Virginia Attorney General Rules Police Can Check Immigration

[71ragtopgoat 23]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08 ... on-status/

 

Looks like more states are starting to revolt at the feds inaction on border security and illegals.

Not a moment to soon as the financial stress and security risks with our borders have reached crisis levels never seen before.

 

 

In a decision that could lay the groundwork for an Arizona-style immigration policy, Virginia's attorney general said state law enforcement officers are allowed to check the immigration status of anyone "stopped or arrested."

 

Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli issued the legal opinion Friday extending that authority to Virginia police in response to an inquiry over whether his state could mirror the policies passed into law in Arizona.

 

"It is my opinion that Virginia law enforcement officers, including conservation officers may, like Arizona police officers, inquire into the immigration status of persons stopped or arrested," he wrote.

 

The decision comes after a federal judge blocked Arizona from implementing its provision that would require law enforcement to check the immigration status of anyone they stop and suspect of being an illegal immigrant.

 

Cuccinelli's ruling could justify that kind of policy in Virginia. However, Cuccinelli reiterated in the opinion a prior finding that while state officers have the authority to arrest suspects on criminal immigration violations, they are advised against arresting over civil immigration violations. Overstaying a visa would fall under the latter category.

 

The state's top attorney wrote the opinion in response to a question from state Del. Bob Marshall, who represents Prince William County.

 

Marshall's county implemented a law that requires police to check the immigration status of everyone they arrest -- but not everyone they come in legal contact with.

[SpecOps2087 3]

Great news

[average joe 5]

Two down, forty eight to go....

[devils4ever 0]

I'm sure this will be challenged by the administration just like in Arizona.

[Wolfy 51]

Good let Obama challenge it. As soon as he used the federal gov to sue AZ his poll numbers have steadily dropped. How do you think it would look if he attacked another state?

[bbk 188]

Playing devil's advocate, what if regular Joe, a US-born citizen, happened to forget his wallet for whatever dumb reason, and is pulled over. The officer then asks for proof of immigration status; and even though the vehicle might be insured to Joe's name-- it couldn't be verified because he doesn't have his wallet (no photo ID like a DL or CAC). What measures could be taken by the authorities at that point? (Aside from getting a ticket or whatnot for failure to exhibit documents.)

 

I'm all for clamping down on illegal immigration, but I'm just curious where that thin line is drawn. The overwhelming sentiment in regards to this topic reminds me faintly of the feeling towards the PATRIOT Act. While the PATRIOT Act was/is a hell of a tool utilized towards a specific mission, the public, and I've seen it first hand, has seen how it can be abused (albeit most of the abuse was coming from the Federal level, and not the local [AFAIK]). I'm sure Joe in the prior example would be fine as soon as he was able to prove he's a US born citizen (or naturalized, or on a legit visa, etc)-- but what would his treatment be like between the time he's suspected of being an alleged illegal to when he can prove he's legit? And, ultimately this is where the argument lies, would an individual of certain backgrounds be asked certain questions or be more suspected then individuals of the more dominant groups? I'm not saying that the system is racist, blah blah blah-- I'm simply pointing something out that is on the minds of people (namely minorities).

 

Of course everything lies in what the law states (which I'm not fully versed). I'm not trying to interpret or point out deficiencies or anything of the sort. I'm simply curious what this generic (and plausible) scenario would possibly result, as it could have far-reaching implications beyond just illegal immigration, but policing society as a whole.

[KpdPipes 388]

Playing devil's advocate, what if regular Joe, a US-born citizen, happened to forget his wallet for whatever dumb reason, and is pulled over. The officer then asks for proof of immigration status; and even though the vehicle might be insured to Joe's name-- it couldn't be verified because he doesn't have his wallet (no photo ID like a DL or CAC). What measures could be taken by the authorities at that point? (Aside from getting a ticket or whatnot for failure to exhibit documents.)

 

I'm all for clamping down on illegal immigration, but I'm just curious where that thin line is drawn. The overwhelming sentiment in regards to this topic reminds me faintly of the feeling towards the PATRIOT Act. While the PATRIOT Act was/is a hell of a tool utilized towards a specific mission, the public, and I've seen it first hand, has seen how it can be abused (albeit most of the abuse was coming from the Federal level, and not the local [AFAIK]). I'm sure Joe in the prior example would be fine as soon as he was able to prove he's a US born citizen (or naturalized, or on a legit visa, etc)-- but what would his treatment be like between the time he's suspected of being an alleged illegal to when he can prove he's legit? And, ultimately this is where the argument lies, would an individual of certain backgrounds be asked certain questions or be more suspected then individuals of the more dominant groups? I'm not saying that the system is racist, blah blah blah-- I'm simply pointing something out that is on the minds of people (namely minorities).

 

Of course everything lies in what the law states (which I'm not fully versed). I'm not trying to interpret or point out deficiencies or anything of the sort. I'm simply curious what this generic (and plausible) scenario would possibly result, as it could have far-reaching implications beyond just illegal immigration, but policing society as a whole.

 

Ok..again Devils Advocate, if it's NJ, his DL is attached to his Registration (as it is in most states) In NJ as well so is a Photo, plus there are wnough basic questions that can be asked that would show that yes, that person is in fact US born.

[wsl 2]

Immigration status is imprinted on driver's licenses in *some* states, and if someone is detained while someone else has to bring his wallet over. The BS about "having to show papers" is just that BS. Its federal law that every legal immigrant has to always have his/her green card/passport on them. They're trying to compare it to Nazi Germany on false basis.

 

If innocent people forget to carry ID on them and are inconvenienced for a few hours, I bet they won't forget next time. The law is the law and "forgetting' isn't a viable excuse. If someone was arrested for hitting someone while driving drunk, would you feel sorry for the guy that "forgot" he was drinking?

 

Remember, they aren't just going up to people and saying "you look illegal, show us ID", they're running checks on people already stopped or arrested. And all they have to do is run your social security # through e-verify and it will show name, etc.. so you either back it up in some way or you're processed for being illegal. Its not like they're going to keep someone in jail for weeks mistakenly unless they refuse to actually run the ID's. All you do is use your phone call to have someone bring your ID to the station, have the officer accompany you to your house where you forgot it, or have an officer go to the house and retrieve it.

[71ragtopgoat 23]

Like any other law we enforce it wont be 100% perfect all the time.

But we have to start to take control over our country and guests illegal or not who are in it. This catch and release attitude that we have practiced since the first amnesty in 86 is a disaster. In 86 there were three million illegals today there's an estimated 12 to 30 million. The sad part is no one really knows how many but they should.