Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Pooky

Immigration Enforcement

36 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Filed: Country: England
Timeline

Three year old law in Virginia targets illegal immigrants much like Arizona's SB 1070

Posted: May 21, 2010 11:09 PM EDT Updated: May 21, 2010 11:09 PM EDT

By Dan Marries

PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY, VA (KOLD) - For the last three years, a county in Virginia has remained under the radar in the immigration debate even though it has a law almost identical to Arizona's immigration law.

The ordinance in Prince William County was passed in 2007. It initially required police to check the status of detainees they suspected of being undocumented immigrants but one year later it was revised.

Officers now question all criminal suspects about their immigration status once an arrest is made.

In 2008, the University of Virginia conducted a survey to see what effects, if any, the Prince William County law had. It concluded initial fears about racial profiling did not happen.

It also show that schools saw a drop in English as a second language enrollment. There was also a drop in uninsured mothers giving birth and individuals turned over to immigration and customs enforcement.

KOLD 13 News

Well, what do you know? Seems like the anti-Arizona crowd might need a new angle or two. Same with the anti-Democrat crowd.

Perhaps the experience of Prince William County in VA, with a law passed and enacted under the BushBaby administration, where local law enforcement has been quietly getting on with the job that AZ is trying to implement on a larger scale and making it work.

And not a peep of protest in the last 3 years. :thumbs:

Edited by Pooky

Don't interrupt me when I'm talking to myself

2011-11-15.garfield.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: IR-1/CR-1 Visa Country: China
Timeline

Ordinances are Cool ! Easier to pass, IMO.

Prince William County, you ROCK!

I expect a slew of reporters headed there next week, maybe even some live interviews on Fox and CNN. YAY !!!!!

GoGoGadget NoMoreAnchorBabies!


Sometimes my language usage seems confusing - please feel free to 'read it twice', just in case !
Ya know, you can find the answer to your question with the advanced search tool, when using a PC? Ditch the handphone, come back later on a PC, and try again.

-=-=-=-=-=R E A D ! ! !=-=-=-=-=-

Whoa Nelly ! Want NVC Info? see http://www.visajourney.com/wiki/index.php/NVC_Process

Congratulations on your approval ! We All Applaud your accomplishment with Most Wonderful Kissies !

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: AOS (apr) Country: Vietnam
Timeline

I wish we had it here in my county in FL.... We have the wet foot dry foot rule and last year a boat load of cubans hit the beach a few miles from my home in pre dawn hours... they went to someones door and woke themup asking for the police.... The police responded, and were followed by CBP officers that transpoted the group toMiami for processing... within two weeks, one of the individuals was arrested, while working in a local marijuana grow house, in a local sherrifs office crackdown....

The group were processed in Miami and then resleased to relatives living here in the US pending further processing by DoS...

Since the climate in FL is so similar to many latin American countries, many of the individuals here without visas,or with expired visas hide amongst those who have immigrated here legally. As a current candidate for FL Governor says.... We have laws in place, let law enforcement, enforce them... its a shame that ICE refuses to enforce the policies that exist to protect our borders and control immigration into the country.

As has been said by others here from FL as well as me, It is common to get asked for ID/documentation of who we are when we come in contact with law enforcement.... IMO its a result of the sheer number of transients that come here looking to take advantage of the US system or elderly FL residents...

We have local ordinances governing so many different aspects of day to day life, why not some that protect us from those that are here through subversive means...


"Every one of us bears within himself the possibilty of all passions, all destinies of life in all its forms. Nothing human is foreign to us" - Edward G. Robinson.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: IR-1/CR-1 Visa Country: China
Timeline

I thought Cubanos get special treatment from USCIS - if that's not the case anymore - not know what to say.


Sometimes my language usage seems confusing - please feel free to 'read it twice', just in case !
Ya know, you can find the answer to your question with the advanced search tool, when using a PC? Ditch the handphone, come back later on a PC, and try again.

-=-=-=-=-=R E A D ! ! !=-=-=-=-=-

Whoa Nelly ! Want NVC Info? see http://www.visajourney.com/wiki/index.php/NVC_Process

Congratulations on your approval ! We All Applaud your accomplishment with Most Wonderful Kissies !

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: AOS (apr) Country: Vietnam
Timeline

They get very special treatment ..... one of the side effects of the US policy / sanctions against Cuba... by allowing them to stay here... the Govt is in a sense reaffirming how 'bad' Cuba is... its amazing that if a boat is stopped yards from shore, the people are sent back to Cuba.. as soon as they hit the beach, they can stay...

It seems similar to how we may very soon end up treating so many other immigrants here with expired visas or no visa at all... Ok you are here, you can stay now....


