91 Thoughts to “9500Liberty: Chairman vs. Chief on PWC Immigration Policy”

  1. Chris

    When you are in a public venue your are fair game of any camera. I saw my face and I didn’t give permission either. If you’ve ever been in the BOS chambers in the audience you’ve been recorded more than likely there too.

    HSM always allowed anyone to video at their meetings. I think are S.O.L. on this one. If you have a problem with the tapings at HSM meetings perhaps you could bring that topic up at the next membership meeting. Please, let us know how it works out for you.

  2. Since the topic on this thread has shifted to HSM and their by-laws. I’d like to suggest to those who have watched these two videos that HSM is not treated unfairly. The only two sentiments that are still relevant now that the law has been gutted were voiced in dramatic and compelling fashion. 1) Chief Deane resisted the resolution from the start and 2) the Probable Cause standard contributed to the resolution being gutted.

    How true those statements are can be debated for years. But the video, for the first time that I have seen, provides a response from the county government, and the Chief himself. And neither one of them say HSM people are bad. Gerhardt says that Duecaster’s version of the resolution would have led to community outrage, and he’s right. It doesn’t mean Duecaster is an idiot, just that he’s not very well versed in county government or sound police work.

    I’m not sure how the thread became about HSM. Really, the videos are here so we can all get on the same page about where we stand today with the resolution.

    The first draft was awful. Subsequent drafts were better. And, as of April 29, we have a law that most in the community can get behind. Is that not true?

  3. Moon-howler

    Very true WHWN.

    And to andy whoever, I misspoke. I didn’t recall whwn making such an insinuation. How it is now real fresh in my mind. Repeating rumors just makes ’em live longer which is why I try to ignore crap.

  4. Chris


    I can’t argue with the last sentence. I think the citizens have become more involved, and that’s good for the democratic process. Hopefully, those that are in the middle will continue to be heard and NOT drowned out by the extremists on BOTH sides of the debate.

  5. andy

    Moon-howler – OK, but I wasn’t trying to spread any rumors about Greg & Corey. I was just pointing out that nasty things have been said about Corey here, which are no less nasty than what is being said about Chief Deane. If it is wrong to say nasty things about Chief Deane (which it is), then it is wrong to say nasty things about Corey too.

  6. Moon-howler

    Repeating things give those things a longer shelf life.

    Corey is a public official. He was elected. If I say he is a bad fisherman, he will live to fight another day.. If I say he is a traitor, then that packs a bit more of a wallop. I do not say this however.

    Chief Deane is an appointed official. He does not answer to the electorate directly. He answers to the CXO. This makes a huge difference in accountability.

  7. elvis

    I personally would be more than agreeable to be taped or interviewed, however when offered before it was posed as more of an interrogation than an interview.

    THATS why you dont get any acceptances to your offers. Stop offering interrogations and start offering professional interviews and you may get somewhere.

  8. Chris

    I’ve been contacted by Eric & Annabel and they’ve been nothing but polite and professional. Have they offered lately? Do you think there’s any chance you have a perception of them that can’t be changed? I am more than aware of the fact that “perception is reality”.

  9. annabel

    Thanks for saying that. I really appreciate it. As you know, we admire you and we are keen to sit down with you.

    Have we contacted you before? How did we pose it as an interrogation? I would really appreciate the feedback. Could we try again? I would appreciate a chance to interview you.

    I really like the idea of riding along with a Neighborhood Services agent for a day. We’ll try to arrange for that asap. We just did a ride along with a police officer and it was truly informative and fun. And, Officer John Bogert was one of the nicest people I’ve ever met.

  10. Chris

    You are welcome. I’m just sick and tired of reading/hearing so much nasty stuff accross the board in and about our county. We need to move forward. I was planning to do a ride along with NS and so had a few others. Unfortunately the tall yards were growing fast, and that got put on the backburner. Maybe, I could ride along with you all. The quality of life issues in our neighborhoods/community has always been the top priority for me personally. Neighborhood Services has a thankless job. They have really improved the turn around time and just in general over the last year, and that’s a good thing. We ALL benefit from a clean, safe, and healty county.

    Officer Bogert, is a very nice man. He’s been most helpful the couple of times I’ve dealings with him. What area of the county did you visit with him, Annabel?

  11. Chris

    They have really improved the turn around time and just in general over *ALL* the last year, and that’s a good thing.

