Immigration Enforcement

[Pooky 3,784]

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.

Edited May 22, 2010 by Pooky

[Darnell 8,478]

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!

[ScottThuy 140]

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...

[Darnell 8,478]

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

[ScottThuy 140]

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....

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

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 May 22, 2010 by Sousuke

[Sofiyya 1,687]

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.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

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.

[mawilson 2,133]

MUEHLER et al. v. MENA

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

there's also a mena, texas too.

[twowls 217]

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.

[Pooky 3,784]

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.

[twowls 217]

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

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.

[Pooky 3,784]

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.

[twowls 217]

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.