Skip to comments.'If' (when) Arnold signs SB1160 into law, What will the Republican voter response/reaction be?
Posted on 06/06/2004 3:32:59 PM PDT by MindFire
Cedillo Amends SB-1160 Threatens National Security, Promotes Fraud
SB-1160 Referred to Senate Transportation Committee Reported by Senate on June 3, 2004
If California, and other states pass laws giving driver's licenses to illegal aliens anyone will be able to get one, including Osama Bin-Ladin. If Cedillo-Schwarzenegger's SB-1160 is enacted into law, terrorists will be able to legally apply for a driver's license. This is an immediate repercussion of supporting driver's licenses for illegal aliens. Arnold SB-1160 Univision Interview
SB-1160 IS A FRAUD AND PRESENTS A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
SB-1160 removes the Department of Justice from the process of verification. SB-1160 removes current law requirements that to hold a California driver's license that a person be a US Citizen, or Resident Immigrant and allows an applicant that is an illegal alien to submit a matricula consular ID, or other document from a foreign government.
The Matricula Consular ID card can be purchased on the streets and the California DMV has no way to verify any documentation with the Mexican government. Mexico has stated they will not share any data or information regarding illegal aliens living in this country. That was the purpose of the Matricula Consular card.
The applicant for drivers license will be submitting ID documents issued by nations that will not verify the authenticity of that very document. That ID document therefore becomes totally meaningless. The greater problem becomes that anyone can purchase a Matricula Consular card to establish a new ID, which the applicant then can present a "valid" document issued by a foreign government to the California DMV. A person can open a bank account, or create multiple identities. This can in turn lead to voter fraud, banking fraud, among many other forms of fraud.
SB-1160 provides a provision for the fingerprinting of applicants. This provision is useless. As previously stated, Mexico has stated they will not share any data or information regarding illegal aliens living in our country. How do we know who the individuals are that may be entering this nation, if using a Matricula Consular card? We don't know and can't possibly know unless we are receiving information from a foreign security service that the US has long shared information with such as England's MI-5 or MI-6, Scotland Yard, or Israel's Mossad. With SB-1160 prohibiting the Department of Justice from sharing information with the Federal Government, the State of California has no way to know who may be attempting to enter the US utilizing a phony identification. Without access to foreign government's databanks, or without having arrested, and detained an individual and collecting their fingerprints personally, we have no way to identify an individual that may be a terrorist. Add to that very fact, the provision in this bill prohibiting the DMV or Department of Justice from reporting any illegal aliens to the appropriate Federal Department, or Agency, and the notion that SB-1160 will require background checks to protect US National Security is therefore, a complete fraud, and lie to the people of California and the United States.
SB-1160 claims to not allow a person to vote, but motor voter will still be in effect. State law cannot supercede Federal Law. In fact, SB-1160 may indeed present a number of provisions that may also be in contradiction of Federal Law.
SB-1160 has provided that an applicant can present a EIN/tax ID number in lieu of the SSN. SB-1160 has included a penalty of perjury clause where the applicant states they have applied for legal residency, or will apply for legal residency, though the penalty of perjury is moot as the illegal alien has already broken the law by violating US sovereignty and immigration laws in the first place.
Numerous illegal aliens are already in violation of that very law regarding voting, and under that same penalty of perjury. SB-1160 does not allow our immigration laws to be enforced by prohibiting the Department of Justice to report immigration law violaters to the Department of Homeland Security, and other Federal Departments or Agencies, with the exceptions being purchase of a firearm, explosive, or as part of a drug deal.
However, entering the US without federal government permission is a violation of law, too. Under SB-1160 illegal immigration is condoned, and sponsored by Members of the California State Legislature and Governor of California.
SB-1160 allows for a person to be sponsored by a Citizen of the United States that has a valid CA DL. Would that not be consider aiding and abetting? SB-1160 imposes a $5 tax on those non-citizens using an EIN/Tax ID # in lieu of the SSN, and requires a 2/3 super majority by the California Legislature to approve that tax increase. However, that's been met with the urgency clause. SB-1160 has been prepared for court challenges as it contains a severable clause.
Here are two red flag paragraphs.... (6) Existing law makes it a misdemeanor for any person to knowingly assist in obtaining a driver's license or identification card for any person whose presence in the United States is not authorized under federal law. This bill would delete that provision. The bill would require the Department of Motor Vehicles to collect and provide that information to the Department of Justice, and would prohibit the Department of Justice from providing the information to the federal government or any other law enforcement agency, except in connection with prosecuting a person for illegally attempting to purchase or obtain a firearm, dangerous weapon, or explosive.
In summary, this amended version of SB-1160 promotes countless forms of fraud including, voter fraud and banking fraud, and continued violation of US Immigration Laws. SB-1160 does not even meet Governor Gray Davis requirements of the 1992 versions, under AB-60 by Cedillo and it's companion legislation SB-804 by Polanco, which were both vetoed in September of 1992 by the former Governor as a threat to national security.
