A surprising ruling by U.S. District Judge Sharon Lovelace Blackburn, which upholds most of Alabama’s controversial immigration law HB 56, calls into question the meaning of the words inscribed on the face of the U.S. Supreme Court building: “Equal Justice Under Law.” The 11th Circuit Court will now hear an appeal.  But while our nation waits for the courts to decide whether it is legal to require the police to check immigration status based on a subjective standard of suspicion, let’s consider also whether it is sound policy.

I happen to live in the only jurisdiction in America that has ever implemented such a law.  Here in Prince William County, VA, the “Probable Cause Mandate” was on the books for eight weeks in March and April of 2008.  I didn’t just watch it happen.  I filmed it.  The story of how the law came to be, and the surprising grassroots coalition that arose to help repeal it, is captured in a film I co-directed with Annabel Park called 9500 Liberty.

The most radical provisions in Arizona’s SB 1070 were blocked by federal courts in July of 2010, meaning that any further attempts to pass this law would first require millions of dollars in legal fees.  In part for this reason, only Alabama and Georgia followed Arizona’s lead after zeal for the law erupted all over the U.S.  But there were a host of other reasons why the only jurisdiction in America to actually TRY this law ended up repealing it after only 8 weeks.

From talking to numerous elected and appointed officials in Prince William County government (including many who had originally voted for the law), the “Probable Cause Mandate” was repealed because it was damaging to the county’s economy, its housing market, and its reputation, all of which made it more difficult to attract new home owners, new investors, and new business owners.  At the height of the controversy, Prince William County’s home foreclosure rate was 5 to 7 times the average for the region, so high in fact that George Mason’s Center for Regional Analysis had to redesign their charts.

But the biggest reason for the policy’s repeal was that the Bush Justice Department had put the county on notice that the federal government planned to join the first law suit filed by a county resident who could prove that his or her Constitutional right to equal protection under the law had been violated, not by the misconduct of a police officer, but by an unprecedented legislative mandate being dutifully followed.   This would have meant county taxpayers would have to foot the bill for court challenges that would have likely have gone all the way up the Supreme Court.  That’s millions of taxpayer dollars down the tubes, and we haven’t even gotten into the cost of implementing the law.

As seen in the film, the Chief of Police was forthright with the Board of Supervisors.  Although he never publicly opposed the law, he explained to the Board from the beginning that if his officers were going to be pulled off of public safety duty in order to do immigration enforcement, he would need to hire additional officers in order to maintain the level of public safety the county then enjoyed (crime had been falling for 15 years — the same years, by the way, during which the immigrant community had quadrupled).

For this and many other reasons — such as renting additional jail space from neighboring jurisdictions — the law was very expensive to implement.  Original estimates topped $14,000,000 over five years, and as those estimates began to climb, the Republican Board of Supervisors began to have second thoughts about the tax increases that would be necessary to pay for them (as it was, the tax rate increased by 25%).  Thus, the law was repealed on April 29, 2008 with only County Chairman Corey Stewart protesting.  The film documents how he refused to come out from the back chamber for two hours once he realized he’d lost the support of the 5 Republicans and 2 Democrats who sat with him on the Board.  (By the way, Stewart’s opponent for County Chairman in this November’s election is Babur Lateef, whose family immigrated from Pakistan).

Considering the negative economic impact, and the costly legal challenges that the law made likely, the only argument in favor of it was the misconception that immigrants and undocumented immigrants are more likely to commit crimes.  Based on national statistics, many suggested at the time that this claim was false.  And, during a hearing of the United States Commission on Civil Rights (in which I testified), the Chief of Police showed that the crime wave being described by the Chairman and his supporters on political blogs was a fiction.  But more importantly, it was proven later when county crime statistics came out, not only showing that undocumented immigrants were committing crime at a lower rate than legal residents in the county — it also showed that the controversy and social unrest caused by the short-lived and very costly policy may have been a factor in reversing the 15-year trend of falling crime rates.  That’s right.  They passed and implemented this law and crime went up.  After the law’s repeal, crime continued it’s downward trend.

