The comic strips are not funny.
Posted on 08/18/2004 9:20:22 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
Legislatures across the country have been wrestling publicly with a hot-button issue: whether to make it harder or easier for illegal immigrants to be licensed as drivers. The struggle to reconcile public security, road safety and the reality of millions of illegal immigrant workers has led to fierce disagreement and widely different laws - even as the 9/11 commission has urged the adoption of national standards.
In New York, home to an estimated 500,000 of the nation's 10 million illegal immigrants, there has been little public debate. But behind the scenes, officials at the State Department of Motor Vehicles have begun a crackdown on license fraud that will take away the driver's licenses of as many as 200,000 immigrants who cannot prove that they are here legally.
There was scant reaction in January when the state started mailing out the first of a half-million letters threatening to suspend the licenses of drivers whose Social Security numbers did not match federal records. Fear and protest spread in places like Westchester County and Staten Island as the letters reached longtime immigrant drivers who depend on their cars to work as landscapers, construction workers or housecleaners.
And the outcry grew as immigrant advocates learned of cases in which bewildered immigrants who responded in person to motor vehicle offices had their licenses confiscated on the spot for lack of a Social Security number.
Today the protests, and explanations by the crackdown's authors, will be presented in Manhattan at the first public hearing on the policy, by the State Assembly's Transportation Committee.
It is late in the process: though only about 600 licenses have been suspended so far, state officials said that in November, a second wave of notices would begin suspending the licenses of those who have not responded, at the rate of 4,000 a day.
State officials say 250,000 licenses are in line to be suspended, and immigrant advocates estimate that 200,000 of these are held by immigrants unable to satisfy the state's requirement.
State officials say they are not aiming the effort at immigrants, just seizing on new technology to enforce an old law - a 1995 requirement that the state collect the Social Security numbers of all driver's license applicants. That measure was added in many states to improve child-support enforcement, as part of the nation's welfare overhaul. But New York is the only state where motor vehicle officials are using enhanced computer abilities to verify all the Social Security numbers collected over the years.
The results have been eye-opening, Raymond P. Martinez, the state motor vehicles commissioner, said in an interview. "
The public is going to be shocked when they find out how many people's Social Security numbers were used by other people unbeknownst to them," he said, putting the figure at more than 100,000, including one number that was used by 57 people.
Among those whose licenses have already been suspended are United States citizens who were hiding criminal driving records behind multiple identities, he said. And in an era of terror alerts, when driver's licenses are used to enter buildings, he added, "We now have the ability to verify who is who."
But critics say the enforcement will fall mainly on illegal immigrants who are hard-working members of society - and to local D.M.V. clerks with no understanding of complicated immigration laws.
"Nobody has considered the bureaucratic nightmare that they're creating," said Margaret Stock, an associate professor of national security law at the United States Military Academy at West Point, who is writing a paper on the driver's license issue. "It's actually harmful to national security to deny licenses to people on the basis of immigration status."
Ms. Stock, who is also a lieutenant colonel in the military police of the Army Reserves, said there was a better chance of tracking a terrorist with a driver's license than one without. Moreover, she said, "immigration status is a moving target - someone legal today can be illegal tomorrow and someone illegal today can be legal tomorrow," so motor vehicle offices can end up issuing and denying licenses to the wrong people.
Yet thousands of illegal immigrants denied driver's licenses will continue to drive, she said, and probably add to the number of hit-and-run accidents and uninsured drivers already on the road.
The real problem, she said, is that since 9/11, officials have been trying to turn the driver's license into "a backdoor national identity card." But, she added, "driver's licenses are really about road safety."
Because of the heightened fear of detention or deportation these days, it remains uncertain whether illegal immigrants will come forward to testify at today's hearing at 250 Broadway, said Gouri Sadwhani, executive director of the New York Civic Participation Project, an immigrant and labor organizing group. But two people whose licenses were abruptly seized by a motor vehicle clerk shared their accounts with a reporter on the condition that only their first names be published.
