government officials) the right to ask ICE about anyone’s immigration status.”
***
Thats funny because two sentences before that you said “Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law.” This Bill is a state law, which federal law that you quoted states can bar LEOs from asking that information. Besides, this law doesnt bar them from asking it absolutely, just in cases when you are asking the victim of the specific crime. if said victim then becomes a suspect of the same crime or another, then the question may be asked. Not complicated, just requires some reading comprehension.
Cynic,
“supporters of illegals will try through Adm. decree or legislation to have their criminal records removed from the record”
****
Thats nothing more than an unfounded comment based on no fact.
****
“Many cities and states have Sanctuary Policies…”
****
This is a stretch…out of nearly 85,000 total towns, cities, counties, and states, 18 are classified as ’sanctuary.’–simple math means that 99.9788% of all towns, cities, counties, and states are not sanctuary. That being said, stop making things up and making them sound a lot more severe than they really are.
http://www.city-data.com/forum/illegal-immigration/624842-victims-illegal-alien-crime.html
The excuse used to justify municipal friendly sanctuary policies that restrict the ability of police to question the citizenship of an individual stopped for a traffic violation, or who has been detained or arrested as a suspect in a crime of any sort, is that if we permit officers to ask about citizenship, supposedly the illegal alien community will not report crimes to police for fear of deportation.
This is pure bunk that cannot be proven. There are absolutely no peer reviewed, documented, justified, verifiable facts or statistics, to support this fairy tale.
If there were such data, the pro-illegal alien crowd would have trotted out those figures years ago & shoved them down everyone’s throats!
How many police departments can tell us they have taken reports of crimes being committed where an illegal alien is reporting the crime? The answer: NONE. The reason why they cannot tell you? Police are not allowed to ask those reporting a crime if they are here legally.
The police in sanctuary municipalities also cannot ask the criminal if they are here legally! The sanctuary policy is a perfect system that permits illegal aliens to gain entry to America, illegally, or to overstay a legal permit to be here, & then nothing can be done to deport them. Why? Because no official in a sanctuary environment is permitted to ask anyone they stop, detain, or arrest, if they are legal citizens, residents, or have legal permission to be here.
Conveniently, this sham policy assures no statistics on legal residency or citizenship can be kept on who is reporting a crime, because no one can be asked any of those questions. Therefore, the sanctuary lovers can always say crimes “are” reported by illegal aliens because they do not fear deportation in a sanctuary municipality. And no one can challenge those false assertions because, no one can ask any questions & there are no statistics to refer to. Its perfect cover. Its a perfect scam.
Its a deliberately designed vicious circle meant to create policies & loopholes allowing the circumvention of the justice & immigration systems!
I contend that if an actual accurate study was done on crime reports, we would find that most illegal aliens do not report ANY crimes, or significantly FEW crime reports are made by them. Because the illegal aliens fear the criminal drug cartels & criminal street gangs much, much more than they fear the police or immigration authorities! However, such a study would never be permitted to prove this. Because the sanctuary policy enablers of the criminal elements who are exploiting the illegal aliens, would immediately scream hate, racism, bigotry, civil rights violations, fascists, & discrimination against those doing the studies & even any who would advocate such studies. Even if the studies could not be used to have illegal aliens arrested & deported.
The studies would not be acceptable to the sanctuary policy lovers because, it would reveal the whole sanctuary setup is a pathetic evasion of our justice & immigration legal system!
In short, the sanctuary policies are being sold as a way to protect the “good” illegal aliens from the “bad” illegal aliens. The “good”- as long as they are victims - illegal aliens get a “don’t ask, don’t tell” pass and treated like de facto citizens. A fraud perpetrated to circumvent our justice system, because open borders advocates use our own legal system & protections to protect those who commit crimes. The whole scam sanctuary policy system is designed to destroy our systems from within!
Sooner or later Americans will wise up to such obfuscations & conspiracies to break our laws and evade the justice of our legal system.
http://www.sanctuarycities.info/
http://www.ojjpac.org/sanctuary.asp
“This is a stretch…out of nearly 85,000 total towns, cities, counties, and states, 18 are classified as ’sanctuary.’–simple math means that 99.9788% of all towns, cities, counties, and states are not sanctuary. That being said, stop making things up and making them sound a lot more severe than they really are.”
