Editorial in Wednesday’s Washington Post, in its entirety:
Immigration crackdown in Prince William is a cautionary tale
AFTER 31/2 YEARS and some $3 million in public spending, Prince William County’s crusade against illegal immigrants – launched almost single-handedly by an ambitious local politician who has made nativism his stock in trade – has confirmed the county’s reputation as a national symbol of intolerance. Now, a study by scholars at the University of Virginia has exposed just what was achieved, and wasn’t, when Virginia’s second-largest locality undertook its campaign against undocumented workers.
Prince William citizens had been much less concerned with illegal immigration than with traffic and development, but in 2007 Board of Supervisors Chairman Corey A. Stewart (R-At Large) put the issue center stage and pushed through a policy that turned out to be a precursor to the one adopted this year in Arizona. Implemented in 2008, it authorized police to check the immigration status of anyone they detained who they suspected might be in the country illegally. After a public uproar, the county watered down the policy – immigration checks are now done only after arrest, and for everyone taken into custody – but the damage to the county’s name was done.
The study, paid for by the county, concludes that the crackdown did succeed in driving away – though in many cases probably not very far away – a few thousand illegal immigrants, along with some legal ones. That’s unsurprising given that illegal immigrants were the targets of such overheated debate.
But the price of that “success” was to cement Prince William’s image of hostility toward immigrants, specifically Hispanic ones. While the (largely legal) Hispanic population continued to boom in most area jurisdictions, it stagnated in Prince William after 2007.
Politicians promised that the county’s enforcement efforts would save money by slashing public programs benefiting undocumented immigrants. It did no such thing, since illegal immigrants aren’t eligible for most such programs. They suggested it would do away with loitering by migrant workers seeking day jobs. In fact, day-worker sites continue to operate today much as they did before.
Politicians also said the campaign would decrease crime overall. But, the report concludes, illegal immigrants constituted a small portion of those arrested, and the crackdown had little effect on most kinds of crime – though it may have contributed somewhat to reductions in aggravated assault and hit-and-run accidents.
The report also blames the crusade for stoking tensions between Prince William police officers and Hispanics, who make up 20 percent of the county’s residents. Relations have now improved, but only thanks to an intensive and sustained repair job by the county’s well-regarded police department and an enlightened police chief.
Mr. Stewart is now urging other Virginia localities to follow Prince William’s lead. He misleadingly portrays the U-Va. report as vindication of the county’s crackdown, which it clearly is not. In fact, it is a cautionary tale, and other local officials in the state would be wise to read the report before they embrace the Prince William model.
It would probably be a good idea if the PWC BOCS also too the time to read it before they sent any part of existing policy or otherwise to the state as part of our legislative package. Beware of unintended consequences.
The ROL has been nothing short of a disaster for PWC.
When I saw this in The Post yesterday, I knew it would make this blog. That editorial is exactly what I expect from Apologists who no longer distinguish between illegal and legal aliens. The Washington Post most assuredly does NOT get it.
How about non-apologists, whatever that means, who think the Virginia Rule of Law Campaign is a cheap political trick?
I support our current post arrest policy for dealing with criminal illegal immigrants. Does make me an apololgist?
Anyone who cannot see what Stewart is trying to do, simply doesn’t want to see.
It’s almost pathetic, how bad this makes Corey look. He is like this poor little child, craving attention because he has such low self worth.
Kelly,
That guy who killed two people while driving under the influence of drugs? He has multiple priors but guess what, he was your good old fashioned american loser. How could one have prevented THAT tragedy. When you focus so much of your attention on “illegal” you will lose the broader dilema of solving crime. What the UVA study tells us is that illegal immigrants do NOT committ the majority of crimes.
Calling Stewart a Nativist doesn’t bode well for his future. Kelly – you sound simple. No one is for illegal immigration.
Kelly, really, is your information intake so limited that all you can do argue, poorly, that the UVA report, the Washington Post, the Brookings Institute, the PWC Chief of Police, the majority of the BOCS are all “apologists?”
