With this post, I am belatedly adding “Ethics Villain” to the Ethics Alarms categories. I should have done it before: frankly, properly adding categories and tags to each post after I have finished it is a chore, and I often wonder whether it is worth my time. I’ve posted around 20,000 essays, and the tagging and categorizing process takes about 3 minutes, which means I have spent 5 days worth of waking hours doing it already with no end in sight. I could really use those 60 hours right now.
Anyway, back to Ethics Villain: I have used the term to indicate sort of a super-Ethics Dunce, but that that’s not quite right. Ethics Villains are more like ficks, the EA designation for the people who know what they are doing is wrong and shamelessly do it anyway. In March, I posted an incomplete inventory of Ethics Villains, leaving off Dr. Fauci, who was properly branded with the designation later. Upon reflection, the list was very incomplete, omitting, for example, both Clintons and Barack Obama.
It did include “Virginia Democrats,” however, and that’s from whence today’s Ethics Villain oozed.
***
Local news reports here in Virginia and newly released transcripts from a House July deposition reveal that Arlington’s Commonwealth’s Attorney Parisa Dehghani-Taftiac admitted that her office follows a policy in which a DUI charge may be reduced to a different Class 1 misdemeanor when the drunk driver holds DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) status. After all, these drunks are special: they are “good illegal immigrants” who face severe immigration penalties for serious law-breaking in addition to the penalties for drunk driving. An office memo urges prosecutors to consider lesser charges when a DACA recipient is arrested for endangering legal, law-abiding citizen drivers and their families as well as pedestrians who looked both ways and waited for “WALK” before crossing a street in what they assumed would be a safe crosswalk. Hey, all they want is a better life!
So, let me get this straight: Good illegal immigrants now include drunk drivers. How far do they go in alleviating the disproportionate penalties? Do they only get to plead down if they are caught driving drunk? What about getting in an accident that harms only themselves and their property? How about only hitting public property with no human injuries? Hitting another driver or pedestrian? Killing another driver or pedestrian? Killing a white driver or pedestrian instead of a gay or black pedestrian? What happens if another illegal alien is hit or killed?
Seriously, at what point does a drunk illegal alien become a criminal?
Well, Knucklehead Tim Walz protected a child rapist because he was a “good illegal immigrant”….
Exactly right. It was in the past. The guy’s been good since then. None of these are excuses that would hold water if this was a white guy, a conservative or a Republican official. Heck, even a minority citizen might not get this treatment.
This is not equal treatment under the law. The idea that disproportionate consequences should be a factor is appalling. Who decides what disproportionate consequences are? Someone who should have been deported is now going to be deported for committing an additional crime after coming here and that’s a terrible thing? Who decides what collateral damage is acceptable?
It’s outrageous and should be shoved in the face of every person who claims that ICE is targeting legal immigrants and “good” illegal immigrants who haven’t committed any crimes.
The goal posts are always moved. It’s the drunk drivers now and years’ old child molestors now. Wait until they open the back door of the courtroom and let the murderers and rapists go.
“This is not equal treatment under the law. The idea that disproportionate consequences should be a factor is appalling. “
That is exactly right. To me, that is the bigger legal problem. If a
U.S. citizen is charged wtih DUI in her district, does that US citizen get a reduction in charges, too? Does DUI, then, become a misdemeanor and not a felony across the board? If not, why are US citizens disproportionately charged under the same law?
jvb
Is DACA the only law that didn’t have to pass through both houses of Congress? It comprehensively altered immigration law, but it never passed the Senate. It technically is an executive order, but an executive order that instructs DHS to change the law. Now, Trump tried to repeal that executive order, but was told he couldn’t because (1) the district court didn’t agree that it should be repealed and (2) that is was so sweepingly changed the law that he couldn’t repeal it. Although multiple courts found it to be illegal or unconstitutional, they also blocked it repeal by executive order.
DACA is not, actually, a law. St. Barack implemented it by executive order. DACA means “Deferred Action on Child Arrivals” and suspends deportation actions or removal proceedings against illegal immigrants brought here with parents while they were minors. It does not confer substantive rights to adjust status under immigration law. It is one of the biggest, cynical actions taken by Obama during his tenure as President.
jvbs
It may not be a law, but it is being treated as a law. A state official is changing criminal penalties to comply with a law. An executive order only instructs federal government officials to commit an action. This sets up categories and policies that states follow. That is also why Trump isn’t allowed to repeal it. If it was really an executive order, it would be unconstitutional for the courts to forbid him to repeal it because the courts cannot give orders to the executive employees.
“Dehghani-Tafti admitted that her office considers immigration status when determining case outcomes and that written guidelines allow considering immigration status for any crime. “
This is how you get a two-tier justice system. People belonging to certain (politically favored) classes and groups will be treated more leniently by the justice system than others. This practice is biased and unfair, and erodes trust in the justice system.
The motive for this difference in treatment based on immigration status is political. Tim Walz pardoned a convicted sex offender a while ago, to prevent deportation. The Democrats are going to the mat to prevent any illegal immigrant from being deported, including the outright criminal elements. (Illegal) Immigrants and criminals tend to vote Democrat, that is all you need to know to understand.
That first comment to the local affiliate piece reminded me of Knucklehead’s addendum to admitting he was kinda sorta responsible for the 9 billion dollars of Somali fraud in Minnesota. He immediately said it wasn’t really that much, and it was likely “even less than the 300 million Trump was spending on the White House ball room project!” Even the Democrat leadership is Trump deranged!
Did Soros fund this woman’s campaign?
“Even the Democrat leadership is Trump deranged!”
Of course, they are. The talking points used by the media, the entertainment industry and people like our host’s friend on social media are all provided by the Democratic Party leadership.
Right now, Nancy Pelosi is on Twitter/X telling everyone that President Trump’s latest restriction on federal student loans is tantamount to telling students what they are allowed to study in college. You’ll be seeing that false accusation on news sites and social media posts very soon.
i have felt for some time now tha tthe answer to sanctuary cities , states and other municipalities is to withold ALL federal monies. And i mean all- social security, medicare payments, federal and military retiremement benefits, transportation, federal hghway upkeep, refusal to update passports o fthose who reside in this abnomalies, and above all the salaries and benefits of their Senators and Representatives.
Draconian, i know, but maybe more effective and efficient
Deacon Dan,
Are employers in sanctuary cities still required to do federal tax withholding for Social Security? Do we still have to pay federal taxes? No getting any Social Security and Medicare benefits while we are required to pay taxes sounds to me like theft by the Federal Government.
I appreciate your fervor deacondan, but punishing and bankrupting individuals isn’t necessary. From the frustrating research I was able to do, Federal grants are nearly 25% of the budget for the city of Los Angeles (as an example). Withholding those billions would be a substantial penalty. I’m just guessing that would be true for all the major sanctuary cities and states. According to one source Arlington County received over $22 billion in federal contracts and grants in FY2026. Pulling that would hurt.
There is a sick ideology behind this, as others online have pointed out.
It is an idology thaty divides the world into Colonizers®™ and Colonized®™, in which the Colinized®™ are the victims ofg the Colonizers®™. Every woe the Colonized®™ suffer is the fault of the Colonizers®™. The Colonized®™ have zero responsibility for being poor. The Colonizedare owed a living. The Colonized®™ have zero responsibility for any wrongdoing committed by them.
The Colonizers®™ are responsible for all the evils in the world. The Colonizers®™ have no right to punish the Colonized®™ for their wrongdoing./ The Colonizers®™ deserve be be victims of violent acts by the Colonized®™.
And this is regardless whether any person personally was Colonized®™ by anyone, or Colonized®™ someone else.
This is why they say American has no right to regulate immigration because it was built on Stolen Land®™, while at the same time Europe has a duty to admit hordes of migrants who have no respect for human life or sexual consent.
Amnd this is why they feel illegal aliens should not be punished for crimes.
Yes, because they claim that caucasians are not indigenous anywhere on Earth. Europe was previously ‘brown’ people until colonized by caucasians. Caucasians are not from Earth, apparently.