from, say, the school portion of the budget since the county would not be able to bond any stream of money to cover the cost of their dumb budget... borrowing is the Republican way, isn't it? Ha, ha.

No one tells the voters the truth: illegal immigation is NOT THE PROBLEM, it is the symptom of bad federal policy instituted by Republican President Ronald Reagan, who turns out not to be such a bloody saint after all, folks. He created this situation downstream when he opened the borders to import cheap labor for California farmers, and the Republicans are ironically trying to make political hay out of a situation their party created in the first place.

Has the Prince William GOP allowed any money for going after the employers of these infamous illegal immigrants?  Has the Prince William budget been increased for enforcing existing laws, such as those on occupancy? This whole business, sorry to say, is like a Gilbert and Sullivan operetta. They are making Virginia the laughing stock of more sensible areas of the country.

Imagine having to pay for something.  Imagine trying to create a civilized society. Imagine having government that actually works. Heh.

for these videos. Until the election, I hope we can keep them on the front page somehow on RK, so Virginians are reminded of the idiocy of this last minute issue, the absolute incompetency of Republicans to manage or run a government (be ot county, state, or federal) and the absolute pit that these types of politicians will go to the bottom of just to get re-elected.

Thank you Eric and others.  Thank you.

Can it possibly be true that in two days the PWC Board will vote on committing to spend $14 million over five years, knowing that it will cause local property taxes to rise, but not knowing by how much?

Chairman Stewart and the other proponents should be compelled to estimate how much this will cost the average homeowner per year for the next five years.

I would hope the estimates spoken of at the beginning of the video have been refined by now.  In any event, the proponents should give their likely lowball estimate and let the opponents give their highball estimates.

The voters, on this issue, should be able to go to the polls making their own judgements about which side they think is closer to the truth.

I'd be amazed if the number of PWC voters who tell pollsters they're in favor of the "crackdown" didn't decline dramatically if told they'd bear the cost of the "crackdown."

Does anyone have an educated guess as to how the vote of the Board on Oct. 16 might come out?  I assume Stewart and Stirrup are definite yes votes, and the two other members in this video are definite no votes.  Are there fencesitters who feel pressure to join the mob of haters?  Can they be fortified by showing them they can defend a no vote saying that it's not affordable and would cause too many other problems in terms of money not being spent better elsewhere?

there are four definite yes votes:  Stirrup, Stewart, May & Covington.  You can read about it at http://www.bvbl.net/

In the video clip, it sure looks like Jenkins and Caddigan may vote no tomorrow.  I wonder if anyone knows where Barg and Nohe stand.

Boy I'm learning a lot more about PWC politics than I ever thought I would.  It appears Hilda Barg is a good Democrat, and, unless I hear otherwise, I'm going to bed tonight thinking she's a reliable no vote.  So, based on the negative comments of Jenkins and Caddigan, I think it may all hinge on Nohe.  I encourage all good people of PWC to do whatever they can to encourage Mr. Nohe, Ms. Caddigan, Mr. Jenkins, and Ms. Barg to vote no tomorrow.

Simple message, eh?

Great job on the video, guys...

After coming back from Poland and touring Auschwitz-Birkenau I would say that any solution which involves detention in camps should be avoided at any cost.

If a suspect is arrested I have no problem with the police verifying immigration status and notifying ICE/DHS when they apprehend illegals.

however simple it sounds to have local police verifying immigration status, this uses local police like a national police force, and costs money which will not, I suspect, be reimbursed by the national government (no Guardia Civil in the US, at least so far)... and the feds' "records" are neither accurate nor complete, plus it takes valuable police time, not to mention the training required to do this.  Where do you hold these suspects while doing the checking and verifying?  Will the police have to "verify" everyone to be sure they are accomplishing their new chore--- Canadians who may be passing through on their way to snowbirding it in Florida, even French-sounding Canadians from Quebec?  Other tourists? Look at the ridiculous no-fly lists for an example of the competence of Homeland Security checklists after 7 years of fumbling around.

I am afraid administratively and logistically this plan is simply not doable, at least as proposed by a small jurisdiction with limited resources.  Not to mention the very possible constitutional questions.

Next thing you know, Prince William will have to have passports, visas, and ID cards for its citizens to manage this supposedly simple checking of possible illegal immigrants. Whoa!

To me the real question is what happens if a person is not verified. Are they imprisoned, detained, -what? Its not enough to say let ICE/DHS deal with it. As responsible citizens we need to ask what ICE will do. The idea that what happens to these people is not our problem but the problem of the police opens the door to all kinds of human rights abuses.

and they are suspects in crimes. Frankly I have no problem with the police verifying status when they have engaged in suspect activity.

Is it in the public interest to require police officers to devote the hours it takes to detain someone if the "suspect activity" is a rolling stop at a stop sign or a broken tail light?  These are violations to be sure, but when Police
Chief Deane gave his presentation on Sept. 28, he essentially pleaded with the board to "prioritize."  He talked a lot about limited jail space, and said we'd be "competing with ourselves" when deciding who should be detained and for what reason.  They talked about "beds" and how many beds in the jails would go to dangerous criminals and how many would go to the rolling-stop-sign-can't-prove-legal-status types.  My concern while watching this unfold was that the two hours plus it takes to book someone in jail means two hours less time on patrol. 

We asked the Chief for an interview and did not hear back, but we did shoot his presentation to the Board of Supervisors AND his presentation to Help Save Manassas a few days later.  I'll post highlights as soon as I can. 

My feeling is that violent criminals should be detained no matter what their status is.  I think about my Mom and Dad, more than my own safety, but honestly I'd rather have more police officers available for emergencies and less detaining people they encounter because of a broken tail light.