So, that translates to 0.02 percent that are Sanctuary jurisdictions. However, Sanctuary jurisdictions have large populations. So, calculate the percentage of the population in Sanctuary jurisdictions in relation to the total population in those nearly 85, 000 jurisdictions. Bet it will not be 0.02 percent. And, no double counting.
If I remember correctly, the total population of the 50 States as of 7-1-09 was about an estimated 307 million. Calif., NY, Mass., and Md., are really Sanctuary states. Their total population in round numbers is about 70 million - which is slightly greater than that 0.02 percent.
If I remember correctly, Calif. with a population of about 37 million has the largest population of illegals. And this is one of the reason Calif. is going down the tubes. Tax paying citizens are leaving; tax absorbing illegals are coming there. And, now their Governor wants the rest of the Country to bail Calif. out of its dire predicament. Good luck Governor!
the population of a city does not make it more or less of a city. you said that there were a lot of sanctuary cities…there arent. Yes, they may be big cities, but there are none the less a handful of big cities. and if you even remotely knew what you were talking about with california, you would know that illegals have nothing remotely to do with their budget problems….it was the massive state subsidization of real estate.
*****
I know its easy for you, but believe it or not blaming 13 million illegals (give or take) for all the problems in america is really idiotic and only goes to show that you are grasping at straws.
Anonymous,
Please actually read next time…..or brush on comprehension:
******
“policies that restrict the ability of police to question the citizenship of an individual stopped for a traffic violation, or who has been detained or arrested as a suspect in a crime of any sort, is that if we permit officers to ask about citizenship, supposedly the illegal alien community will not report crimes to police for fear of deportation”
******
The Virginia bill specifically states that only in cases where 1) there isnt a federal prerogative, 2) where the victim isnt themselves a suspect or witness, and 3) the victim has committed a separate crime, will the victim not be questioned. Basically, if you can understand simple english, those stopped for a traffic violation, detained or arrested as a suspect CAN BE ASKED ABOUT THEIR IMMIGRATION STATUS.
******
Another thought. If police were allowed to question anyone (regardless of whether or not a crime is committed) they want about immigration status, then why not set up immigration checkpoints in police stations, road blocks, walk around grocery stores and demand paper work? Of course all this would be done under the guise of “enforcing the laws” but so did the SS troops in Germany before WW2, they were just enforcing laws to detain Jews (scary isnt it?)
******
If an illegal is legitimately caught committing a crime, regardless of how petty, then yes, they should then be subjected to deportation. The fact that they are technically committing a crime by being in the country isnt justification for violating major pillars of the criminal justice system that could have ramifications far more serious than we can imagine.
“The fact that they are technically committing a crime by being in the country isnt justification for violating major pillars of the criminal justice system that could have ramifications far more serious than we can imagine.”
local gop - just what is it that we can not imagine? Talk about grasping at straws. The fact is illegals should not have US Constitutional rights. South of the Border, how many countries grant US Citizens constitutional rights if they enter that country illegally and then are arrested for being there illegally?
And, all those emergency room hospital costs, educational costs (like translators, etc.), government grants to La Raza and other Orgs. (pandering to illegals) for projects that only benefit illegals (which they do not merit), and the costs of their crimes. Yeah, sure that has nothing at all to do with the financial instability of California!
“it was the massive state subsidization of real estate.”
And, in liberal California, how many illegals benefited for this state subsidization and how many defaulted on their loans?
Cynic,
“The fact is illegals should not have US Constitutional rights”–This is exactly what I am talking about. By this statement, you would be perfectly with illegals being murdered and their killers going free because they dont have constitutional rights, as you wish. This isnt some 3rd world country where people can be arrested for being in the country without their paperwork in order. This isnt Mexico, this isnt iraq, iran, china, or any other country. basing our laws and judicial principles on other nations, as you are trying to do, is a childish argument “well they do it so it must be ok.”
*****
And again with regards to CA, give some facts aside from grandeous statements. and the subsidization of property didnt have anything to do with loans to illegals. perhaps you are just unfamiliar with what exactly subsidizing property means. the ca government bought property in so cal and built houses on them to speed up development. then no one bought it because the bubble burst. like i said, nothing to do with illegals.