  12. Chris,

    I would love to do a Neighborhood Services ride along with you. Let’s go for it. ‘

    We were in the western district with Officer Bogert focusing on Irongate and Westgate.

    I agree with you that we should find ways of moving forward. It seems to me that the neighborhood issues related to the foreclosure crisis is an opportunity for people to come together as neighbors putting aside their differences for the long-term good of the community.

  13. Chris


    Well, you got an eyeful. I’m sure. The neighborhood issues were quite prevalent prior to the foreclosure mess we are in today. The types of violations have changed as the foreclosures and the tall grass increased. Overall West Gate looks much better than a year ago. The grass has been maintained at the foreclosures once the initial cut(tall grass) was made. There are some new neighbors, but at the same time there are those loosing their homes to foreclosure.

    I agree people need to come together. However, there are some that feel your line of thinking must fall in line with theirs, and don’t leave much if any room for compromise. I do feel there are many concerned neighbors in my neighborhood. So much has happened over the past year I’m just not sure it’s possible.
    Look at MoonHowler’s comments regarding the Neighborhood Watch. This is one of several reasons why we won’t be joining the NW. That’s ashame, but we do not want to be involved with such antics. I know how to pick up the phone and call the police or any other county department all by myself. After the past year we do NOT wish to be involved in any group of any kind. It’s all left a bad taste in our mouths. I can still and do continue to work for a better PWC. I am in no way knocking NW. I think NW’s are a good thing.

  14. Annabel,

    Sorry for taking a while to respond. Thanks for your detailed responses.

    Your response to question #3 is good enough for me. I thought it was important to address the accusations that you guys were less than forthright about your political leanings. I thought it was important to clarify what happened because anything that undermines your personal integrity will undermine the integrity of your work. I think you guys have done a good job and are making a valuable contribution to the debate.
    When you said that:

    The long answer: When we first contacted Greg at the end of August about the project, Eric told Greg that we had volunteered for the Webb campaign but that we would do our best to tell both sides of the story.

    That’s proof enough for me that you did not misrepresent yourselves.

    Greg is doing his best to impugn your integrity and while many can see that he is a charlatan, some people in the middle might find him persuasive. I think the best video you’ve done is the Gospel Greg video. Greg’s statements in this video have left many people speechless. The funny thing about this video is that when Greg originally posted it on his BVBL site, he did so because he thought it would help his cause. He thought it would spread his gospel justification for his anti-immigrant crusade. He’s so blind he couldn’t see how his prostituting the gospel would be transparent to others. It’s when this video backfired badly upon him that he began to attack your credibility.

    I’m reminded of something I remember reading about evil being willfully unaware of itself, being blind to it’s own ugliness. The flippant way he said the ordeal of slavery was good for the country, the disingenuous way he said the confederates were wrong, the lunatic gleam in his eyes…

    When it comes to #4 I totally understand that this aspect of the debate is very difficult to address responsibly. I appreciate your hesitancy in this regard to make sure you do it right. This issue is the bread and butter of Greg et. al. I wouldn’t know how to approach this difficult aspect of the issue except to say that I don’t think people like Ricardo Bentley are responsible voices in the community. I would interview someone like the guy in this video:

    Someone who actually cares about being just and fair to everyone. Save the interviews with the Ricardo Bentleys for the times when you need footage of how the german Nazis were able to take over a country that was full of so-called ‘civilized’ people. Save it for those people who always say ‘It could never happen here’.

    In a broad sense, quality of life issues are a large driver in this debate. However, that doesn’t justify abusive neighborhood watch programs, tyrannical HOAs, and intrusive zoning inspectors. If a zoning inspector came to my house for whatever reason they’d better have a warrant and refrain from violating my rights, because if they don’t I will do my best to nail them to the wall. I would gladly send a zoning inspector, or any inspector for that matter, to jail for trespassing. Straight to jail without passing Go.

    I feel that as long as someone isn’t damaging my property, then I have no right to tell them what they may do on their property. However, if someone’s actions do damage my property, then the proper action is to take them to court.

