Skip to comments.Licenses for lawbreakers (illegal immigrants) -- the sequel (California)
Posted on 06/06/2004 2:40:49 PM PDT by FairOpinion
FORGET THE HYPE and the threats and the rumors about a deal brewing in Sacramento. California is not going to enact a bill to allow illegal immigrants to apply for driver's licenses this year or anytime soon.
SB60 author Sen. Gil Cedillo, D-Los Angeles, proclaimed that the Legislature's about-face was a good thing because the new governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, had agreed to work with him on a bill this year that would be more acceptable to voters.
Did Cedillo actually believe that? At the time, I figured that Cedillo and his supporters were running away from the bill in order to save their own sorry political skins -- and that they had to know that Schwarzenegger, no fool, would not sign on to such an unpopular measure. They just pretended to believe there was a deal to save face.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
The Dems were spreading disinformation about Arnold being willing to sign a new bill, and many so-called conservatives here eagerly believed the lying Dems.
So nice that she fed him extra line so the hook could sink in deeper. This is all about erasing the last distinction between true citizens and "residents" who owe their allegiance to a foreign power. That they feel allegiance to a government who effectively forced them out displays how culturally different they are from us, for I don't know any Americans who'd feel that way under the same circumstances.
shadenfreude + strategery = stratenshadenfreudery
Hold on..adjusting tag line......positioned for re-entry........dilithium xtals to full power...
"When Team Arnold floated the idea of marking illegal immigrants' driver's licenses to show they are not legal residents, Cedillo complained to reporters that the very notion "invites discrimination." Actually, immigration law demands discrimination as it prohibits employers from hiring illegal immigrants. "
Arnold is making a requirement, that the Dems will never go for, and Arnold will never go for the Dem version.
The Dems real objective is to erase the difference between legal and illegal immigrants, Arnold, wants to make sure this will not happen.
PING for the real story on this.
HINT: Arnold is NOT going to sign it.
As I and author is saying -- that is media hype and strategery on Arnold's part.
Arnold makes requirement, which the Dems will never accept, and Arnold will never sign the Dem version.
What makes the new bad law worse than the old bad law that simply gave real licenses to unreal people is that somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 of the LEOs in the state plan to run these certificate people in if they have no other form of I.D.
Almost makes one believe in democracy and the milk of human dumbness.
This is what mainstream Republicans miss. To wit, Americans of Latino origin are.. well, Americans.
In 1994 when Prop 187 qualified for the ballot just over 50 percent of Americans of Latino origin were for it. After months of TV lies the numbers fell but still some thirty percent of Americans of Latino origin voted for it. It passed by nearly sixty percent. Americans of Latino origin are Americans. Pass it on. California Republicans routinely get at least thirty percent of those Americans' votes, dem Rats get the rest plus the ILLEGALS' votes.
In 1994 Prop 187 passed by nearly sixty percent. Everywhere I looked in those days leading up to the election I saw "Save Our State." Some forty percent of the people who voted that year did so just to vote for Prop 187. It was really hot and the anti-Prop 187 TV ads were vicious lies, mostly.
Prop 187 was never court tested beyond the lowest court. A deal worked out by opponents and Dufus killed it.
Ten years later son of Prop 187 that merely required obeying federal law was hardly noticed. Conservative talkshow hosts except for the few are star-struck by Arnold and refused to support it. It failed to get enough signatures to qualify.
We've gone from "Hell No! No licenses for ILLEGALS!" to "What color should they be?"
Candidate Schwarzeneger made it clear that he was against SB60 and amnesty but he was for helping "undocumented immigrants" in every way possible. I have heard him say (Sac. TV ch 19) and seen his quotes that there will be licenses for "undocumented immigrants."
He is just yanking Cedillo's chain? Then what kind of character has the man?
Cedillo does share the outrage of the voters in his Senate district. They are, by a large plurality, the consequences of illegal immigration and are outraged that they, their parents, their siblings, their aunts and their uncles are being denied the American dream over a matter so small as the rule of law. They simply want the governor to defy such trivial federal and state laws.
|The Dems were spreading disinformation about Arnold being willing to sign a new bill, and many so-called conservatives here eagerly believed the lying Dems.
And I'm absolutely certain you're not referring to me, but I'll tell you... Debra Saunders has gotten things really, really wrong a few times. So much so that they occasionally discuss it with her on KSFO radio.
So, although I suspect you could be right, just don't lean your life earning power on Debra Saunder's sometimes fallible opinions. Otherwise, you'll become as shocked and stunned as she was by something political quite recently. I can't remember the specifics, but I do remember her being fed crow by KSFO personalities over it.
After hearing (Sacramento talk show host) Eric Hogue say that one too many times I stopped listening and went back to KSFO.
Like Mr. Hogue I am sure FairOpinion means it. It's no different than John Kerry intimating that we are not intelligent enough to understand nuances in his comments IMO.
Many here and elsewhere have documented the Governor's statements to no avail.
Let's suppose that Cedillo caves, the governor signs the bill, and the licenses for illegal aliens contains a mark identifying them as illegal. Don't you think that the ACLU would be all over this as being discriminatory?
Sure they will. But if the illegals carried a card showing their status, it would be a very good step, You want to vote? but your card says you are here illegally, sorry.
You have caused an accident, aha, your license says you are a mexican citizen, you better come with me down to the station... we need to verify your insurance situation, and make sure you don't flee the state.
Not unless you deport them after they get their cards! :) Here's my problem with all of this:
These programs for illegals and the ensuing debates about them should not even exist. For me it begins with the question, "Are you here legally"? If the answer is no, then that is as far as it should go. The next step should be a deportation hearing.
Giving an illegal alien a congratulatory pat on the back and a license (or anything else) just opens another can of worms.
The simplest and fairest solution is deportation, not these endless damn debates over how many goodies an illegal should get and how they should be doled out. Doing otherwise just prolongs the agony.
Can you tell how frustrating I find this? Sometimes I want to run down the street screaming like a banshee!
I remember the 1986 amnesty. It was suppose to end the problem of ILLEGAL immigration. Now here we go again "Giving an illegal alien a congratulatory pat on the back."
Meanwhile the corrupt Mexican government continues with its meddling in our internal affairs at all levels of our government treating their citizens exactly what they are: first and foremost citizens of Mexico, loyal to Mexico, looking out for Mexico, voting for and campaigning for candidates who will do Mexico's bidding here in the
sovereign United States of America.
We've gone from "Hell No! No licenses for ILLEGALS!" to "What color should the licenses be?"
Yes, and I share your feelings, (my post was sarcasm). I liked and still like prop 187. The deny services and report them initiative that was stolen by Judge Felser.(sp). The people should have a mechanism to address this situation where all legislature critters seem to think we need more poor people in this country, to pick one (a) save social security, (b) pick fruit and such for low salaries, or basically (c) to be a group of needy people that social workers and the politically correct can play with.
My basic problem is that these illegals just jumpped the immigration line ahead of all their relatives. Once here they will qualify to bring their relatives. I doubt we will deport them in large numbers, but it would be fair to do so. An alternate approach is to arrange the rule of law in Mexico so that they are forced to honor contracts with US citizens. (As it stands now, they can take them or leave them.) If contracts to buy land for example were allowed, we could do to them what they are doing to us. And in no time at all, there would be resorts, and businesses in Mexico under US control. This would quickly change the climate there and create large numbers of jobs for mexicans who would then stay in their own country.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.