*****
and the ramifications i am talking about are simple. first, you claim that illegals have no rights, kind of like jews in nazi germany. maybe we can have a “round up the illegals day.” then we will start secret police squads solely to find and capture illegals. they roam the community, stopping everyone and demanding ID and papers. This can, in some areas, lead to a police state. that is what i am talking about. while you may not mind that, i do. it may be ok in mexico, but it is unacceptable in America
I think what he is referring to is that they have Constitutional protections, but not Constitutional rights. They’re still able to enjoy many of the protections afforded under the Bill of Rights, but they don’t have the right to vote, the obligation to register with Selective Service, and such.
Man, you just have one heck of a hair trigger when it comes to someone not appreciating all the wonderful things illegal aliens do for us. They putting something in the water down there in Fairfax?
local gop - RINO -
Bottom line - you favor illegal immigration and will present anything you think will support that position and be in denial of anything that shows the damage illegals are doing to this County on a local basis, statewide basis, and national basis.
“this isnt some 3rd world country where people can be arrested for being in the country without their paperwork in order. This isnt Mexico, this isnt iraq, iran, china, or any other country. basing our laws and judicial principles on other nations, as you are trying to do, is a childish argument “well they do it so it must be ok.””
Be patient, local gop. We are moving towards Third World Status with every illegal that enters the Country. You probably can’t wait until you will be able to Press 2 for English.
Never said a thing about murder. For the record, I am oppose to murder. And, have never tried or even thought of murdering anyone. What’s your position on murder?
“well they do it so it must be ok.”
Am aware of this dichotomy. When a US Citizen opposed to illegals says or does something that offends an illegal or their supporter, it’s so terrible, mean spirited, etc. When an illegal does something that harms a Citizen, the supporters of illegals try to have the crime overlooked, downgraded, and provide free legal services for the illegal by hiring the legal services of left wing Hate Groups like the ACLU.
Facts - The fact is that Ca. is going down the tubes. Check out its bond rating. If I am not mistaken, it is the lowest - last - among the states.
1) what makes me a RINO. as far as you know I am not party line (and i use that term loosely) on 1 issue, so by your logic, those that are not 100% conservative under your definition are RINOs. This is the same type of exclusionary country-club politics that leads to the GOP losing elections because they weren’t ‘conservative enough’ based on a convoluted definition that appeals to all of 5% of the electorate.
2) “you favor illegal immigration”–this is about as illogical and kneejerk as the prolifers plastering those that dont agree with them as “proabortion”. News flash–no one is proabortion. Like no one is pro-illegal immigration. Yes, illegal immigration is breaking the law. Yes, it is wrong. Yes, people should be held accountable. Thats not the point and if your tunnel vision has narrowed your view so much that you cant see that, then Im sorry for you. The point isnt that illegal immigration is wrong, it is about how illegals fit into society and how best to deal with that, not a cut and dry issue at all.
3) “We are moving towards Third World Status with every illegal that enters the Country”–not even going to honor this right wing paranoid wack-nut drivel with a response.
4) “When an illegal does something that harms a Citizen, the supporters of illegals try to have the crime overlooked, downgraded, and provide free legal services for the illegal by hiring the legal services of left wing Hate Groups like the ACLU.”–Again there you go. twisting my words, as usual. as the bill says, if you committ a crime then you are subject to be asked about immigration status. so either you’re ignorant, or cant read.
5) And your rant about CA, what about that do I disagree with? i already said that ca was going down the tubes.
“Criminals are the biggest benefactors when immigrants fear the police.”
More accurate: “Illegal immigrants are the biggest benefactors when the police fear the criminals.”
http://www.cis.org/mortensen/bratton
http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2010/feb/trooper-absolved-detaining-illegal-aliens
Illegal Aliens Steal Billions Via Tax ID #s
Tucked discreetly away in the ‘Economy’ section of the New York Times:
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/illegal-aliens-steal-billions-via-tax-ids
“as the bill says, if you committ a crime then you are subject to be asked about immigration status.”
As long, mind you, as that crime committed is not an immigration violation.
