.
.
.
.
.
Earlier last week, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and the city of Los Angeles were said to be considering changes to impound policies for unlicensed drivers at supposed DUI checkpoints. The proposals are to be submitted before review by a Police Commission as well as the input of the community. January is said to be the target month for a new policy.
Activists with the Southern California Immigration Coalition have been pressuring for the changes arguing that checkpoints are much more a mechanism of racial profiling and a means by which to fleece undocumented immigrants than they are about maintaining sober roads. A concession was won earlier this year that allowed unlicensed drivers to avoid the impounding of their vehicles so long as they could contact a licensed driver to take them. SCIC activists monitored checkpoints in action and found that the guideline isn’t always followed.
With that in mind, implementation of new changes under consideration for 2012 are being demanded now. They are broader in scope aiming at reducing 30-day impound holds which impose exuberantly high fees on vehicle owners. This would apply to traffic stops as well as checkpoints.
In Orange County, a similar drive to achieve changes to impound policy has taken place in the city of Santa Ana. With its large immigrant population, checkpoints conducted by the police have been rightly criticized on similar grounds as those voiced in Los Angeles. In late September, the OC May Day Coalition and the Orange County Congregation Community Organization issued a joint press release touting a new impound policy that is fairer. As of last month, checkpoints in Santa Ana, like the one that took place last night, are to allow unlicensed drivers an allotted minimum amount of time to find a licensed driver to arrive and help avoid impounding by taking the vehicle away from the scene.
“The adoption of this policy is an important step for the city of Santa Ana. The community raised concerns, local officials responded, and the result is a policy that focuses resources and does not unfairly target working class families,” says Lucero Chavez, Immigrants Rights Attorney for the ACLU of Southern California in the press release. “It will be important for the police department to continue to be responsive to the concerns of the community and monitor the impacts of its policies.”
The change is a move in the right direction. Developments in Los Angeles will surely be looked at in terms of further activism. In the meantime, La Causa Films has released a trailer for what it promises will be a full-length documentary in the future. The film chronicles the long struggle activists have undertaken in order to pressure for a different policy rooted in basic fairness. When completed, the documentary filmmaker is looking to a screening at Santa Ana’s El Centro Cultural de Mexico once re-opened.
The leading cause of death in small children is being run over by car drivers. Santa Ana has racked up plenty of dead kids and seriously injured kids over the years.
Foreign nationals do not have a right to drive over the kids of Santa Ana.
Drunks do not have a right to drive over the kids of Santa Ana.
Unlicensed and or uninsured do not have a right to drive over the kids of Santa Ana.
And that goes for the rest of Orange County and Southern California too.
My opinion is that public safely trumps racial profiling in the use of an automobile, the leading cause of death of those under 25 (?).
Southern California Immigration Coalition, who are these people? And why do they think it is A-OK for unlicensed, uninsured, foreign nationals to drive unsafe cars at unsafe speeds while drinking mass qualities of booze?
I don’t believe that is how things work in the county of Mexico, so why do these people want to crap on US soil?
What is next? Rights for child molesters and rapist? (Another foreign import the States People can do without)
So much ignorance in one post! The whopper was equating impound policy reform for undocumented people who can not legally obtain a license to a vague notion of extending rights to child molesters and rapists.
With that, there’s little use in trying to reason with you.
You’ve identified several groups that “do not have a right to drive over the kids of Santa Ana.” Given that you’re specifying apparent exceptions, Is there some group that does “have a right to drive over the kids of Santa Ana”?
If there isn’t, and it what you mean to say is something like “no one has a right to drive over the kids of Santa Ana,” then is this the appropriate reaction to that assertion?
You are right Greg. add to the list.
“no one has a right to drive over the kids of Santa Ana,” (or the rest of the county, state or USA)
After which I asked: “then is this the appropriate reaction to that assertion?”
Because most likely they come from the same culture? I don’t the guy leading they illegal immigrant scam has an Irish last name.
This is an example of why you should never mix Lithium Carbonate with alcohol.
“My opinion is that public safely trumps racial profiling in the use of an automobile”
I know a lot of geriatrics cranks like yourself and the Pearl Clutching Puritan of Mission Viejo that drive unsafely too. They probably cause just as many accidents as illegal immigrants/Mexican nationals etc. Should we start profiling the Depends Crappers in addition to the Mexican immigrants? And what about the fucking Canadians? Their driving is just as bad once you fill them up with Elsinore Beer. Don’t believe me? Take a ride through downtown Detroit on a Friday night after a Red Wings game.
