Immigration Watch International (2)

Tuesday, October 2, 2012

California Legislation Gives Undocumented Immigrants License to Drive

The newest legislative move in California marks a small victory for the states undocumented immigrants.

In the new bill, signed into action late Sunday night by Gov. Jerry Brown, some undocumented immigrants could get California drivers licenses.

AB2189 by Assemblyman Gil Cedillo, D-Los Angeles, will let the Department of Motor Vehicles issue licenses to undocumented immigrants eligible for work permits under a new Obama administration policy. The bill requires the department to accept as proof of legal residence whatever document the federal government provides to participants in its deferred action program.

Cedillo said his bill will make roads safer while letting young immigrants drive to school and to work. His reasoning drew support from several Republican lawmakers, while other Republicans argued the state should leave immigration issues to the federal government.

"It is a victory for those who were brought here through no choice of their own, played by the rules, and are only asking to be included in and contribute to American society," Cedillo said in a statement.

He said California is the first state to grant drivers' licenses to the group singled out under the Obama administration's policy. Cedillo praised Brown for choosing "public safety over politics" by signing the bill.

"President Obama has recognized the unique status of these students, and making them eligible to apply for driver's licenses is an obvious next step," Brown spokesman Gil Duran said.

Meanwhile, Brown vetoed AB1081, which could have protected undocumented immigrants from deportation if they committed minor infractions. The bill has been dubbed "anti-Arizona" legislation, a reference to that state's immigrant identification law.

The so-called Trust Act would have let California opt out of some parts of a federal program that requires local law enforcement officers to check the fingerprints of people they arrest against a federal immigration database and hold those who are in the country illegally.

It would have barred local law enforcement officers from detaining suspects for possible deportation unless they are charged with serious or violent felonies.

Brown backed comprehensive federal immigration reform, and said in a veto message that federal agents "shouldn't try to coerce local law enforcement officials into detaining people who've been picked up for minor offenses and pose no reasonable threat to their community."

However, he said the list of serious or violent felonies in the bill is "fatally flawed because it omits many serious crimes." He said those include child abuse, drug trafficking, and weapons violations, among others. He promised to work with lawmakers to fix the bill's wording.

California law enforcement officials have turned over about 80,000 undocumented immigrants for deportation since 2009, though fewer than half had committed a serious or violent felony. The majority of those deported by the federal government under the Secure Communities program have come from California.

Supporters say the program targets otherwise law-abiding immigrants who commit minor traffic infractions, sell food without a permit or are arrested on misdemeanors charges but never convicted. Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco, said the program wastes local resources and causes mistrust between immigrants and law enforcement agencies.

Several Republican legislators objected that Ammiano's bill would have removed a valuable tool for ridding California of lawbreakers.

SOURCE

Recent posts at CIS below

See here for the blog. The CIS main page is here.

Blogs

1. Mexican President-Elect Criticizes Texas Justice System

2. DACA Data

3. Birth Tourism Baby Calls United States a "Foreign Country"

4. USCIS Does the Right Thing and Overrules Its Own Ombudsman

5. New Poll: Latino Voters Identify as Americans First and Don't Vote on the Immigration Issue

6. Obama Administration Promises to Ignore SSN Fraud, Protect Law-Breaking Businesses

7. Study Finds Skilled Low-Wage Workers

8. ICE Offers Social Work Services to Foreign Students

9. There's Nothing as Permanent as a Temporary Immigration Status

10. Non-Citizen Voting Suits Spread to Michigan

11. T.J. Bonner's Unfortunate Circumstance

12. Should a U.S. University President Need an Interpreter at a Criminal Trial?

13. The Huddled Masses vs. the Best & the Brightest

14. Taming the Crocodile: Reasons to Doubt U.S. Decision to De-List MEK as a Terrorist Group

15. Obama's de Facto Amnesty Shows He's No Solomon

16. Marriage Fraud in a "He Did It" or, Maybe, "She Did It" Case

No comments:

Post a Comment

Background

Postings from Brisbane, Australia by John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.) -- former member of the Australia-Soviet Friendship Society, former anarcho-capitalist and former member of the British Conservative party.

Why is "La Raza" the one Spanish term that is NEVER translated in the American mass media? Because translating it would make it a lot less respectable. It means "THE RACE" -- The mixed Hispanic "race" of Mexico. Racism is fine South of the Rio Grande only, apparently.

The "line" of this blog is that immigration should be SELECTIVE. That means that:

1). A national government should be in control of it. The U.S. and U.K. governments are not but the Australian government has shown that the government of a prosperous Western country can be. Up until its loss of office in 2007, the conservative Howard government had all but eliminated illegal immigration. The present Leftist government has however restarted the flow of illegals by repealing many of the Howard government regulations.

2). Selectivity should be based on "the content of a man's character, not on the color of his skin", as MLK said. To expand that a little: Immigrants should only be accepted if they as individuals seem likely to make a positive net contribution to the country. Many "refugees" would fail that test: Muslims and Africans particularly. Educational level should usually be a pretty fair proxy for the individual's likely value to the receiving country. There will, of course, be exceptions but it is nonetheless unlikely that a person who has not successfully completed High School will make a net positive contribution to a modern Western society.

3). Immigrants should be neither barred NOR ACCEPTED solely because they are of some particular ethnic origin. Blacks are vastly more likely to be criminal than are whites or Chinese, for instance, but some whites and some Chinese are criminal. It is the criminality that should matter, not the race.

4). The above ideas are not particularly blue-sky. They roughly describe the policies of the country where I live -- Australia. I am critical of Australian policy only insofar as the "refugee" category for admission is concerned. All governments have tended to admit as refugees many undesirables. It seems to me that more should be required of them before refugees are admitted -- for instance a higher level of education or a business background.

5). Perhaps the most amusing assertion in the immigration debate is that high-income countries like the USA and Britain NEED illegal immigrants to do low-paid menial work. "Who will pick our crops?" (etc.) is the cry. How odd it is then that Australians get all the normal services of a modern economy WITHOUT illegal immigrants! Yes: Before the pandemic, you usually COULD buy a lettuce in Australia for a dollar or thereabouts. And Australia IS a major exporter of primary products.

6). I am a libertarian conservative so I reject the "open door" policy favoured by many libertarians and many Leftists. Both those groups tend to have a love of simplistic generalizations that fail to deal with the complexity of the real world. It seems to me that if a person has the right to say whom he/she will have living with him/her in his/her own house, so a nation has the right to admit to living among them only those individuals whom they choose.

I can be reached on jonjayray@hotmail.com -- or leave a comment on any post. Abusive comments will be deleted.

Immigration Watch International (2)

Tuesday, October 2, 2012

No comments:

Post a Comment

Background

Other blogs

Blog Archive

Contributors