  15. Michael

    I can tell you exactly what everyone is upset about. The change that was made to the resolution was to REMOVE the mandatory inquiry into immigration status PRIOR to arrest, that was in the first version of the resolution. The chief and opponents of the original resolution argued to MOVE that MANDATORY inquiry into immigration status AFTER arrest. That is a significant change in numbers of people of “illegal” status that will be checked for that illegal status. Much fewer people of “illegal” status will now be checked than before the MANDATORY requirement was moved to post arrest instead of prior to arrest. Who cares if the officers have always had discretionary power prior to an arrest to inquire about “illegal” immigration status? They were not arresting anyone “illegal”. Because the officers were not doing that because of Chief Dean’s informal policy as guidance to his officers not to do it, the BOCS and the local community decided to do something about it. This political fight is not over, because the “law” is still ignoring “illegal” immigrants and checking their status at all police stops.

    The only way to catch ALL “illegal” immigrants in the county, is a MANDATORY checking of EVERYONE regardless of race, gender, religion or ethnic group, whether their is suspicion of any other “arrestable” offense or not.

    That is what is wrong with the Chief’s current law enforement policy, and the current resolution post political “pro-illegal” political fight. He is talking smoke screens, because he doesn’t want to implement the “law” the same on everyone.

    Here is the bottom line issue. Are we going to continue to allow “illegal” people to walk our streets or not? Are we going to allow them to continue to break the law or not?

    If we are not then both “legal” people and “illegal” people must be subjected to the same mandatory “illegal” status check in ALL encounters with the local police.

    Chief Dean is simply afraid he and his officers will be called “racists” if they arrest more “numbers” of certain ethnic groups than others, simply because their happen to be more “numbers” of certain ethnic groups breaking the law than others. He is afraid he cannot enforce an equal standard of law on everyone the same, even though the law is the same for everyone who breaks it as an “illegal person”.

    His current policy and the currenly BOCs policy post “pro-illegal” activist political pressure, is like saying we will never enforce laws on drug dealers, or inquire into drug dealing or driving while drinking status (have you had anything to drink tonight or taken drungs tonight?), unless we can arrest people on some “other” offense first and then only AFTER ARREST apply a MANDATORY policy to check if they were drinking or doing drugs only after they were arrested and only at the jail.

    Such a weak drug and drinking enforcement policy (which the Chief controls with guidance to his officers) would allow significant drunk drivers and drug possessions to go un-noticed and un-challenged on our streets! Only to ARREST for drugs or drinking do you need “probable cause “, you can ASK anything and CHECK for any official documentation at any time. The only issue of probable cause is “illegal” search and seizure without a search warrent, when looking for drugs or evidence of drinking in the TRUNK of a car out of sight.

    THIS is a stupid law enforcement policy. If you do a mandatory stop and check for drinking of every citizen at a mandatory stop checkpoint, you can equally and legally do a mandatory stop checkpoint for “illegal” alien status.

  16. For the first time in history, I read beyond the first paragraph of a Michael post. I even agreed with some of it: namely his assessment of the relevance of a post-arrest mandate compared to the relevance of “reasonable suspicion” being mentioned in both policies.

    Where we differ is whether to be angry or happy about the change.

    Michael, what do you think about County Executive Gerhart’s reply to Robert Duecaster expressing precisely the same sentiment in the second video?

    (I admit I scrolled through the second half of Michael’s diatribe when he laughably assumed the right to present to us the philosophy of our honored police chief, as if he could have the knowledge or expertise to carry Charlie Deane’s jock, LOL)

  17. Miguel,

    If you do a mandatory stop and check for drinking of every citizen at a mandatory stop checkpoint, you can equally and legally do a mandatory stop checkpoint for “illegal” alien status.

    Still working on sanitizing the excuse of ‘I was just following orders are you?’

    That excuse was righteously denounced at Nuremberg but you would gladly see it reborn so that you might expand you persecution of working class immigrants.

    Checkpoints for drunk driving are unconstitutional despite the failure of the Supreme Court to abolish them. You keep going back to this poor example as some kind of justification for your fervent fantasies of building a police state. Please drop this example as the only people who don’t recognize that drunk driving checkpoints are a violation of the 4th amendment are you, imperialist Supreme Court judges, and Mothers Against Drunk Driving.

    Check the quote at 3:45 in the following video for an idea of how you are misrepresenting the character of immigration checkpoints.


    Here is the bottom line issue. Are we going to continue to allow “illegal” people to walk our streets or not? Are we going to allow them to continue to break the law or not?

    If we are not then both “legal” people and “illegal” people must be subjected to the same mandatory “illegal” status check in ALL encounters with the local police.