And if anyone should have a legitimate beef with illegal immigrants, it is me.
Have a Happy Bleated Illegal Foreign National Invasion Day! Or what you Euros call “Thanksgiving”
This is bullshit in its purest form. It places politics above safety at best.
It comes absolutely no surprise that this bill was authored by Gil Cedillo.
Careful, Cook. You’re gonna be labeled a “racist”.
I am for capital punishment – as quickly as possible – for men who kill their girlfreind’s baby. Seems to happen several times a year in Santa Ana – wonder why that city seems to be the center of such outrageous behavior.
I am, as much of the world is, against capital punishment of any kind. Now tell me how, in any way, shape or form, your comment is relevant to the topic at hand?
Cars kill, …… capital punishment is killing.
It still isn’t relevant.
I believe by attempting to link illegals to molestors/rapists, Cook meant to attack the notion (and legal fiction) of the “law-abiding illegal alien”
Nonsense. There’s a distinction between jaywalking and murder. Most certainly, there is also a sensible one between crossing the border without papers and molestation/rape.
The real question is why cook felt it necessary to employ such a flagrant conflation, and why you felt it proper to ‘explain’ and defend it.
I have crossed the border to Mexico a few times in my past to visit. But they do check to make sure criminals don’t come into Mexico.
People from Mexico can come into the USA to visit and for commerce, but the criminals are not allowed.
So why would someone hop the fence, in either direction, if all you have to do is show your ID, go thu a brief background check and then cross happy as a clam?
Two types of people, criminals and innocent people who were tricked by criminals.
‘People from Mexico can come into the USA to visit and for commerce”
You Euros claimed to come for commerce and friendship.
“So why would someone hop the fence, in either direction, if all you have to do is show your ID, go thu a brief background check and then cross happy as a clam?
Two types of people, criminals and innocent people who were tricked by criminals.”
Does this include Columbus, John Winthrop and Miles Standish and the dopey pilgrims who fell for their “God’s destiny” bullshit?.
My favorite part of Cook’s quote was “Why does the SCIC think it is A-OK for unlicensed, uninsured, foreign nationals to drive unsafe cars at unsafe speeds while drinking mass qualities of booze?”
Does Cook have that right, Gabriel? Are the SCIC and Gil Cedillo trying to make it legal to drive drunk and speed, as long as you’re an undocumented Mexican?
Yes, Cook has it exactly right! Especially the part about ‘mass qualities’ of booze. No cheap shit!
Oh, I had taken “mass qualities” to refer to sips of sacramental wine.
How about the “county of Mexico” part?
Vern,
I looked at the G Cedillo bill, I don’t have a problem with it. I think it should be left up to the cops on the seen to make those decisions.
And what is a “undocumented Mexican?” (rhetoric, no answer needed)
Well, why did you bring up unsafe speeds and drunk driving? Nobody ever said those things were “AOK.”
Not to mention, most Mexicans I see driving go at the “unsafe speed” of way below the speed limit.
Vern, you have a better eye than I do, I can’t tell just by looking at them if the driver of a car is Mexican (Mexican national?).
But it is not hard to tell who the bad drivers are. (why do nice people turn into monsters behind the wheel?)
The police have a limited amount of tools to use to help lower the huge rate of auto related carnage. The check points is but one of those tools.
I do have a question for Gabriel, and that is, why does he think the Mexican Nationals are above the laws of the USA? If everyone else is subject to the laws, Blacks, Whites, Asians, all other Latinos, Us born and foreign born residents and naturalize citizens.
Why the narrow exception to the law for Mexican Nationals only?
And if you are going to go there, the law of the land doesn’t apply, is that all the laws? Does that mean the protection under the laws do not apply? That would be like calling “OPEN SEASON” anything goes.
(Now we are right back to rape and molestation etc., above the law, the law doesn’t apply, open season)
If the Mexican National is allowed to have no respect for the laws of the USA, then that means there is no respect for the Mexican national under US law, and of course that would not be right.
So Gabriel you need to think though from the beginning to the end on what you and those SCIC people are asking for and the implications of separating the Mexican national’s from the protection of US laws.
I think that you may be mistaking how and when Mexican nationals get “singled out.”
“If the Mexican National is allowed to have no respect for the laws of the USA, then that means there is no respect for the Mexican national under US law, and of course that would not be right.”
