Leftist Licentiousness
Moments ago, the California state senate passed yet another bill to give drivers licenses to illegal aliens. It now floats to the assembly, which will certainly pass it again; and Governor Schwarzenegger will just as certainly veto it. Again.
Of course, if we elect another Democrat like Gray Davis as governor in 2006, it could become a statewide reality.
Am I too cynical? Or is it possible that the Democratic Party is looking down the pike at the possibility of Congress forcing states to require photo-ID before a voter can vote… and they’re preparing now by giving confusingly official-looking IDs to their natural constituency: non-citizens.
Oh, well; I’m sure there’s no connection. Nothing to see here, folks; just move on!
I think you are being precisely cynical enough.
Stephen macklin (103410) — 6/2/2005 @ 4:48 pmThis act was criminal, misprision of a felony. In a just world, California statehood would be revoked until the lesson of Appomatox Courthouse, that the Doctrine of Interposition was dead, was once again learned.
Walter E. Wallis (d3ba2c) — 6/2/2005 @ 5:00 pmOh no, not cynical. Right on target is more like it.
Ith (91c717) — 6/2/2005 @ 6:15 pmI don’t have a problem with giving illegals licenses (OK, I do, just not a huge problem), but make them bright orange (I’m from east TN :-)) so everyone who sees them knows they shouldn’t be accepted for voting.
DrTony (9d319c) — 6/2/2005 @ 7:09 pmCan’t we have a card that simply verifies your ability to drive?
actus (3be069) — 6/2/2005 @ 7:16 pmWe already do. It’s called a Mexican driver license, which the U.S. is bound by treaty to accept.
Xrlq (717f9d) — 6/2/2005 @ 9:17 pmSomehow I felt the need to be more angry, so I called up Christine Kehoe, a Senator from the San Diego area, and asked her office how she voted:
Phone Person: “She didn’t vote for SB60”
Me: “Okay, did she vote no?”
Phone Person: “Not exactly. She either voted no or didn’t vote.”
Me: “Which one was it?”
Phone Person: “I’m not sure.”
You just gotta love this democracy stuff we got going on here. Of course giving licenses to criminal migrants was one of the biggest issues in the recall election.
Ladainian (91b3b2) — 6/2/2005 @ 10:28 pmCheck out this asinine reasoning:
“This bill is about public safety. Millions of Californians are in jeopardy every day from illegal immigrants who lack driver training and insurance”, said Sen. Richard Alarcon, D-Van Nuys, whose son was killed by an uninsured driver. (San Diego Union Tribune)
Full-blown reality denial is upon us. These Senators need to extract their heads from their asses and recognize that lawmaking isn’t some just some academic exercise without any consequences.
If Senator Richard Alarcon really believed that illegal aliens were placing millions of Californians in jeopardy every day, he would support measures to get them to leave.
Were California to deny services to illegals, more of them would pack up and go home in one day than will show up at the DMV for their useless driving test in a year.
If Alarcon was really concerned about uninsured motorists, he would support measures to prevent millions of desperately poor people who are prohibited from being in the United States in the first place from living and working here. Why do people drive without insurance? Because they can’t afford it. Giving them drivers licenses’ will not change that.
Of course, he knows all this, and he’s just lying, which is okay now.
Ladainian (91b3b2) — 6/2/2005 @ 10:39 pmLadanian, your analysis is once again “spot on.” I’m still trying to figure out how giving someone a driver’s license will magically produce safe, insured drivers. Of course I’m not a senator from California but I just don’t comprehend the logical connection here.
“Were California to deny services to illegals, more of them would pack up and go home in one day than will show up at the DMV for their useless driving test in a year.” I believe you may just be onto something there. Perhaps if our elected officials were actually interested in enforcing the law …
Xrlq, good point also, but that would require that we actually start by enforcing our immigration laws – a novel concept unlikely to be attempted until another 9/11-type attack occurs, if then.
Harry Arthur (b318a5) — 6/2/2005 @ 11:20 pm“We already do. It’s called a Mexican driver license, which the U.S. is bound by treaty to accept.”
But aren’t there laws that say that a resident has to get a new license? I did when I moved to DC.
actus (cd484e) — 6/3/2005 @ 9:44 amYeah, but there are also laws that say you’re not supposed to be here unless you have the legal right to be here. Your point?