The majority of Americans feel invading Iraq was a colossal mistake. That doesn’t mean we are apologizing for anything. We’re simply looking at the totality of the evidence and makign an informed assessment — something we failed to in 2002 and in 2007 in the US and PWC respectively.
Are those who oppose Cap and Trade “apologists” for global warming, pollution, and BP?
Rubbish. Why don’t you just say everyone except you, Greg Letiecq, and Corey Stewart is wrong without comeing up with a sophomoric justification for your feverish fanaticism?
Corey’s propoganda on Fox news is simply disgusting. He is touting that immigration enforcement in PWC “saved lives”. Where is his evidence??????????? He doesn’t have any, in fact, the report says the opposite, as do the PWC crime stats themselves. However, what Corey IS doing is flaming the notion that if you get rid of the “illegals” i.e. hispanics, your crime rate will decrease and people won’t be murdered. THAT is why I cannot stand Corey anymore. His lies could end up getting people killed. Let’s not forget the “beaner” jumping in NYC when a man was killed simply for being Latino. These young boys figured he must have been an “illegal” and “illegals” are “criminals” aren’t they?
Actually I am in the middle of reading the UVa report, which so far seems to be very good. There is no question that the ROL accomplished some of it’s objectives, but also produced some negative outcomes. The question is whether the good outweighed the bad.
The Washington Post presented a very biased editorial in that it was slanted only toward the bad. for example, in it’s focus on the hostility felt by Hispanics, The Post failed to acknowledge that most of the hostility abated within a year. Also the report notes that some of the hostility was fostered by the hysterical coverage (some inaccurate) by the press itself.
It also minimizes the reduction in aggravated assaulted, DUIs, and hit-and-runs. These crimes seem to occur in much greater proportion than the numbers of illegal aliens would suggest. I am trying to calculate the rate compared to citizens at large in the county. It is a hard number to calculate since the numbers of illegals and their variability are not known precisely.
I think that Corey may be right in a macro sense, but the sample in PWC is too small to demonstrate it. There are also a number of external factors that affect the statistics. For example, a poor economy can result in an increase in violent crimes that can swamp the statistics. This study probably needs to be repeated when the economy is not skewing the results.
In short, my primary objection is that opponents are cherry picking the results. For example, no one has mentioned that a majority of police officers in PWC support the ROL and believe they are sufficiently trained to carry it out fairly and without racial bias.
numbers.
Kelly,
No one fostered hysteria. I am so tired of retelling this story to those who clearly were not paying attention.
The very first draft of the PWC anti immigration resolution was FAIR’s wet dream. Teachers and counselors at schools would have been required to turn in anyone that was suspected of being an undocumented immigrant or face the consequences. ANYONE who was a county employee could be personally sued if they were knowledgable of someones illegal status but did not report them. Children would have been denied the ability to go to parks or libarary’s. There was sooo much more to the first resolution so don’t come here and tell me that people over reacted. Even when the final resolution was passed, many people still had no idea of the constant and evolving changes.
Seriously Kelly, do you think PWC Police would say anything different? Most people DON’T have a problem with the current law but what did it COST to get us here and was it worth it? Where is the cost benefit analysis? Did you know we already had 287G in the jails when the resolution was first proposed?
Furthermore, on this blog, we don’t call people “illegals”…..Period.
The Washington Post gets it…..endorses Creigh Deeds for a third time, hoping it will do the trick.
Feverish fanaticism? That wasn’t supposed to be hilarious, was it?
You have an interesting view point, but it is only your view. The UVa study would appear to disagree with your opinion. It refers to the continous and sometimes shrill coverage by the media, the acrimonious debate, and the focus on perceived racism by Mexicans withot Borders. It states that there is no doubt that these issues played a role in subsequent fears and responses of some residents.
I do think the police would say something different. These were anonymous interviews and there was no danger to their careers, so I have no reason to doubt their honest responses.