Luis, 34, a construction worker who has long been employed by a Connecticut subcontractor building multimillion-dollar homes in places like Greenwich, said he was so alarmed by the letter he received in January that he drove from his home in Port Chester, N.Y., to D.M.V. headquarters in Albany.
Trying to prove his identity, he presented his taxpayer ID number, credit card, rent receipts, utility bills and car insurance. But he said a clerk who demanded a Social Security number took his license and refused to return it. "I started pleading," he recalled. "I said I need my license - I need my license to work, I need my license to support my family and I need my license to live," he recalled.
But after threatening him with detention for putting the wrong number on his application years ago - probably his tax ID number, he said - the clerk walked away. State motor vehicle officials said that they could not discuss the case without Luis's full name.
"It's like the D.M.V. has cut off my arms and legs," he said last week in the immaculate apartment that he, his wife and their 3-year-old son shared with three other immigrants from Ecuador. His earnings, which must support two children left with grandparents in Ecuador, as well as his family here, typically ran $20,000 to $25,000 a year, he said. But they have dwindled since his boss learned that he had lost his license.
Still, Luis said, there is no going back. In Ecuador, he and his wife were so desperate for work to support their children that they left them behind and walked much of the way to the United States.
And he is still driving. He carefully steered his old minivan past the flashing lights of a parked police car on a rain-slicked street in Port Chester on Friday evening, as he worried aloud that his insurance would soon be canceled.
But Gloria, a Colombian woman who has lived in Queens since 1991, said she had not driven since the January day when her license was confiscated at the Whitestone motor vehicle office. She had been a licensed driver for 11 years, she said, selling Mary Kay cosmetics from her car to help support her daughter, an American citizen by birth, while working weekends as a baby-sitter for a family of lawyers living on Sutton Place in Manhattan.
"I feel humiliated because I think there's no reason to take it from me," she said. "I was a good driver; I never got a ticket for a red light or passed a stop sign. I always had insurance."
Like many immigrants in what some call a gray zone of legality, she has a petition for a green card pending, sponsored by her 76-year-old mother, now a lawful permanent resident. But under present immigration rules and backlogs, family sponsorship can take many years to bridge the gap between citizens and unlawful immigrants in the same family. Meanwhile, Gloria has no way to fulfill the state's requirements to get back her license.
The hardest part has not only been the loss of earnings - about $1,000 a month in cosmetic sales - but the effect on her mother and her daughter, now 12, she said. Only last week, her mother, who is frail and speaks no English, begged her to accompany her on a flight to Florida to visit relatives. But without a driver's license as a photo ID, it was too risky.
"My daughter was crying and saying please don't go," Gloria said. "She feels so afraid about what happened to me now."
You've got a pretty low standard for what constitutes a criminal...Where did you learn to walk on water?
If you go back up the thread a mear 20 posts earlier you will find your post of 173.
Well, that explains it. You are a liberal (pro-abortion, pro-gun control, ACLU-type); who assumes that all Conservatives are racist, evangelical, anti-Catholics; but you like your OWN slave labor and the stock market. Got it.
It's ok for you to call names but I should be grownup about it. Bite Me.
I agree. I'm sure I will fall closer to the open border side than most Republicans.
There is another debate that has not gotten much attention on this thread and that is how do we find and deport 10 million illegan immigrants and secure the border. I don't believe America has the technology and the resources to do this at this time. The actual cost of removing 10 million illegals and the damage to our economy, would far outweigh any savings in government spending. If every illegal was gone tomorrow the school systems would still be a liberal indoctrination center, Health-care would still be sky high and Social Security would be bankrupt since fewer workers would be paying for the elderly (the richest segment of our society) to retire.
The Bush administration has been trying to tackle this problem with a combination of more "search and deport," trying to get more illegals into the sytem by easing restrictions and raising the number of work visas, and helping Mexico stabilize it's economy with free trade. This is the approach I would take.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/immigration/20020105thm.html
President George W Bush: Right. A couple of things. First, short-term, is to make sure that the INS functions; that the INS is able to expedite the paperwork for people who are legitimately here in the country, and expedite the paperwork necessary for families to reunite. If you believe in family values, you've got to have families together, it seems like to me. And yet, we're too bureaucratic when it comes to the INS, and we need to streamline it and make it work. (Applause.)
