Chertoff Home Cleaned by Illegal Immigrants

Today’s Washington Post revealed quite an embarrassment for the Department of Homeland Security.

For 4 years James Reid, who owns a cleaning company, has been sending workers weekly to the home of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff. The secret service has been screening the workers before they enter Chertoff’s home. They have flown through the checks with flying colors. Now James Reid is furious. He now has in excess of $22,000 in fines. Why?

Now, owner James D. Reid finds himself in a predicament that he considers especially confounding. In October, he was fined $22,880 after U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement investigators said he failed to check identification and work documents and fill out required I-9 verification forms for employees, five of whom he said were part of crews sent to Chertoff’s home and whom ICE told him to fire because they were undocumented.

Reid has found the fine so excessive that he might just have to go out of business. He feels it is extremely difficult for a businessman to distinguish between fake and real driver’s licenses and social security cards. What really frosts him is that he is being fined after being given the green light by the secret service. The secret service actually does not do immigration checks.

Immigration laws are unevenly enforced, he [Reid] added, allowing big companies to stay in business while crushing small-business owners and workers. He said the rules punish “scapegoats” such as him while inviting people at every level — customers, subcontractors and contractors — to look the other way while benefiting economically from cheaper labor.
“No one wants to put the blame on the head; they’d rather put the blame on the business owner,” said Reid, who owns Consistent Cleaning Services. “Damned if I should be fined for employees that I took over to their house.”
Chertoff declined to comment. “We’re very constrained in what we can say about anybody who has any kind of issue with the department,” he said.

It is easy to see why Secretary Chertoff is keeping his mouth shut. How embarrassing. I guess the expression not being able to police your own has come home to roost.

Principi Graciously Responds to Royse Cheap Shots

Supervisor Frank Principi had a letter in the News and Messenger this morning defending his position as a pro-life elected official.  As I was reading it, I wondered if perhaps we ought to bring dueling back. 

Here is his letter, published December 10, 2008:

In Saturday’s News & Messenger, Chris Royse, under the guise of wishing residents a Merry Christmas, indicated that I supported a pro-choice agenda and called upon church officials in the Arlington Catholic Diocese to deny me communion. Although I normally keep my personal and religious life private, I felt it necessary to respond to his letter.

First I would like to state that I am a pro-life, Knight of Columbus, practicing Catholic who believes in the separation of church and state. My faith has always been a very important part of my life.

Second, I am a life-long Democrat and I can honestly say that there has never been a time that I agreed 100 percent with the party’s platform.

Third, I hope that most people who read this article are aware that Chris Royse was my Republican opponent for Woodbridge Supervisor. It would seem that as a former candidate, he would be aware that the Board of County Supervisors does not make decisions regarding abortion. This is a matter addressed by the state and federal government.

This is a very special time of year to Americans. Whether we celebrate Christmas, Kwanzaa, Hanukkah , or Eid Day, it is a season of love, of giving back and appreciating all of our blessings. That we live in troubled economic times is all the more reason to look at the good in our community and work to make it better. We accomplished this recently when businesses and volunteers came together in Woodbridge to host Thanksgiving and Christmas dinners for those in need in our community. This makes a positive difference in our community.

In the New Year, let’s turn our focus to something we can influence on the local level, the public policy issues affecting our quality of life. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year,

Prince William County Supervisor
Woodbridge Magisterial District

Read More

Crime, Punishment, and Hate Crimes

Much discussion has come up the past few days around the blogosphere about hate crimes. Our blog, has come under some undeserved fire over not commenting on the sentencing of Latino rapists in recent weeks. Some apples and oranges comparisons have been made which are just plain silly in my opinion.

First of all we saw no point in commenting on the heinous act of child rape. This is a burn-in-hell offense, in our opinion, regardless of who does it. The reader comment section and both covered this event from their own perspectives. What more was there to add? We oppose child rapists regardless of ethnicity. Furthermore, we want anyone found guilty of this hideous act to be punished to the full extent of the law. If the perpetrator is an illegal immigrant, then we want them deported to their country of origin after serving their sentence.

We will not report each and every crime committed but will comment if we feel something needs to be highlighted. Readers may continue to email us with suggested articles.

Moving right along, to hate crimes, I went straight to the F.B.I. website for this one.

A hate crime, also known as a bias crime, is a criminal offense committed against a person, property, or society that is motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin.

The key here is motivation. Was the man attacked because he was gay or was a man attacked who coincidentally happened to be gay? Those are the questions that law enforcement asks each time a suspicious crime is committed. Some are very clear cut like painting swastikas all over a Jewish temple. Others are more complicated and must be proven both as a charge and for a verdict. Some cases remain forever in those gray areas.

Certainly every crime against Hispanics is not a hate crime or racially motivated. Yet sometimes they are. In the past year we had some good old Prince William boys going around trying to ‘rob a Mexican.’ This is a hate crime. The motivation is to rob Mexicans. Not to rob someone just get money.

A harder case to prove would be someone robbing a senior citizen. Is the senior robbed because seniors are hated or because a senior citizen is seen as less likely to put up strong resistance? Would a perp attempt to rob the fullback on the football team or some little old lady?

Here is a chart showing the various categories of hate crimes in 2004. Hopefully this information will keep debate between what is a hate crime and what is not to a minimum. Hate crimes, if proven to be that, carry stiffer penalties