Friday’s San Jose Mercury News featured a front-page story informing readers that illegal aliens living amongst us wish that they could be a part of the political process.
As we have noticed, illegal aliens are always complaining about the nation they invaded, despite the fact that they are enriched by the liberal government arguably more than the citizens. The illegal moochers receive an array of benefits funded by the unwilling taxpayer, including free-to-them healthcare, food stamps, subsidized housing, education for the kiddies, etc.
But that’s not enough — it’s never enough. They want to vote.
Illegal alien Mayela Razo, pictured below, complains that she cannot vote in the upcoming election, but hopes that the “Latino community” will “incite change” — or something like that. Readers see an English translation of her remarks in Spanish.
The Murky News apparently believes that illegal aliens participation in voter registration drives and get out the vote activities is a fine expression of civic engagement. Presumably the diverse persons being targeted will mostly vote against Donald Trump, who believes immigration anarchy must stop.
Mayela Razo can’t vote in the presidential election come November. But she’s making sure those who can cast a ballot do, even offering to drive friends and family members to the polls on election night.
It’s a privilege that Razo, who is undocumented, wishes she had.
“Although I can’t vote, I’m aware of what’s going on in the election season,” said the 54-year-old San Jose resident in Spanish, who participates in voter registration drives with the immigrant rights organization, SIREN.
“It’s of concern to me because I, too, live in this country,” she said. “I want the Latino community to vote and be conscious of the fact that they can incite change.”
This political season has unleashed an unprecedented level of activism among many undocumented residents, who say fear and uncertainty have spurred them to act. People like Razo are canvassing streets, championing social media campaigns and manning phone banks to mobilize voters ahead of the election.
Undocumented residents have become a potent weapon in a polarizing election where immigration has been a focal point. Nonprofits and activist groups are using their voices in voter registration drives to remind people about the importance of voting. Presidential nominee Hillary Clinton and fellow Democrat Sen. Bernie Sanders incorporated undocumented residents in their campaigns to get out the Latino vote. And for undocumented residents, getting others to vote presents a unique opportunity to be part of a political process that could determine their future in the United States. As the election nears, their desire to act grows.
It’s a phenomenon that’s largely driven by “Dreamers,” young adults brought to the U.S. illegally as children but raised as Americans. Continue reading this article
As promised by the fairness-challenged Democrats at the DNC, Monday’s convention proceedings included unlawful foreigners portrayed as wonderful not-quite Americans, whose striving for full membership has been long thwarted by mean-spirited Republicans.
One special person so honored by the Democrats was Astrid Silva, a 28-year-old Mexican who was brought here as a child, making her a “dreamer.”
(Astrid was preceded on the stage by Karla and Francisca Ortiz, an illegal alien mother and her US-born anchor daughter who worries she might “come home and I find it empty” — so heart-tuggy!)
Astrid’s yarn was classic sob story, depicting a hard-working family struggling to reach America across those pesky borders:
“When I was four years old, my mother and I climbed into a raft, and we crossed the river to join my father in America in search of a better life. All I had was a little doll.”
What an image! How can meanie border supporters keep out such nice people? There’s only seven billion more where they came from.
“Dreamers” are another scheme of the democrats to obliterate law and borders. Under Dreamer legislation, anyone who entered illegally under age 16 could eventually “earn” citizenship and then chain migrate their parents a few years later.
Break the law: get rewarded. It’s the Democrat way, at least for their chosen people.
As promised, the Republican convention welcomed crime victims of illegal aliens to tell their stories of preventable suffering, which reflects Donald Trump’s interest in a topic the liberal open borders media prefers to overlook. Three parents told the convention audience how their sons were killed by illegal aliens who should have been deported but weren’t.
Sabine Durden appeared on Fox News the following day to talk more about her son and how government lawlessness endangers all Americans.
