The Board will have both a 2:oopm & 7:30pm session today. The main item on the agenda is Chief Deane’s ‘Illegal Immigration Enforcement Update’. Interestingly BVBL has the ‘General Order’ to be presented today which has not been released to the public and is not subject to a Freedom of Information Act(FOIA) request. Which begs the question, who gave it to him? Looks as if either Corey or John or perhaps both Corey & John have not disavowed this unholy alliance.

Anyways, everything remains the same, no changes to the resolution -it’s exactly what we asked for.

Here’s the agenda for the meeting.

50 thoughts on “PWCBOS 06/03/08 Meeting

  1. anon

    The press gets everything in advance at their Friday press briefing. Anyone at the press conference could have given it out.

    The copies were available yesterday at McCoart. I’m not sure if it was on the web yet, but anyone could have stopped by and picked up a copy.

    A General Order on this order would absolutely be suject to FOIA, however, a FOIA request wouldn’t be timely enough to help you out in this case. A FOIA request must be answered in 5 business days I believe or they must let you know they are extending the time to get the document to you and why they need the additional time.

  2. LuckyDuck

    Elena, the GO was released for public knowledge yesterday.

  3. Alanna

    Then I apologize. I was told it had not yet been released to the public.

  4. Alanna

    BTW, It was me Alanna not Elena. Oh, and now we know an Illana! Ain’t this fun.

  5. LuckyDuck

    Sorry, maybe I need glasses. I am not sure if it was announced anywhere that the GO was available, but I was at McCoart yesterday and saw that it was available.

  6. Bring it On

    She’s BACK.

  7. Alanna

    The Board needs to fund the Senior Day Care Center. I understand it runs out of funds in the middle of the month.

  8. Alanna

    Great comments by Kathy McNeal.

  9. Bring it On

    News Break – Greg’s not an ATTORNEY! Guess he has some problems with the general order – SHOCKING!

  10. Elena

    I thought the GO was just perfect in Greg’s mind, at least that’s the way he made it sound on his blog.

  11. hello

    I think that this is exactly what was needed… treat everyone the same (when arrested), check the status of everyone not matter who the person is, period. That will end any possibility for a discrimination case.

  12. Red Dawn

    Who is weeping? That is good that EVERYONE be checked. I just wonder why it did not pass the sniff test the FIRST go around and put everyone thru so much Sh#T to come back and say EVERYONE must be checked. What a joke in how it was handled!

  13. es_la_ley

    hello, 3. June 2008, 18:26

    I think that this is exactly what was needed… treat everyone the same (when arrested), check the status of everyone not matter who the person is, period.

    Ah! But there’s this tidbit… (quoting from the WaPo)

    The changed policy allows officers to question a suspect prior to arrest if they have “reasonable articulable suspicion” an individual has provided a fake ID or lacks proper identification.

    No probable cause needed, and no arrest needed. Maybe I read that wrong.

  14. Red Dawn

    es_la_ley,

    GOOD eye, that is what I was questioning and confused about last night. It said the same thing in the MJM and I was saying something was fishy about it and seems to be a PLAY on words, procedure, etc.

    my internet keeps going up and down ( I guess due to the storm and really pissing me off! 🙁

  15. Kenneth Reynolds

    Red Dawn, 3. June 2008, 19:07

    Who is weeping? That is good that EVERYONE be checked. I just wonder why it did not pass the sniff test the FIRST go around and put everyone thru so much Sh#T to come back and say EVERYONE must be checked. What a joke in how it was handled!

    KENNETH SAID NOT SCREAMED – I AGREE WITH YOU RED DAWN…..BEFORE THE IDIOTIC RESOLUTION LAST YEAR, COUNTY JAIL CHECKED EVERYONE…NOW THE POLICE DO IT IF A PERSON IS ARRESTED? WELL, SO WHAT…NOT MUCH DIFFERENT THAN BEFORE. GOSPEL GREG AND LT. COREY ARE REACHING TO CLAIM POLITICAL VICTORY….AND LOOK AT THE MESS THEY CREATED…WHEN ALL ALONG, IF THEY ENFORCED COUNTY ORDINANCES – GENTLY – LOOK WHERE WE COULD HAVE BEEN!!