One last note: I am not particularly interested in following your definition of political correctness. If you have a problem with my language, feel free to censor away. My language refers to the legal status of those who are illegally in our country. Obviously it is your blog and you set the rules, but I will not follow this one. If you wish, I will can post my comments elsewhere.
Kelly, the current policy is very far from the original. The current policy checks status after any person has been arrested. I have no problem with that at all.
Where was the shrill coverage by the media? Same place as dogs devouring immigrants. That was definitely the epicenter.
Our parent blog wasn’t in the picture until 2008 so I know it wasn’t us. We certainly have never focused on Mexicans without Borders. Again, same epicenter.
And Kelly, it is a request. ‘illegal’ is an adjective, not a noun. What if you wanted to throw about the N word? Would you have the same thumb on your nose attitude towards us?
Kelly, I am sorry you turned this into a pissing contest. We don’t make too many language requests on this blog. We don’t care about cussing or opinions that don’t agree with our.
While we often don’t agree, I do think you make valuable contributions to this blog. Actually, the term ‘illegal’ used as a noun probably grates on my nerves more than it does Elena’s. My reason is not necessarily political correctness. It is that it is grammatically incorrect…sort of like saying ‘let’s go over to Walmarts and see what’s on sale’
Please don’t defiantly say you are going to disregard what Elena said. I don’t like having my hand forced over something so silly. You have obviously operated in an environment were there were rules, regardless of how silly. You know the drill.
Kelly,
When people say “illegals” it comes across as very ignorant in my opinion. It also fosters a dehumanization of people and that, I will not stand. I am sure you don’t intend it that way, you seem like a decent human being so why risk appearing otherwise? In today’s atmosphere, we know the focus is on hispanic illegal immigrants, lets be honest. So illegals can be reduced to hispanics and that is where I get very uncomfortable.
I have a great story. I was in Manassas, this past week, at my favorite party supply store , buying them out of dreidels and other Hannukah stuff to bring to my kids school. While checking out, the young cashier, she was probably in her early twenties, picks up a package of dreidels and says, “cool, what are these” ? the guy next to the check out, clearly an older employer, maybe even manager, says ” oh, those are dreidels” and she says “what do you do with them” and he replies, “they are a game”. I think it is great that I haven’t said one word yet, clearly, there is an interest in this jewish stuff.
So I proceed to explain what how the game works and which hebrew letter means winning or losing. I say “when you land on gimmel, its the best, you get the whole pot in the middle!” The older gentlemen then says “wow, has anyone figured out how to weigh it down so it always lands on that one?” , to which I reply “hey, if that were possible, my son would have figure it out by now!” . This whole conversation is very light and amicable until……..the young cashier says “yeah, that would be great in Vegas, but then again, they would probably jew you down”. Now, my jaw drops because I am thinking, no, she did not just say what i think she said! I ask her to repeat what she said because I must be mistaken. I must have misunderstood. She repeats what she says and I said “J-E-W, like in Jew?” and she says “yes, is that offensive?”, to which I reply “yes, very”. She profusely apologized and I accepted her apology and told her I knew she did not mean it to be hurtful.
My point with this story is that most people here, out of status are searching for a better life, and to call them an adjective, like it defines a person, is wrong to me. Call them illegal aliens, illegal immigrants, but don’t call them “illegals”.
I have asked you politely not to use that term and I would appreciate your respect.
This does not seem like a polite request to me.
Kelly,
Both Moon and I have expansively explained both our positions. If you want to be rude and obstinate for no grander purpose, that is your choice. We dont’ call people “illegals” on this blog. There is nothing impolite in that sentence, it is a statement of fact. In any group, there are basic rules set by the “leaders”, and in this group, that is one of those basic rules.
Thank you for your explanation. I have to tell you that I was a little miffed at the tone of your imperial declaration. Nevertheless, you did take the time to explain your position in great detail.
truce then? 🙂
Truce. 😉