So please explain to me how are the Mexican nationals that you speak of different from the English and Spanish pilgrims who had no respect for my people’s land and culture when they invaded 500+ years ago?
“And if you are going to go there, the law of the land doesn’t apply, is that all the laws? Does that mean the protection under the laws do not apply? That would be like calling “OPEN SEASON” anything goes.”
Haha, slippery slope! Is it ski season already? This defies simple reason and doesn’t in any way justify your flagrant conflation.
I just happen to take issue with profiling under the guise of supposed DUI checkpoints. Fleecing a vulnerable community with expensive impounds? Also whack.
Interested parties can check out the 2010 investigation into car seizures at such checkpoints by California Watch here:
http://californiawatch.org/public-safety/car-seizures-dui-checkpoints-prove-profitable-cities-raise-legal-questions
Yes, I stand in favor of reforms that whittle away at this. Game over.
so cal immigration coaliton .cook this is another amnesty group as far as this topic cook nailed it if you dont have a license you are not suppose to drive . IF YOU DRIVE . YOU MUST HAVE A REGISTRATION . and insurance its the law some thing these people have a hard time following. if you come here illegally means you dont have papers = OOPS I FORGOT ITS SANTA ANA .
Speaking of Gil Cedillo, I fully expect him to reintroduce his bill to give licenses to illegals (as he has not less than 9 times in years past) and I fully expect Jerry Brown to sign it.
This will render the checkpoint drama a moot point.
Pratically speaking, It is a good idea for anyone renting a truck (U-HAUL) in Santa Ana, to pay the outrageous insurance they like to tack on.
The odd’s of being creamed by an unlisenced/insured driver at 17th and Bristol have to be higher (expodentially) than one at Birch and State College in Brea.
The fact is, people who live and drive in this part of the county consider that a “cost” built in to where they live, much like a San Franciscan who budgets for $2,500. per year in parking tickets. It’s the price you pay.
If you choose to live, drive travel through Santa Ana, you should be aware that many of the drivers are unlicensed, uninsured and likey unskilled as a result of the aforementioned. That does’nt mean they are bad, should not have the right to drive just that they are DANGEROUS to the public. The propensity for injury and death has to be increased…….right? Maybe not.
Well, Cook, since you asked:
“The Southern California Immigration
Coalition is unified to bring an end to the
Immigration and Customs Enforcement’ s
raids of communities and workplaces. We
believe in Full Legalization for the
undocumented and their right to live in
liberty, an unalienable right. People should
live free from persecution by enforcement
of a broken immigration system.”
If that was true, then why are you not fighting for liberty in Mexico? The immigration system works fine, if its enforced for everyone. Not just the people who have to come by plane.
The Southern California Immigration Coalition are nothing but a bunch of self serving ethnocentric idiots!
We don’t believe that some people should get pass everyone else, that just rude!
That’s directly from their website.
“We demand an end to the raids that torment our communities from living freely.”
LOL
Oh boy, what’s this? None other than Nativo Lopez is part of the SCIC.
So much for that group having any credibility.
“If you choose to live, drive travel through Santa Ana, you should be aware that many of the drivers are unlicensed, uninsured and likey unskilled as a result of the aforementioned.”
If this were the seemingly pervasive problem that you suggest, then insurance rates would reflect that reality. But guess what? They don’t. I moved to Santa Ana from Aliso Viejo in 2006, living in SA for four years, and my rates didn’t spike when I moved, nor did they go up while I lived there. In downtown. Near Bristol and 17th.
Your ignorant statement is simply driven by ignorant stereotypes…not truth. Please, educate us…what is “many”? What percentage is that? Post a link…post a REAL fact…or go away.
Thats because ANON, if you look at the fine print on your Auto insurance premium policy, you might notice that WE the insured, pay for the uninsured. You are WRONG, Santa Ana is a high crime area, which makes your insurance premium higher if you live in that city.
Then explain to me why my insurance rates didn’t go up when I moved there? You’ve failed to explain that. I lived there. It didn’t go up when I moved there, nor did it go up while I lived there…for four years.
Then you must have lived in a shitty area before too? That is the only explanation that I can give.
Cause you are the only person in California who could move from a low crime area to a high crime area without getting an up tick on your Auto insurance.
Plain and simple!
Well, if you consider Aliso Viejo a “shitty” area, then I lived in a shitty area. But something tells me you’ve never been in that area.