  16. Kenneth Reynolds

    es_la_ley, 3. June 2008, 19:22

    hello, 3. June 2008, 18:26

    I think that this is exactly what was needed… treat everyone the same (when arrested), check the status of everyone not matter who the person is, period.

    Ah! But there’s this tidbit… (quoting from the WaPo)

    The changed policy allows officers to question a suspect prior to arrest if they have “reasonable articulable suspicion” an individual has provided a fake ID or lacks proper identification.

    No probable cause needed, and no arrest needed. Maybe I read that wrong.

    KENNETH SAID NOT SCREAMED…..SO WHAT!!!!

  17. Juturna

    anon – if it is not available on line it is not usually distributed at the Friday press briefing. It is available at the meeting or unless it is released otherwise as indicated by LuckyDuck.

    Actually my take on BVBL’s lack of information was that the ‘feed’ is no longer there. I hope I am correct.

  18. Juturna

    Kenneth Reynolds – I agree there is a lot of “emporers new clothes” going on around here. So, if it shuts a few up – FINALLY (and I AM screaming), I am more than willing to go along and play pretend.

  19. es_la_ley

    Kenneth Reynolds, 3. June 2008, 19:39

    KENNETH SAID NOT SCREAMED…..SO WHAT!!!!

    Do you have some sort of animosity toward me or are you deliberately being vague?

  20. Juturna

    Hey, relax. That’s a BVBL tack….. assuming the worst and attack immediately 🙂 this is NOT BVBL, remember!!!

  21. es_la_ley

    Jutuma:

    Hey, relax.

    Who? Me?

  22. hello

    Yeah, Kenneth, were you talking to me because I was in your comment as well. If so I’m not sure I know what your talking about when you say “SO WHAT!!!!”.

  23. TWINAD

    Well the article I just read posted by Rick Bentley only says that all people arrested will have their name checked to see if they have an outstanding deportation warrant or have previously been deported. I don’t have a problem with that. If illegal immigrants have neither of those attached to their name, what happens? At least from that article, it doesn’t sound like they are checking to see if they are here illegally, only if they have been previously deported or asked to leave. Is that not right?

  24. Moon-howler

    I find it ever so amusing that HSM, et al has turned the GO into their own personal victory. They certainly expended a lot of energy fighting it and trash trapping the ‘anti’s’. I guess they didn’t take the time to see that we also consider it a victory. How very odd indeed. Athough I am convinced that some people could be lying in a ditch, eyes blackened, teeth knocked out, broken ribs, cauliflowered ears, and they would still put a spin on that they were winning.

    Nice presentation Kenneth Reynolds!

  25. es_la_ley

    TWINAD, 3. June 2008, 20:06

    Well the article I just read posted by Rick Bentley only says that all people arrested will have their name checked to see if they have an outstanding deportation warrant or have previously been deported.

    Read deeper. I posted this before from the same article….

    “The changed policy allows officers to question a suspect prior to arrest if they have “reasonable articulable suspicion” an individual has provided a fake ID or lacks proper identification.”

    I’m just posting from the article. You can interpret that how ever you want.

  26. Red Dawn

    LEAVE es_la_ley ALONE! It was JUST a QUESTION!

    Thank you! 🙂

  27. Moon-howler

    There seems to be somewhat of a disconnect between the WaPost article and the actual GO.

    Interesting about those advanced notices and unholy alliances, eh, Juturna?

  28. Marie

    TWINAD, That is how I read it.

    Rick Bentley,
    There is nothing to read and weep about.

    The changed policy allows officers to question a suspect. It does not say arrest a suspect. IT SAYS QUESTION. It further goes on to say that no one will be arrested for the sole purpose of determining their citizenship or immigration status. Under Probable Cause one could have been arrested and that was a problem.

    The article goes on to say “Every person arrested in Prince William County will have their names run through a federal database to determine their citizenship status, even if they are not suspected of being in the country illegally, according to a draft of the county’s revised illegal-immigration policy.” This is nothing new. The County jail has been checking status of every person arrested to determine their citizenship status.

    “Under the draft, anyone arrested for violating a state law or county ordinance will have their name run through the National Crime Information Center, which checks to see if a suspect is a previously deported felon or has an outstanding warrant of removal.” The operative word here is ARRESTED.