    You would destroy our constitution in order to prevent undocumented workers from walking our streets, building our houses, and maintaining our infrastructure.

    It is sunshine patriots such as yourself, Miguel, who are a threat to our liberty.

    Miguel, these are the times that try men’s souls.

  18. Michael

    Annabel and Eric.

    Here is what I see as the fundamental problem that both of you are entirely missing in your fight against “ethnic activism” and “ethnic directed anger”.

    You are tilting windmills at the periphery of the problem while you TOTALLY ignore the fundamental and core problems.

    The CORE problem is the threat of “illegal” immigration on DEMOCRACY.
    Illegal people (from ALL racs, genders, religious and ethnic groups) come into this country “a Republic” with political concepts and “ethics” that are completely “foreign” to our understanding of Democracy, Civil Rights, Individual rights and “power of the people to control government”.

    Because “they” (all races, genders, religions and ethnic groups) in large numbers come into the country carrying “illegal” baggage and the emotional ability to break the law already, they cause significant community and local problems with local law breaking, and local “ethics” issues, but even more dangerous, do not value the concept that a DEMOCRACY is a “vote” of individual advocacy for “individual causes”, and instead ALIGN politically along racial, gender, religious and ethnic group political lines of power, just as they did in their former countries and for the very same reasons why their countries fight ethnic class and religious wars. They now TAKE this political concept one step furthur and “infiltrate” the local government with members of their Own racial, gender, religious and ethnic group with votes that are cast NOT as individuals, but as large voting blocks of “factions” that will undermine the entire concept of a free democracy operating in a Republic.

    This is the same mechanism that “criminal” gangs and “mafias” take over local, state andeventually federal government with voting “factions” that are only loyal to the crime syndicate or militant revolutionary hate group, in an attempt to overthrow and supress Democacry, BY BREAKING THE LAW. In such groups. illegal behavior and low ethnics in politics (manipulation of votes), everyday life and social action in the community is an everyday common occurance. This then leads to corrupted local police departments, corrupted lawless communities, who have to bar their winddows from one another’s theft and gang threats, drug cultures and drug wars and eventually corrupted judges, local, state and eventually national politicians.

    Every country who fights ethnic and religious class based wars, has a pattern of lawlessness, lack of law enforcement and loss of democractic ideology that believes the “power to self govern only exists in the “individual” and cannot EVER be allowed to exist in an aristocratic group or corrupted bought off politicians, or an ethnic, gender, religious and ethnic group that has loyalty too and only votes with that “faction”.

    THIS is what you should be doing films about, and forget the trivial issues you are currently fighting as if its some great “injustice” to everyone.

    Thre second thing you need to be equally concerned with is the impact on communities, where “law” is not enforced, including “illegal” immigrant law, and the impact it has on the economy, well being and future viability of that nation.

    If John Adams were alive today, he would call you and your films as supporting lawlessness in the same way the British crown supported lawlessness against the people of the new concept of DEMOCRACY, emerging in Boston, in 1770. This fight is on the order of the same mangnitude, that may eventually culminate in a war of the same magnitude, if the nation is not brought back under the principals of law and the concept of democracy it was founded under.

    If not we will become a nation of “federated” citi-states, no longer a republic, and a democracy, each with laws and revolutionary radical hate groups leading them that support and privilege their own race, gender, religion and ethnic group. We will become like medieval Europe before the “magna carta”.

    This is what you need to be afraid of and start filming.

  19. Michael

    Mackie, go read the constitution again. No-where does it authorize the people to break law, or law enforcement not to enforce it. Yes, you can arrest or detain anyone who breaks the law and you can stop them and check if they are breaking it. You just can’t arrest innocent people and detain them without an arrest warrent or a hearing before a judge to determine if they should stay in jail or be released.

    Illegal immigrants are not “innocent” people.

  20. Michael

    Mackie we all know you are afraid of authority and law enforcement, and if you had your way we would live in a society with no laws and all criminals could do whatever they want. You think you are ptotected from the law by the constitution, you are not. You are only protected from “cruel and unusual punishment and “unreasonable” arrest and detention without a hearing.
    My comment has nothing to do with german soldiers following orders, obviously your own weak attempt to relate all law enforcement to nazi war crimes.

    Personally I don’t see such an ignorant relationship concept.