The bottom line is that you really can’t explain anything outside of your feverish, preconceived notions. So stop trying.
You don’t read your new insurance forms?…..Its a given that if you move, the area is evaluated as a low or high area crime area. If you moved to Santa Ana, it was in one of the only places in Santa Ana with low crime. Floral Park?
I love how you just assume things about people. No, it wasn’t Floral Park. As I said before, it was Downtown. Downtown isn’t a low crime area. Those crime choppers frequently flying overhead at night vouch for that.
Ignorant???
Stevie Wonder could see this.
I hope the view is interesting through your rose colored glasses.
Funny, you didn’t reprint the portion of my message which said, I harbor no ill will towards these drivers, just that they exist, in HUGE numbers, poportionately. You are out of touch.
How does an unlicensed driver get insurance anyway?
“How does an unlicensed driver get insurance anyway?”
By going to a insurance company and buying it.
So to say that there are many unlicensed, uninsured drivers in SanTana is an ignorant statement eh.
Surprised you didn’t throw in “hateful” or “bigoted “.
No need…ignorant pretty much covers a vague term like “many.”
Anon, I can tell you from my own personal experience as a tow company dispatcher in Santa Ana that there are in fact “many” unlicensed drivers in Santa Ana.
I can’t give an exact number as I never kept count (kind of wish i had) but a significant portion of persons retrieving their cars from the tow yard had no CDL or CID – just a Mexican ID or that “matricular”.
I was on another blog last nite, a poster-the admin of the blog, no less – actually attempted to equate illegals that drive w/o licenses, to Rosa Parks and others that once defied racist Jim Crow laws.
To say that I was flabbergasted would be an understatement on the level of saying if I got hit by a tsunami, I’d be damp.
Many years ago, to save money, the state almost emptied the mental hospitals of the crazies.
Those sick people now reside in Sacramento, some of the educational Institutions, and write for progressive and liberal blogs.
Classic “if I got hit by a tsunami, I’d be damp.”
For the length of the first sentence there, I thought that you had actually found a truffle.
This has nothing to do with immigration – immigrants do not have their cars impounded more or less than life long citizens. Those violating the law, whether or not they are recent immigrants, have penalties rightfully imposed. If you don’t like the law, get it changed. I don’t think that this is a left/right issue at all – business groups on the right that flaunt immigration laws should be held liable just like the individuals here illegally should be held accountable.
Presuming that Geoff’s assertion about the relative rates of car impounding between natural born citizens and immigrants is true (I won’t guess), I agree that this isn’t really a left/right issue — except when it comes to the question of selective enforcement of the way, where it may become one.
Geoff sez: “This has nothing to do with immigration – immigrants do not have their cars impounded more or less than life long citizens.”
Oh really? Where is your empirical evidence? I can cite California Watch’s 2010 investigation that shows the checkpoints know where the ‘gettin’ is good’ and it is very much about immigration.
“Cities where Hispanics represent a majority of the population are seizing cars at three times the rate of cities with small minority populations. In South Gate, a Los Angeles County city where Hispanics make up 92 percent of the population, police confiscated an average of 86 vehicles per operation last fiscal year.”
http://californiawatch.org/public-safety/car-seizures-dui-checkpoints-prove-profitable-cities-raise-legal-questions
GSR: FIrst, what the heck is a hispanic? Second – what is the causal relationship between cars seized and race – do the cops pick on hispanics (as you imply) or are hispanics in those communities here illegally in larger proportions making them subject to more lawful seizures? If there are simply more legal violations in certain areas, it would stand to reason that there would be more seizures. Are we not supposed to enforce the law?
That has nothing to do with race, that has to do with equal enforcement of the law.
Yeah, that’s all about right. Since these hispanics being pulled over aren’t allowed to have licenses, but are driving perfectly safely, policy changes are being implemented in various locations to ignore this no-license law, and focus on more important laws. (I imagine that if the cops determine that the driver lost his license because of DUI’s or something else dangerous, it would be a different story.)
Changing local law enforcement policies to focus on more important rather than less important laws happens all the time, counselor.
Well … ok, apart from that, because Gabriel will probably correct me … I’ve also heard that these checkpoints HAVE been used in various places – definitely Costa Mesa – as more a tool against illegal immigrants than dangerous drivers.