SB-1160 rewards immigration law violaters with a California Driver's License. SB-1160 cannot be referended, and hinders the ability of law enforcement by removing requirements to report all immigration law violators to the appropriate US Department or Agency. SB-1160 will allow terrorists to apply for a California Driver's License, as terrorists previously did prior to the 9-11 Attack on America. SB-1160 does not provide a background check and such statements by the author and supporters are a complete fraud and lie. SB-1160 represents a Clear and Present Danger to the National Security of the United States.
Save Our State rejects this legislation and stands in opposition to SB-1160. Accordingly, Save Our State shall refile our initiative within a few days of SB-1160 becoming law. Save Our State recommends rejection of SB-1160 to the people of California and that our opposition be placed in public record, and reported to the Senate Rules Committee, and members of the Press.
(Excerpt) Read more at save187.com ...
But do you think the actual people in the party will accept this? In reality, there's not much they could do about it even if they 'disapprove'. Arnold really has nothing to lose by signing this into law. What will people do, stomp their feet? Oh well. I'm sure Arnold would be 'devastated' by that, LOL.
There won't be a recall, and this law has an 'urgency clause', so it will be referendum-proof. it will go into effect immediately when signed.
I personally would never vote for Schwarzenegger, (I voted for McClintock).. but even if there was proposed 'recall' of Arnie, I would not support it in this instance. The reason is because Arnold never lied to the voters about this issue. Arnold never CLAIMED to be aganst licenses for illegals... and anyone who followed this issue in any depth was well aware of that last year, long before the election. The only objection he had to SB60 was the provisions of it.; In principle, he does not oppose licensing illegals if the bill has adequate (alleged) 'safety checks' that satisfy him.
Besides that, there is no one who would run against Schwarzenegger. McClintock is secure in his senate seat and Arnie just raised $400,000 for him a few weeks ago.
So, given these facts.. if he signs this (I personally think it will be signed within the next 2 weeks) what do you think the republicans will do? I think they 'might' complain and gripe a bit for a few weeks, pout a lil bit and say 'that's not fair! he tricked us!' but then will 'get over it', forgive him, and still vote for him next election. He will win by a landslide and the muscled mesmerized moviestar crowd will be tickled pink.
What say you? ;-)
Highly recommend you read:
Licenses for lawbreakers (illegal immigrants) -- the sequel (California)
"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."
Your quote above was from an editorial opinion written by 'Debra Saunders', (whoever she is).
If you want to deny the fact that Arnold will sign this bill, that's your perogative. But why not answer my hypothetical question, just for fun.
"if" he signs it, what do you think the public reaction will be?
And also, why do you think he won't sign it? he has stated many times he is not against drivers licenses for illegals. All theyre arguing about now is whether or not the license will have an identifying mark to show theyre not citizens. That is the ONLY point of contention between Arnold and the democrats. What don't you get about this? Why do you think Arnold is just 'fooling them, tricking the dems, stringing them along'? That theory doesn't really make sense, and there is no proof of it.
Well we recalled one POS governor...
no reason why we can't recall another one!
I havent really studied this indepth.
But choosing to be an ostrich doesn't help.
These people are here.
driver licences might be a good way to document them.
Even if their driver licences don'tt specify their legal status, the DMV's internal records should document that for security reasons and should require them to inform the DMV before they change residences.
"Debra Saunders" whoever she is...
Before you reveal your ignorance any further, why don't you learn who she is? I've made it easy for you - just click on the link:
Your quote above was from an editorial opinion written by 'Debra Saunders', (whoever she is).
I didn't suggest you read the quote, I suggested you read the article, which you obviously haven't done.
So, why don't you tell me what you will do if Arnold will NOT sign the bill -- a much more likely scenario, than your hypothetical of "what if he will sign it".
I'll send campaign dollars to anybody else but him and I won't vote for him.
Do you think Republican Arnie supporters will continue to be mesmerized by him?
This would be just as rampant with fraud as the "documention" used in the 1986 Amnesty.
What indication do you have that 6 Assembly Republicans and 2 Senate Republicans will sign on to the urgency provision? KFI radio asked every Republican in the legislature whether they'd vote for an urgency clause, and all but two in the Assembly gave an unequivocal "no".
If Arnie signs this, we're going to referend it just like the last time, and just like the last time, we'll get it stopped. I have a hard time believing that the Democrats are dumb enough to remind the voters this close to an election just why they recalled Davis. Putting this in the front of voter's minds again is a sure way to lose some seats.
