Posted on 06/02/2007 7:44:38 AM PDT by buccaneer81
Driver's license regulations are slanted against Latino immigrants Saturday, June 2, 2007 3:31 AM
Since the recent Dispatch article "Checkpoint for Latinos, not drunks, critics charge," responses to my criticism of the May 5 (Cinco de Mayo) checkpoints in Latino neighborhoods have included at least two letters to the editor (May 16 and 18) and a Dispatch editorial on May 14. The prevailing opinion appears to be that my condemnation of the checkpoint was off-target and that such checkpoints provide law enforcement with a useful tool for the citation of people who should not be on the road. I stand by my criticism of the checkpoint and wish to clarify the reasons behind it.
According to Carl Booth, Franklin County DUI Task Force coordinator, the checkpoint area was targeted because, "The officers were seeing a great rise in people with no license in that area." Excuse me, but that expressly tells me that the event was just what I suggested: a no-license checkpoint. The location of the checkpoint -- a neighborhood with heavy Latino representation, many without Ohio driver's licenses -- made it like shooting ducks in a barrel. Does that make it legally or morally wrong? I guess it depends on your point of view.
Courts consistently have held that police must have probable cause or, more accurately, "articulable suspicion" in order to stop your car and inquire as to your state of inebriation, licensing status or whatever. That's because the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that everyone has a right "to be secure in their persons . . . against unreasonable searches and seizures." Driving-under-the-influence checkpoints have been declared to fall outside of the Fourth Amendment because the checkpoints impose a small inconvenience relative to the great danger that drunken drivers impose on the roads. No-license checkpoints are another matter, however, and while not wholly illegal under all circumstances, their location within a Latino neighborhood does raise constitutional questions and certain moral challenges.
You see, prior to 1996, a driver's license in Ohio was just that: a license confirming a level of skill adequate to drive a car on the state's roads. In that year, much like today, illegal immigration was being heavily debated in Washington, and individual states pondered the question of states' rights to act independently from the federal government to control immigration. The U.S. Constitution prohibited that, so various states experimented with the denial of driver's licenses to those who could not confirm the status of their visas. Ohio's Bureau of Motor Vehicles, acting without legislative support, imposed such a standard, and its constitutionality was not challenged, in part because of the heavily politicized legal atmosphere.
However, demonstrating a high level of cynicism, the bureau exempted Canadians from the visa requirement, saying in effect that if you were from north of the border you were OK, but if you were from south of the border you were not. Apologists might be willing to perform moral and legal contortions justifying the distinctions, but I am not. The driver's-license provision taking away Ohio licenses from undocumented Latinos was a racist and intolerant measure.
Of course, the tragedy of Sept. 11, 2001, changed everything. Federal and state governments found more than sufficient reason to revamp licensing requirements, but the reality of an undocumented community firmly imbedded in Ohio remains.
I do not believe that it's appropriate to drive without a license, as one of the letters to the editor suggests, but I also do not believe it is OK to target vulnerable populations when their vulnerability has been artificially crated by the state. My position has been and remains that it is imperative to find a way to license Ohio drivers without delving into their immigration status, as many states found a way to do and as many in law enforcement support. The recent announcement of a bipartisan immigration agreement in Washington promises to bring undocumented families out of the shadows and into the light of American freedom. That promises to solve the licensing problem for most such immigrants once and for all.
And as for DUI measures? I firmly support and call for more, not fewer, initiatives to prevent the endangering of our families. We need more education, more prevention and more effective law enforcement to ensure the safety of all residents of Franklin County.
JOSÉ LUIS MAS Chairman
Ohio Hispanic Coalition
Columbus
the 4th amendment does not say that you are not required to have a valid license and proof of insurance in your posession and produce it on the request of a public safety officer while operating a motor vehicle on public roads.....yet this author attempts to invoke exactly that. Requesting lawfully required documents from someone operating a motor vehicle is NOT an “unreasonable search or seizure” - it is not a search....or seizure. It is a lawful request....in fact this request (license and proof of insurance) is the first thing any driver hears from a cop who pulls anyone over - it happens MILLIONS of times every day, everywhere in this country, and being an illegal alien is not an exemption, or at least it didn’t used to be.
Carl Booth screwed up.
I agree with you: driving is “a priviledge,” and you should be required to demonstrate you have earned that priviledge by becoming legitimately licensed — which means you should be able to produce that license when requested to do so by an officer of the law. But the officer’s request is still a “search,” and therefore subject to the Amendment. What is at question here is whether “probable cause” is being applied without prejudice.