Oh you can read the SAPD press releases on their “DUI checkpoints” all the time. The emphasis is on drunk driving, but the reality, which can be backed up by data analyzed by the OC Register, no less, is about impounding cars and making money hand over fist.
DUI checkpoints would make sense where there’s heavy concentrations of bars, don’t you think? But Santa Ana’s green zone (if you know what I mean) is largely not the focus while other areas of the city are. Not only is are checkpoint policies disproportionately targeted at Latino cities across the state, they are targeted within them as well.
Geoff, read the linked study already before you spout off.
Geoff: “If you don’t like the law, get it changed.”
Um, HELLO!? Isn’t that what this whole post is about?
No Vern, the post is about creating unconstitutional regulations that conflict with existing law. Only through modification of existing federal law can any of this be changed. Santa Ana can change when it chooses to conduct DUI checkpoints, it cannot determine to ignore the law once it has set up the checkpoints.
The relevance of my comment is related to crime in Santa Ana, the city that this post focuses on. When looking at an issue like checkpoints by law enforcement the socio-economic environment of the community is a logical consideration, including the incidence of brutal child deaths and other person on person crime that results in seriouis injury or death Thus, we should expect law enforcement tactics to be different in Santa Ana than, say, Villa Park.
Gabriel San Roman:
You rail against the checkpoints and claim they unfairly target vulnerable communities.
However, a certain point seems to elude you, that being…these “vulnerable people” make a deliberate, conscious decision to violate the law by driving (which is a privelege, not the right that those advocating this lawless behavior make it out to be) while unlicensed.
It’s pretty stupid to break the law and snivel about being “victimized” when you’re eventually caught.
Let’s say for the sake of argument the checkpoints are in fact predatory. If those who are unlicensed weren’t driving unlawfully, they wouldn’t have to worry about the checkpoints, now would they?
I drove with no license for a good deal of years. I knew my conduct was unlawful and if caught, there’d be consequences. I was eventually caught and long story short had to shell out 1,100 + dollars to retrieve my car.
Did I cry about being “victimized” or play the idiotic race card? No.
I’ll just sit back and wait for some apologist-likely GSR-to further attempt to romanticize the “plight” of these “victims”.
I mean, after all “they HAVE to drive, they have no choice”.
amirite
1. Our nation requires their labor, and they need the work.
2. Our broken immigration system makes it close to impossible for them to get legal;
3. To work you need to drive;
4. They can’t get a license because they’re illegal.
You don’t gotta be some kind of bleeding heart to see that all doesn’t add up, and that a reasonable bandaid is to at least not be taking their cars. (Unless of course they’re drunk or speeding or something)
1. Our nation requires their labor, and they need the work.
,,,,,,, Untrue , true for the second part.
2. Our broken immigration system makes it close to impossible for them to get legal;
……. there are 3 types:
(1) the criminal (who will never be legal)
(2) the adult foreigner (definitely has a problem)
(3) the under age 18 child (all ready legal, but doesn’t know it)
3. To work you need to drive;
……. Untrue
4. They can’t get a license because they’re illegal.
……. untrue, I have seen drivers licenses from Mexico and other counties and international driver licenses.
Vern, I’ll agree that the current state of affairs does put them in a bind of sorts. However that still doesn’t justify them being on the road.
If it were a case of them driving strictly to/from work, medical appointments, etc. I’d be more inclined to agree with them driving (there’s still public transportation available though).
However, I’m sure a great deal of their driving is not strictly limited to the circumstances I listed above. How many of them drive for leisure activities as well?
I’m sure you’ve heard of the unlicensed twat that recently ran a stop sign and plowed into a mother and her two young children crossing the street, killing her two year old.
He was driving home from a BAR…and drunk.
Well, THAT guy should be in prison, for a long time.
It doesn’t reflect on the others who can’t get a license.
We gotta get a more sensible immigration system, and until we do, we need a law like Cedillo’s making it possible for undocumented workers to take the drivers’ test, get licensed, and get insured. And until THAT passes, the least we can do is stop seizing their cars. The draconian policy we’ve had previously didn’t stop this one illegal from killing a kid, and hasn’t stopped many legal drivers from doing the same.
Good argument Vern, because US citizens and residents drive drunk and kill people, then we must allow foreign nationals to drive drunk and kill people too.
On topic, check point policy. Should drunks and other dangerous drivers have their cars impounded?
Yes, of course.
“more sensible immigration system” What does that have to do with killing people with cars?
