The Washington Post printed this story over a week ago. Elena and I are not sure how we missed it. We believe the parallels are important. We have reprinted the entire article by Tara Bahrampour:

By Tara Bahrampour
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 7, 2010

Three years after the Prince William County board approved an ordinance similar to the controversial immigration legislation passed last month in Arizona, county residents are still arguing about whether it has achieved its intended effects. The results might offer some insight into how Arizona’s new law will play out.

Special Report: The Battle Over Immigration

The Prince William ordinance, which initially required police to check the status of detainees they suspected of being undocumented immigrants, raised ire among immigrant advocates and drew sharp criticism from the county police chief, who said it would cost taxpayers more, lead to allegations of racism and erode police-community relations — predictions now being made by opponents of the Arizona law.

The Prince William ordinance was modified in 2008 amid charges that it was unconstitutional and could lead to racial profiling. In the end, rather than questioning only people they suspected of being undocumented immigrants, officers were directed to question all criminal suspects about their immigration status once an arrest was made.

The county also participates in the U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement “287(g)” program, in which a cadre of police officers are trained and deputized to act as ICE officers in making status checks and referring individuals for deportation.

Arizona was even quicker than Prince William to start tinkering with its law.

It originally required police to inquire about a detainee’s status if there was reasonable suspicion that he or she might be in the country illegally. Last week, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R) signed follow-up legislation that restricts officers from using race or ethnicity as the basis for questioning, and allows them to ask immigration status questions only after a stop or an arrest, rather than during any contact, as the earlier law had stated.

In Prince William, initial fears about racial profiling have not been realized, according to preliminary results of a University of Virginia study, that is underway. But the study also said that it seems unlikely that the county’s drop in violent crime was because of the policy, because illegal immigrants make up a small percentage of those arrested for such crimes.

Only 2.2 percent of people arrested in Prince William last year were illegal immigrants, according to police, and most of those committed misdemeanor crimes and traffic violations.

The study estimated that fewer than 5,000 immigrants, both legal and illegal, left the county between mid-2007 and the end of 2008. But many of those might have left anyway, said Audrey Singer, a demographer with the Brookings Institution, noting that the economic downturn, which started sooner for lower-wage workers, might have been a factor.

“People were moving, but it’s not clear that we can attribute that to the law,” she said. Phoenix, too, has seen one of the nation’s highest declines in immigrants even before the state legislation was signed, she said.

Proponents of the Arizona and Prince William laws worked with the Federation for American Immigration Reform, an organization that advocates for lower U.S. immigration levels, and its legal affiliate, the Immigration Reform Law Institute, which helped write both laws and is working on similar legislation for other jurisdictions.

“Like in Arizona, this was a response to overwhelming demand,” said Ira Mehlman, a federation spokesman, of the Prince William law. “People were congregating on street corners and in Home Depot parking lots; there was overcrowded housing. It was affecting what most people considered to be quality of life.”

County board Chairman Corey Stewart, who championed the Prince William ordinance, called it a success, saying it has reduced crime and neighborhood complaints, and reduced the number of immigrants using county services such as public schools.

“We were trailblazers here; no one else in the country had really adopted an ordinance similar to this,” he said. “I suspect that Arizona’s policy will end up evolving into something similar to what Prince William County ultimately adopted.”

But opponents of the ordinance say it caused immigrants to flee the county, leaving neighborhoods dotted with vacant houses and sowing distrust of authorities without making much difference in crime.

“In Prince William we had people moving out, we had property values going down,” said Nancy Lyall, legal coordinator for Mexicanos Sin Fronteras, an immigrant advocacy organization that opposed the Prince William ordinance. “The county paid $1 million to mow the lawns of people leaving the county.”

The U-Va. study found that although non-Hispanic whites living in immigrant-heavy neighborhoods now feel safer, “the policy has resulted in lower levels of trust in government among Hispanics and African-Americans.”

But backers of the Prince William ordinance say the most important victory was psychological. “The effect of the policy was to send a strong message that Prince William County would not welcome illegal aliens, and that if you are an illegal alien, there’s a real good chance you’re going to be arrested and deported,” said Stewart.

Although the laws are similar, it might be hard to use Prince William’s legislation to predict how Arizona’s will be implemented, because Arizona will apply it across many police departments.

Prince William County Police Chief Charlie Deane said his department worked hard to train officers and educate the public. “We made it very clear . . . that we were going to focus on individuals who had committed crimes, and that we were going to protect crime victims and witnesses regardless of their status, and we were not going to do racial profiling, roadblocks, sweeps or employment investigations.”

In Arizona, some police have enthusiastically supported the new law while others have expressed concerns. Three lawsuits have been filed, including two by police officers, challenging the Arizona law, and boycotts of the state have been announced.