  21. Miguel,

    The CORE problem is the threat of “illegal” immigration on DEMOCRACY.
    Illegal people (from ALL racs, genders, religious and ethnic groups) come into this country “a Republic” with political concepts and “ethics” that are completely “foreign” to our understanding of Democracy, Civil Rights, Individual rights and “power of the people to control government”.

    Haha Miguel. The flaw in your argument is your assumption that native born Americans are somehow better at appreciating our history and system of government. The past few years should have disabused of the illusion. Poor Miguel. If you want to pay respect to the concepts that form the foundation of our society, I would advise you that you focus on your own actions and set an example that will influence those around you instead of pointing your fingers at others. Lead by example not by criticism. Win through persuasion not coercion. If the country is lost, it is because We the People lost it, not because a few working class immigrants came here to build houses.

    Miguel, the people asked Benjamin Franklin what he had secured for them at the constitutional convention. He responded ‘A republic…if you can keep it.’

    Look at the responses from Americans in this video:

    This is where the country will be saved or lost.

    If John Adams were alive today, he would call you and your films as supporting lawlessness in the same way the British crown supported lawlessness against the people of the new concept of DEMOCRACY, emerging in Boston, in 1770. This fight is on the order of the same magnitude, that may eventually culminate in a war of the same magnitude, if the nation is not brought back under the principals of law and the concept of democracy it was founded under.

    Actually Miguel, you have read your history all wrong. It was the abusive British laws that sparked the American Revolution. Our nation was born out of a rebellion AGAINST the law.

    The British would have been very pleased with every police state tactic you are advocating we adopt.

  22. Michael


    The British laws were taxes, that taxed without equal representation in the British parlament. The DISPARITY in that LAW enforcement because of ethnic and religious group divisions in England against “protestants” in America is what sparked flight from England and anger with the un-equal enforcement of the law without a voice in the law-making.

    If you are saying you are supporting “illegal” immigrant”revolution because the law is being enforced without it being “equal” is equivalent to British Crown declarations that all colonial rights to self govern and have lawful representation are revoked by the King, your understanding of history is as loony as your feeble attempts to justify “illegal” immigrant lawlessness, and your general disdain for the law and law enforcement. You always argue that law enforcement is a police state, I beg to differ.

  23. Michael


    I believe that giving reasons for why we should not check all illegal immigrants for legal status, is rooted in ethnic group bias to protect a specific ethnic group from the law (whatever your political reason for doing so), when it should be about protecting people from lawbreakers, regardless of the cost. When you ignore the law, because you think it will cost too much to enforce it, you step into the quagmire that leads eventually to crime and corruption in the streets of an inner city, and the crime and corruption that results in nations and cities and states being taken over by “factions” that will undermine democracy and community safety.

  24. Michael

    In defense of Chief Dean, I know he is a nice guy. I also know he is not doing anything to break the law or pass bad policy intentionally. I think however he is looking at cost and political “image” his officers would suffer from “pro-illegal” advocacy groups if they enforced the law and is making what I believe is a strategic blunder in the enforcement of law and “illegal” immigration growth in our community.

    I do not attack him personally I attack his policy, which I believe will result in continued avoidance of the law, by the “illegal” community. He is not being tough enough on enforcement of the law. This is exactly why crime dominates in inner cities, they run out of resources and their Chief’s are not tough enough on the existing crime, afraid of “political” groups that protect only their own racial, gender, religious and ethnic group interests by waging a political war against our law enforcement leaders.

    The war I am waging is to enforce law, not look the other way based on what race, gender, religion or ethnic group you politically belong to.

    Same thing happened to the Wash DC police chief, when she was recently pressured to remove roadblocks. Shortly after, an “external” crime ring killed people, and I can tell you she was not happy about the political irony of it.

  25. Michael, thank you for not attacking Chief Deane personally. That tactic offends most PWC residents to such a degree that further discussion is impossible.

    But you must understand that you are in the minority in standing with Robert Duecaster and Greg Letiecq when you say police should run checks on every person they come in contact with.

    You are standing against a unanimous vote by the BOCS. Mike May is shown speaking out in favor of Gerhart’s position in this video.

    I doubt if even Corey Stewart is with you on this. What is your reasoning?

  26. Michael

    It is the only way to prevent continued “evasion” of the law, and the widely documented problems of “illegal” immigration from occurring again, and again and again.

