Thread: Prince Wm. Co: Hounding Immigrants UPDATED 7/10

Welcome greasemonkey to ALIPAC. And thanks for your activism. I will send e-mails to those listed to ask them to adopt the resolution.

Thanks zeezil!

Welcome greasemonkey. Good information with full detail and contact information. Thanks.

Hey Greasemonkey check out the story about Irving TX and how they are handling the immigration problem.It may be helpful.......good luck !!

Immigration proposal divides supervisors
By KEITH WALKER
kwalker@potomacnews.com
Tuesday, July 10, 2007

One Prince William County supervisor thinks that voting on John T. Stirrup's immigration resolution today might be illegal.
Another wants to hear what the county attorney and police chief have to say, while one wants to hear from county residents before voting on the resolution that would require police officers to ask people their immigration status regardless of "national origin, ethnicity or race" when they stop them for any kind of violation.

Two support Stirrup unconditionally in the resolution that would also require the police department to train officers to enforce national immigration laws and turn illegal immigrants over to the Department of Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

"I think that Stirrup's proposal is going to make it very clear that if you're illegal in Prince William, you either need to go back and become legal or face the consequences," said Prince William Chairman Corey A. Stewart, R-at large.

Maureen S. Caddigan, R-Dumfries, called Stirrup "gutsy" for proposing the resolution in a board meeting two weeks ago.

Caddigan said the preponderance of calls to her office have been in support of the resolution.

"People want something done. Our federal government's doing nothing," Caddigan said. "I'm ready to vote. I think the board of supervisors has a mandate county-wide."

John D. Jenkins said at the very least the resolution that proposes to "amend the Prince William County Code" would have to be open to public comment before the board could vote on it.

"You have to advertise an ordinance for two weeks in a newspaper of general circulation. You have to advertise the public hearing for it at the same time, and you have to have a public hearing before you vote on an ordinance," Jenkins said.

A memo to the board from the Prince William County Attorney's Office backs up Jenkins' opinion in saying, "To the extent that the proposed resolution seeks to amend the county code, that can only be accomplished, on a permanent basis, following the drafting of the proposed amendment(s) and a public hearing as required by law."

Stirrup said fine, since 95 percent of the calls to his office have been in support of the resolution.

"I anticipate that we will have a public hearing on this or other related resolutions in the near future," he said.

Jenkins also said that the county might not be able to enact the ordinance without the approval of the General Assembly.

Virginia is a Dillon Rule state, which provides that localities only have powers specifically delegated to them by the General Assembly.

So the board may not be able to vote on the resolution today.

Caddigan said she is prepared to poll the board to see if the resolution should be advertised and if public hearings should be held.

"I do support John Stirrup," she said. "We're going to have to follow the law, but we'll work through this."

Hilda M. Barg. D-Woodbridge, said she had some legal questions as well.

"I'm going to listen to the county attorney and the police chief and all of my advice will be taken from them," Barg said. "I'm not looking for a lawsuit."

In December 2005, the city of Manassas passed an ordinance which defined family, for zoning purposes, in such a way as to limit the number of people who could live together in a household. The ordinance was suspended a few weeks later because of complaints that it discriminated against Hispanic people. The ordinance faced litigation from the Department of Justice in January 2006 and was ultimately repealed in February 2006.

Stirrup said he thinks he has crafted his resolution so that it can't be similarly attacked.

He said his resolution is "in concert" and not "at cross purposes with" state and federal laws. "Legally, I think we're very comfortable passing this as a board," Stirrup said two weeks ago after he introduced the resolution.

Still, he expects a certain amount of resistance.

"Anytime any jurisdiction acts in a manner that's seen as controversial ... I think there's probably going to be some kind of legal challenge," he said Monday.

Michael C. May, R-Occoquan, is waiting to hear more.

"Illegal immigration is an issue that's of great concern to a lot of our people and I look forward to the debate tomorrow and hearing what the citizens have to say," May said Monday afternoon. "I think everyone on the Board of County Supervisors hears about it from their constituents and we want to do what we can at the local level to try and be a solution to the problem."

The American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia faxed a letter to the Board of County Supervisors Monday afternoon calling the resolution "ill-conceived."

The letter from Rebecca K. Glenberg, the legal director, and Kent Willis, executive director of the ACLU of Virginia, stated that requiring police to ask people for their immigration status will surely lead to racial profiling.

"A haphazard application of this ordinance cannot be avoided and unconstitutional targeting of individuals based on race and national origin is inevitable," the letter stated.

Human rights activist Ricardo Juarez Nava, of Mexicanos Sin Fronteras, said he too believed racial profiling would occur.

"The proposal by itself is threatening to the entire immigrant community. It doesn't matter if we are legal here or not," Juarez Nava said. "I have the perception that it is anti-immigrant, not just anti-illegal people."

In a memo to the board, Prince William Police Chief Charlie T. Deane wrote that the police need the cooperation of the immigrant community to effectively solve crimes.

If illegal immigrants are afraid that police will arrest them for being illegal, they won't step forward to help police, Dean said in the letter.

"If we create a class of silent victims and witnesses who are afraid to seek police assistance, or cooperate with the police, the consequences could be dire," he wrote.

Juarez Nava said that sort of feeling is already beginning to arise in the immigrant community at the mere news of Stirrup's resolution.

"The perception that we pick up from the community is that the people cannot trust the police anymore," Juarez said."If there is a crime and they are victims or they are witnesses, they would prefer to not call the police."

The resolution would also require county workers to verify people's immigration status before providing county services, Stirrup said.

"I believe that we are within our rights through Virginia code to do that -- that we can ask that question about immigration status to anyone who is seeking public services," Stirrup said.

The purpose of asking would be to determine who is illegal and deny them service, Stirrup said.

In an ACLU of Virginia press release that came out after the letter was sent to the board, Willis said the resolution was a blunt instrument

"There is nothing subtle about the purposes of this ordinance," Willis said. "It is a large not-welcome mat being laid down before Prince William's immigrant community and it will surely lead to discriminatory treatment of minorities, whether documented or undocumented."

Lewis and Glenberg also question a clause in the resolution that would allow any legal resident to sue the county if they find that county employees aren't asking about immigration status.

"This is a highly unusual way for the government to monitor itself," Willis said in the release. "So unusual, in fact, that one wonders if its real purpose is simply to give county residents a formal means of harassing immigrants."

http://www.potomacnews.com/servlet/Sate ... 4404&path=