In a few years you can be arrested for your post. I’m not kidding.
The bleeding hearts are in it for the $$, like the lawyer in the story below.
This is an offshoot of a free clinic (paid for by taxpayers for the hispanic community.....REAL nice to know they hire illegal aliens!)
Get your immunizations and a free grope!!
What a country!
Sex abuser gets 12½ years
Luis Mesta, 29, was convicted of molesting four grade-school girls
By Anita Burke
Mail Tribune- Medford, Oregon
June 02, 2007
A former receptionist at a school-based clinic in Medford convicted of sexually abusing four grade-school girls will spend 121/2; years in prison, then face deportation to Mexico.
Jackson County Circuit Court Judge Bill Purdy sentenced Luis Armando Mesta, 29, Friday morning. Mesta was found guilty on four counts of first-degree sexual abuse in March and acquitted of a fifth charge.
The charges stemmed from abuse reported in October 2006 at Kids Health Connection at Jackson Elementary School. During Mestas trial in March, the girls four fourth-graders and one sixth-grader testified that he had touched their breasts at the clinic, which is a community partnership between school districts and health-care providers.
This will affect me my whole life, one of his victims, a 12-year-old girl, told Purdy at the sentencing. The Mail Tribune doesnt print the names of sex-abuse victims.
The girls father also spoke at the sentencing, describing how his daughter had withdrawn from sports, dance and volunteering at school. The family at first attributed her behavior and slipping grades to the effects of puberty, but then got a call from police about an investigation that indicated she had been sexually abused.
His crimes have changed her and the rest of our family, the man said.
He said the family has transferred her and her younger sister to another school.
Ive lost contact with all my friends, the girl said. This has scarred me and my sister.
Jackson County Deputy District Attorney Rachel Bridges said the fourth-grade victims didnt want to attend the sentencing, but they still cared deeply about the outcome.
The little girls dont want to see him again, she said. They are terrified.
Bridges also read statements from the girl named in the charge Mesta was acquitted of. She also read a statement from the girls mother.I know she is telling the truth, the mother wrote. I pray that you feel the pain you inflicted on these girls and on your own family.
Bridges recommended the 121/2-year sentence. Oregon law imposes a mandatory penalty of six years and three months in prison for first-degree sex abuse. The abuse involved different victims in separate incidents, so the sentences could be imposed one after another, sending Mesta to prison for 25 years, she said.
However, because Mesta is not a U.S. citizen and faces the revocation of his permission to be in the country, she questioned how long taxpayers will want to keep him in prison.
I dont think they want to house him that long when he is just going to be deported, Bridges said.
Paul Beneke, Mestas defense attorney, said Mesta continues to maintain his innocence and said the 11-1 jury vote wouldnt have been enough to convict him in most states.
Beneke blamed the conviction on a tight schedule that left jurors eager to quit deliberations and get home, racism among some witnesses called, and errors in news coverage about additional related charges that were dropped on a technical issue.
Beneke argued that Mesta shouldnt spend 25 years in prison, the sentence that can be imposed for murder. He noted that Mesta will face the additional punishment of deportation.
He is banished, exiled from the only home hes ever known in a punishment that a citizen wouldnt face, Beneke said.
In addition to the prison time, Mesta must pay nearly $530 for victims medical and therapy expenses, submit to DNA testing and register as a sex offender.
Reach reporter Anita Burke at 776-4485 or at aburke@mailtribune.com
http://www.mailtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070602/NEWS/706020311
Heck, yeah! After all, Charlie Trie sure won over Clinton ;-)
Whoops! This guy is from the same org as the disingenuous fool that wrote the article above:
But not everyone in the Latino community was concerned by how the checkpoint was conducted over the holiday weekend.
“There have been so many crashes lately on the West Side that they wanted people to see that if you drink and drive, you’re going to jail,” said Josue Vicente, executive director of the Ohio Hispanic Coalition.
888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888
In fact, I suggest that you read the earlier article....you will see.....well, just read it, LOL.
http://www.dispatch.com/dispatch/content/local_news/stories/2007/05/10/duimayo.ART_ART_05-10-07_B1_SA6LFID.html
Probably could be today in Britain and Canada.
No, it's not racist, it's a judgement concerning citizens of the nation of Mexico.
Carl Booth screwed up.
No, he was just deliberately edited by JOSE.....here’s what he REALLY said....