Compare, contrast. What are the similarities? What are the differences? What do you think would have happened if PWC had kept the probably cause component?

11 Thoughts to “WaPo Says PWC Immigration Resolution Still Controversial”

  1. Captain Idiot-Face

    WashPo also endorsed Deeds for the third and final time this week. I think it’s gonna work this time!

  2. Irrelevant to the non-discussion.

  3. But backers of the Prince William ordinance say the most important victory was psychological. “The effect of the policy was to send a strong message that Prince William County would not welcome illegal aliens, and that if you are an illegal alien, there’s a real good chance you’re going to be arrested and deported,” said Stewart.

    This is probably the part I hate the worst. I grew up in the segregated south. There is something about setting a tone against any group of people that has its underpinnings based on fear and creating an atmosphere of fear that is just repugnant and UN-American.

    That isn’t how we handle our problems…through fear and intimidation.

  4. Second-Alamo

    It’s fear of the law that keeps people in line who might otherwise break the law. It’s called DETERRENT, and is the purpose of creating laws in the first place. How is that a bad thing?
    Yes, in this country we set a tone against those who would break the law regardless of their ethnic background, and this is no different. The fact that the majority of illegal aliens are from Latin America has no bearing on how law enforcement is meant to operate. You can’t apply pressure because they may be Latino, but you also can’t allow the law to be broken because they may be Latino. That is where the American way and PC are at odds!

  5. PWC Taxpayer

    Well said Alamo. The talking point strategy is to not deal with illegal immigration and to get get amnesty by making resistance to it racist.

  6. SA, you think it is ok to set a tone that based on psychological fear? I just finished reading The Help, a great novel about domestics in the south in the 1960’s. I find nothing good about keeping people in line through the use of fear.

    Where do we draw the line between fear and deterrant? I am not sure. but to enact laws to act as a psychological fear is just not right.

    I think a lot has to do with just being who you are vs having very bad behavior. That’s the difference.

  7. I don’t appreciate intimidation as a tactic for behaving or shutting people up–on ANY level. In fact, those who use it in parenting are often considered abusive. Those who use it in government are often despots.

    1. Very good point about despots and abusive parents.

  8. Mind-Boggled

    “I just finished reading The Help, a great novel about domestics in the south in the 1960’s. I find nothing good about keeping people in line through the use of fear.”

    MH, while I frequently disagree with your conclusions, I often see merit in your arguments. However, using a novel, which is by definition a work of fiction to bolster your argument is tantamount to the far-right using Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged” as their reason to oppose Socialism. This reminds me of the 1960’s NYC politico who made banning the “switchblade” one of his top priorities. Why? He was so powerfully moved to get them banned after seeing “West Side Story” on Broadway.

    1. @Mind-boggled, The Help was not pure fiction. On the other hand, I used it to explain my mindset, not to make a direct comparison.

      I was reminded, while I read that book, how much of the Jim Crow south was kept in line because of fear rather than actual physical management.

  9. While I’ve cautiously supported the AZ law, I believe that Prince William county ended up with a far better law and means for enforcing it, and made those changes away from “probable cause” stops for the same reasons that keep me from embracing the AZ law.

    If the goal is to deter crime, it’s a far better idea to target a guy arrested for committing a crime rather than a guy who’s dog barks too loudly… even if the second guy is actually in the country illegally. (And I’m still not sure that the AZ law doesn’t prohibit questioning the immigration status of the neighbor who made the complaint about the barking dog, if HE in some way looks/acts as though he may not be here legally.)

    Second, even though the AZ law probably is both constitutional and ethical on paper, enforcement will not occur in a vacuum. Law enforcement officers are just as human as the rest of us, and they bring their own prejudices and political/social beliefs with them into every encounter they have. There will be accusations of bigotry and of profiling, and just as with other alleged police misconduct (or if you prefer, workplace misconduct) at least a few of them will prove to be true.

    While I am a liberal–often a far left liberal–I don’t support open-borders or amnesty for everyone living here in the US illegally. Unless/until we can persuade other countries to join America (either figuratively or literally) and enact our laws and way of life, there has to be a line between “America” and “not America.” While I’m still reading about how this particular VA law has worked, pro and con, I’m far more willing to support the law VA eventually enacted, rather than the one they started with… which is essentially the AZ law.

    For those who’re on twitter and the blogs crowing about this “Three year old law in Virginia targets illegal immigrants much like Arizona’s SB 1070,” I have one question: repsac3: If 3yo law in VA that targeted illegal immigrants like AZ’s SB1070 was so good, why did VA change it?

Comments are closed.