Secondly, we've got to understand that in the past, at least, there have been people who were trying to hire people and people willing to work. And it makes sense to me to have a system that matches willing employer with willing employee.
Thirdly, the long-term solution is for Mexico to grow a middle class so that people don't feel like they have to come here to work. (Applause.) The long-term solution -- family values don't stop at the Rio Bravo. If there's somebody who has got children to feed, somebody, a mom or a dad who has got little ones to take care of, and they make fifty cents in a state in Mexico, or they could make $5 in America, they're going to come to America if they believe in their children, if they have the same values you and I have.
Values don't stop. And so, therefore, it seems like to me the best thing we can do is to have a strong relationship with Mexico, a free trading relationship with Mexico so that Mexico is more likely to grow a middle class, which means that person who is willing to walk miles across Texas desert to work to feed her children will be able to find work close to home.
That's why I said one of the most important foreign policy relations we have is with Mexico. The stronger Mexico is, the less pressure on our border; the stronger Mexico is, the more prosperity there will be in both our countries.
Thank you for a well written and thoughtful reply.
I've seen a lot and from what I've seen they work hard, they are afraid to use hospitals or police for fear of being discovered and sent back. They pay taxes when they work and buy things. They have families and friends and they pray to God.
Like any people they have some bad elements. Some say a higher percent of illegals are involved with violent crime and drugs. This may be so but I find that to be a poor argument for condemning the other 9.5 million (or what ever the number is) whose only crime is crossing the border.
The sad truth of the matter is that for every immigrant such as my friend Richardo, there are at least 10 which have nothing more in mind than exploiting the system.
The system should not be exploited by illegals or citizens. If the welfare system lures illegals to the US...let us fix the welfare system instead of figuring out a way to put a barrier around the land of the free. Let's say we remove all 10 Million illegals tomorrow...we are ignoring the much greater costs of citizens using these same support systems.
I'm very sad to say it but, most people sucking at the teat of government are AMERICANS who get SS, unemployment, welfare, Medicare/Medicaid, grants, government home and business loans at ridiculous rates etcetera etcetera ad nuseum. I don’t want to argue the relative advantages or disadvantages of these programs. I’m just making a point. Pedro can’t speak English he isn’t asking for a government bailout of Chrysler.
The root problems America faces are not caused by illegal immigrants. Allowing immigrants to receive the same socialistic welfare traps that American citizens receive only exacerbates the symptoms of the socialism.
I'm so happy I can give you a lesson in history. America had fewer citizens 10 years before the slave were freed. America had fewer citizens 10 years before women were allowed to vote. America had fewer citizens 10 years before the draft was eliminated. Let me know if any of the logic is escaping you and I will elaborate.
BTW, why stop at one billion, why not two, three or infinity?
One billion was an educated guess based on my knowledge of undeveloped land and America's resources and infrastructure. I think 2 billion would be too many and infinity is just damn stupid. I could turn it around and say if 280 billion people in the US is too many why not just limit it to neverdem, but that would be crazy.
It is illegal to drive without a buckled seatbelt. There are crimes and there are infractions. If I forget to buckle my seatbelt am I also Un-American. Please indulge me with your black and white wisdom.
No one would argue that slavery was a good thing, or that women should not have the right to vote. However good the elimination of those previous wrongs were, they have enabled populists and socialists to enact their agenda as well as promote reverse discrimination.
America had fewer citizens 10 years before the draft was eliminated.
Eliminating the draft was politically expedient. I doubt that the eventual benefit for the military was more than a remote consideration. They probably expected a lower overall level of intelligence in recruits, and initially that's what happened. If I remember correctly they lowered the standards for enlistment in the Armed Forces in the remainder of the 1970s.
If you don't believe as a general proposition that more laws restrict freedom, there isn't any purpose in continuing this discussion.
What the hell is wrong with bazookas?
That isn't what you said. You asked "please show me an example in the history of democracy where more people hasn't led to more laws and less freedom." I showed you 3 examples where more population equaled more freedom. If you can't recall your own words, there isn't any purpose in continuing this discussion.