Your problem Cook, I think, is that you can’t remember what one person, or yourself, says from one sentence to the next.
Yes, of course drunks and other dangerous drivers should have their cars impounded, whether they’re US citizens or foreign nationals.
“Drunks and other dangerous drivers” is not the same thing as “decent drivers who just can’t have a license because they are undocumented foreigners.” We are proposing NOT taking away THEIR cars.
If you keep not getting this straight, I’ll give up now.
I wonder how many illegal alien apologists are thinking;
“The boy’s death is on the hands of the state of CA. After all, they won’t allow illegals to get licenses, so the unlicensed driver HAD to flee the scene-thus making it a hit and run-rather than stop and render aid”.
*snicker*
No, only YOU would come up with something like THAT. *snicker*
Hey what kind of name is Le Dai Khoa? I thought you were from Vietnam, but you were reminiscing the other day about American TV shows from the early sixties.
It is in fact a Vietnamese name. And: TVLand.
Well, I think you’ve just got something against Mexicans, which is a shame.
I was wondering when someone was going to play the race card.
Because, after all, if someone is opposed to illegal immigration, illegals driving while unlicensed, etc. they MUST be racist, right?
I have nothing against Mexicans. Try again.
I just never understand why else someone would be so obsessed with illegal immigrants, when there are so many bigger problems in our country. After a while it becomes a reasonable guess.
LE DAI KHOA welcome to the site i agree on all your points a brife background on this site . one its a very left leaning site with a few exceptions . 2 if you make sense on something you are called a hater , racist , latino basher . stupid , . some of the illegal alien lovers just dont get it . the law is if you dont have a registration your car can be taken away no matter who you are . they play the race card . stats show wich city has the highest population of illegals ,? so i am a cop trying to stop this . ahhh i think i will go to newport beach , or irvine im sure i can find lots of those there . .. its like im going fishing but im going to go fish in the desert . maybe i will snag some fish ..
Well Great One, I gotta warn you about Le Dai Khoa. You two may agree about illegal immigrants, but Le likes to join me in making fun of people like you who write so EXECRABLY.
“A very left leaning site with few exceptions”? This is about as politically balanced a site, not just left-right, but across the political dimensions, as I’ve ever seen. Maybe if you stand up straight you’ll be able to see it.
By the way, congratulations on not capitalizing anything but Le’s name. You may have turned a new leaf! I’ll just read down and see whether you were able to keep it up … oh dear. Forget what I said.
oh i forgot to mention to him also . when you win a point on here and your side is right they make fun of your writting . BECAUSE THEY HAVE NOTHING ELSE TO COUNTER IT ..
Le writes fine. Probably because he has spent his life reading and thinking clearly. Unlike you, Quinn, and others.
OH I FORGOT YOU SNOBBY LIBS ARE SO MUCH BETTER THAN US , YEAH I SAW THEM ON TV IN LA AKA THE OCUPY CROWD LOTS OF GREAT BRAINS OUT THERE ..
“BECAUSE THEY HAVE NOTHING ELSE TO COUNTER IT”
You, of all people, have absolutely NO room to talk. Take a look in the mirror buddy…all you EVER have to say is wildly stereotypical, blanket statements about “far left libs” and how they get all their info from MSNBC.
Like I’ve said before, until you can get past your own “broken record” syndrome and contribute substantive comments, you simply look like a hypocrite.
Hey anon, speaking of our resident psychos and morons…
Don’t you sometimes miss being called “onan?”
Yeah…in the same way that “Anonster” would miss being called “ANOSTER” by The Grating Juan if he left.
C’mon… “Onan” was wittier.
Moron Mongoloid!
Actually Vern I was and still am opposed to licenses for illegals.
However, lately I’ve begun to think that if they were givien licenses “for driving only” as stipulated by Cedillo in his “one bill,” it would make the roads safer and introduce a measure of accountability into situation.
I wouldn’t be happy about a group residing illegally in the US being obtain licenses, but the alternative (our current dilemna) is worse.
Can we agree on that much, at least?
You know…. yes, I think so.
For now. We still need major comprehensive immigration reform.
ASSNON hypocrites are libs like you who repeat the same story on this site over n over , call people names who you dont agree with . so look in the mirror pal its more likely broken from what it sees .
LOL…I rest my case.
hhaaa i rest mine my no doughts
Okay, now this is getting tedious… I am going to begin to delete comments that don’t address the matter at hand (even though I started this)
Vern, I can’t think of how to even go about reforming the current immigration system.
