Excellent Job By Governor McDonnell

Lowell has more.  I'm impressed.

See the original story here.

Comments

[Brian W. Schoeneman]

While I agree with the Governor that it's not a good idea to allow law enforcement to stop people randomly and ask for their citizenship papers, that's not what the Arizona law does.

Unfortunately, there's too much emotion going around about the law and not enough fact. The police out there can't just randomly stop people and ask for their papers.

So while I agree with the Governor's answer to the question, the question itself "But should legal immigrants be required to carry papers with them at all times?" isn't an accurate representation of what the Arizona law does.

Besides, does anybody really leave the house without some kind of ID? I don't think I've left the house for more than 10 minutes without ID (except by accident) since I was 16.

Some people are acting like Arizona has just turned itself into Berlin in 1938. They haven't.

[I do]

Obviously you're not a jogger Brian.

[Not Larry Sabato]

Brian just has a really large anus (from his head being up it so often) and puts his ID there when he jogs.

[NotBrianSchoeneman]

How much is Brian S. being paid to spew this constant stream of right-wing bull**** out his arse?

[Not Larry Sabato]

I love how we both just made references to Brian's ass within a minute of each other. Scary.

[Brian W. Schoeneman]

I have a fanny pack where I keep my wallet, my house key and my iPod when I jog. Do you guys all leave without keys too?

Any of you ever get stopped by a cop while jogging?

If you'd rather talk about my ass than about the fact that Arizona's law isn't the beginning of a fascist police state, feel free.

[Gretchen Laskas]

Good for Bob McDonnell!

I don't think Arizona is turning into Berlin 1938, but that doesn't mean what has happened is a good thing. I'm sure that most people in law enforcement will enact the law with the best of intentions and with due process.

But people are human (sort of like "accidents happen" in the energy world?) and abuse of power is something that EVERY American should be concerned about. The potential here for the abuse of power is simply too great in my opinion.

For the record, I often go without ID, when taking a walk (often to my local convenience store!!) or to the gym or accompanying my family to a place I would rather not carry a purse. (Like many women, I'm not accustomed to carrying things in my pockets.) So yes, I do often leave my house without any "papers" proving who I am.

Another small incident -- we have friends from Argentina who were vacationing in NYC when they lost their passports. These are international travelers (he's Cambridge educated) but, well, "mistakes happen". The black humor joke we're all telling each other is "Thankfully you weren't in Arizona." Both are very "Hispanic" looking, after all....

[Brian W. Schoeneman]

All I did was ask if folks really leave the house without ID. Apparently I'm some kind of exception because I don't.

Here's what people don't seem to realize - if you are out in public without ID and you do something that brings police attention to you - say, you spit on the ground or you're drinking a soda on the Metro - and you can't prove your identity, you're going to get arrested.

Even if it's just a ticketable offense, if the police officer can't determine who you are, he's going to detain you until he can. I have a friend who spent three hours in a police station for jumping the turnstiles in New York - a ticketable offense - because he didn't have ID and couldn't prove his identity.

This is a standard, SOP procedure for police across the country. It's not unconstitutional, and it's not the beginnings of a police state.

I wish we could all take a step back from the hyperventilating about this law and look at it rationally.

[Dan]

Looking at it rationally, I think it is the sort of thing conservatives would have a problem with.

[Gretchen Laskas]

Hmmmm...I think I'm breathing pretty normally (allergy season being almost over) and thought I was looking at it rationally. I see the potential for great abuse of power, which I don't want in my country. My feelings on this subject aren't only about this bill, although this bill has thrown my thoughts on issues of personal liberty into sharp relief.

[TomPaine]

Dan:

True conservatives would have a problen but not the nativist reactionary know-nothings.

[NotJohnSMosby]

Brian, as a white guy jogging in a white neighborhood, I doubt if you do get stopped by police that often.

[PWConservative]

If this law goes national, will I need to carry an ID while surfing?

[Brian W. Schoeneman]

NJSM, I don't think you'd call my neighborhood a "white" neighborhood. Most of my neighbors are Asian and Middle Eastern. Then again, I tend to think of things in those terms.

Gretchen, I don't see the potential for abuse to be any greater than it already is. Generally, police can get away with jacking up almost anyone for any reason, and they frequently do. Police aren't going to be any more likely to abuse their power under this law than they would be before it. If police abuse this discretion, they're opening themselves up to civil rights lawsuits.

Dan and TP, I would say most libertarians would have a problem with the law, but I think most conservatives would view the actual law as a rational attempt to resolve a problem that is plaguing Arizona.

