Posted on 06/07/2007 10:47:26 AM PDT by jmyrlefuller
New York has the right to deny driver's licenses to immigrants who can't prove they are in the country legally, the state's highest court ruled Thursday.
A lawsuit brought by immigrants and their advocates claimed a state Department of Motor Vehicles policy created by the Pataki administration "is essentially an effort to deny driver's licenses to immigrants not legally present in New York," the Court of Appeals decision stated.
"To state the obvious, undocumented aliens lack documents," wrote Judge Robert Smith in the 5-2 decision, "And the DMV's right to insist on such documents is undisputed."
At issue was a rule issued Sept. 6, 2001, just five days before terrorists attacked the World Trade Center, requiring driver's license applicants to provide federal immigration documents to prove they were in the country legally. Some of the Sept. 11 hijackers had obtained driver's licenses.
The state has long required applicants who don't have Social Security numbers to submit a Social Security Administration letter stating the person wasn't eligible to work in the U.S. so wasn't issued a Social Security number, but was present in the country legally. The 2001 rule made immigrants provide more proof.
The lawsuit was launched after the state started cracking down in 2004, an effort that was expected to result in the loss of driver's licenses for 300,000 illegal immigrants.
In 2005, a state Supreme Court judge in Manhattan sided with the immigrants and ordered the state to stop seizing the driver's licenses of immigrants without Social Security cards, arguing in part that the DMV couldn't enforce immigration law.
But in July 2006, the appellate division overturned that ruling and allowed the state to require that immigrants prove they are in the United States legally to get a driver's license. The Pataki administration defended the rules, saying they were put in place to combat fraud and terrorism.
The issue may not be over. As a candidate in 2006, Democratic Gov. Eliot Spitzer said he would change the rule because it doesn't improve security and instead keeps immigrants from rising from "the shadows" and creates a class of people with no public records.
There was no immediate comment from the immigrants' lawyer or the DMV.
About a dozen states deny driver's licenses to illegal immigrants.
LOL! Skewered them with their own words!
Weeeell.......Isn’t this special?
This judge will be out by Monday morning if the LIBRATactivists have their way?
This is a step in the right direction.
A giant duh! suffices
What an idiot! No one "created" a class of people, there are no public records because they are ILLEGAL. The only public records there should be are arrest and deportation orders, with confirmation.
ping
Is this New York, America we’re talking about here?
I have to pinch myself everytime I read the breath-taking arrogance in pieces such as this. Illegal aliens, who broke the law and do not belong in this country get a suit filed on their behalves to reverse a law that says they cannot get a driver’s license.
What the hell is wrong with this 3 ringed circus...........
Amazing, damn near fell out of my chair.
‘Rising from the shadows?’ They don’t seem to have any trouble staging public rallies.
It shouldn't require a Constitutional amendment to clarify those mischievious definitions. Neither the rights nor the obligations of legal American jurisdiction applies to illegal aliens and any children of illegal aliens regardless of length of time "getting away with it". OK, maybe some reasonable number of generations to account for the unsettled period (no pun intended) between the creation of the original 13 states and the admission of the last contiguous continental state admitted to the union.
That would certainly make dealing with the current problem a whole lot easier and briefer.
Gee, do ya think... What a moron!
Yes, it is. Rudy would no doubt be very unhappy if he were still mayor.
Rudy must be crying in his sleep.
If Spitzer does indeed lower the standards to once again allow illegals without the proper docmentation of who they are to get official IDs, then it would be fair if they reap what they sew.
B-b-but this is New York! It’s supposed to be liberal, etc. This is the same NY high court that upheld the state’s ban on gay marriage.
Important note: Just to make sure that people are always confused, New York calls its lower courts their "Supreme Courts". Every other state calls their highest appellate level court their "Supreme Court". FYI
Probably the result of 12 years of Pataki appointments.
I know Pataki has a liberal reputation, but he’s not nearly as liberal as some may think. I never thought the guy was perfect (e.g. his health care plan and his penchant for patronage), but he was no left-winger by any stretch.
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.