Statistics show a slight uptick in crime during the period of controversy, despite under-reporting in categories like domestic violence and aggravated assault.   The Prince William County Citizen Satisfaction Survey showed a steep drop in trust in law enforcement, especially in the Latino and African American communities during this period.  Law enforcement experts have since explained to me that victims of such crimes, often people of color, feel less comfortable contacting the police in general, and that political controversies that undermine best practices such as “community policing” only make matters worse.  As any good law enforcement official will tell you: it’s very hard to solve a crime if it’s never reported.  And if it is reported, it’s harder to solve if witnesses refuse to come forward.  Thus, everyone is less safe in communities where trust in law enforcement has been compromised.

The “probable cause mandate” and the culture war surrounding it caused many people to leave the county, destroying property values, deepening the county’s home foreclosure crisis, and compounding the global economic meltdown that was only beginning at that time (July 2007).  Business owners and developers, meanwhile, were hesitant invest money in a county that was constantly in the headlines for political instability and racial upheaval.  All of this added up to plummeting revenues, and the aforementioned tax rate increase of more than 25% percent.

Alabama lawmakers are aiming for a similar fate.  I hope that their elected officials will be willing to look at best practices studies, and find a more practical, less costly, and less damaging response to anxieties caused by immigration.  They might be wise to contact elected leaders in Prince William County, VA to learn what happened when the a very similar law was put in place.

####

CLICK HERE to see Annabel Park and me on a panel discussion about Arizona’s SB 1070,

filmed on the night before SB 1070 was due to be implemented (but was blocked by a federal judge).

Below is a scene from 9500 Liberty that anticipates the Coffee Party notion “information activism.”

9500 Liberty on Netflix

Why we are non-partisan from Coffee Party YouTube channel:

And to bridge the two, from 9500 Liberty to Coffee Party:

CLICK HERE to see Annabel Park and Eric Byler together on a panel discussion about 9500 Liberty and Arizona’s SB 1070, filmed on the night before SB 1070 was due to be implemented (but was blocked by a federal judge).

We would love to have you show 9500 Liberty in your community.  Successful events have already taken place in 35 states and at more than 40 campuses.

As you can see from the trailer, the implementation of the “Probable Cause” mandate for immigration status checks based on a subjective standard of suspicion directly impacted everyone in Prince William County; not just immigrants and those who lived among them.  The unfortunate political, economic, and social upheaval led to the building of a trans-partisan movement to repeal the mandate (after only 8 weeks of implementation) thanks to a coalition that included:

* Republicans
* Democrats
* Independents
* Libertarians
* law enforcement leaders
* the faith community
* the law enforcement community
* the business community
* the Latino community
* the African American community
* the Muslim community
* the Asian American community

When you plan your screening, please try to include as many of the above communities as possible, either as panelists or sponsors/presenting organizations or both.  Religious, business, and law enforcement leaders are especially valuable, and the importance of a trans-partisan participation cannot be overemphasized.  Please shape the discussion after the screening to look at how a civil, fact-based, solutions-oriented approach to this issue can lead to a more informed collective decision on how to address the issue of illegal immigration without damaging public safety, the local economy, or the fiscal solvency of your state or local government.

In a broader sense, you should use the film to consider the social conditions that were needed to allow the community to look at the facts first before making policy decisions.  This included courage and leadership from elected officials, community leaders, and ordinary citizens alike.  It included some new media and social media innovation.  And, it included all “sides” of the issue toning down the sort of divisive, distracting, violent, and dehumanizing rhetoric that blinds people to the facts, and alienates the silent majority, robbing the deliberative process of the more composed and forward-thinking community members, and making democracy look like an angry and uninviting circus.  What is needed when discussing immigration-related issues is a problem-solving approach that puts more emphasis on good policy than on electioneering strategies.  We often say that what happened in Prince William County can happen anywhere — and over the past year, this is proving to be true — but the good news is that in the only jurisdiction in America where this law was actually implemented, the people pulled together across partisan and cultural lines to restore civility and fact-based deliberation.

9500 LIBERTY
Total RUNNING TIME:
80 minutes (1 hr, 20m)

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

Byler, who co-directed the film with Coffee Party founder Annabel Park, is an Independent Spirit Award nominee for his first feature film, Charlotte Sometimes, and has won 16 film festival awards.