The problem is that what the law actually does and the caricatured version of it that has some people freaking out are two very different things.

[Brian W. Schoeneman]

That should read "I don't tend to think of things in those terms."

[Bob]

Brian,

No, I don't leave my house without ID. What I DO leave my house without is proof of citizenship.

Legal immigrants are required by federal law to carry their green card at all times. I'm not worried about them. I'm worried about CITIZENS. A driver's license, even a social security card, is NOT proof of citizenship, or even proof of legal status. Arizona has already made clear that they will require more than a driver's license.

So, unless you carry around your passport or birth certificate at all times, then you too would have a problem if challenged.

Of course you won't be challenged, as you're white, but that's a separate issue.

[Gretchen Laskas]

Given that the potential for abuse is already high, I don't see any reason to provide a law that would sanction greater power. Forgive me, but the answer that "everyone is already doing it" doesn't go over very well in my home -- I'm the mother of a teenager after all!!

[reston libertarian]

I was wondering if I heard this correctly on WTOP yesterday.

Gov. McDonnell showed a very even temperament when responding to questions about the Arizona law, and is to be commended.

Thankfully we have a governor unlikely to sign such a law here in the Commonwealth.

[Brian W. Schoeneman]

Gretchen, I'm not saying that "everyone is already doing it" is the excuse. I'm saying that the law doesn't give these guys any more power than they already have to abuse. Abuse of power is abuse of power - not having this power won't stop someone who intends to abuse their power. They'll do it anyway.

Bob, if Arizona is requiring more than a driver's license, than no one is going to be able to prove their citizenship. I hadn't seen they were demanding more than a driver's license. If that's the case, then I can see the issue.

[Gretchen Laskas]

It gives another level of justification for anyone accused of abusing power. (As I said, my concerns on this subject go far beyond this particular law.)

It's easy for someone like me to sit here and say that anyone unjustly accused or harassed has legal recourse. And yes, technically that's true. I am, after all, a white, upper middle class woman (married to an attorney) with an impeccable American English accent who is mindful of authority, but not intimidated by it. So yes, if someone like me is ever affected by this law then there will be repercussions.

But let's be honest -- how many people like me are going to be stopped, questioned or even noticed for more than a glance?

I've posted this story before, but it made me truly mindful of how complicated these issues can be. When I lived in New Haven, CT, I stopped in a local convenience store to buy a copy of the Washington Post. On the top of my bag as a candy bar, which I had brought from home. When I reached the counter, I realized that I likely looked rather suspicious, buying the newspaper, but not the candy bar. I hadn't done anything WRONG, of course, but if I had been behind the counter, I would have noted that it didn't LOOK right.

But the truth was, I could have robbed the candy section blind. The clerks behind the counter were too busy watching the two African-American teenagers who had come in after me. They weren't worried about the young white woman buying the Washington Post -- that's one of those moments where you realize that my day to day world isn't necessarily another's, even though no one, that I could see, had done anything differently at all.

[Bob]

Brian,

According to this article: http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/scarce/az-truck-driver-forced-show-birth-certifica

it wasn't enough. And according to this one:
http://tucsoncitizen.com/mark-evans/archives/235

an ARIZONA driver's license will be sufficient, but if you're from out of state you'll need a passport.

[NovaRep]

Ben,

Maybe this will make you pause before you go into your usual rants against the Governor.

[change]

Although I would like to read the legislation before to much comment, I have yet to find the actual language of the bill. (if someone finds it please post a link).

However, having seen comment on both sides regarding this I am inclined to believe that the bill requires a valid reason for confronting a person (ie they are committing an offence) and they must have either a valid Arizona ID. Or a valid ID from another state.
Seems pretty innocuous to me, not to mention pretty logical.
But, as usual, many ubers get their panties in a wad over that which they know nothing; and start demonstrating, bitching and causing the usual nuisance (throwing bottles at cops..etc..).
If the “tea party” group were acting like animals in this manner they would be castigated in the press (not to mention on liberal blogs) for these actions.

I can’t wait for “cinco de mayo” to see how many ubers are arrested for acting like idiots instead of peacefully protesting.

Btw.. anyone who goes out without ID do themselves no favor, suppose you are “jogging” and get hit by a drunk illegal, how will they know how to identify your corpse?
You should show more concern for yourself and your family.

[NotJohnSMosby]

Change, if any of us ran you over by accident - or otherwise - I would only hope that someone would steal your wallet before the paramedics arrived. And that any passing dogs would take a piss on you while you were on the ground.