"Every one of us bears within himself the possibilty of all passions, all destinies of life in all its forms. Nothing human is foreign to us" - Edward G. Robinson.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: Other Country: Afghanistan
Timeline

I'm going to continue to hammer away at the major flaw of the AZ law - the fact that immigration comes up at a lawful stop.

Two "similar" laws have now been posted here. First the California law and now this one. Both share a key difference to the AZ law, they require an arrest! There is clear reason for this.

Edited by Sousuke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: Other Country: Israel
Timeline

In 2005, SCOTUS unanimously ruled that law enforcement officers can stop anyone on suspicion of being illegal and for no other reason. I don't remember the title of the case, but it shows that their stand on the issue is more hard line than AZ's or PWC, VA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: Other Country: Afghanistan
Timeline

In 2005, SCOTUS unanimously ruled that law enforcement officers can stop anyone on suspicion of being illegal and for no other reason. I don't remember the title of the case, but it shows that their stand on the issue is more hard line than AZ's or PWC, VA.

Are you referring to this?

MUEHLER et al. v. MENA

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

No. 03—1423.Argued December 8, 2004–Decided March 22, 2005

Respondent Mena and others were detained in handcuffs during a search of the premises they occupied. Petitioners were lead members of a police detachment executing a search warrant of these premises for, inter alia, deadly weapons and evidence of gang membership. Mena sued the officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the District Court found in her favor. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that the use of handcuffs to detain Mena during the search violated the Fourth Amendment and that the officers’ questioning of Mena about her immigration status during the detention constituted an independent Fourth Amendment violation.

Held:

1. Mena’s detention in handcuffs for the length of the search did not violate the Fourth Amendment. That detention is consistent with Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692, 705, in which the Court held that officers executing a search warrant for contraband have the authority “to detain the occupants of the premises while a proper search is conducted.” The Court there noted that minimizing the risk of harm to officers is a substantial justification for detaining an occupant during a search, id., at 702—703, and ruled that an officer’s authority to detain incident to a search is categorical and does not depend on the “quantum of proof justifying detention or the extent of the intrusion to be imposed by the seizure,” id., at 705, n. 19. Because a warrant existed to search the premises and Mena was an occupant of the premises at the time of the search, her detention for the duration of the search was reasonable under Summers. Inherent in Summers’ authorization to detain is the authority to use reasonable force to effectuate the detention. See Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396. The use of force in the form of handcuffs to detain Mena was reasonable because the governmental interest in minimizing the risk of harm to both officers and occupants, at its maximum when a warrant authorizes a search for weapons and a wanted gang member resides on the premises, outweighs the marginal intrusion. See id., at 396—397. Moreover, the need to detain multiple occupants made the use of handcuffs all the more reasonable. Cf. Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408, 414. Although the duration of a detention can affect the balance of interests, the 2- to 3-hour detention in handcuffs in this case does not outweigh the government’s continuing safety interests. Pp. 4—7.

2. The officers’ questioning of Mena about her immigration status during her detention did not violate her Fourth Amendment rights. The Ninth Circuit’s holding to the contrary appears premised on the assumption that the officers were required to have independent reasonable suspicion in order to so question Mena. However, this Court has “held repeatedly that mere police questioning does not constitute a seizure.” Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 434. Because Mena’s initial detention was lawful and the Ninth Circuit did not hold that the detention was prolonged by the questioning, there was no additional seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and, therefore, no additional Fourth Amendment justification for inquiring about Mena’s immigration status was required. Cf. Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. ___ , ___ (slip op., at 2—4). Pp. 7—8.

3. Because the Ninth Circuit did not address Mena’s alternative argument that her detention extended beyond the time the police completed the tasks incident to the search, this Court declines to address it. See, e.g., Pierce County v. Guillen, 537 U.S. 129, 148, n. 10. Pp. 8—9.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: Citizen (apr) Country: Brazil
Timeline

:whistle:

:bonk:

there's also a mena, texas too.


* ~ * Charles * ~ *
 

I carry a gun because a cop is too heavy.

 

USE THE REPORT BUTTON INSTEAD OF MESSAGING A MODERATOR!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: K-1 Visa Country: United Kingdom
Timeline

In 2005, SCOTUS unanimously ruled that law enforcement officers can stop anyone on suspicion of being illegal and for no other reason. I don't remember the title of the case, but it shows that their stand on the issue is more hard line than AZ's or PWC, VA.

One of the important differences is that the AZ law requires police to stop everybody who looks, you know, that way, and if regular folks think they aren't being fascist--ahem, I mean diligent--enough, they can SUE THEM.

