So the governor of California signs a law allowing an illegal immigrant to get a valid driver’s license. Since I read this article early yesterday morning, I’ve been thinking non-stop about it. I can’t even begin to wrap my head around where to begin commenting on this because it makes a type of sense that’s not. The best I can do is list out what has been bothering me about it and comment on it as I go. So here’s what I found.
First of all, what strikes me is that the license is marked to signify that this person is an illegal immigrant. Latino groups are upset by the fact that the license says they are illegally in this country because it may lead to racial profiling. Well, yeah, it will. How is that a problem? My understanding is that federal law requires law enforcement officers to arrest illegal immigrants and get the Immigration Department involved to deport these people. After all, they entered the country illegally and by law, must be sent back to where they came from. If my understanding is correct, then this new law actually contradicts the previous law and somehow one of them needs to be struck down by the courts. So why is no one challenging the new law? Or the old law?
Second, the governor says that in order to get the license, you have to pass the written driver’s test. He explains that this is supposed to make the streets safer because the owner of the license will be familiar with the laws of our roads. How about the laws of our country, specifically the ones that state how to enter the country in a legal way? Perhaps that needs to be part of the driver’s test. Here’s a thought, if we deport illegal immigrants, they won’t be on our roads in the first place. Wouldn’t that make the streets safer?
Third, the reporter who wrote this article interviewed a man who came out to witness the signing of the law. He is here illegally and was very happy because now his two daughters who are also here illegally can now obtain a driver’s license to legally be driving to and for work. The one daughter has a job driving a food truck (roach coach as we called them years ago). So this says to me, she came here illegally, she obtained a job illegally (no social security number), she is driving illegally, she is not paying taxes (also illegal), and now she will be able to get pulled over by police and she can continue her illegal activities because no one is able to do anything about her status. And while I’m thinking about it, if she gets pulled over, she was most likely doing something illegal to warrant it. Just saying.
As I look over my previous comments, I realize that this new law actually ties the hands of the police to enforce the very laws they were sworn to uphold. I have so much respect for our law enforcement officers that I actually feel sorry for them because our leaders have reduced the law to a way to campaign for voters. The governor who signed this law is reported to be popular with Latino voters, who are primary supporters of the law. In California, Latinos are a major voting block and by signing this law, he is promoting himself as the candidate to vote for within that group. Call me a cynic, but shouldn’t someone be yelling “foul” and looking for a way to get this guy out of office? You can say that will be up to the voters, but he just got into bed with a strong voting block by being allowed to sign the law in the first place. How will he get voted out, if he can use the law to gain voters?
Perhaps those reading this can understand where my difficulty in trying to even begin making any sense of any of it comes from. I have tried to imagine any condition where this new law would make sense and I can’t. I am at a complete loss as to how giving a valid driver’s license to an illegal immigrant is a good thing. Don’t get me wrong, I am completely in favor of immigration, but there are laws written as to how that is to be done. If we are going to take the time to write laws, perhaps we should actually consider following them. If we disagree with a particular law, then there is a process to repeal them. Since when is it ok for a politician to ignore current law just because they don’t like it?
While I agree with everything you have said, I think that the process to be a legal immigrant may need to be revised. The citizens' of whatever countries from which they are immigrating clearly not the best suited for those particular people.
ReplyDeleteI do not think they should be able to obtain a valid driver's license. By doing this, they are breaking another law: driving without insurance. Not all people breaking the immigration laws are bad, but they are still committing crimes. It seems very clear to me that the governor is just out to get votes. Hopefully checks and balances on the state level comes into play about this soon.
The article also states that insurance companies are in favor of the law. I can only assume it's because the law requires someone with a valid driver's license to have insurance. So everyone in favor of the law supports this because they are getting something out of it. The governor gets votes, the insurance companies get money, Latinos get to bring family members into the country illegally, and illegal immigrants get to stay.
ReplyDeleteThat's dumb. I mean, I guess it's "smart business" but not in favor of our country
ReplyDeleteOur Constitution was written when our country was much smaller and more homogenous. As it grew and expanded amendments were added to deal with the new conditions. It is now the 21st century. Are we the America of the Constitution or is the reality that we really belong to huge fiefdoms:military, corporate, and entertainment/news through which power is expressed. I find it interesting that we erect barriers to the south of our borders but not the much longer northern border. If my puny intellect can see incongruities, surely wiser heads should be able to see and solve, unless it is just too large for anyone to make sense of.
ReplyDeletemilitary, corporations,
Very interesting comment Bill. I had to think about it for quite a while before I could respond. There definitely are incongruities going on as you pointed out. But why is that? To the south, we have illegal immigrants crossing the border by the millions. They are legitimately looking for a better way of life and I can't fault them for that. America is a land full of opportunity, even while we are in a recession. It is still better than where they are coming from. It wasn't their fault that they were born in a location where they do not get the freedoms that we enjoy and so many here take for granted.
DeleteSo the question is, do we as a nation accept anybody and everybody because they are looking for a better life? We have the Bill of Rights which says there are certain freedoms that the government (actually any government) cannot take away from its citizens simply because they are human beings. But their own system of government is in fact taking those very rights away from them. Do we tell them to go home and fix that government when they actually are not given the right to change it? Should we step in with military force and make change happen so they can stop coming north for a better way of life?
What I see happening, is that some people believe we should allow anyone who wants to make a home in this country, to do it. That could work IF our resources could support the influx of people required to handle them all. But in actuallity, it cannot. Our infrastructure needs to improve to handle the additional load unlimited immigration would create, but such an improvement takes time and money. Our resources are actually limited, and our government is outspending the resources we currently have. That is why we have laws written to allow a "limited" immigration system. There is a limit placed on what our country is willing to accept so that we can progress at a realistic rate. The incongruity comes in as to WHO we will accept as legal immigrants. We don't erect fences to the north because Canada's form of government is not that bad and people are not flocking to the US to get away from it. If they did, fences would go up pretty quickly.
Many years ago, I had read that there is a list of how many people we would accept from each country. If memory serves me correctly, it was based on "what" contributions those particular immigrants would bring with them. So we were looking for the "best" immigrants that would bring the most advantage to the US economy. Is that the best criteria to use? Probably not, but how do we choose who has the right to become a US citizen? Someone somewhere has to make that decision.
In case you haven't picked up on it yet, I don't know what the answer is. We have laws to allow immigrants to enter legally, but our current administration has made it clear that they don't intend to enforce the law. I can only assume that there is some advantage for them to do that. The record shows that the Latino population votes almost unaminously Democratic. So with a Democrat in the White House, if we give amnesty to all the illegal immigrants (mainly Mexican) there is suddenly a huge increase in voting power for Democrats. I can only wonder if power is the only reason motivating those who are pushing for these new laws and not enforcing current law. That sounds very racist (because if you are white, you are not allowed to EVER say anything negative about non-whites), but I can't find any other explanation that makes sense to me. I want immigration to continue, but there is legal ways to do it.
Well put. I see no simple solution. We have immigration laws we won't/can't enforce because our economy needs cheap skilled labor and the Latino population is ready and willing to provide that resource. As the economy recovers they will arrive again. That our ATM's all have Spanish as the alternate language speaks volumes about their economic power. Times are a changin' and our world is too complicated to govern easily and democratically. Peace!
Delete