[Gretchen Laskas]

When did I throw a bottle at anyone?

[Spock]

Change- the protests are on May Day not May 5th....BVBL has some learnin to do...huh?

[HisRoc]

I have a simple question.

I used to work in an office building in Alexandria that also contained the local ICE office. About once every week or two, we would come to work and find a half dozen ICE vans lined up in the front driveway with ICE agents escorting Hispanic-looking people in tuff-ties into the building two at a time.

I once asked one of the ICE agents to explain what was going on. He was very helpful. When an investigation indicated that a large number of illegals were living in a certain apartment building or working in a certain company, they would conduct a raid. They would detain anyone who could not establish legal status and bring them to the ICE office where they could call anyone who could bring the documents in. In the meanwhile, they would be placed in holding cells. Those who failed to produce documents by the end of the day would be transported to a more permanent detention facility (Alexandria jail?) and charged with violation of immigration law.

Now, my question: how is this lawful and constitutional and the Arizona law is racist and unconstitutional?

[change]

Hisroc,

There you go with the facts again…

Notjohn,
Just the understanding and concern I would expect from a hypocrite lib (thanks for the confirmation.) Were you one of those in NY who walked past the poor homeless man dying on the street after he saved a woman from a crime and personal harm? You talk like the type.

Gretch,

I did not say that you threw any bottles but if you believe you were the focus of my post, and only asked about “throwing bottles” does that mean that you admit to the “bitching and causing the usual nuisance”? (lol)

I have faith that you will one day remove yourself from the dark side.

[HisRoc]

Well, I have to admit that I am disappointed by the lack of response to my simple question. Are all the liberals on this thread too busy painting protest signs for May Day to explain how the Arizona law differs from existing Federal law?

For example, resident aliens are required by existing Federal law to carry lawful status documentation (green card) with them at all times and produce it on demand.

Here is a link to the actual text of the Arizona law, for those few posting here (rolling my eyes) who haven't actually read it.

www.courthousenews.com/2010/04/16/AzSB1070.pdf

[truthnjustice]

HisRoc I'll take a shot!

The Arizona law uses an undefined "reasonable suspicion" of being a foreigner standard that according to many law enforcement officers leaves them too much discretion to discriminate in how they demand paperwork and too little guidance as to how avoid getting into a legal quagmire! And law enforcement in AZ now has one more unfunded mandate to enforce in desparate budget times rather than working to fund the overstretched safety net there

There is nothing in federal law that assigns law enforcement officers the duty to stop people on the street and demand they produce their paperwork on "reasonable suspicion" of being a foreigner -- I defy you HisRoc to prove otherwise (provide the name of the law and the statutory language)

Good for McDonnell for opposing this step towards fascism -- if only he was not reinstating sectarian prayers by police chaplains, he might actually be on a good roll right now

[HisRoc]

truthnjustice,

Are you kidding me?

"There is nothing in federal law that assigns law enforcement officers the duty to stop people on the street and demand they produce their paperwork on "reasonable suspicion" of being a foreigner..."

First, go read the actual text of the Arizona law and quote where it requires the assignment of law enforcement officers to stop people on the streets and demand documents.

Second, knocking on people's doors in apartment buildings and boarding houses at 5 AM or sealing off a company work location at 8 AM and detaining everyone inside (which is exactly what ICE does today) is somehow less onerous?

Third, where in the Arizona law are these document checks "mandated" rather than authorized?

Sorry, no prize. But, thanks for playing.

[Brian W. Schoeneman]

Truthnjustice, "reasonable suspicion" isn't undefined. It's one of the most common standards police are trained on how to use - it's the standard for a "Terry Stop", named after the Supreme Court case Terry v. Ohio, which created the standard.

If there are LEOs out there who don't know how to apply a reasonable suspicion standard, I think they'd better brush up on their 4th amendment training. They should have, at the very least, the same training a second year law student has in criminal procedure.

[Brian W. Schoeneman]

Truthnjustice, to answer your other question, Border Patrol agents at the border are permitted, under a Supreme Court decision construing Congress' grant of authority to CBP, to engage in suspicionless searches of individuals crossing the border. United States v. Montoya de Hernandez, 473 U.S. 531 (1985).

[DanielK]

Wow....I amazed at how little people know about this topic from an enforcement standpoint. I have gotten a lot of "I thought you were one of us" when people (Dems) here my position but it is the correct one.