The checkpoint was on Georgesville Road just south of W. Broad Street from 9:30 p.m. Saturday to 2:20 a.m. Sunday. It was run by the Franklin County DUI Task Force, which includes officers from the county sheriff’s office and several local police departments. Carl Booth, the task force coordinator, dismissed the notion that Latinos were unfairly targeted.
“There is a pocket of Latinos who live in that area. I wouldn’t say it was targeted,” Booth said. “We can document the alcohol-related crash problem in that area. The officers were seeing a great rise in people with no license in that area.”
As far as Cinco de Mayo being chosen, Booth said it’s typical for the task force to set up checkpoints on holidays because people drink more then. “We also do checkpoints on the Fourth of July and Memorial Day,” he said.
I don’t even get the point of this particular rant - its legal to have checkpoints just for licenses -DUI doesn’t even have to come into it.
Now from my experience in Atlanta I do believe there are more police and checkpoints in heavily Mexican areas. I notice this as I drive around since there are two such neighborhoods adjacent to mine.
But they could put up a checkpoint on my street every day and they would hardly ever catch anyone. I take a certain pride that when cops want to goof off and/or take a nap they often choose my street.
In other words it makes sense to put the resources where they will help. If we started having a lot of crime in my neighborhood I would expect the police presence to greatly increase. I’d be unhappy if that did not happen.
Read it. It’s encouraging to see that someone within their own ranks can refrain from the knee-jerk reaction based on race.
It’s time for a national ID card. To get a card a person should be required to prove that he pays taxes and is a citizen. The card should have name, address,race, blood type, gender, age, thumbprint and social security number embedded in a magnetic strip.
Surveillance cameras don’t concern me. My wife and On-Star knows where I am all the time anyway.
If you do like the rules, leave the game.
I hear ya!! In fact many Hispanics in the SW who have been here for generations do in fact have Anglo first names to go with Spanish last name. Like Edward Garcia and Buddy Rodriguez
If they get caught and are illegal, deport them!
Let’s see, they’ve evolved from illegal aliens-to illegal immigrants-to Latino immigrants. Got it.
Dear Editor,
RE: Driver’s license regulations are slanted against Latino immigrants
Saturday, June 2, 2007 by JOSÉ LUIS MAS Chairman - Ohio Hispanic Coalition
Why do you allow the printing of such blatant propaganda? Dont you think this guy has an agenda, and its not pro-American or even pro-Law? He never uses the words ILLEGAL ALIENS.
Your paper is a result of the feminization and homosexualizantion of America. No one stands up for what is right and moral anymore. The criminal and perverts are the victims of a society that enforces its rules.
Funny how Mr. Mas does not mention that over 25 Americans are killed EACH day by ILLEGAL ALIENS, 13 deaths a day by drunken driving, and 12 a day through outright crime. Oh no, cant mention that. Also what an idiot , he says “The officers were seeing a great rise in people with no license in that area.” Excuse me, but that expressly tells me that the event was just what I suggested: a no-license checkpoint. Gee, the police are going where the criminals are. What does Mr. Mas want, for the police to put up a check point in front of a church on Sundays?
Also did you read how he makes the criminals victims by saying but I also do not believe it is OK to target vulnerable populations when their vulnerability has been artificially crated by the state. Yea right. How did the State make these people to come to the USA, ILLEGALLY? If they had entered through the front door, observing our laws, THEY WOULD NOT BE UNDOCUMENTED OR ILLEGAL.
As editor you should be ashamed of yourself for allowing this ANTI-LAW PROPAGANDIST AND COLUMN SPACE. If you had any real men working there, the article would be an attack on ILLEGAL ALIENS DESTROYING THE STATE, AND THANKING THE POLICE FOR TRYING TO GET RID OF THE CRIMINALS.
Exton
P.S. Want to see your future take a trip to L.A. Ca. drive around MacArthurs park, made famous by the song.
How many sober illegal aliens have had the policia pour liquor down their throats at check points and then charged them with DUI, like they do back home in Mexico?
It only makes sense to hunt for the perps, where the crimes are most prevalent.
Drivers license regulations are not nearly as slanted against illegal aliens as they should be. Legal Latino immigrants get the same treatment as every other legal immigrant.
What part of “ILLEGAL ALIEN”, do such jackasses as this author, our own federal Politicians, Mexico’s politicians and the MSM of both countries, not understand??
Not many Freepers, including freeper, shut up and take it, could never shut up and take it, even if our lives depended on 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.