SABINE DURDEN: Dominic was 30 years old and he was an incredible spirit, incredible man, the kind of man you would want for a son-in-law. He was on his way to work on his motorcycle to the 911 dispatch center and as he drove down the street, about two miles from the house, an illegal alien without a license without registration, without insurance, drove up the street and turned in front of him and hit him so hard that he threw him into a wall right there on the sidewalk. He died instantly. Continue reading this article
It’s been a good couple days for national sovereignty. The Brexit referendum passed, against all polls and bookie forecasts, which begins divorce proceedings between Britain and the unelected European Union superstate. In Washington, the Supreme Court rejected the president’s unconstitutional executive amnesty.
“Our Founders conceived of this country as a refuge for the world.”
Really? Does he think the Founders fought a seven-year revolutionary war and set up a whole new country so the rest of the world could have a really comfy safe space?
Actually, the Constitution said that the purpose of the founding was “to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” There’s no mention of a “refuge” for auslanders.
The leftist view is that America is too rich, and middle-class citizens should be taxed to the max to provide free stuff for illegal aliens.
So it’s a good thing that the Supreme Court rejected Obama’s overreach of executive authority. However, it is concerning that four members of the nation’s top court apparently think it’s okay for the president to make law, which is Congress’ job and a basic item of the separation of powers.
Texas Governor Greg Abbott made a similar point about the court’s ruling:
President Obama lost his bid to kick-start his deportation amnesty Thursday after the Supreme Court deadlocked 4-4, keeping in place a lower court’s injunction, nixing the policy for the rest of Mr. Obama’s tenure and igniting political and legal debates that will carry on well beyond.
Mr. Obama said the ruling “takes us further from the country we aspire to be,” and vowed to protect most illegal immigrants from deportation anyway, saying his discretionary powers remain intact.
But the decision is a devastating blow to his hopes of a legacy-building amnesty, known by the acronym DAPA, that would have granted as many as 5 million illegal immigrants a stay of deportation and the keys to a more normal life in the U.S.: work permits and Social Security numbers enabling them to obtain driver’s licenses and other taxpayer benefits.
The ruling could have been even worse. Had Justice Antonin Scalia, who died in February, still been on the court, Mr. Obama would likely have lost in a 5-4 decision that could have spanked him on broad constitutional grounds and imposed limits on future presidents, analysts said.
Instead, the tie decision leaves in place rulings by a district judge in Texas and by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that Mr. Obama broke the law when he claimed he had the categorical power to grant “deferred action” to nearly half of the illegal immigrants in the country. Continue reading this article
Six years ago Bernardino Hernandez boarded a plane to Mexico City with not much — his high school yearbook, a printer and his college copy of “Thomas More’s Magician,” a novel about creating a utopian community in 16th century Mexico.
He had recently graduated from UC Davis, but he felt limited by his lack of legal status in the United States. Hernandez was 21 years old and unsure whether he’d ever reach his potential in a country that he’d called home since he was a toddler but that now wouldn’t allow him to work legally.
Before he departed, his disapproving father gave him $1,000 in cash but warned him, “I won’t pay for a coyote to bring you back.”
Though he gave up on his American dream in the U.S., he is now living it in Mexico.
Hernandez, 27, is at the helm of a translation company he launched last fall, leading a team of 15 linguists who offer services in nearly two dozen languages to multiple businesses, including eight transnational companies. Continue reading this article
The other trend that showed up in the hearing was the administration’s growing intention to insult and endanger Americans in every way possible during its final year, in this instance creating an even more chaotic, dangerous border. Welcome ISIS and other enemies!
Fox News interviewed House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte on Thursday to sort out what the subcommittee learned:
JENNA LEE: The immigration issue is a big one on the campaign trail and was also the subject of a subcommittee hearing today on Capitol Hill: lawmakers examining illegal immigration into the United States, specifically along the southwest border. More than 100,000 families making that journey since 2014 and despite a dip in January, some say the United States isn’t doing enough to get the numbers under control for good.
BRANDON JUDD (President of the National Border Patrol Council): Immigration laws today appear to be mere suggestions. There are little to no consequences for breaking the laws, and that fact is well known in other countries. If government agencies like DHS or CBP are allowed to bypass Congress by legislating through policy, we might as well abolish our immigration laws altogether.
