 |
| |
|
|
Japher
|
 |
Ook! Ook! Ack! Ack! Ack!
Jun 2002
time: 05:30
|
|
LINK
Assembly passes immigrant license bill
SENATE EXPECTED TO APPROVE GRANTING DRIVING PRIVILEGES TO UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS
By Ann E. Marimow
Mercury News Sacramento Bureau
SACRAMENTO - After an antagonistic debate colored by recall politics, the state Assembly on Tuesday approved controversial legislation to allow as many as 2 million undocumented immigrants to apply for California driver's licenses.
The Senate is expected to concur on amendments and give final approval as early as today, and Gov. Gray Davis has promised to sign the measure, despite having vetoed similar legislation twice before because of law enforcement concerns.
Lawmakers exchanged harsh words for more than two hours, with Republicans accusing Democrats of politicizing the bill to help the governor defeat the Oct. 7 recall and Democrats accusing Republicans of being anti-immigrant.
Supporters called the 44-30 vote a victory for the public safety of all 22 million drivers in California. Sen. Gil Cedillo, D-Los Angeles, who has fought for the measure for five years, said it would ensure that all drivers would be trained, tested and insured.
But to the people most affected by the measure -- an estimated 2 million undocumented immigrants -- the vote means most may soon be driving legally to work, to drop off their children at school, or to get to class.
Concepcion Lopez of San Jose, who has lived in the state for seven years, was among the dozens of immigrants cheering the passage of the bill from the balcony of the Assembly. Lopez takes a risk every time she drives without a license to her part-time job as a concession-stand manager at the HP Pavilion and to adult-education courses. Public transportation is not an option, she said, because it would take hours to travel just a few miles.
``It's unjust that we can't drive. Most of us are honest people who have to work to raise our kids,'' Lopez, 43, said in Spanish. ``I'm nervous every day.''
Support withdrawn
But the measure drew criticism from Republicans who had supported it in the past but said it no longer protected against fraud and abuse.
Assemblyman Abel Maldonado, R-San Luis Obispo, spoke tearfully in favor of the measure last year because it would have allowed his father to apply for a license. Not this year.
``There is no way to verify who is going to apply for a license,'' Maldonado said. ``A criminal can come to California to get a new identity and that bothers me.''
The bill -- SB 60 -- would change state law, which requires ``proof of legal presence'' to obtain a driver's license. Then-Gov. Pete Wilson signed the measure in 1993.
If enacted, the revision would allow undocumented immigrants to use federal taxpayer identification numbers instead of Social Security numbers to apply for driver's licenses. While the Social Security Administration can verify the identity of an applicant who uses a Social Security number, the Internal Revenue Service has said that taxpayer numbers are ``not valid for identification outside the tax system.''
Applicants would also have to provide two other forms of identification such as a passport, a birth certificate -- but not necessarily from the United States -- or an identification card issued by a foreign government.
Despite concerns from some law enforcement officials, the bill's author scrapped plans to link the measure to the creation of a digital database of fingerprints that would have allowed the Department of Motor Vehicles to verify an applicant's identity. The fingerprinting system was removed to win support from Senate Democrats who had privacy concerns.
But its removal left some Republicans asking, ``What are we left with?'' said Assemblyman John Benoit, R-Riverside, a former law enforcement official. ``There are no provisions at all to determine who this person is.''
Republicans also made fresh accusations that the governor is using the issue to win support from Latino voters to help him defeat the recall.
Davis alienated the Latino community when he vetoed a similar bill last year. Davis said he could not sign the measure without assurances that applicants had ``lived and worked in California for 15 months over the last three years and passed a background check.'' Because of that, the Latino Caucus wouldn't endorse him for re-election.
Support from Davis
This year's version contains none of those safeguards but has support from some law enforcement officials, including Los Angeles Police Chief William Bratton. A spokesman for the governor said Tuesday that he expects Davis to sign the bill.
``The governor is glad it's going to happen,'' said spokesman Russ Lopez. ``This is a huge population that contributes so much and they pay taxes and they already drive.''
The debate delved further into recall partisanship when Republicans brought up a 1993 vote of Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante, the only major Democrat on the ballot.
Assemblyman Bob Pacheco, R-City of Industry, accused Bustamante of flip-flopping on the issue. Pacheco said that Bustamante, then in the Assembly, had voted for the tougher 1993 law but now was endorsing the less restrictive measure to win support from Latino voters.
``He's buying your vote for a license,'' Pacheco said in Spanish, drawing loud ``boos'' from some bill supporters in the balcony Tuesday.
Bustamante's chief of staff, Lynn Montgomery, said the lieutenant governor's support for the 1993 bill was strategic, intended to slow down momentum for Proposition 187, which sought to deny certain public services to undocumented immigrants.
``When 187 was gearing up there was strategy to try and slow that down,'' she said. ``So many of the legislators voted for that bill to try and slow down the impetus for 187.''
Republican gubernatorial candidates Arnold Schwarzenegger and state Sen. Tom McClintock of Thousand Oaks both oppose the driver's license legislation, and both supported Proposition 187. Peter Ueberroth, the other leading GOP candidate, supports the license bill and opposed Proposition 187.
---
When did the word "illegal" change meanings? Illegal immigrants will be able to get American identification which will only cause confusion and turmoil throughout the US... Lot easier to be a terrorist this way... Makes me mad. I hope Davis gets his butt kicked next month...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
How can a driver's license be evidence of citizenship? That's just plain silly.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Caligastia
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I guess it's better to have unlicensed, uninsured drivers running around. So when I need to sue someone for wrecking my car, he absonds back to Mexico where I can't touch him (as happened when an illegal hit my grandmother's car). |
Prevention is better than cure. If the borders were properly enforced we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Caligastia
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Actually they do. Most of the taxes poor and working people pay are use taxes, not income taxes. |
Who are these "working people"? If you make more than a certain amount of money are you no longer considered to be working for it??
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Caligastia
What a ridiculous thing to say. So a high-level programmer making 300k is not actually working? Please.
...and what is this magic amount? |
When I meet a programmer making that much money, I'll be impressed. I've heard of such people, but never actually met one. Most likely his job has been exported to India for 10,000 a year.
In all seriousness, professionals like laywers, doctors, and programmers are not part of the equation. We're able to charge so much for our services because we there is a limited amount of us. However, as the above flippancy shows, that is not going to continue forever. India Institute of Technology puts out world class programmers, as good as, and some even better, than the best America has to offer.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:30.
Apolyton Time is 00:30. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
03-09-2003 21:12
You seem to contradict this below...I guess you were just "thinking aloud".
|