I don’t think another mass amnesty is the answer. I believe that would encourage people to keep coming under the belief that one day THEY would be granted amnesty as well.
I cannot come up with any ideas or suggestions. Does anyone else?
Later. For now, let’s just enjoy agreeing on these “driving-only” licenses.
I just don’t see how they would work. Wouldn’t a “driving only” license also become a “probable cause that I am not authorized to be in the country or else I’d have a real license” license? Why would someone want one of these for ID? Or is this just to show to one’s car insurance company, so that one can take advantage of the long-established “car insurance vendor-purchaser privilege”?
Maybe someone has figured out why this wouldn’t be self-incriminatory, but I have not.
“For now. We still need major comprehensive immigration reform.”
Code words for amnesty.
“Amnesty.” Isn’t that the nativists’ code word for any kind of path to legality or citizenship?
“major comprehensive immigration reform”
Is it A-OK to use force to make these foreign nationals American citizens?
You have already agreed that the criminals will not be included.
The children are already legal. (the excuse used, “its for the kids” is BS.)
The adults are the ones in question.
And how much tribute are you wanting from them? And how much force are you willing to use to make then into your version of a citizen?
Greg Diamond, it was Cedillo himself that proposed this type of license in his bill.
Of course we know that the Terminator vetoed them because they didn’t meet his “security concerns”.
Hell, even Grey Davis vetoed the license bill twice. The only reason he later signed it was to avoid getting “terminated”.
Okay, let’s be clear on what we mean by “driving-only” license. I think Le is right, that’s pretty much what Gil has been fighting for for years.
If it only covers driving, then what doesn’t it cover? All I can think of is that it doesn’t mean you’re documented; it still should be an acceptable ID for most purposes.
And I don’t see the problem, for the person with the license: Pretty much everywhere in California – even Mansoor’s Costa Mesa – you don’t get jailed or deported unless you’ve done some kind of crime. Safe, licensed, insured driving should not be a crime for these people.
Or am I confused? Gabriel, where did you go?
Can California issue international driver licenses? I don’t think so.
Is the difference between a “driving only” license and a regular license discernible to the naked eye? Through a magnifying glass? Not at all?
If you can’t tell the difference, how is it “driving only”? If you can tell the difference, why isn’t it stigmatizing?
I get that Cedillo introduced it — well, can someone get him to sign on here to explain it?
“Okay, let’s be clear on what we mean by “driving-only” license. I think Le is right, that’s pretty much what Gil has been fighting for years.” (Vern)
So it is A-OK, to issue a 2nd class license to a 2nd class human.
What is next to make even more easier? a permanent registration number tattooed on their arms?
Heck, since we need their labor (according to Vern) why not ship them in by boat and buy and sell them on the open market in town squares across the southland.
Is this “GIL” guy a Lawyer? Or is he one of those mentally challenge people who ended up in Sacramento because there isn’t any room for him at the state hospital MR ward?
“So it is A-OK, to issue a 2nd class license to a 2nd class human”
2nd class humans? Really? So who are the first class humans in your eyes? Geriatric crumudgeons like you and the Pearl Clutching Puritan of Mission Viejo?
It must be perfectly legal to issue licenses to 2nd class humans since you possess one.
?? Guy,
you are Ok with treating people as 2nd class?
I was asking a question, on how far should we go with the 2nd class?
You’re the one that used the term, not me.
SB 60 is here:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/05-06/bill/sen/sb_0051-0100/sb_60_cfa_20060111_131538_sen_floor.html
“Pretty much everywhere in California – even Mansoor’s Costa Mesa – you don’t get jailed or deported unless you’ve done some kind of crime.”
Uh, have you heard of SCOMM and the record deportations under the Obama Administration?
GSR, my impression had been that while the Obama Admin has stepped up deportations, it has been largely limited to people with criminal histories here. Do you know if that’s true — or otherwise?
Your impression doesn’t correlate with the reality on the ground:
http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/10/open-borders-obama-sets-new-deportation-record
Also, the Warren Report is important reading on this abhorrent program:
http://uncoverthetruth.org/wp-content/uploads/CCR-NDLON-Guide-to-Warren-Institute-SComm-Report.pdf
Thanks, GSR. To save others the trouble, this seems like the most relevant part of the article:
Treating marijuana use as a basis for deportation, to the extent it happens, is absurd. I think that these are fair questions, though I’m not sure that there aren’t answers. (For example, that list of crimes isn’t exhaustive.) Still, this is a useful link.
