Thursday, May 01, 2008

County posts weakened resolution. Believers still in denial

The County has posted the new resolution. It clearly indicates that where the board used to require police to question anybody detained, now the police are only required to do so if they actually arrest someone.

Police officers are not to be mandated by the Department’s policies to inquire into immigration or citizenship status before a person is arrested for a violation of state law or County ordinance. Reasonable exemptions to require pre-arrest investigation of violations of §19.2-81.6 (previously deported immigrant
suspected of new crime) of the Code of Virginia, and any similar offenses created in future under state law, are permitted.

Now, since the board explicitly says officers are NOT to be mandated, and previously the policy required it:

pursuant to the Board’s policy, police officers were directed to inquire into the citizenship or legal status of individuals who they had detained in the course of their duties...

the Police Chief had to take action to rescind his previous MANDATE that was put in place because of the board's previous resolution.

But some bloggers are actually attacking Chief Deane for following the law. Specifically, Riley over at VirginiaVirtucon, and Greg L at BVBL.

Apparently, these two would have rather Deane keep mandating his officers question illegals, even when the law passed by the board specifically said officers were NOT to be mandated to question people anymore.

Here is the article about Deane's implementation of the board's new resolution:

Police Chief Charlie Deane on Wednesday revoked portions of Prince William County’s policy that directed officers to check the legal status of all suspected illegal immigrants stopped for minor crimes or traffic violations before an arrest.

The chief’s move followed a unanimous board vote late Tuesday night to direct officers to initiate immigration status checks only after arrests to eliminate the need for in-car police cameras to save money and guard against lawsuits.


So let's recap. The board has a policy mandating the police implement a policy to question people who are detained. The police implement the mandate. The board then passes a resolution explicitly requiring the department to rescind the mandate. The Police Chief responds by revoking the mandate as required by the new law.

And Greg and Riley want him fired for following the law. Isn't following the law what the "rule of law" is all about?

Why is it so hard for the supporters of the resolution to admit that the board rescinded a part of the resolution? They strengthened another part -- and thereby focused it on those illegals who have committed arrestable crimes.

But since the resolution supporters have touted the importance of incarcerating illegals on traffic stops, noting crimes committed by illegals who previously had NOT been detained at traffic stops, it is hard for them to now be supportive of a change which removes that part of the resolution.

So instead they pretend that "discretion" is better than a mandate, even though police always had discretion, and the mandate was what they pushed for because discretion wasn't getting the job done.

Riley reports that Greg L. is now going to turn his considerable "talents" to the task of "taking down" Chief Deane:

UPDATE: I’ve received word that Greg L. from BVBL is gathering info on Chief Deane that will “blow his doors off” within the next few weeks at most. Should be interesting!


Maybe BVBL see the writing on the wall. First, HSM members are shut out in the Manassas City Council race. Then Corey distances himself from BVBL, and gives a video interview explaining how he wants to greatly expand legal immigration, something that NumbersUSA (a supporter of HSM) is opposed to.

Illegal immigration is a real problem. Many who are fighting the resolution do so on the mistaken notion that illegal immigration is good, not bad, for our country. It's not, but frankly that's not the point -- the rule of law is important, and ignoring the law for gain will weaken, not strengthen us.

But overreaching by illegal immigration opponents risks a backlash that will damage the consensus we have for sound, rational policies against those who violate the rules and put themsevles ahead of others who want to work here, but legally, not by breaking and entering.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

A bad law is worse than no law. This is one bad law for the American citizen, good for the criminals. One of these days the democrats will suffer a death or several deaths in they're family due to the laws they failed to pass. Mexican criminals have the advantage and know it.
Firefighter

Riley said...

My issues with Chief Deane are not primarily related to the immigration issue, but to overall incompetence. This was just another example of it on display. I've detailed several examples in my post of the atmosphere that he has created in his dept. and the general lax nature of law enforcement on his watch.

Anonymous said...

Charles-
Just a point of clarification. Under the old policy, no illegal alien was incarcerated at the time of a traffic stop just for being an illegal alien. If at the time of a traffic stop an officer finds out a person is in the country illegally, he has NO authority to arrest him whatsoever. He can only arrest him if he has committed some other violation of the law. Under the old policy, the police would fill out a form and send it to ICE. That's why PWC only arrested 41 of the 89 illegals the police encountered during the first month of the policy. The ones arrested were arrested for other reasons, not for being illegal. The ones that were illegal aliens, but had only been speeding, running a red light etc, had to be let go with a summons. It doesn't seem like the HSM crowd understands this.