Anyone who thinks that cops are going to go and simply walk up and harass a Hispanic looking person is a moron. No offense, but if a cop wants to engage you they will figure out a way to do it. For example, if a cop wants to pull you over there are enough traffic code to find an offense. (See Prousse v. Delaware) that puts that encounter at the standard of probable cause where from there their questioning can easily determine if there is suspicious to prove they are illegal. Can't tell you their address, don't have a license but driving a car, false identification or social security number etc. Brian is absolutely right, if you get pulled over for a traffic offense and can't produce ANY sort of ID guess what? You're going to jail. You can't be released on a summons under that circumstance. Also, you can get a drivers license in Virginia unless you are here legally and then you have to show your "papers" at the DMV.

The better option would have been to authorize all officers in AZ with deputization under 287 g which officers can use that power in the course of their primary criminal investigations. PW and Deane backed down from pressure, because it was being used effectively and getting illegals deported. Joe Arrpio for example is using proper law enforcement pratices in his jurisdiction. Remember, just because people like it doesn't make it illegal or wrong.

[Rtwng Extrmst]

Much like the case of Mark Rubio the Left is twisting what the Governor said for their own purposes.

First the Governor said he had not read the law and was not familiar with it.

Then after the radio interviewer sets up a strawman question that does not at all accurately describe the requirements of the AZ law; interviewer asks: "require law enforcement to check papers of those that they considered reasonably suspicious", the governor answers the strawman question with the quote above included. His answer though was to a question about nothing since the AZ law does not require this.

Finally the Governor notes that VA has a law that "requires a determination" of the immigrant status for "anyone that is arrested, not as a reason to stop them for checking". This is almost exactly what the AZ law requires. The only difference is that under the AZ law they don't yet have to be arrested, but they have to have been stopped for some other violation of the law first. This is close enough to the VA law to be negligible in its execution. Based on his support of the current VA law, had the question been asked accurately about the AZ law, I think he would have likely answered in the affirmative, that he would sign the bill in VA.

Finally the Governor clearly states that this is all happening because the Feds have refused to enforce current immigration law, and that enforcement of current law is what is needed. He says the Feds need to secure our borders and enforce existing law. Something that if they were doing, then AZ would not need to pass this law in the first place! Right-on Gov. McDonnell!

You guys on the Left need to start looking at the facts and stop trying to pull the wool over peoples' eyes.

[Rtwng Extrmst]

Another point... Isn't it a bit racist to allow a certain cultural bloc to be able to skirt immigration law and make others abide by it? Those of you who think these illegal aliens from central America (I like the phrase "unregistered Democrats" that I heard recently) should be allowed to just squat here and become citizens, isn't that a bit racist to apply that standard to them and then not allow every other race and culture across the globe to just enter in without any limit? In other words, shouldn't we just remove all our immigration laws in order to be fair to the rest of the world?

[HisRoc]

Rtwng Extrmst,

Be careful. The PC definition of "racism" is limited to white Europeans oppressing people of color. Arabs selling Africans into slavery is off-limits, as is African-American resentment of Asians and Hispanic resentment of African-Americans.

BTW, don't accuse illegals of just squatting here. They are "undocumented workers."

"Calling illegal aliens 'undocumented workers' is like calling drug dealers 'undocumented pharmacists.'"
-Robert A. Hall, Marine Corps veteran and former Massachusetts State Senator

[Spock]

"Joe Arrpio for example is using proper law enforcement pratices in his jurisdiction. Remember, just because people like it doesn't make it illegal or wrong."

Any Democrat who is supporting Arpio needs to leave the party!

NOW!

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jan/09/nation/la-na-arpaio9-2010jan09

I knew you were scum, Dan, but I didn't know you were THIS scummy.

You are NOT a Democrat, you're a Dixiecrat, stop trying to F with everyone and play these games.

More of the public needs to be made aware of the likes of you, dirtball.

[Brian W. Schoeneman]

That's a great way to win elections Spock - tell your voters to leave your party.

Dan, you're welcome on our side of the aisle - where, at least, we recognize that your views as a law enforcement officer might be informed just slightly by your job.

[Spock]

Brian- I am not a Dem, I honestly don't care much for either party.

But, the Dems are supposed to be the party of the civil rights movement.

When a member of this party is showing support for a sheriff who has been a declared hero for white supremacist groups, it's not about party politics, it's about how that person can hurt their party and the society he is living in.

Does having someone like him as an LE officer AND involved with politics going to turn Fairfax into Arizona?