LEE: A person who was there today joining us is House Judiciary Committee Chairman and Virginia Congressman Bob Goodlatte — it’s great to have you on the program . . . what do you think is the big headline that came out of the subcommittee today?
BOB GOODLATTE: I think the big headline that came out of the subcommittee should be that as we watch Iowa, New Hampshire and beyond, we need a President of the United States who is committed to enforcing our immigration laws, because this hearing made it very plain that this president is not enforcing the laws. Remember the great border surge of two summers ago? Well guess what — it never stopped. . . .
The projections for this entire fiscal year are higher than they were in 2014, and there’s a reason for that. The word has spread back to Central America and other places in the world for that matter that we’re not enforcing immigration laws, and that’s exactly what we heard from the Border Patrol agent that you just showed a clip of, and in fact he told us today — this was the real blockbuster news — that because the administration has been embarrassed by the number of people who do not return for their hearings after they’re so-called caught and then released into the interior of the country, they’ve ordered the Border Patrol agents to stop arresting them in the first place. Instead of enforcing the law they said, well stop even detaining them, then we won’t have this problem of them not coming back to the hearing because there’s hearing to begin with. Unbelievable. . .
The president of the United States needs to enforce the laws. He needs to announce very clearly here and in Central America that the laws are going to be enforced and that people should not be encouraged to make this long dangerous trip.
Sternly worded memo on official House of Representatives stationery to follow.
The Obama administration has revived the maligned illegal immigrant “catch-and-release” policy of the Bush years, ordering Border Patrol agents not to even bother arresting and deporting many new illegal immigrants, the head of the agents’ labor union told Congress on Thursday.
Brandon Judd, president of the National Border Patrol Council, said Homeland Security was embarrassed by the number of illegal immigrants not showing up for their deportation hearings, but instead of cracking down on the immigrants, the department ordered agents not to arrest them in the first place — meaning they no longer need to show up in court in the first place.
Mr. Judd said the releases are part of President Obama’s “priorities” program, which says he’s only worried about illegal immigrants who came across after Jan. 1, 2014. Mr. Judd said illegal immigrants without serious criminal convictions on their record only have to claim they came before 2014 — without even needing to show proof — in order to be released without ever being arrested.
“Immigration laws today appear to be mere suggestions,” Mr. Judd testified to the House Judiciary Committee’s immigration subcommittee. “That fact is well known in other countries.”
Customs and Border Protection, which oversees the Border Patrol, did not have an immediate comment on Mr. Judd’s testimony. The White House also declined to comment, with spokesman Josh Earnest saying he hadn’t seen the testimony.
Mr. Judd and Jessica Vaughan, policy studies director at the Center for Immigration Studies, said criminal cartels are particularly astute at exploiting the Obama administration’s policies, and have specifically recruited and sent tens of thousands of children to flood the border in order to distract agents and create new chances to smuggle drugs across.
Tens of thousands of unaccompanied illegal immigrant children from Central America, and tens of thousands more families traveling together, have surged to the southwestern border in the last few years, overwhelming the administration’s ability to handle them. Continue reading this article
Immigrant-sending nations have a problem with Donald Trump and the possibility that pushing their unskilled persons and criminals into stupid-generous America may shrink. They are miffed that Obasma’s open borders could shut to a degree, leaving some with a decreased remittance haul of fewer billions of dollars. (The United States is the major remittance-sending country, with $56 billion strip-mined in 2014 by immigrants and illegal aliens.)
The Washington Times did a world roundabout, gathering up quotes from interested persons (mostly critical) that ranged from angry to downright insulting.
For example, Dubai entrepreneur and television celebrity Mohamed Parham al Awadhi remarked:
“Look at flourishing cities like New York or San Francisco and how communities have lived together since their foundation. Middle Eastern, Asian, African, European and Latin American immigrants and refugees are not new phenomena. They’ve been assimilating with U.S. culture and living side by side with their fellow Americans.”