So it does go above and beyond in special, warm, happy, you-will-harass-the-brown-people-OR ELSE kinds of ways.


owl.jpg

I-129F Sent : 2010-02-01

I-129F NOA1 : 2010-02-08

I-129F NOA2 : 2010-03-12

NVC Received : 2010-03-18

NVC Left : 2010-03-22

Consulate Received : 2010-04-12

Packet 3 Received : 2010-04-14

Packet 3 Sent : 2010-04-16 (logged 2010-04-27)

Packet 4 Received : 2010-04-29

Interview Date : 2010-06-02

Interview Result : APPROVED!!!!!!

Visa in hand: 2010-06-09

POE: 2010-06-11

We is married now!: 2010-06-24

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: Country: England
Timeline

One of the important differences is that the AZ law requires police to stop everybody who looks, you know, that way, and if regular folks think they aren't being fascist--ahem, I mean diligent--enough, they can SUE THEM.

So it does go above and beyond in special, warm, happy, you-will-harass-the-brown-people-OR ELSE kinds of ways.

You need to go read and understand the proposed legislation before you post such an ill-informed response again. :angry:


Don't interrupt me when I'm talking to myself

2011-11-15.garfield.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: K-1 Visa Country: United Kingdom
Timeline

You need to go read and understand the proposed legislation before you post such an ill-informed response again. :angry:

Citation? The SCOTUS decision doesn't involve the capacity to sue based on a citizen's judgement that the law isn't being enforced to his satisfaction. The AZ law does provide for such.


owl.jpg

I-129F Sent : 2010-02-01

I-129F NOA1 : 2010-02-08

I-129F NOA2 : 2010-03-12

NVC Received : 2010-03-18

NVC Left : 2010-03-22

Consulate Received : 2010-04-12

Packet 3 Received : 2010-04-14

Packet 3 Sent : 2010-04-16 (logged 2010-04-27)

Packet 4 Received : 2010-04-29

Interview Date : 2010-06-02

Interview Result : APPROVED!!!!!!

Visa in hand: 2010-06-09

POE: 2010-06-11

We is married now!: 2010-06-24

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: Country: England
Timeline

One of the important differences is that the AZ law requires police to stop everybody who looks, you know, that way.

Basic misrepresentation. The proposal does not require police to stop people if they "look a certain way," and if you believe it does, then the anti-AZ SB1070 have done their job on you. What it does is allow local and state law enforcement, where reasonable suspicion exists to inquire about and confirm the immigration status of someone they have already lawfully stopped. Major difference, there.


Don't interrupt me when I'm talking to myself

2011-11-15.garfield.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: K-1 Visa Country: United Kingdom
Timeline

Basic misrepresentation. The proposal does not require police to stop people if they "look a certain way," and if you believe it does, then the anti-AZ SB1070 have done their job on you. What it does is allow local and state law enforcement, where reasonable suspicion exists to inquire about and confirm the immigration status of someone they have already lawfully stopped. Major difference, there.

I think you're responding to my politics rather than my point. But I am intrigued by your implied assertion that the initial stop does not involve immigration at all, and only in the event of an otherwise unrelated stop does the legal/illegal question arise for the officer. If this is in fact the case, I'm very relieved and would like to see that citation and admit my misunderstanding.

Thank you in advance for providing the link.


owl.jpg

I-129F Sent : 2010-02-01

I-129F NOA1 : 2010-02-08

I-129F NOA2 : 2010-03-12

NVC Received : 2010-03-18

NVC Left : 2010-03-22

Consulate Received : 2010-04-12

Packet 3 Received : 2010-04-14

Packet 3 Sent : 2010-04-16 (logged 2010-04-27)

Packet 4 Received : 2010-04-29

Interview Date : 2010-06-02

Interview Result : APPROVED!!!!!!

Visa in hand: 2010-06-09

POE: 2010-06-11

We is married now!: 2010-06-24

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
- Back to Top -


Important Disclaimer: Please read carefully the Visajourney.com Terms of Service. If you do not agree to the Terms of Service you should not access or view any page (including this page) on VisaJourney.com. Answers and comments provided on Visajourney.com Forums are general information, and are not intended to substitute for informed professional medical, psychiatric, psychological, tax, legal, investment, accounting, or other professional advice. Visajourney.com does not endorse, and expressly disclaims liability for any product, manufacturer, distributor, service or service provider mentioned or any opinion expressed in answers or comments. VisaJourney.com does not condone immigration fraud in any way, shape or manner. VisaJourney.com recommends that if any member or user knows directly of someone involved in fraudulent or illegal activity, that they report such activity directly to the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. You can contact ICE via email at Immigration.Reply@dhs.gov or you can telephone ICE at 1-866-347-2423. All reported threads/posts containing reference to immigration fraud or illegal activities will be removed from this board. If you feel that you have found inappropriate content, please let us know by contacting us here with a url link to that content. Thank you.
×
×
  • Create New...