I think given his past statements we all have a right to ask these questions and challenge whether he should be in the positions he is in whether it is in LE or politics and the potentially dangerous combo of the two.

More links about Dan's big hero:

From Crooks and Liars

http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/sheriff-joe-arpaio-says-hi-his-neo-n

And a white power site singing his praises:

http://www.whitecivilrights.com/?p=3417#more-3417

Brian, I know there are more than enough members of your party who relate to this sort of ideology and welcome it into their party, but, honestly thought better of you.

You want someone who supports heros of the "white race" to change sides and join you?

Take him and you can deal with him...

[DanielK]

Thanks Brian, of course I don't consider Spock party of my party but clearly I'm the odd man out because I actually believe in the enforcement of our laws. Spock and many others don't like the fact that police act within the law to carry out their jobs. Reasonable suspicion in a standard set and followed everyday. It's unfortunate that my party, probably soon to be former party refuses that enforcement of current laws is unacceptable and those who have broken the law should be rewarded with citizenship!

[Spock]

More of Dan's co-patriots who share his opinions of Arpaio:

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t695945/

(warning, it is a very racist site!)

[DanielK]

Spock, your hypocrisy is amazing but as usual I am not surprised. If you have a problem with me as a law enforcement officer being invovked in the political spectrum than that is your problem. I didn't give up my Constitutional rights to associate and have opinions about laws. Also, why aren't you angry about the officer in AZ who is suing over this law? Also, I remember a every striking comment you made in support of convicted cop killer Mumia Adu Jamal and saying he should have done more as in killing more cops. So you support that while I support a Sheriff who is doing his job within the context of the law (287g).

So, as usual your hypocrisy and crazy immagination once again takes the cake. If you think Fairfax or anywhere in Virginia is going to become like Arizona then that is your own opinion. But guess what, law enforcement officials, chiefs and sheriffs will be the ones giving their input as to whether it would be beneficial. I have the right to make whatever judgement or opinion I have just like you have the right to make uninformed and ignorant comparisons and comments.

[Spock]

Dan -you really suck at spin.

This isn't about Mumia, who BTW there is still shaky evidence as to his actual guilt!

This is about not only your support for the draconian law just past in AZ, BUT the fact that you support a known racist sheriff, who, btw, is so horrible he is being investigated by DOJ for his misuse of power and racism!

You are a very concerning individual to be in the position of law enforcement and politics.

I really hope there are mindful eyes keeping abreast of your actions.

[TomPaine]

Spock:

I agree; I hope local police authorities keep a watchful eye on DanielK.

He seems to think that only leftists are a danger to law and order in this country!

He really should join the Republican Party of Virginia which clearly shares his authoritarian views.

[DanielK]

Tom,

Your comments are very disappointing but like Spock's they are not surprising. They can watch me like all officers and they'll know that I follow and enforce the law in accordance with what the judicary has set. Deal with it, if you don't like laws then try and get them repealed as that is your right as a citizen.

[Spock]

Tom- I hope the human rights groups and immigrant advocacy groups are aware that there is someone in NOVA law enforcement who has openly admitted to admiring and sharing the views of "Joe Arpaio" (do a google on the guy!)

Seriously, we can poke at Dan for being a cop with an over zealous boner for authority, it can be kind of funny.

But, when his rhetoric is starting to go down a bad path to the support of some very racist based laws and law enforcement officials with ties to neo-Nazis, THAT is a problem.

That is not funny!

This is not about us as individual "leftists", this is about our duty as a unified community of "leftists" to protect and defend those who will fall victim to such individuals.

Taking a long walk through the Holocaust Museum can remind us what our place as defenders of social justice are.

[Esoteric]

I'm beginning to believe that Spock and TomPaine are merely extremely dedicated and well-thought-out trolls. I know, long posting history and everything, but still...

DanielK's views, however 'shocking' (note scare-quotes!) to some, are well within the mainstream of not only American thought, but the Democratic party. Treating him like he's a Stormfront Nazi psychopath (when he has said NOTHING and I repeat NOTHING even remotely racist...the subject hasn't even been touched on!) is an act of spastic, suicidal witchhunting. The perverse impulse of a party that's haemorrhaging voters in the polls, unable to make traction given the political landscape, and lookin' for someone to blame.

Guys like DanielK are the Hillary voters, the sorts of people who are probably about to send a Republican to fill Jack Murtha's old seat. The ones who elected Jay Rockefeller and Joe Manchin, or Mark Warner and Jim Webb. Great idea to call these people racists and "bigots."

Just ask Gordon Brown!