Funny, I remember Muslims’ effect on New York City differently.
On September 11, 2001, 19 Muslim jihadists from abroad killed nearly 3,000 Americans using hijacked passenger plane suicide attacks on New York and Washington.
As he has surged to the top of the polls in the Republican presidential primary race, Donald Trump has targeted Muslims, Mexicans and Asians as threats to national security and the economy.
Around the world, they don’t always appreciate it.
“Trump’s comments only propagate a perception of migrants and Mexicans that I know is not true and that outrages me,” said Nancy Landa, a member of Los Otros Dreamers, a Mexican advocacy group for deportees.
To an unusual degree world leaders and foreign populations appear to be monitoring closely the ins and outs of the American primary season, and the clear focus of much of the fascination is Mr. Trump and his unexpected success to date in the GOP primary. The Donald has already been the subject of parliamentary debate in Britain on whether he should be banned from the country for his inflammatory rhetoric, and foreign leaders find themselves forced to prepare their talking points when asked about prospective relations with a Trump administration.
Pressed recently on CNN for his thoughts on Mr. Trump’s call for a temporary ban on all Muslim travel to the U.S., Jordan’s King Abdullah took the traditional diplomatic exit ramp: “You’re into an election cycle, so I don’t think it’s fair for you to ask a foreign leader to express his opinion on candidates in your country running for election.”
But the restrictions don’t hold for foreign pundits, parliamentarians and ordinary citizens observing from afar one of the more disruptive U.S. campaigns in recent memory.
Unsurprisingly, the current gathering of international heavyweights at the Davos World Economic Forum has not been kind to Mr. Trump or his agenda opposing trade deals, freer immigration and open borders.
“I’d be happier with a more welcoming integration,” Chilean Finance Minister Rodrigo Valdes told the Reuters news service recently. “It is uncontroversial to say that integration of markets, of trade is a good thing, and this rhetoric does not help that.” Continue reading this article
Breitbart (normally a fine news source) seemed surprised that a dim administration apparatchik, ICE Director Sarah Saldana, recently remarked during a hearing that an amnesty for millions of foreign lawbreakers was the price required for any kind of immigration enforcement.
Actually the devil’s bargain of no enforcement is the same old lawless crap and not new at all. In 2010 then-Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) noted at a local town hall that during a private meeting with the President, Obama had said that precise thing:
KYL: “The problem is, he (Obama) said, if we secure the border, then you all won’t have any reason to support comprehensive immigration reform.”
Fortunately, the video of that statement still resides on the internets:
Plus, the appearance of the video kicked up a minor kerfuffle at the time, complete with denials from the palace:
The White House on Monday denied Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl’s claim that President Barack Obama told him privately that he would not work to secure the border unless it was part of a comprehensive immigration reform package.
In a video that started circulating among conservative blogs over the weekend, the Arizona Republican is seen telling supporters in North Phoenix that in a private meeting in the Oval Office, Obama said “the problem” with border enforcement measures is that “if we secure the border then [Republicans] won’t have any reason to support comprehensive immigration reform.” [. . .]
President Obama’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) director tells lawmakers that no consequences are planned for sanctuary cities until Congress first passes “comprehensive immigration reform.” Sarah Saldaña testified before a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on criminal alien violence.
After hearing emotional testimony from families torn apart by illegal immigrant murderers, Republican members of Congress grilled two administration witnesses: Leon Rodriquez, Director of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), and Sarah Saldaña, Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Both Rodriquez and Saldaña have been tasked with carrying out President Obama’s executive amnesty for so-called DREAMers, which includes work permits and medical benefits for low-income illegal aliens funded by citizen taxpayers.
Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) repeatedly pressed Saldaña on why the Administration was taking no action against sanctuary jurisdictions that refuse to turn over dangerous criminal aliens from their prisons and jails to federal law officers. Saldaña replied that Congress would first have to pass “comprehensive immigration reform.”
Vitter: “This has been going on for years and you still are not prepared to say that there is ever going to be any negative consequence to those [sanctuary] jurisdictions. When is that going to change?”