#####

Contact:
Anna Walton: waltonal@email.sc.edu
Eric Byler:  Eric@CoffeePartyUSA.com

SB 1070 de Arizona ya ha sido juzgada. Y falló. En el condado Prince William, Virginia, una ley que requiere la policía para verificar el estatus migratorio de personas a las que había “causa probable” para sospechar que eran inmigrantes indocumentados entró en vigor en Marzo de 2008. Los ciudadanos se unieron para exigir que la ley fuera rechazada en el enfrentamiento de costosas demandas legales y un impacto económico devastador.

Thousands from Across Texas will convene here in Austin
to Reject Anti-immigrant Agenda in the Legislature

Statewide press conferences be held tomorrow by RITA partners across Texas

Austin TX — The Austin Immigrant Rights Coalition (AIRC), as a part of the Reform Immigration for Texas Alliance (RITA), will be joining by thousands of Texans on Tuesday, February 22 at 1 PM at the State Capitol in Austin to march and rally for the dignity, security and rights of immigrant families.  Marchers will gather starting at 11 AM at Waterloo Park, 403 East 15th Street.   Buses will bring in Texans from San Antonio, Dallas, Ft. Worth, El Paso, Houston, Rio Grande Valley, Movimiento del Valle, and Hildalgo County.

To date, more than 60 anti-immigrant, anti-family proposals have being filed by extremist Texas legislators. Proposed legislation includes, among others, the criminalization of immigrant families and workers in Texas, mandating local law enforcement to enforce federal immigration laws, requiring school officials to report undocumented students, and denying birth certificates to children born in Texas to undocumented parents.

As part of the “Texas Can Do Better” campaign, the Austin Immigrant Rights Coalition is convening a press conference to announce its plan to participate in the historic mobilization of thousands on February 22nd in Austin to convey to Texas legislators our disappointment and rejection of those proposals that will undermine our families, our economy and our security.

###

Contact:
Dianna Tavera
Austin Immigrant Rights Coalition
(512) 476-2472
info@austinirc.org

More information on the Austin Immigrant Right Coalition:
This organization, founded in 2006, is one of the leading immigration reform and human rights advocacy organization in the United States. Based in Austin, Texas.

The post-screening discussion will be moderated by Stan Straughter (Chair the Mayor’s Commission for African and Caribbean Immigrant Affairs), featuring State Senator Daylin Leach (D-Montgomery/Delaware), Anne O’Callaghan (Welcoming Center for New Pennsylvanians), Cherylle Corpuz (Temple University), and Domenic Vitiello (University of Pennsylvania).

Byler, who co-directed the film with Coffee Party founder Annabel Park, is an Independent Spirit Award nominee for his first feature film, Charlotte Sometimes, and has won 16 film festival awards.

#####

The following questions are designed for post-screening discussions.  You may also respond by commenting below.

1)  In Prince William County, Virginia, a compelling outlet for expressing public sentiment is Citizens’ Time, a period usually lasting about 30 minutes, where citizens are limited to 3 minutes to express their views to the Board of County Supervisors.  If you had three minutes to express your views on laws like the Immigration Resolution and Arizona’s S.B. 1070, what would you say?  Please consider the moral, legal, political, public safety, economic, and social arguments that caused Prince William County to implement the Probable Cause mandate, and then quickly repeal it.

2)  So often those who advocate for harsh immigration laws claim that an immigration “crack down” will result in less crime, and restore the “rule of law.”  And yet law enforcement professionals, with few exceptions, oppose the enforcement of federal immigration law at the local level, and they also make an argument based on public safety.  Can you summarize the opposing arguments?  Which is more easily substantiated by crime statistics and law enforcement best practices studies?

3)  Some viewers of 9500 Liberty express regret that it was the unintended consequences of the Probable Cause mandate — such as the 25% tax rate increase, skyrocketing legal fees, and negative impact on the local economy — that caused the citizens and the Board of Supervisors to repeal the policy, rather than a sense of racial justice or equality.  Do you sympathize with this sentiment?  Would you have preferred that opponents of the policy limit themselves to equal justice and divided family arguments only?

4)  When the honorable Police Chief was attacked, the silent majority rose up to oppose the vocal minority, and, it wasn’t long before elected officials in both parties began to show the leadership Prince William County had been waiting for.  Who’s responsibility is it to stand up for ordinary citizens during a period of intense conflict between polarized segments of society?  The people, or elected leaders?

5)  In the first half of the film, collective decisions seem to be based, not on what is accurate or verifiable, but rather based on what people can be made to believe.  What is the relationship between information and politics?  Who is responsible for informing the public?  Does this change during election season, and should it?