    Its kind of like this, when you go after all criminals and all gangs and all ”
    illegal” people in a community the same, the crime rate goes down.

    As soon as you attack only some criminals and some gangs, and some illegals and some terrorists, the ones who are not targeted feel bolder and bolder until they discover they can operate without the law noticing. Then you have out of control “crime”.

    It is for this same reason we have “out of control” illegal immigration.

  27. anon-100

    WhyHereWhyNow, 24. July 2008, 13:16 “the Probable Cause standard contributed to the resolution being gutted.”

    Ask Marty Nohe how the Probable Cause standard got in the resolution in the first place. Marty takes credit for rewriting the resolution so does he take credit for the Probable Cause part also? It doesn’t sound like it on the clip in this thread.


  28. Michael

    BTW, I DO NOT stand with GL and RD. I take the higher moral and legal road. I oppose their tactics, they need to stick to strictly law enforcement and take the race, gender, religious, ethnic group identity, traits, and characteristic issues completely out of the equation. I am for stopping the threat to “democracy” and law, as a result of “out of control” illegal immigration and “out of control” racial, gender, religious, ethnic group poltical advocacy, hate group formation, discrimmination and privilege seeking by races, genders, religions and ethnic groups.

  29. Maureen and Michael, are you building a case that the Probable Cause standard was inserted in the Resolution on purpose … to put the county at risk of being sued for millions of dollars for a period of months … with the secret goal of gutting the Resolution as they did on April 29? If so, I think you’d have to go after more Supervisors than just Nohe.

  30. anon-100

    WhyHereWhyNow, I was stating something. Nothing more, nothing less. Oh I also ask a question. Marty just didn’t seem to want to take credit for that one rewrite

  31. The Board voted unanimously to include Probable Cause in the policy on July 10.

    Let’s get that straight first and foremost.

    But, okay Maureen, I will ask Marty that question. Will you meanwhile ask Greg-N-Corey if they opposed it at the time? Who knows. Maybe they did. Maybe they foresaw April 29th, 2008 way back on July 10th, 2007. If so, why didn’t they send out a mass email telling everyone to go nuts?!?!

    If I’m right, and they voted their conscience, the Board unanimously decided to take the lesser of two evils.

    1) Risk racial profiling law suits (and lean heavily on one of our best assets, Chief Deane and the PWC Police Department to keep us out of such law suits against all odds).

    2) Implement a policy in which every single person a police officer comes into contact with in the course of his or her day has to be detained while their immigration status is checked.

    How do you suppose the average McMansion owner commuting two hours home from D.C. would have reacted to tacking a third hour onto their commute if God Forbid they get pulled over for speeding on the one road that isn’t bumper-to-bumper in their entire commute?

    How do you suppose a woman who reports domestic violence would react to knowing she has to find her passport first before she calls for help from a husband or boyfriend on a violent rampage?

    How do you suppose our police officers would react to workload that is twice or three times more time consuming when they are already asked to work harder for less pay than neighboring counties?

    Our officers ride solo. Did you know that? It gives the impression there are more police out there protecting us, I think that was the reason they decided that years ago. That means that each time they walk into a dangerous situation, they are either alone, or they get back-up, depending on how busy their fellow officers are at the time. How do you suppose our police force would have reacted if, time after time, officers are told by dispatch they will have ZERO back-up to go check out a possible burglary because the other 12 units on duty are all busy checking immigration status on former military officers and 8th generation Virginians?

    Or, how do you suppose tax payers would have reacted to a double-digit tax hike in order to hire enough officers to take on the duty of immigration status paper pushes in addition to their real and actual job which is keeping this community safe?

    Can you at least give the Board for not being so dumb as to take the Anti-Immigrant Lobby’s resolution and put it into practice without even asking what the operational impact would be? Even John Stirrup wouldn’t have signed on to that and he’s a member.

    They took the lesser of two evils … inevitable law suits … because the county was in such a state of hysteria (or at least Help Save Manassas was) that they thought they were responding to their constituents. When they found out they’d been duped by smoke and mirrors, they had a chance to take a step back and realize there were more options at their disposal than those two particular evils.

    Status checks after arrest. And, yes Michael, check everybody. Presto. We’re constitutional again: equal protection under the law.

    Ain’t democracy great?

  32. Elena

    I am curious how some people will respond to your questions regarding the requirment to check every single person’s status. Clearly and unworkable solution.

