Driver's Licenses for Illegal Aliens Bill PASSES Again (California State Senate)

The John and Ken Show (KFI 64.0 am, Los Angeles) | truthkeeper

[janetgreen]

Have I voted for Lowenthal before? I can't really remember. I'll have to find out who his opponent was in the last election, then I can tell you.

[sonofatpatcher2]

--------------------------------
To print out and wear as a Campaign Button, go HERE. Over 2,500 hit as of 8/28! Feel free to reuse this anywhere you wish...
Donate to Swift Boat Vets for the Truth HERE.

[ElkGroveDan]

I'm speechless...

[brianl703]

You said that Virginia gives licenses to illegals. You are incorrect.

What "was" and what "is" are two different things.

We are discussing what "is".

Now had you said "Virginia gave licenses to illegals", you'd be perfectly correct.

Did they not cover past tense and present tense in the government school you attended? If not, my condolences.

[RS]

Beat me, whip me, make me write bad checks...

Glad to see you folks got it right, sad to see the idiots out here still have a question about it. Hopefully, the voters out here will remember it in November...

[brianl703]

We fixed our problem in Virginia--sad that it took a 9/11 to make us deal with it.

Yes, we likely have many illegals who STILL have Virginia licenses they obtained prior to the change. In fact one of the liberal delegates from Alexandria or Arlington actually broke down and started CRYING about all those poor illegals who would loose their licenses and their jobs if DMV were to revoke them and demand proper documentation. So what we have is a compromise.

However....if these illegals let their licenses lapse even by ONE DAY before renewing them, they're screwed. If they get their license revoked because they didn't bother to pay a speeding ticket...they're screwed. In both of those cases they have to provide documentation to get a new license.

Also in Virginia, we passed a state law:

All law-enforcement officers enumerated in § 19.2-81 shall have the authority to enforce immigration laws of the United States, pursuant to the provisions of this section. Any law-enforcement officer enumerated in § 19.2-81 may, in the course of acting upon reasonable suspicion that an individual has committed or is committing a crime, arrest the individual without a warrant upon receiving confirmation from the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement of the United States Department of Homeland Security that the individual (i) is an alien illegally present in the United States, and (ii) has previously been convicted of a felony in the United States and deported or left the United States after such conviction. Upon receiving such confirmation, the officer shall take the individual forthwith before a magistrate or other issuing authority and proceed pursuant to § 19.2-82.


This law took effect July 1. I wonder how many illegals fall into the category of "having been convicted of a felony in the US and and deported or left the US"?

[RS]

A tip of my hat, and I would appreciate a link to that information so I can refer it to others who might besmirsh the good name of the Commonwealth of Virginia...

BTW...
"Any law-enforcement officer enumerated in § 19.2-81 may, in the course of acting upon reasonable suspicion that an individual has committed or is committing a crime"

...does that include the crime of being here illegally ?

[brianl703]

Here's a link:

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+19.2-81.6

(Perhaps those who live in other states could write their elected state officials with the text of this law and suggest that they consider one like it?)

As to whether the crime the law refers to includes the crime of being here illegally--the law doesn't say.

Since being here illegally *IS* a crime, I would have to say that it does, simply because the law makes no exclusion or exception for that crime.

[brianl703]

I looked up the definition of "reasonable suspicion". As it states below, for "reasonable suspicion" it is not necessary for the police to "articulate or identify a specific crime they think is being committed":

Terry v. Ohio (1968), an 8-1 decision with only Justice Douglas dissenting, gave police the right to temporarily detain somebody if there are specific articulable facts leading a reasonable police officer to believe a crime might be occurring. This standard is known as "reasonable suspicion," although some people call it articulable suspicion or more than mere suspicion. It is not necessary for the officer to articulate or identify a specific crime they think is being committed, only that a set of factual circumstances exist that would lead a reasonable officer to believe that criminal activity is occurring. Note that arrest, search, and seizure require probable cause, or what a "reasonable person" would believe. Stop and frisk, by contrast, requires what a "reasonable officer" would believe. Reasonable suspicion is one step below probable cause and one step above a hunch.

[brianl703]

As one example of what is considered reasonable suspicion, if I am a police officer and I am patrolling a high-crime area, and someone sees my police cruiser and runs away, that is "reasonable suspicion".

I am allowed at that point to chase and then frisk the person once I have caught them. Any evidence found at that point will stand up in court. I suppose with the Virginia law at this point I can detain the suspect while I confirm with the feds whether they are an illegal alien with a felony conviction.

If they do not run away and I instead speak with them and ask them questions--if their answers are inconsistent or they "keep changing their story" (as many criminals seem to do...perhaps not bright enough to keep a consistent lie going??), that is also reasonable suspicion and I can frisk them.

[RS]

Thanks for the insight -

Unfortunately, "reasonable suspicion" might also include saying "no" if a cop asks if he can search your car -

[brianl703]

What I read is that vehicle searches require probable cause. Reasonable suspicion isn't enough.

[RS]

"What I read is that vehicle searches require probable cause. Reasonable suspicion isn't enough."

I would suppose that with probable cause they don't have to ask -

If they ask politely "Can I look in your car ? " and you say no, that might be suspicious...

[brianl703]

According to this site, which provides definitions of probable cause and reasonable suspicion, "Refusing a search does not create reasonable suspicion, although acting nervous and answering questions inconsistently can."

http://www.flexyourrights.org/facts/probable-cause-definition.html

Once a cop has probable cause, they don't have to ask your consent to search your vehicle.

If they have nothing at all, not even a reasonable suspicion, they may still (of course) ask, but refusal is not cause for reasonable suspicion.

I guess the long and the short of this is that in Virginia, a cop has to have a more solid reason to search a vehicle (without consent) than they do to make an arrest of a felonious illegal under 19.2-81.6.

[RS]

You do some great digging -

Nice talking with you - take care

[brianl703]

I like learning about these things. It's quite interesting to me.

Thanks, and you take care too.

[PeterFinn]

"What about a statewide referendum banning drivers liscences for illegal aliens? I think that would be prevent the legislative 'Rats from passing stuff like this."

All it takes is one liberal Federal judge to usurp the will of the people.

[xo Charli Brown ox]

For a term paper, I am to write on a contriversial topic. I chose "Should illegal immigrants be allowed driver's licenses?"
I have read through sevral posts and online articles, and although there are thousands of pages on this topic, i have not yet found real, plain, simple reasons for not allowing illegals driver's licenses other than:
1. It allows them to vote
2. It makes it easier for them to purchase firearms

I have two great points that can be easily followed through with for my paper, but i need at least two more. Can anyone please help me?
Also, if anyone by chance knows of any good articles or webpages on this topic, your help would be appreciated.
THANX!

[truthkeeper]

How about all the innumerable jobs that require a driver's license that are held by Americans? Currently most of these employers are probably not foolish enough to assume the liability of allowing an unlicensed illegal alien to drive for them. My own common sense tells me that would change if illegal aliens could legally drive.

Look at our history here in SoCal. Can you imagine how the wages for those jobs would be driven downward?