Sunday, April 27, 2008

Washington Post's full-court press against Rule of Law Resolution

This Sunday's Prince William Extra from the Washington Post appears to be their last-ditch effort to derail the County's attempt to get control of the illegal immigration problem.

Three of the four letters to the editor are calls to repeal the Rule of Law resolution. The included a 1-year anniversary piece on HSM which included that dreadful picture of Greg from a previous article which makes him look more crazed than usual (I guess it was too much bother to get another picture taken). They have an article about Principi's effort next Tuesday to rescind the resolution, along with a piece about Manassas City's budget hearing where the post-jump headline suggests people are upset about the City's immigration policies, calling for curtailing spending for the 287-G program.

The most interesting of these articles was the one titled "Board is set to Reconsider Immigration Crackdown" (subtitled "Residents Encouraged to Attend Tuesday Meeting). The biased reporting starts with the headline, where they drop "illegal" to suggest PWC is targetting all immigrants, not just the ones who broke the law. It continues:

County supervisors are prepared to tweak, and possibly repeal, Prince William's controversial crackdown on illegal immigration. The board is expected to revisit the policy Tuesday before voting on the upcoming year's budget.

A single supervisor has said he'd consider repeal. There is no way the "supervisors" are prepared to repeal the crackdown. Even the other democrat explicitly told the Post he wouldn't support repeal:

"We need to review the policies necessary to make sure we don't get caught in a Catch-22," Supervisor John D. Jenkins (D-Neabsco) said. "We may need to change the current policy. But I don't want to rescind the resolution."

The Post continues:

Several supervisors have suggested that they are willing to have officers question only the worst criminal offenders.

Who are these "several supervisors?". Principi, of course, who is looking to rescind questioning, and Jenkins who, as noted above, said he'd consider changing the current policy. But that is only two. "several" means more than two. Was the Post just misleading us, or are they protecting other supervisors (Maureen Caddigan perhaps?) who are afraid to mention their views ahead of the meeting? We know Maureen in particular has appeared rattled at times over constituents complaining about her position on issues. But she has not shown a lack of candor in expressing her views from the dias, so I would think if she wanted to change the policy, she would have said so.

But what other supervisors could there be to make up "several"? We know that Marty Nohe attended the pro-illegal-immigration party held by "antibvbl" and the 9500liberty organization at the beginning of the month, but I don't remember him ever publicly suggesting repeal of the police questioning provisions.

But I'd be shocked if any of the other four had made this suggestion. I have no doubt a couple of them are concerned over how the perception of racism is hurting the county. Corey Stewart even gave a video interview to the 9500liberty group to specifically distance himself from the anti-immigration, by making it clear he supports MORE immigration, and wants only to remove those here illegally, so they can be replaced by legal immigrants who can't get in right now.

I'm not sure how that would go over with people who seem happy that their streets are no longer populated by people of other cultures who park too many cars in the street, enjoy salsa music, speak other languages, and in general don't have the same view of what a neighborhood should look like as the "natives".

But regardless, I would be shocked if there were more than 2 votes to curtail police questioning for legal status.

Funny thing is, last year the WP also suggested right before a big vote that supervisors were waffling. Except they denied doing so, said it was all a ruse. The antibvbl folks have been re-running that story this past week, suggesting that telling people supervisors were questioning the resolution was some illegal act of manipulation.

I don't suppose they will be complaining about the WP efforts at manipulation this week though, as it seems coordinated with their own.

NOTE: I'm posting this now, but I'm coming back later to add links for everything I mentioned above. I just have to get off to church.

No comments: