castledoom.com

[JuntaJoe]

House OKs Tougher Driver's License Laws
February 10, 2005 8:42 PM EST
WASHINGTON - The House voted Thursday to make states verify that they're not giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants and to grant judges broader power to deport political asylum seekers they suspect may be terrorists.

The legislation, passed by a 261-161 vote, also would allow the completion of a fence along the U.S.-Mexican border south of San Diego by waiving environmental hurdles.

States would have three years to comply with the new federal standards dictating what features driver's licenses must have. They could still issue special driving permits to illegal aliens, but those permits would not be recognized as identities for boarding airlines or allowing entry to federal buildings.

Republicans said the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers had multiple driver's licenses that enabled them to slip through security and board the planes they flew into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and that crashed into the ground in Pennsylvania.

"There was a time when identification fraud was a matter of concern, principally, to bouncers and bartenders. But that was before Sept. 11, 2001," said Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas.

Ten states now don't require license applicants to prove they are citizens or legal residents: Hawaii, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Washington, Wisconsin and Utah. Tennessee issues driving certificates to people who cannot prove they are legal residents.

"Today there are over 350 valid driver's license designs issued by the 50 states," said the bill's author, House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis. "We all know it's very difficult for security officials at airports to tell the real ID cards from the counterfeit ones."

Governors, state legislatures and motor vehicle departments protested the bill, calling it a costly mandate that forces states to take on the role of immigration officers. The Congressional Budget Office estimated the bill would cost local, state and tribal governments $120 million over the next five years.

"The federal government can't seem to track the people it lets in the country, so it wants to put that burden off onto the states," said Cheye Calvo, a policy analyst for the National Conference of State Legislatures.

A similar measure was rejected by Congress and the White House in December when it was part of a bill reorganizing intelligence agencies. It won the Bush administration's support this week but still faces stiff opposition in the Senate.

The bill is drawing criticism from Mexico as well, particularly its call to complete the building of a fence along the U.S.-Mexican border south of San Diego.

"We oppose those measures and that our migrants be denied driver's licenses," said Interior Secretary Santiago Creel. "We're against building any wall between our two countries because they are walls that increase our differences."

Democrats tried but failed to strip the bill of provisions that would let judges deport asylum seekers if they find inconsistencies in their claims rather than let them remain in the country until appeals are exhausted.

"We might as well say, 'If you are being persecuted or you are being abused as a woman or raped as a child, don't come to America.' They are raising the bar beyond the abilities of the individuals that are fleeing persecution," said Rep. Kendrick Meek, D-Fla.

---

The bill is H.R. 418

Copyright 2005 Associated Press.

[JuntaJoe]

Ok, there's the article.

So is Washington demanding too much from states on giving illegals a free pass at ID's and driving privileges?

Is this a states rights and unfunded boondoggle or a legitimate barrier to the freedoms of illegals?

Here's my opinion.

States should have the right to grant driving privileges to whomever they want, but giving a a legal ID to someone who wrongly crosses our national borders is clearly a federal concern.

The bill doesn't tell states they can't issue licenses. It says that licenses that double as legal ID's can only go to legals.

All this crying about unfunded is a lark. Where was the money going to come from? From us. Citizens of every state. Why is national security the responsibility of the federal government alone?

Why should we send extra taxes to Washington that will only get drained of a percentage in admin costs just to mail it back to us so we follow the federal mandate? All that does is bloat the government. Handling the federal mandate regionally will cost us less in the long run.

Of course, that argument could be said for many federal programs.

But that's a whole 'nuther debate. :wink:

[Eddy]

If they are illegals, they have exactly one right. A one way trip back to the border, free of charge, with a bonus kick in the butt to get them started.

I have no tolerance for those who come here illegally and getting government benefits.

[JuntaJoe]

So why don't they apply for Welfare and foodstamps back at home? :wink:

[Eddy]

I don't know and I don't care. Let them deal with their country. It is not my business to feed people who aren't citizens of my nation.

[JuntaJoe]

I was being ironic with the last one.

[FrankyG888]

Finally the Federal Government is doing "something" about illegal immigration. It isn't a big step, but a step in the right direction nevertheless. The American people are quick to point out that this is a nation of immigrants. A melting pot of many diverse cultures. But they are equally quick to forget that most of those immigrants, and their cultures entered this country legally.

This isn't going to surprise anyone, but I blame the President. His program, which included amnesty for illegal immigrants already in the country, was derailed only by the September 11th attacks. No, I can't blame President Bush for all of the immigration problems, but he is responsible for patrolling our boarders as he claimed that he would in the recent elections.

A large amount of blame can be placed on former governor Davis of California. He signed a bill into law that would allow illegal immigrants to get drivers licenses.

The question is why did our leaders let us down. They let the American people down for votes. Davis allowed illegal immigrants to file for drivers licenses to win the vote of the families of illegal immigrants. The President's plan was also designed to gain votes to win the Presidency in 2000.

All I can say is that fence idea is sounding better and better because this problem is not going to solve itself and it is a problem that has to be solved. It is a matter of national security.

[broomdalf]

FrankyG888 wrote: The question is why did our leaders let us down. They let the American people down for votes.

They've been doing that for far longer than the last few years.

New Deal, anyone?

[FrankyG888]

Yes, but that does not mean that we should sit down and shut up. I am not ignorant. I realize that this is going to occur until the end of democracy. The question is where will we draw the line? This is not some trivial issue. It is a matter of national security, and this is where I draw the line.

The security of our nation has been compromised by these acts.

[JuntaJoe]

Why do they let us down?

It's the almighty vote at the root of the problem.

Neither party wants to irritate the fastest growing sector of the electorate.

I really don't see a realistic way to break this roadblock either.

Every solution is bound to get some group into an uproar.



But Texas border ranchers are growing weary and forming illegal militias.

I see a border war brewing.

Then there is the drug cartels in open defiance of Vincente Fox.

They've even attacked Mexican federal prisons.


If I was to prognosticate on the eventual situation, I see both governments doing as little as possible until a vast private war breaks out along the Texas border and both countries sending in troops finally to contain it.

It won't be pretty.

[FrankyG888]

Sadly this is true. If Fox doesn't really step up and do anything about the cartels then we could have another Columbia right on our boarder.

I wouldn't be surprised to see militant groups popping up out of Mexico like FARQ, AUC, and Los PEPES which have tormented the Colombian people, and have been a gigantic nuisance to the Venezuelan government.

A boarder war isn't just possible. It is probable.

[JuntaJoe]

I have noted one interesting thing in all this Bush/Fox lovefest.

As we pull our troops out of Europe, we are sending most of these troops to Fort Hood in Texas. Most of the US Army in Europe was built around armored divisions.

Fort Hood will become the world's largest concentration of tanks and armored troops.

And it is only a 2 hour drive from there to the border.

[FrankyG888]

It is scary to think that we will have another war to fight.

But we already whoop the Mexicans once why not again. :lol:

[JuntaJoe]

Once?

More like 2 or 3 times.

[DrJoshuaFalken]

I have a great idea for border security...

Remember the Berlin Wall, exactly like that.

We build it with convict labour, which would be ironically composed of a good amount of illegal immigrants the naive think came here for a better life (at the expense of Americans), and anyone currently serving time for a non-drug related (i.e just selling drugs) felony would help build the wall.

Now, this wont be like how the Japs in WW2 treated POWs or Nazis with Jews prior to the Final Solution, these will be the best cared for slaves in the history of the world, but it certainly wont be a vacation.

It will consist of two walls, one is the existing border, and the other about 300 metres back made of recycled plastics, metals as well as stone and concrete (keep the enviros off our backs). Between these two, electrified barbed wire covered by armed guards with some machine guns. Landmines are out due to world accords. Sensors in the ground to ensure that no tunneling takes place. The national guard will man the wall sections in their states. And the coast guard will patrols around in the waters around the walls. Anyone caught trying to cross the wall will be captured and fingerprinted and such the first time and sent back, the second time, they will be killed.

As for the ones currently in the U.S. an amnesty will be declared for all who have been here for a decade or more but will be required to go through the new streamlined immigration process (explained later). Anyone here for less than ten years but more than five will have to leave, except those who have been married for five years or more, or have children, they will go through the immigration process. Anyone here for five years or less will have to leave regardless or marital status or children.

Any illegal immigrant charged with a felony that has been here for ten years or less will be immediatly deported once the wall is completed or their sentence is up, whichever comes first.

Any non-citizen living in the US that has not appilied for the immigration programme that is found shall be deported back to their country of origin.

The new streamlined immigration process will take much less time than before, and hopefully will be a suitable alternative to sneaking in.

Once the person applies for citizenship, a background check will be run, if they have been convicted of a felony, theyre out, if they have a misdeamenor, then they shall be on a probationary citizenship for an extra year.
If theyre record is clean, then they shall take a test, once they pass it, they will be a citizen but with a condition, they must behave themselves, if there are convicted of a misdeamnor 3 times, they shall be stripped of their citizenship and deported. A felony results in them being deported immediattly if they are not cleared after one appeal. And this probationary period shall end after two years, with the extra year if they were convicted of a misdeamnor beforehand.

[Robbo]

This makes me curious, so excuse me for jumping in with my ignorant foreign questions :wink:

Why are illegal immigrants allowed to live/work/have drivers licences in the US? Obviousely illegal doesn't mean illegal?

[JuntaJoe]

Because they have legal relatives who vote. And don't forget this is the land of political correctness. Toss in lobbying and civil rights groups and you get a quagmire.

But walls 50 feet high will not keep them out.

That's our mistake.

The border patrol shouldn't be hampered chasing the people coming to make a buck.

That gets in the way of looking for terrorists and smugglers.


The key is to set the conditions where legal immigration becomes popular and illegal becomes a real pain.

First, be blunt. You get nothing at all in the way of social services. No schools, hospitals, welfare or anything for anyone who has an illegal living in their home. That means legal folks would lose their services for allowing an illegal to stay with them. This turns illegals into lepers fast. Emergency medical care results in instant deportation. Dead illegals are to be dumped on the border in full view of the tv cameras.

Next, you make it a felony for knowingly employing an illegal. Make sure they can lose their business as well. Start jailing employers and the word will get out.


So there's the "stick". Now you need the carrot. Get a real grip on sloppy, slow immigration paperwork. Dump some real cash into automating that system and get the paperwork done in a few weeks. And really beef up the quotas for countries that comply with all of our new security concerns.

Let's make it easy for the honest migrant to visit and make a buck.

[Robbo]

Just goes to show that even though we are apparently the 52nd state lately, just how different our two countries are in attitude and mindset. It might also have something do to with the population difference.

While I can't go into exact specifics, we have a system here that makes illegal immigration extremely difficult, using many of the tactics that joe mentions. It also cops a lot of flack, and almost cost the federal government the election before last, however it does (mostly) work - the Cornelia Rau case being the one which has had a lot of media coverage lately.

Unfortunately for you, it seems that no matter what the law says is illegal, can be circumvented/avoided by the actions of lobby groups. No wonder private militia's are forming - I can only begin to imagine their level of frustration.

[JuntaJoe]

Oh, this an issue that will be a career buster for the prez who fixes it properly.

Note that Bush tackled an "untouchable" during his second term, Social Security.

That is about the only way we will see this immigration issue properly resolved. A second-term president will need to take it up as he will be immune to re-election concerns.

[JuntaJoe]

Utah fires a shot.

Utah Bill Signed, Illegals Lose Licenses

March 08, 2005 11:23 PM EST

SALT LAKE CITY - Gov. Jon Huntsman on Tuesday signed a bill replacing regular Utah driver's licenses for undocumented immigrants with driving privilege cards that can't be used as official identification to board airplanes or register to vote.

The move comes a day after hundreds of demonstrators gathered to protest the bill, arguing that the cards amount to second-class status for minorities.

The driving privilege card must be renewed annually. Undocumented immigrants must surrender their driver's licenses on their birthdays or on July 1, whichever is sooner.

Huntsman spokeswoman Tammy Kikuchi said the governor has been "pretty strong, from the beginning, in support of this bill" and was undeterred by opposition in the minority community.

The bill's Republican sponsor, Sen. Curtis Bramble, said the measure was a compromise, because it still allowed undocumented immigrants to drive.

"I don't believe that it's the role of the State of Utah to provide documentation or some type of ID so that someone who is illegal can travel with impunity," Bramble said.

Bob Gallegos, president of the Hispanic lobbying group RAZ-PAC, vowed Tuesday to seek legal action against the law, and said he and other minority leaders would organize a one-day strike to prove how important undocumented workers are to the Utah economy.

Copyright 2005 Associated Press.