Saldaña: “I presume when you all address comprehensive immigration reform; perhaps it can be addressed there.” [. . .]
Who knew that even a tiny instance of immigration enforcement could occur in Obama’s America? Apparently Judge Andrew Hanen’s holding the feds accountable for the administration’s lawless mini-amnesty has been having an effect. The judge acted to halt the imperial amnesty in February, but the DHS continued to hand out work permits (The Real Amnesty) anyway.
WASHINGTON—If you are a DACA recipient who received a three-year Employment Authorization Document (EAD) after February 16, 2015, it was likely mistakenly issued and must be returned.
Approximately 2,100 DACA recipients were issued three-year Employment Authorization Documents, rather than two-year EADs, after the February 16, 2015, court injunction was in place. USCIS has taken action to correct this issue for these individuals and has updated their records to reflect a two-year period of deferred action and employment authorization. USCIS has re-issued and mailed the corrected two-year EADs to these individuals. USCIS has also notified these individuals that the three-year EADs are no longer valid and must be immediately returned, along with any related approval notices. USCIS is carefully tracking the number of returns of these invalid EADs and continues to take steps to collect the remaining cards. (Continues)
In fact, more was done than bureaucrats merely issuing a memo: agents will go door to door (!) to retrieve the unlawful amnesty documents. That’s the plan, at least. Let the raza shrieking begin!
Goosed into action by an angry federal judge, federal immigration authorities will go door-to-door demanding illegal immigrants return the three-year amnesty approvals the Obama administration issued to them in defiance of a court order.
Those who don’t return their three-year permits will have them terminated at the end of this month, the National Immigrant Justice Center, one of the advocacy groups briefed on authorities’ plan, said in a statement preparing immigrants for what could be a traumatic encounter.
The move comes as Homeland Security officials, fed up with slow-walking by illegal immigrants, are finally playing hardball after months of less forceful measures.
They’re scrambling to meet an end-of-month deadline set by Judge Andrew S. Hanen for recapturing thousands of three-year amnesties the department issued even after the court had entered an injunction halting the new amnesty program.
Unless all of the permits are recovered, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson could personally have to appear in court to explain the foul-up, Judge Hanen said in an order earlier this month.
But the home visits also come at a tricky time, when immigration is a heated issue, and any contact by authorities can be scary for immigrants. Advocacy groups, who were given a heads-up by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, are preparing to field calls from frightened immigrants.
“The USCIS home visits unfortunately will add to the mounting confusion and anxiety communities feel as they await a resolution in the executive action case, but individuals should know it is critical to comply with requests to exchange their work permits, whether they receive a letter or visit at their homes,” Vanessa Esparza-Lopez, supervising attorney for the National Immigrant Justice Center’s legal defense project, said in a statement.
In a new fact sheet, USCIS raised the number of erroneous “Employment Authorization Documents,” or EADs, it approved from about 2,500 to 2,600 — the third time it’s boosted that estimate. Continue reading this article
Fox News’ resident expert on legal opinions of the courts discussed Tuesday’s decision of the Fifth Circuit to deny the administration’s request to lift a hold on Obama’s unconstitutional executive amnesty.
The judge appeared with Neil Cavuto for a chat about the law and politics. Unfortunately, it will be a chilly day in hell before the squishy Republican Congress will adequately defend the Constitution from the lawless black President. Anything as harsh as the impeachment remedy suggested by the judge wouldn’t celebrate diversity or appreciate the historic nature of America’s first black President. (The legislators should also read Daniel Horowitz’s informative list: 6 Reasons Congress Can’t Rely on Courts to Stop Executive Amnesty.)
NAPOLITANO: When the case is finally tried in district court, the government will probably lose, the President will probably lose, and for that reason they’re going to keep the injunction in place.
I cannot tell you how rare this is in American history for a succession of federal judges to stop the President of the United States from doing what he says he has the authority to do, but we saw it happen today.
CAVUTO: But what changes if the President is still freezing these deportations? He’s still doing it.
