Immigration Watch International (2)

Friday, August 6, 2010

Virginia versus the ACLU over police questioning of illegals

Note that a large part of the ACLU case is, as usual, social rather than legal: "It will also have an adverse effect on public safety as immigrants will be less likely to feel safe cooperating with law enforcement".

Note also that the legal side of the ACLU argument is based on the equal protection clause of the Constitution. Strange that they have no objection to the most blatant breach there is of that clause: "Affirmative action". What's good for the goose is obviously not good for the gander

The ACLU of Virginia today urged law enforcement to ignore Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli's opinion on their power to inquire about immigration status while opponents of illegal immigration pushed for more severe action.

Del. Robert G. Marshall, R-Prince William, who sought the opinion that Cuccinelli issued on July 30, sent a letter today to all Virginia sheriffs departments to encourage them "to do all that you can" using the powers described in the opinion to root out gangs.

Meantime, Corey A. Stewart, chairman of the Prince William Board of County Supervisors and a dogged foe of illegal immigration, said he is asking Congress to subpoena Immigration and Customs Enforcement, known as ICE, for information about criminal illegal aliens that the agency is no longer taking into physical custody.

The developments extended the contentious debate over illegal immigration that has seized the public discourse following Cuccinelli's opinion that law enforcement in Virginia can ask about the immigration status of any person they stop or arrest if they have reason to suspect that the person violated a criminal immigration law.

Gov. Bob McDonnell, who agrees with Cuccinelli's opinion, took to cable television today to talk about his push for federal approval for Virginia state police "to be cross trained as ICE agents so that we can do civil immigration enforcement" -- not just criminal.

Even Wednesday night in Roanoke, as the governor held the first of eight town hall meetings to pitch his plan for privatizing the state's liquor stores, two of the attendees' first three questions were about immigration.

Stewart's inquiry follows a car crash in Prince William County that killed a nun and critically injured two others. Carlos A. Martinelly Montano, a native of Bolivia and an illegal immigrant, is charged in the crash with third-offense driving under the influence, involuntary manslaughter and driving on a revoked license.

Today was filled with mixed messages to local law enforcement -- from the ACLU of Virginia and from Marshall.

The ACLU of Virginia urged law enforcement to disregard Cuccinelli's opinion, which is advisory and does not carry the force of law. The opinion, according to Rebecca K. Glenberg, legal director for ACLU of Virginia, does not give guidelines as to when it's justified to ask questions about immigration status.

"Because most police officers have not been trained to enforce immigration law, allowing them to question individuals about immigration status is an invitation for racial profiling and potential Equal Protection violations," she writes.

"It will also have an adverse effect on public safety as immigrants will be less likely to feel safe cooperating with law enforcement in reporting and responding to questions about crimes."

Marshall said he "cannot understand" why the ACLU would encourage ignoring the opinion of the highest ranking law enforcement official in the state. "The ACLU's position essentially allows alien terrorists and gang members to be untouchable in this country," he said. "We cannot allow this to continue."

Cuccinelli, in an interview with CNN Wednesday, noted that the new Arizona immigration law -- parts of which were temporarily blocked by a federal judge -- required law enforcement officers to inquire about immigration status. He noted that his opinion says Virginia's law enforcement officers may make such inquiries.

He said he expects that local governments around the state will devise their own policies for how their police and sheriffs should proceed.

SOURCE

No comments:

Post a Comment

Background

Postings from Brisbane, Australia by John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.) -- former member of the Australia-Soviet Friendship Society, former anarcho-capitalist and former member of the British Conservative party.

Why is "La Raza" the one Spanish term that is NEVER translated in the American mass media? Because translating it would make it a lot less respectable. It means "THE RACE" -- The mixed Hispanic "race" of Mexico. Racism is fine South of the Rio Grande only, apparently.

The "line" of this blog is that immigration should be SELECTIVE. That means that:

1). A national government should be in control of it. The U.S. and U.K. governments are not but the Australian government has shown that the government of a prosperous Western country can be. Up until its loss of office in 2007, the conservative Howard government had all but eliminated illegal immigration. The present Leftist government has however restarted the flow of illegals by repealing many of the Howard government regulations.

2). Selectivity should be based on "the content of a man's character, not on the color of his skin", as MLK said. To expand that a little: Immigrants should only be accepted if they as individuals seem likely to make a positive net contribution to the country. Many "refugees" would fail that test: Muslims and Africans particularly. Educational level should usually be a pretty fair proxy for the individual's likely value to the receiving country. There will, of course, be exceptions but it is nonetheless unlikely that a person who has not successfully completed High School will make a net positive contribution to a modern Western society.

3). Immigrants should be neither barred NOR ACCEPTED solely because they are of some particular ethnic origin. Blacks are vastly more likely to be criminal than are whites or Chinese, for instance, but some whites and some Chinese are criminal. It is the criminality that should matter, not the race.

4). The above ideas are not particularly blue-sky. They roughly describe the policies of the country where I live -- Australia. I am critical of Australian policy only insofar as the "refugee" category for admission is concerned. All governments have tended to admit as refugees many undesirables. It seems to me that more should be required of them before refugees are admitted -- for instance a higher level of education or a business background.

5). Perhaps the most amusing assertion in the immigration debate is that high-income countries like the USA and Britain NEED illegal immigrants to do low-paid menial work. "Who will pick our crops?" (etc.) is the cry. How odd it is then that Australians get all the normal services of a modern economy WITHOUT illegal immigrants! Yes: Before the pandemic, you usually COULD buy a lettuce in Australia for a dollar or thereabouts. And Australia IS a major exporter of primary products.

6). I am a libertarian conservative so I reject the "open door" policy favoured by many libertarians and many Leftists. Both those groups tend to have a love of simplistic generalizations that fail to deal with the complexity of the real world. It seems to me that if a person has the right to say whom he/she will have living with him/her in his/her own house, so a nation has the right to admit to living among them only those individuals whom they choose.

I can be reached on jonjayray@hotmail.com -- or leave a comment on any post. Abusive comments will be deleted.

Immigration Watch International (2)

Friday, August 6, 2010

No comments:

Post a Comment

Background

Other blogs

Blog Archive

Contributors