Commit THAT crime and local police are the de facto SS of the open borders lobby - forced to serve, protect AND provide cover for illegal aliens.
“3) “We are moving towards Third World Status with every illegal that enters the Country”–not even going to honor this right wing paranoid wack-nut drivel with a response.”
local gop - that’s because it is true.
It all comes down to whether we want to be a respected and feared to be messed with sovereign nation that protects its citizens from intruders/illegals by controlling its borders and keeping tabs on who enters our Country or do you want an Open Borders Nation which provides more benefits to illegals than to its citizens and is disrespected and laughed at by these illegals and other Nations that embrace the concept of sovereignty.
BTW, I know that you are not a RINO as you are far too liberal to be classified as such. Nor am I a conservative or liberal.
“As long, mind you, as that crime committed is not an immigration violation.”
*****
No sh** sherlock…..thats the point.
Cynic,
This is your problem, you see only two options. Open border, or closed. It is IMPOSSIBLE to close the borders and ensure 100% accountability in immigration. To think otherwise is naive.
*****
We will not stop illegal immigration, that is not at dispute here. What is is how to deal with illegal immigration while upholding law and order, and the pillars of a civil society. there arent enough resources to round up all illegals, try them, and deport them. The ones that are caught in the commission of a crime (aside from already being here) should be deported.
*****
the question at hand is whether or not a victim of a crime should have to account for their immigration status when they report the crime. i say no, and rightfully so.
*****
Me, liberal? hahahaha funny.
Here is the point, local dope, and it comes with an amazing paradox. Someone with a “victim” classification feeds the immigration industry - which, while it decries local & state law enforcement enforcing immigration laws, wants local police involved to the point where an illegal alien can be, like magic, cleared of any immigration violation.
Yes, prosecute the person who injured them if that is what is appropriate but to then reward the other criminal is insanity!
http://www.jessenlaw.com/US-Immigration-U-Visa.aspx
This is favoritism. So sorry they were a victim but if I am a victim of a violent crime, what compensation do I receive from the government, ..Nothing. Other than the same right as they do to sue their perpetrator for civil damages!
The issue here is really law and order and fairness, and the lack of practice in any sort of logic to our legal system. With with this logic, all my traffic tickets should be cleared if I become a victim of another unrelated crime!
If the goal is to end or at least curtail illegal immigration one step is to grant greater, not less, authority to the local police. And less, not greater, incentives, safety nets, and services to those who seek to subvert and side step our laws. What do we have now? The increasing assurance of impunity granted in advance.
If impunity and political pandering rather than accountability govern the police, they then become a threat to society and citizens rights.
“We will not stop illegal immigration, that is not at dispute here. What is is how to deal with illegal immigration while upholding law and order, and the pillars of a civil society. there arent enough resources to round up all illegals, try them, and deport them. The ones that are caught in the commission of a crime (aside from already being here) should be deported.
loco gop - We will not stop illegal immigration because we do not have the will to stop it. If we really wanted to stop it, we could easily stop it. Illegal immigration was brought under contol during the Eisenhower Adm.
If we are dealing with illegal immigration by allowing it and sanctioning it, then we are not upholding any laws and to consider such a state of affairs to be pillars of a civil society is beyond absurd.
What you are describing is nothing more than an Open Borders society that will eventually degenerate into anarchy with a high probability of then morphing into that Police State you fear.
I will stay with my sovereign Nation concept.
Cynic,
Prove it……
Another week begins ……..
local gop -
What is it that you want me to prove?
That when illegals are involved - you are an appeaser and panderer who supports special rights, exemptions from crimes, and a multitude of other benefits for illegals.
Prove your claim that America will blow up (slight exaggeration) unless all illegals are immediately kicked out…..because that is essentially what you are claiming with 0 proof.
loco gop -
“America will blow up”
Where and when did I write that?
Rather difficult to prove something I did not write!
hence the statement that followed….slight exaggeration…
local gop.
My comments referred to political and cultural situations and were presented in the spirit of peacefulness - not going to war.
Remember back in 1936 when a famous or infamous leader (reader’s choice) said something to this effect: Our regime is based on bayonets and blood; not hypocritical elections!