The comic strips are not funny.
Congratulations, you've found the great exceptions to the historical trend of more people generating more law and less freedom. There's a saying in medicine, "when you hear the sound of hoofbeats, don't think zebras". You've found the historical zebras.
What? I gotta give you a list of all the ways your assertion can be proved wrong? People today have more freedom than they had 50, 100, 200, or 1000 years ago.
Sure 100 years ago children were allowed to work in factories, fathers were allowed to beat and molest their children without reprisal, and blacks were allowed to swing in trees...but most people don't apperciate those freedoms as much as the ones we enjoy today. Today people enjoy the reliogous, social, and economic freedom to travel almost anywhere in the world, read books online that were banned 50 years ago, and not be burned at the stake for practicing witchcraft.
I can think of a lot more freedoms that mandkind has secured for himself over the years. Could you please now give me some example of freedom that has been lost?
For someone that's been registered on this forum for almost five years, that's quite a statement. Virtually everything government does, other than when legislatures pass meaningless resolutions, infringes on someone's freedom from its power to issue and charge for licences, zoning laws, banning smoking in outdoor stadiums and bars, the hopeless war on drugs, alcohol's former prohibition, laws against gambling(but lotteries are OK), hate crimes, gun control, etc. I could go on and on.
Apparently, you don't believe in limited government. If a majority can be persuaded, then anything goes, no matter the true merits of the situation, or the rights of the minority.
You can have the last word.
I site the right to practice religion, the right to vote, and the right to live even if you're black at you offer up zoning laws and and license fees? Are you pissed off you can't run a red light too?
banning smoking in outdoor stadiums and bars,
OK I'll give you that one.
the hopeless war on drugs,
I'm not opposed to the war on drugs, I'm sorry you can't buy crack.
alcohol's former prohibition,
Alcohol is legal. even though we have more people today than in 1920.
laws against gambling(but lotteries are OK),
Ever hear of Vegas? We got casinos in WI. what are you talking about?
hate crimes,
OK I'll give this one too.
gun control,
I can buy a gun, and in September I can buy an assualt weapon.
You really need to reevaluate your theory.
You cited as examples what a fair number of the "Founding Fathers" would consider natural rights, although the changes that brought them about were the American Revolution, the Constitution and subsequent Bill of Rights, the Civil War and subsequent Constitutional Amendments, and finally the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts of the 1960s.
As a matter of historical fact, they are not the routine actions of democratic governments. The examples I provided are typical of the incremental accretion of power by democratic governments to the detriment of individual citizens.
I can buy a gun, and in September I can buy an assualt weapon.
Don't count your chickens before they're hatched. What your calling an "assault weapon" is a misnomer, and there are many cities and states that will still forbid them. You can't own handguns in Chicago and Washington D.C. among other places, IIRC.
Current events show that the vast majority of current conflicts around the globe are between different ethnic or religuous groups who feel they have legitimate grievances.
A significant number of the recent immigrants from Latin America have not chosen to follow prior waves of immigrants and become assimilated with the rest of society. Regardless of whether it's because of the relative proximty to their countries of origin, a significant number are not planning to stay and become citizens. Instead they are behaving like an exploited and aggrieved minority. For the sake of cheap labor that's OK with you.
I see. The right to vote for non-landowners, and later blacks, and later women, and later 18-20 year olds are not as important and zoning ordinances.
Good night.
I guess you consider a civil war and constitutional amendments routine happenstance for consitutional republics. Granting the right to vote to those 18 years of age because of being subject to a military draft was followed by raising the age to drink by 3 years in relatively short order. Your examples are notable for how extraordinary they are, not the routine behavior of democratic consitutional republics.
I guess you consider a civil war and constitutional amendments routine happenstance for consitutional republics. Granting the right to vote to those 18 years of age because they were being subject to a military draft, which was followed by raising the age to drink by 3 years in relatively short order was fairly unique in the American experience. Your examples are notable for how extraordinary they are, not the routine behavior of democratic consitutional republics.
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.