It's possible, I suppose, that the Democrats are delusional enough to think that they can get some mileage out of plopping this in front of Schwarzenegger and forcing him to -- they think -- either tick off Republicans by signing it, or ticking off Hispanics by vetoing it. So far, Schwarzenegger seems to be playing a game of, "Well, add this to it. Ok, now add that to it." He keeps coming up with necessary "strengthening," and if they ignore it and put the bill in front of him without adding all his little nips and tucks, he'll have an excuse to veto it. Let's see if he does.
I'm in Arizona, not Cali, but I'd bet a lot of states might decide a Cali drivers license was useless as a form of identification.
Arizona has a bill in the works now -- if your current state does not have adequate standards for positive identification before issuing a license, you're gonna be jumping through a lot of hoops to get one here.
If he signs it, I know a number of merchants here who will no longer accept a Cali license for purchases by check.
"So far, Schwarzenegger seems to be playing a game of, "Well, add this to it. Ok, now add that to it." He keeps coming up with necessary "strengthening," and if they ignore it and put the bill in front of him without adding all his little nips and tucks, he'll have an excuse to veto it. "
That's exactly what Arnold is doing.
People just refuse to acknowledge that the guy is not stupid, in fact, he runs circles around the Democrats.
Document them for what purpose? For security? If the Matricula Consular source document is fraudulent, then the subsequently-issued driver's license is worthless as a form of ID. Mr. Al Qaeda isn't going to put his real name down on the application.
The argument I hear that's the most ludicrous is that this will be a way to make them safer drivers because now they'll obey the traffic laws. If somebody's driving illegally now, do you think they're going to stop if they fail their driver's license test or get too many tickets? No, they'll keep driving without the license, just as they have up to now.
One man says to a second man: "Do you believe in the First Amendment freedom of speech?"
The second man says: "Of course I do."
The first man then asks: "Do you believe in the Second Amendment freedom to bear arms?"
The second man replies: "No, I don't."
The first man insists: "Then shut up!"
The moral of the story is: you can have your rights, but you have to protect and defend them, too
Thanks for the 'easy link'. :-D
But, am I ignorant just because I don't know who "Debra Saunders" is? I'm so sorry. :-( , lol.
Okay, so she is a columnist and writes opinion peices for TownHall.com. What's the point? I can direct you to 100 other conservative columnists who have an opposing view. That has nothing to do w/ my topic.
Do you take her word as somehow 'gospel' on this issue, above the CRA, SaveourLicense.com and The authors of prop 187? if so, why?
By the way.. do you know who Beth Jennings is? How about Thomas Sheridan. Your reply is imperitive to this topic!
"'Debra Saunders', (whoever she is)."
DEBRA J. SAUNDERS (a regular columnist on Townhall.com)
In July 1992, Debra J. Saunders became a columnist for the San Francisco Chronicle. Her column currently runs on Sundays, Tuesdays and Fridays in the paper. Before working for the Chronicle, Saunders worked as a columnist and editorial writer for the Los Angeles Daily News, beginning in 1987.
Saunders' column is syndicated through Creators Syndicate and runs in newspapers throughout the country. In addition to writing her syndicated column, Saunders has written pieces that have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, the National Review, The Weekly Standard, Reader's Digest and Reason magazine. She has also appeared on "Politically Incorrect," CNN, BBC radio and "The News Hour" on PBS. Her book, The World According to Gore, published by Encounter Books, was released earlier this year.
In a world full of labels, Saunders is herself. A one-time registered Democrat turned Republican, she claims no loyalty to either party and takes pride in her unpredictability and irreverence for big-party politics. "I'm a Republican," she says, "but not a good Republican."
Saunders' political experience includes stints working as a writer/researcher and account executive for Russo Watts & Rollins in Sacramento, Calif., and Todd Domke Associates in Boston. With both organizations, her political work included research, issues strategy and advertising in U.S. Senate and congressional races. In addition, Saunders also worked for the Republican leader of the California Assembly.
In 1992, Saunders taught a course in editorial and column writing at UCLA Extension, and led a study group on political speechmaking at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government in 1984. In 1980, Saunders graduated Magna Cum Laude from the University of Massachusetts at Boston with a B.A. in Greek and Latin.
I understand that you don't think that he will sign it. We covered that. My questions is why dont you think he will? You obviously have to know that he is not opposed to this; he has stated constantly. In principle, he has NO problem with this law, its only the provisions he has to work out. he said yesterday he is hopeful and coming to a solution. So why do you insist he will never sign it??
That just doesn't make sense. There is much more evidence he will sign it, than that he won't.
You think he's just 'playing games, decieving the dems, stringing them along to dupe them.. i contend he is doing that to the loyal repub followers. since you dont want to answer my question of what the reaction will be when he signs it, i guess we will just leave it at that.
we will see soon enough (most likely within 10 days from today). If i am wrong, i will admit it and you'll have this post to prove i was wrong. don't bet on it!
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.