  29. Marie

    Oh an error on my part. The County jail runs a check on everyone arrested to see if they have legal status which could include citizenship. So the WaPo is not correct in stating “to determine their citizenship status” One can be here legally without being a citizen. I am sure everyone knows that.

  30. Censored bybvbl

    I think not much will change despite any difference in wording. ICE has a limited number of agents and resources. Our jail has a limited number of spaces. PWC has limited funds to farm out prisoners. More localities are asking to become part of the 287(g) program so ICE will be further taxed. ICE will take the worst of the worst and more than likely release the rest with an admonishment to get their paperwork in order.

  31. Marie

    You are correct Censored. ICE will become even more overwhelmed than it is now. Actually, ICE generally only deals with the worst of the worst. They are not interested in petty stuff. They do not have the resources to do what they need to be doing now.

  32. —The changed policy allows officers to question a suspect prior to arrest if they have “reasonable articulable suspicion” an individual has provided a fake ID or lacks proper identification.—

    But the cops ALWAYS had that ability! Why did we have to pay millions of dollars more for them to use an ability they already had?

  33. I think the fact that The Greg&Corey Show didn’t try the Third Resolution Option today says a lot. Remember, they said it was a 7 to 1 vote to pass a new Immigration Resolution 2 weeks ago. Now, it seems, they don’t have more than three.

    http://www.nbc4.com/news/16331778/detail.html

    If they DID have more than three votes, today would have been the day to try to push something through. With Supervisor Jenkins not in the chamber, it would have taken only four votes to revive Probable Cause. This would have been much preferable to the Greg&Corey Show… that way they wouldn’t have to continue this tragic charade of claiming the repeal of Probable Cause is a victory.

    But they didn’t even have four votes. So, the Tragic Charade Parade continues.

    Anti-Immigrant Clones: if you Gospel Greg is so shameless about lying to you now, what reason do you have to believe he was telling you the truth at any time during this year-long period in which he sought to brainwash you? Just asking?

  34. anon

    And that’s fine (ICE dealing with the “worst of the worst”). That’s the kind of people we need to get off the streets. But for ICE to deal with the “worst of the worst” anyone who is arrested needs to have their status checked and then if they are illegal referred to ICE and let them make the call. That seems fine by me. The whole point is in the past it seemed some of the “worst of the worst” were slipping through the cracks and then perpetrating yet more offenses while they were out on bail or whatever. So to me if the net result of the resolution it its current form is what I just said above, then it seems like a good thing.

  35. “Remember, they said it was a 7 to 1 vote to pass a new Immigration Resolution 2 weeks ago. Now, it seems, they don’t have more than three.”

    Corey Stewart DID say today that this version is “stronger” just like he did prior to suggestion the third revision and mentioning the 7-1 vote. So it seems like he is happy with this version. GOOD!!!! Do we have to spend so much damn time and money on it now or can we get back to helping PEOPLE?

  36. anony

    Some of you didn’t listen very closely to what Chief Deane said today.

    Anyone arrested and sent to jail will be checked (and the jail will check too).

    Also, anyone arrested and only brought before a magistrate will be checked.

    If info by suspect sounds at all “hinky” or they don’t have license, they will be checked.

    Officers only have to have reasonable suspicion to check status.

    Previously, officers had to meet a much stricter standard – probable cause.

    I know everyone on here sees this as some kind of victory. I just can’t imagine how you see it as such. It seems to me that this resolution is a degree tougher, in that the officer no longer needs to meet the probable cause standard.

  37. junkyard dog

    WHWN,

    So good ole VERSION 3 never came to pass. The Corey/Greg show talked happy but looked mad tonight on the channel 4 news. Isn’t it nice that bvbl and anti are all in agreement. Kumbaya. Should we be worried???????

    I agree. How many lies to the minions have to fall for before they wake up and see the big picture. The emperor has no clothes and the man behind the curtain is an illusionist(and he isn’t wearing any clothes either).

  38. Bring it On

    Excellent analogy. The emperor has no clothes. Horrible visual imagery though.