6)  In the film’s climactic scene, boisterous conservatives line up to demand a tax increase.  Earlier in the film, the same segment of the population demands a radical, expensive program that makes a tax increase inevitable.  In all probability, their attitudes today about the notion of taxation are very different.  Do your attitudes toward taxation shift when there are shifts in policy initiatives, or in leadership?   What does that say about the notion of “taxes” as a political issue?

By Eric Byler

The shifting debate over The DREAM Act illustrates one of the themes of 9500 Liberty and the Coffee Party — that a fact-based, solutions-oriented approach to collective decision making can supersede blind partisanship when we focus on the facts instead of the fight.

70% of Americans support the DREAM Act. If enacted, it would offer six years of residential status for young people who are in every way “American,” but were brought to the U.S. as children without proper legal status. After ten years, they could apply for a green card if they have completed two years of college or two years of honorable service in the U.S. military. And, after acquiring a green card, they could apply for citizenship.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates this measure would reduce our deficit by $1.4 billion over the next 10 years due to increased tax revenue. A recent study by UCLA’s North American Integration and Development Center estimated that $1.4 TRILLION over 40 years in income would be generated by DREAM Act beneficiaries. And, America’s military leaders advocate for the DREAM Act because it would significantly increase the pool of recruits qualified to defend our nation.

Despite bipartisan support for the DREAM Act, the irrational ugliness we are seeing in opposition is a manifestation of widening division within the Republican party between pragmatists and extremists.

In a Washington Post op-ed, former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson urges his party to support the DREAM Act, writing:

“The choice here is not between the presence of these young immigrants and their absence. No one is proposing the mass deportation of this particular group, which would be last on the target list of even the most enthusiastic immigration restrictionist. The actual choice is between allowing these young men and women to develop their talents and serve in the military, or not.”

And Illinois’ former governor, also a Republican, begins his outstanding editorial:

“A rational approach to comprehensive immigration reform should begin with the young people who were brought here as babies, toddlers and adolescents.”

Passing the DREAM Act would be a significant step for our Congress, proving that it is possible for elected leaders to vote in the nation’s best interest, even if a small fragment of the nation is vociferously against it. (I compare it to young parents who learn to say no to their children if necessary, even when they make a fuss).

2 on-line tools to make your voice heard:

We can help Congress cast the vote they know is best for America.  How?  By giving our Senators a call and providing a rational, fact-based voice to balance out a minority of reactionaries who oppose this common-sense measure.  Call your Senator’s office, and, even if you get an answering machine, say something like this:

“Please vote for the DREAM Act.  It will help grow our economy by allowing an estimated 2.1 million people to stay in this country and contribute up to their highest potential, and it will improve our national security by encouraging qualified and patriotic young people to serve.  Most importantly, it will show that Congress has the courage and integrity to respond to our nation’s need for immigration reform.”

CLICK HERE to find the phone number for your U.S. Senator.  Or, call your Senator by CLICKING HERE and participating in this cell phone campaign by Reform Immigration for America.  Just enter your cell phone and zip and you’ll be connected to the offices of your representatives in Congress.

Or if you prefer, Americas Voice offers this easy to use system for sending faxes: CLICK HERE.

Immigration policy questions are not a Republican vs. Democrat fight, nor a white vs. Hispanic fight.  With courage and leadership, the immigration issue can unite America.

UPDATE: The U.S. Senate is 4 or 5 courageous votes away from passing the DREAM Act. Click below for the list of 20 Senators who could be emboldened by your phone call. Right now, a swarm of angry, misinformed people are hounding and threatening them. Please join the fact-based, composed, and patriotic rejoinder to the anti-immigrant noise machine. Our nation’s economy, our national security, and our integrity will be the better for it.  Please call these Senators:

ALASKA
Murkowski (R) : (202) 224-6665

FLORIDA
LeMieux (R) : (202) 224-3041

INDIANA
Lugar (R) : (202) 224-4814

KANSAS
Brownback (R) : (202) 224-6521

LOUISIANA
Landrieu (D) : (202) 224-5824

MASSACHUSETTS
Brown (R) : (202) 224-2315

MICHIGAN
Stabenow (D) : (202) 224-4822

MAINE
Collins (R) – (202) 224-2523
Snowe (R) – (202) 224-5344

MISSOURI
McCaskill (D) – (202) 224-6154

NEW HAMPSHIRE
Gregg (R) – (202) 224-3324

NORTH CAROLINA
Hagan (D): (202) 224-6342

OHIO
Voinovich (R) – (202) 224-3353

SOUTH CAROLINA
Graham (R) – (202) 224-5972

TEXAS
Hutchison (R) – (202) 224-5922

UTAH
Bennett (R) – (202) 224-5444
Hatch (R) – (202) 224-5251

VIRGINIA
Warner (D): (202) 224-2023
Webb (D): (202) 224-4024

WEST VIRGINIA
Manchin (D): (202) 224-3954

Video by Leah Carnine, a college student in Arizona.

Stewart has created a Political Action Committee and is touring Virginia to lobby for an “Arizona style” policy proposal (ironically titled “The Rule of Law”) in the Virginia General Assembly.  But Virginia’s conservative Republican Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli responded with a blistering legal critique of Stewart’s policy proposal due to its cost to taxpayers, its redundancy, and its illegality under the U.S. Constitution and the Virginia State Constitution.  The release of the UVA report and the Attorney General’s stern rebuke make Stewart’s “Rule of Law” crusade a much tougher sell.

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.

Read more…

Chairman Stewart’s misrepresentation of the University of Virginia report represents a pattern in our story in which the Chairman attempts to spin failure as success.  For instance, Chairman Stewart and his blogger ally Greg Letiecq used all of their powers to fight the repeal of the “Probable Cause” mandate for immigration status checks in April of 2008.  They lost.  But they decided to spin the loss as a victory with a campaign of misinformation and an Oscar worthy acting job.

Annabel Park and I responded with this video on our YouTube Channel:

More info:

• University of Virginia report examines results of Prince William County’s immigration controversy
• Virginia Attorney General dismisses Corey Stewart’s “Rule of Law” policy proposal

First, some background.  Second, Lowell’s blog.  Third, my comments.

Background:
Earlier this year, Chairman Corey A. Stewart, one of the main subjects in 9500 Liberty, picked up the “immigration banner” again, inspired by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer’s successful exploitation of immigration anxiety, rescuing herself from dismal approval ratings and a certain defeat in the Republican primary.  Stewart, who himself faces reelection this coming November, has created a website, a Facebook fan page, and political action committee in order to lobby the Virginia General Assembly to enact a statewide version of Arizona’s S.B. 1070, much the way Greg Letiecq, another main character in our film, lobbied Stewart and the Board of Supervisors in Prince William County in 2007.

Today, a legal assessment issued by the Virginia Attorney General’s office was leaked to certain media sources.  The document is harshly critical of Chairman Stewart’s “Rule of Law” legislation.  The rumor was that Virginia state office holders, including many Republicans, were not pleased with Stewart’s unorthodox maneuver to effectively introduce legislation in a body to which he has not been elected.  Now, that displeasure has been confirmed.
______________________

Here is the “Blue Virginia” blog that broke the story:

Stunner: Cooch’s Office Rips Corey Stewart’s “Rule of Law” Resolution to Shreds by: lowkell Wed Nov 24, 2010 at 14:33:16 PM EST

Earlier today, I was forwarded a copy of an analysis by the Virginia Attorney General’s Office on Prince William County’s anti-”illegal immigrant,” so-called “Rule of Law” resolution. What I expected to see was a bunch of “absolutely correct” and “brilliant legal reasoning!” from our right-wing nutjob Attorney General, Ken Cuccinelli. Instead, what Cooch’s office issued was the exact opposite – a blistering critique that essentially rips PW County chair Corey Stewart and Company’s “Rule of Law” resolution to shreds.See here for a side-by-side matrix that quotes on the left from Corey Stewart’s “Rule of Law” resolution, and states on the right what Cooch’s office thinks of it. I asked a smart Virginia Democratic attorney friend of mine what he thought, and here’s what he wrote: Basically, the OAG analysis systematically and methodically tears to shreds what Stewart is proposing–for different kinds of reasons. Sometimes, the OAG tears it to shreds because the powers it is trying to grant already exist under Virginia or Federal law. (As a substantive policy matter, the fact that the powers already exist may not be a good thing, but OAG is pointing out that Stewart is so dumb he didn’t realize these powers already exist.)Sometimes, the OAG tears it because the powers it is trying to grant risk being struck down as violations of the U.S. Constitution. (Again, making Stewart look dumb for sponsoring something that raises such problems.) So, my take is that Cooch views Stewart as a political rival whom he doesn’t want to see grow any more in stature, and so Cooch is using his OAG office to kneecap Stewart.