  33. The questions above are rhetorical, Elena. I have no question about that whatsoever.

    I’m absolutely certain that it was an idiotic idea to compel our sworn officers to look for immigration needles in hay stacks where they knew there were no needles because it was their Anti-Immigrant Lobby enforced mandate.

    Checking every single citizen for immigration status was the first Duecaster Disaster that, even in a time of mass hysteria fueled by unchecked propaganda, our Board of Supervisors was wise enough to avert for us. There have been many Duecaster Disasters our Board did not manage to avoid, and I have listed them often (ruined our economy and our reputation, hurt our public safety, the morale of our police force, our sense of community, etc.) But in this case, even Corey Stewart was intelligent enough to vote with the majority and add Probable Cause to the resolution.

    [For those of you trying to follow, Probable Cause was added to the original resolution penned by Robert Duecaster and F.A.I.R. so that officers were not mandated to check everyone in the county, only those who they had probable cause to suspect were illegal. On April 29th, they did away with this provision because it was likely to result in a law suit in a climate where immigration status seemed to be so strongly connected to race and ethnicity, especially in the eyes of the most rabid anti-immigrant activists.]

    My only question is why Chairman Stewart, Supervisor Stirrup, and Gospel Greg went along with it despite Robert Duecaster’s objection. They seemed to trust him more than the county staff and the police chief. So why did they go against his wishes here?

  34. Moon-howler

    Are there copies available of the 3 (?) different drafts?

    It would be interesting to have one of those vertical allignment comparisons with yellow highlighter.

  35. According to F.A.I.R.’s offshoot / front group Immigration Reform Law Institute, the original draft is on their website. I took a moment to look but couldn’t find it.


    Prince William County, Virginia
    The Board of County Supervisors unanimously passed a resolution on July 10th to combat illegal immigration. This Resolution, based on a model available on the IRLI website, forbids County officials from restricting the authority law enforcement and other personnel to investigate and report information about civil and criminal immigration law violations, including verification of public benefits and claims of local domicile. Negotiation of a 287g agreement is also mandated. The Resolution also establishes a policy that immigration status is to be verified for all persons lawfully detained by police for a violation of state or county law.<blockquote<

  36. Maureen, Marty deserves credit for stepping up to provide the leadership Corey Stewart has failed to provide, so distracted is he by the bright lights of CNN and Fox News and his ambition to move up the political food chain stepping all over PWC to get a leg up.

    I thought he was very modest about it in the video, however. In order to take credit for making our laws constitutional over Corey Stewart’s “dead body” (Corey’s quote not mine), Marty would have to put it in a way that would overtly criticize Corey. But he, like Chief Deane, has too much class to do that.

    The only reason there is so much confusion today … with majority of people still thinking Corey “won” a “tougher” and “expanded” immigration law … is that Corey has taken advantage of Marty Nohe and Chief Deane’s grace and professionalism. Where Nohe and Deane will not directly contradict their Chairman out of respect for the office and the people it represents, Corey Stewart will tell a bold faced lie, believing as his mentor Greg Letiecq does that “perception is reality.”

    But perception only gets you so far in politics. Eventually the chickens come home to roost. Just ask 24% approval rating G.W. Bush.

  37. Elvis

    i’m all for biometrics for everyone, like those cards you get at the airport. I think all Illegal aliens caught should be printed and biometrics obtained. In fact I think that EVERYONE should have biometrics obtained when they do their license and maybe we could even have this imprinted under the skin (like microchipping).

    in all reality just enforcing the laws we have will work wonders, get hard-assed with these people and they wont want to come back. that’s the goal. I personally dont like sharing MY america with illegal aliens.

  38. Moon-howler

    Elvis, frankly there are a lot of people I don’t like sharing my America with either. I expect many of them feel the same about me since many of them are on this blog trolling.

    Mackie is going to get you over that one, btw.

  39. Mind-set of the Anti-Immigrant Lobby Clone including apparently Elvis


    but who is the “they?”


    but why are they criminals to you, not because of their race?


    okay so they are criminals to you because they are undocumented, but not because of their race.


    how do you know which ones to deport? which ones are “illegal?”


  40. Johnson

    Stop calling people names. It’s juvenile and petty.

  41. Moon-howler

    Johnson, I am looking for name calling and I do not see it. Please give me an example of where this is happening and I will address it with the individual.

Comments are closed.