Xrlq (ffb240) — 6/3/2005 @ 1:46 pm“Yeah, but there are also laws that say you’re not supposed to be here unless you have the legal right to be here. Your point? ”
The point being we want to verify driving ability of people who live there. If you think mexican drivers licenses do that, then fine. I think california may want to set some different standards.
actus (cd484e) — 6/3/2005 @ 2:19 pmMexican driver licenses are fine for establishing a person’s ability to drive. They’re not so could when it comes to papering over an illegal residency.
Xrlq (5ffe06) — 6/3/2005 @ 2:49 pmXRLQ: “They’re not so could [sic]when it comes to papering over an illegal residency.”
No, that’s what a Matricula Consular card is for.
See Dubya (7d18cb) — 6/3/2005 @ 3:12 pmThe point being we want to verify driving ability of people who live there.
How about, if someone is driving without a valid license, you check to see if they are here legally? If not then deport them. That would solve the problem.
Gerald A (bdfba2) — 6/3/2005 @ 3:18 pmWait until California drivers have their uninsured drivers premiums skyrocket when all these illegal aliens have licenses to drive but still can’t or won’t get insurance, adequate or otherwise. This will amount to yet another layer of subsidies US citizens are forced to pay for illegals. The backlash against the pols that voted for this legislative travesty will be huge, if bills like this ever get past the governor’s veto. Tancredo for President!!
Matt S (b9242c) — 6/3/2005 @ 4:23 pmNow that an initiative is being proposed that would create a state run border patrol, wouldn’t this altnerate drivers license data base give the border agents a good start on arresting illegal immigrants?
David Norman (9020c2) — 6/3/2005 @ 6:10 pm“Mexican driver licenses are fine for establishing a persons ability to drive.”
I hear you. I just think its reasonable to conclude differently. That you may want to have your own stadards, your own system, that your officers know, etc… for verifying ability to drive.
Is it reasonable to conclude that one of the standards be a requirement of citizenship? — Patterico
actus (3be069) — 6/4/2005 @ 8:23 amReasonable or no, we’re bound by treaty to accept them, just as we expect the Mexican government to honor our licenses when we travel there.
Xrlq (717f9d) — 6/4/2005 @ 11:21 am“Is it reasonable to conclude that one of the standards be a requirement of citizenship? — Patterico ”
I don’t see how that affects your ability to drive.
“Reasonable or no, we’re bound by treaty to accept them, just as we expect the Mexican government to honor our licenses when we travel there.”
But we’re talking about residing, which is different than travel, no?
actus (a2871c) — 6/5/2005 @ 6:13 amI don’t see how that affects your ability to drive.
Neither do I. Therefore, the Actus Rule is that anything that doesn’t affect your ability to drive is an unreasonable requirement. Ergo we should also do away with the insurance requirement as well. Right?
Patterico (756436) — 6/5/2005 @ 8:38 am“Therefore, the Actus Rule is that anything that doesn’t affect your ability to drive is an unreasonable requirement.”
Well, the rule is that its ok to have a drivers license that is about verifying ability to drive, rather than put all these other functions in there.
As to insurance, I can see how mandating insurance is mandating the ability to take some of the consequences of your driving.
Do they mandate insurance for drivers licenses in CA? Everywhere I lived it was tied to vehicle registration, not drivers’s licenses.
actus (3be069) — 6/5/2005 @ 9:27 amNot for this purpose, no. I’ve resided in three foreign countries, and none required me to obtain a local driver license. [I was too young to drive when I lived in Mexico, but my parents weren’t, and they didn’t need Mexican licenses, either.]
Xrlq (717f9d) — 6/5/2005 @ 10:09 amDo they mandate insurance for drivers licenses in CA? Everywhere I lived it was tied to vehicle registration, not drivers’s licenses.
You must provide evidence of financial responsibility to take a driver’s test, which you must take unless you already have a valid license from another state, in which case the driving test can be waived. (A valid license from another country does not allow you to escape the driver’s test.)
X,
If you are a California resident, I believe you are required to get a California license.
Patterico (756436) — 6/5/2005 @ 10:20 amI am, as I am a U.S. citizen who does not benefit from any international treaties while inside the U.S. The same may well be true of lawful permanent residents, but I’m pretty sure it’s not true of lawful temporary ones (e.g., those on student visas or temporary work visas), and it’s certainly not true of those who have no lawful basis for being here at all. If I traveled to Mexico without a visa (which I may lawfully do) and stayed beyond the requisite period (which I may not lawfully do), and later got pulled over by a cop, I’d likely be deported, but I wouldn’t be charged for driving without a license. Unless, of course, like most of these jokers I had no driver license from either country.
Xrlq (717f9d) — 6/5/2005 @ 10:39 am