I agree 100% with that brilliant analysis, so I’ll just add a few choice quotes (on the “flip”) from Cooch’s opinion, and leave it at that. Enjoy the shredding! (also, see Cooch’s letter to Del. Lingamfelter and Lingamfelter’s letter to Corey Stewart.)

______________________________

My initial response: A lot of people in Virginia are standing around mouths agape, because one arch conservative — Ken Cuccinelli, the Virginia Attorney General — has disagreed with another, Corey Stewart, in a decisive, and perhaps dismissive, fashion.  Many presume that Cuccinelli has a political motivation of some kind, perhaps to prevent Stewart from creating a statewide controversy and riding it to a nomination for U.S. Senate in 2012 (whereas Cuccinelli would prefer someone else get that nod).  I have a different take, but first here are some excerpts from the Attorney General’s response:

•  “Paragraph (D) is unnecessary because law enforcement already has authority to transport prisoners, and there appears to be no need for this additional provision specifically related to persons illegally present in the United States.”

•  “The provisions of this section raise significant ex post facto/takings concerns that are not easily addressed through revision or redrafting.”

•  “Paragraph (J) raises potential equal protection concerns, because it specifically differentiates between United States citizens and other persons in protecting privileges and immunities…This section creates sweeping new classes of felonies and will have a significant fiscal impact…In addition, many of the definitions within the section create overbreadth concerns and could be portrayed as criminalizing legitimate behavior not intended by the drafter…Additionally, the provisions of this section may have the unintended consequence of securing visas (or at least visa application delays of deportation) for those unlawfully present.

•  “Paragraph (G)(1) contains a reference to “Superior Court”; there is no such court in Virginia.”

•  “It is unnecessary to create a new crime that may raise federalism concerns.”

•  “Paragraph (H) would violate the Virginia Constitution, which requires that any such fees must go to the state literary fund

CLICK HERE and read a paragraph-by-paragraph matrix juxtaposing Stewart’s would-be legislation with the Attorney General’s response. Personally, I’m not surprised that our elected Attorney General, sworn to uphold the US Constitution and the Virginia Constitution, has issued a report that is well-researched and well-founded.  I’d be surprised if he did not.  And I’d prefer to believe that Mr. Cuccinelli would have produced a sound legal response no matter who introduced the proposal, even if it was Governor Bob McDonnell.  That’s his job.

As far as conservative Republicans disagreeing with one another, that is precisely what happened in Prince William County when similar legislation was introduced here.  This kind of legislation is incredibly divisive.  It pits short-term political gain against responsible and effective public safety and fiscal policy.  During election season, politicians sometimes prioritize the former, but any lawmaker who takes his or her duty seriously, regardless of party, will come to focus on the policy behind the controversy at some point.  And I would argue that these bills coming from anti-immigrant law firms in Washington are designed to produce controversy more so than they are designed to produce policy.  Law suits may be costly for taxpayers, but they are very lucrative for lawyers.

In sum, Ken Cuccinelli and Bob McDonnell want to skip the political theater, culture war, and grandstanding Corey Stewart has in mind, and dig straight down to the letter of the law.  Elected leaders at the state level have enough crises to deal with.  There is no need to create another one.  I’m grateful to the Governor and the Attorney General for taking decisive action to nip this thing in the bud.  I hope leaders in other states do the same.  I’ll be doing my part to make it more likely.  More on that later.

The broad strokes of the Virginia Attorney General’s legal assessment agrees with my own, stated in a previous entry for this blog:

With the 2011 election around the corner, Chairman Stewart appears to be seeking the kind of attention Jan Brewer has received thanks to S.B. 1070’s very similar “Reasonable Suspicion” provision.  But in fact, Stewart is a more appropriate spokesperson for the Obama Administration’s Secure Communities program than for S.B. 1070.

Also, it’s important to know that the bluster that supports Chairman Stewart’s argument can be debunked just as thoroughly as the legalese.  Please check out my blog post about immigration and crime statistics.