If you read what the bill says, you will read that it does not give you what you are asking for.
People (classified or known as “illegal aliens”) do not qualify for the drivers license.
So this bill doesn’t fix the problem of unlawful drivers. So those of you who think this is your solve all problems bill, should look to the people who have lied to you and hold them accountable for treating you as fools. What a bunch of rubes.
you dont get jailed or deported unless yuo have done somekind of crime .. GEE I GUESS SNEAKING INTO THE COUNTRY IS NOW NOT A CRIME ?
It’s not a crime if you’re very young and your parents are the ones bringing you in, because you don’t have the capacity to commit that crime.
Now: are you under the impression that all the people in the country without authorization have snuck across the borders? That’s not how it works,
Greg Diamond Posted November 30, 2011 at 10:55 AM
“It’s not a crime if you’re very young and your parents are the ones bringing you in, because you don’t have the capacity to commit that crime.”
Greg gets it, … the kids are legal residents before their 18th birthday and remain so after. All those who say laws are needed to fix “the kid problem” are liars who are extorting dollars from these people under false pretenses.
No, they don’t become legal residents before age 18, nor do they remain so. My point was that they did not commit a crime — at least by any reasonable moral calculus — in entering the country.
Greg says:
“No, they don’t become legal residents before age 18, nor do they remain so”
(my opinion)
Yes, they (under 18) are legal residents, because the State and the fed’s say they are.
They are treated as residents by the state run school districts and state run welfare departments, also the fed’s levy rules on the states that these residents can not be discriminated against because of national origin.
The federal and local governments treat them as (legal) residents, their living here has established bona fide residential status.
But not their parents who either hop the fence, over stayed a visa, or came for a visit and never left or applied for permanent status are not because adult are subject to the laws of US immigration.
Of course not being a lawyer myself, I would not know were to find the law that say a legal resident aliens under 18 automatically becomes a illegal non-resident aliens on their 18th birthday. Do you have that cite?
OK MR TECH anyone who has a expired visa , came here illegally .and just because your parents came across then THEY ARE HELD LIABLE ..
Anyone who had a valid visa not obtained under false pretenses came here legally, chowderhead. And unlawful presence in the U.S., as with an expired visa, is a civil violation but not a crime.
MY GOD WE MUST HAVE LOTS OF CIVIL VIOLATIONS IN THIS STATE ..
“The categories Morton
cites, however—homicide,
sexual offenses, DUIs and
“drug-related crimes”—only
account for 87,547 of the
215,698 deportations
counted as criminal
removals.”
Only” 87,547 huh.
Nice attempt at trivializing, 87,547 is just shy of 40% of 215,698.
And I’ll bet that we can agree that (perhaps minor drug-related crimes aside) those are the people who we’re most willing to see deported. That means that the Obama Administration, in this respect, was acting prudently.
Oops I mean just over 40%.
In any event 87K + is an alarming number.
A number that makes a mockery of the most sacred, hallowed tenets of illegal alien apologists:
“THEY ARE GOOD PEOPLE. THEY ONLY COME HERE BECAUSE THEY WANT TO WORK.”
It doesn’t make a mockery of it. Compare that 40% rate including “sexual offenses, DUIs, and drug-related crimes” to your average college fraternity — or corporate boardroom, for that matter. Of course, some people are less likely to get caught and prosecuted than others.
Not really.
#1, It’s a good thing those 87K are deported, pero:
87K out of what 11 million here? Are drunks, druggies, and sometimes worse? So that works out to … you really think worse than the white or black or Asian population?
You’re the one with the calculator.
Given that Ceci Munoz and the Obama admin spin SCOMM as if it OVERWHELMINGLY targets serious criminal offenders, then yes, “only” is an appropriate qualifier.
Now, within that number cited, how many are “drug-related offenses” vs. homicide and sexual offenses? Break that down to whittle away further. The Obama admin has no credibility on this issue, seeks an expansion of the problematic program and is worse than Bush.
I think that’s because until today you weren’t using an e-mail address, just an IP address. Vern and I have been approving them as fast as we can. My hope is that with your having an address the site software has now sniffed you and likes you.
Oh – that was in response to Le’s saying his comments didn’t show up – but I think I deleted that!