Check out this precise and elucidating story filed by Dan Genz in The DC Examiner outlining the changes to the Immigration Resolution as they apply to real life. Dan also reports that we are now engaged in a new round of fighting, this time a “spin” war over who gets to declare victory.

Also, Channel 7 aired a story last night that communicates a lot despite its brevity.

18 thoughts on “Spin Season in PWC

  1. Adam Smith

    Remember Principi at election time and send him a political contribution. He demonstrated true moral leadership and took a lot of abuse for what taking what I consider both a moral and a fiscal stand on the Illegal Immigration Resolution issue.

    If you like what he has done, vote with your pocket book to help him stay in office.

  2. Okay now wait a minute. If they can only check immigration of people they arrest, and if they only arrested 41 actual criminals since the resolution began, and if the police could do that ANYWAY, how is this ANY kind of change to what the police could do before but for free?

    “We don’t need probable cause” says Stewart? Where did this man get his law degree? YOU NEED PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST SOMEONE!

    I’m not sure, but I think Chief Deane might be wrong about not needing cameras now. We have such idiots as Chair and Vice chair, they make it mandatory EVERYONE cover their collective be-hinds.

  3. I’m sorry, but the word “idiots” and “moron” just slips out when I talk about these two. I’m trying to control it…..

  4. Every good spin has to be grounded in some sort of fact. When Stewart and Letiecq claim the resolution was strengthened they are using some fact as the foundation for their argument.

    By leaving checks without an arrest up to the officer’s discretion, the door has been opened for more people to be checked (in theory). But given the concern over profiling, etc., the reality is that the “officer’s discretion” clause takes away the requirement to check that was there when the “probable cause” language was used. Under the old language, if an officer pulled someone over for a minor traffic offense and there was *any* probable cause to suspect that the person driving was illegal, the officer would have to do a background check whether the officer wanted to or not. I’m sure the PD would have drafted some guidelines for what constituted probably cause so officers would have some guidance. So, like sentencing guidelines and 3-strike rules, the judgement of the officer on the scene would take a backseat to a set policy. The new language puts the judgement back with the officer. Yes, it opens up the theoretical circumstances where someone’s status can be checked, but I think we will find that the PD will exercise their discretion far more conservatively than Mr. Stewart or Mr. Letiecq would like us to believe.

  5. TPW, that’s a good way to explain it. However, I think the officers will also be careful about why they arrest. For example, if they see four guys in one week peeing in public but they only arrest a Hispanic guy, you can bet someone is going to cry racism for good reason. Some people think this means cops are going to arrest everyone for every reason, but I doubt this is true. Technically, homeless people can be arrested, but are they going to start arresting every homeless person they see because there might be an illegal immigrant who is with them? If the police arrest a minority homeless person, they will have to arrest ALL OF THEM! Can you imagine the outcry when homeless and lack of affordable housing are such problems in this area? If that happens, we will be in even more of a real human rights and image control quagmire.

  6. A PW County Resident

    People, I am sorry to tell you that you should realize that Supervisor Principi’s resolution was defeated (almost unanimously). Both sides may argue their successes but legally, all they have done is absolve the police of racial profiling. Now if I, who was born in DC in 1950, gets stopped, they have to do a proforma check of my immigration status.

    They took the action, not to appease, but to protect the police from being accused of profiling. If they check everyone, there is no profiling.

    If I am ever accused of an arrestible offense, I can assure you that I can prove citizenship.

  7. A PW County Resident

    And when the police are absolved of profiling, there is no need for cameras. Ergo, millions of dollars saved.

  8. PW, police who engage in racial profiling are not absolved. Racial profiling is a crime. I doubt our officers would take such a chance. They aren’t stupid.

  9. A PW County Resident

    KG, but it isn’t racial profiling if everyone is investigated. That is their point.

  10. A PW County Resident

    It is race-neutral!

  11. “KG, but it isn’t racial profiling if everyone is investigated.”

    I know. I was just referencing your use of the word “absolved.” You are right….it is MUCH more fair and neutral if they check everyone’s status when they are arrested. I agree.

  12. A PW County Resident

    So there is no danger of a police officer being engaged in racial profiling, thus they are “absolved”.

  13. Moon-howler

    A PW Resident,

    I see little difference in Mr. Principi’s motion and what actually happened. I think what was adopted was a tweaking of earlier motion. My concern is vulnerability (cop and county). I think what passed probably does exactly what you said, which is subject all people to the same standard, thus no profiling.

    I see no reason why we have to look at ‘sides’ winning or losing. If we have a workable resolution that most people can live with, it seems to me that everyone is a winner. After you get a certain age, people need to realize that most of life is going to be a compromise.

  14. Ruby

    MH,
    Exactly there’s no clear winner or loser. Compromise is always a must. The bottom line is all ILLEGALS won’t be sent back to the coutries of origin. And by the same token all that want in our great nation won’t be able to get in. Comprise is as key to this debate, as is assimilation.

  15. A PW County Resident

    Moon-Howler–I really like your last paragraph. I think I have said that many times on this and other blogs. It is why I suggested a solutions thread.

  16. Moon-howler

    A PW Resident,

    I believe that plan is in the works. Stay tuned. Good suggestion by the way.

  17. “I see no reason why we have to look at ’sides’ winning or losing. If we have a workable resolution that most people can live with, it seems to me that everyone is a winner.” That’s right. Our BOCS should have been doing this all along. But CS and JS refused and look where it got us?

    WE (citizens….all of us) should have been making the policy collectively. I see us doing this more now even if we aren’t sitting down writing it. The participation in local government is pretty high right now, so something good has come out of it.

  18. elvis

    WE (Citizens) “hire” people to make that policy for us i.e. elected officials. You influence policy by voting and communicating with your elected official. you dont make policy “collectively” or else all of us would be elected, go for it.

    are you extremely mentally handicapped or something? you must have been dropped on your head as a child one too many times because you are surely out there.

Comments are closed.