  39. Elena

    anony,
    I believe, a Federal mandate allows police officers to check if they have suspicion that someone may be illegally in the country, this is simply stating what was already “on the books” so to speak. The crux of the issue was in the “mandatory” check prior to arrest is now gone. Personally, I think it is a sad day for PWC that citizens are clearly left to wonder what the resolution’s intent actually means.

  40. junkyard dog

    anony,

    Why do you think you know how we feel? I didn’t listen carefully to Chief Deane today because I wasn’t there.

    I am curious if this component of the resolution is so much stronger, why are ICE detainers fewer in number? Why did Corey go on the news and say he had 7 votes to change it? It seems like some folks certainly have been in a big stew about all this strengthening. ho ho ho woof!

  41. LuckyDuck

    Elena, Marie and Twinad…the “Reasonable Suspicion” line the Officers now use to question anyone’s legal status is legally lower than the “Probable Cause” standard under the previous version of the resolution. The ONLY changes are that the (1) officers are now NOT MANDATED to do the questioning and (2) Probable cause is not needed but reasonable suspicion is that the person is illegal to question and document and turn the paperwork over to ICE. So instead of being mandated after having probable cause to ask about immigration status, the officers, after having gained reasonable suspicion, can use their discretion to inquire and document and notify ICE.

  42. Moon-howler

    So Lucky Duck, has the resolution been strengthened or weakened? It sounds to me like a little of each but what do I know.

  43. LuckyDuck

    That’s why both sides are claiming victory.

    In a sense, it has been weakened because the officers are not MANDATED to ask about immigration status without an arrest. Its their choice to do so or not do so if they have reasonable suspicion the person is illegal. So in some instances where they used to be mandated to ask, now its up to their discretion to or not to.

    It has been strengthened because officers have only to look for reasonable suspicion instead of probable cause in order to inquire about immigration status. A much lower legal standard of proof.

    It has, in a sense, been strengthened because ALL arrested individuals will have their immigration status checked by the officers. Under the old resolution, the officers needed probable cause to check anyone’s status. No probable cause, no checking of status.
    But the ADC does this anyway.

    So its a wash. It can still get illegal immigrants into the system on something as simple as a traffic stop. It can get the illegal immigrants information to ICE via any contact with the police.

    Confusing? Yes, it is. So imagine how the 21 or 22 year old officer feels trying to decide how to carefully procede down this political minefield.

  44. LuckyDuck

    Sorry, “Proceed”.

  45. anony

    I can see how some see the resolution as “weaker” or “improved” (depending on one’s POV) because the MANDATORY aspect is gone. But remember, that mandatory aspect was attached to PROBABLE CAUSE. Probable cause was a very high standard to meet in the first place. So having something MANDATORY occur after meeting a probable cause standard was not going to cause everyone to be checked.

    Now, however, MANDATORY is gone. ALLOWED still remains. And ALLOWED can occur anytime there is REASONABLE SUSPICION. So, the OPPORTUNITY for there to be MORE WIDESPREAD checks actually exists NOW. Whether that will come to fruition remains to be seen. It really depends on the POV of the individual officers.

    Someone mentioned that if this outcome is actually stronger then why are there few ICE detainers. It could be because there are so many fewer illegal aliens in the community.

  46. Moon-howler

    Lucky Duck,

    Thanks for the explanation. You know, I am just about at the point where I don’t care.

    I guess the moral of this story is that people need to behave themselves and not give anyone reason to have probable cause or reasonable suspicion.

    If HSM had a little speed bump in the road, then good. I believe every person here wants criminals locked up. What we don’t want is the nastiness and bigotted rhetoric that is becoming associated with our county because of groups like HSM and some of its leaders and members.

  47. Lucky Duck

    Moonhowler…I agree completely. Words of wisdom. Thank you.

  48. Elena

    Concur Moon-howler and Lucky Duck!

  49. anon

    I agree. In fact if both sides can sort of claim victory, it says it is a good thing, and maybe some compromise was achieved that makes both sides happy. Personally, I kind of like the resolution in its latest form – whether or not it is a “weakening” or a “strengthening” of it. I kind of interpret it as a “weakening” but there’s so many possibilities/scenarios to consider it is really hard to tell.

Comments are closed.