NAPOLITANO: The President is breaking the law. That’s what two judges said in United States courts.
CAVUTO: He’s gotta ship ‘em back in that event? Or let the deportation process continue?
NAPOLITANO: What’s the remedy when the President doesn’t do what he took an oath to do? It’s a Congressional remedy, it’s the “I” word that nobody wants to talk about — it’s impeachment.
But we now have three out of four federal judges who have looked at this have said the President is breaking the law, the President is acting outside that box of the Constitution gives him in which Presidential discretion [crosstalk] . . .
I would think that the White House will have to appeal this to the Supreme Court. The initial appeal is to Justice Scalia of all people because he happens to be the circuit justice, the member of the Supreme Court who hears emergency appeals from that part of the United States, the Fifth Circuit which is Louisiana and Texas and the surrounding states. So it would be up to the President if he wants to dispatch his lawyers there. This does not look good for him.
The Washington Times provided details on the decision.
A federal appeals court refused to lift an injunction against President Obama’s deportation amnesty in a ruling Tuesday that delivers a second major legal setback to the administration and keeps millions of illegal immigrants on hold.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit sided with a lower court that ruled Mr. Obama probably broke the law in taking unilateral action last year to grant an amnesty from deportation. The three-judge panel, ruling 2-1, shot down Mr. Obama’s hopes of quickly restarting the amnesty, and make it likely he’ll have to go to the Supreme Court to try to win his case. Continue reading this article
On Thursday, Don Rosenberg appeared on the Fox morning show to express his distrust of the administration’s screening of illegal aliens. He has been an advocate for the public safety of citizens since his son was killed by an illegal alien in 2010. He knows very well that illegal immigration is not a victimless crime.
STEVE DOOCY: Our next guest’s son was killed by an illegal in a car crash back in 2010, and he says this was no mistake. . . . You say the government did not make a mistake here, did they?
ROSENBERG: They have a policy right now and it’s actually been going on for years, to try to keep as many of these people in the country as they possibly can, and I’m not buying that it’s a mistake, a matter of fact they lie constantly. It’s a mistake when they tell the truth. . . .
When you talk about a background check, how do you do a background check on somebody, you have no idea who he is, you have no idea where they came from, but you’re going to do a background check? You don’t know what they did in their country of origin, and here’s a case, a perfect example of that because it wasn’t just this guy, they’re admitting to at least 20 others.
20 other suspected gang affiliates get admin’s approval
The man accused of murdering a former contestant on “America’s Next Top Model” was already a known gang member when he was approved for President Obama’s amnesty for so-called Dreamers, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee revealed Tuesday.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the agency charged with approving amnesty applications, admitted it broke its own rules in approving the gang member for tentative legal status, agency chief Leon Rodriguez said in a letter to Sen. Charles E. Grassley.
“Based on standard procedures and processes in place at the time, the [deferred action] request and related employment authorization should not have been approved,” Mr. Rodriguez said in admitting his agency’s catastrophic error in approving Emmanuel Jesus Rangel-Hernandez.
Mr. Rodriguez said Mr. Rangel’s immigrant’s status was revoked March 5 — but that was a month after he’d already been arrested by police and accused of killing Mirjana Puhar, a contestant last year on the “Top Model” program, and three others.
The admissions are a serious black eye for Mr. Obama’s amnesty program, which the president has insisted would allow generally law-abiding illegal immigrants to live and work without fear, while weeding out serious criminals.
USCIS admitted in its letter to Mr. Grassley that another 20 immigrants with potential gang ties have also been approved, and officers are now going back and trying to figure out whether rules were broken in those cases as well. Mr. Rodriguez said his officers will also face retraining so they know which applications to deny.
But Mr. Grassley said the approvals exposed the holes with the amnesty, which Mr. Obama announced in 2012 and which has approved more than 600,000 Dreamers for tentative legal status under his program, officially known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA.
“It’s no secret that USCIS staff is under intense pressure to approve every DACA application that comes across their desk, and based on this information, it’s clear that adequate protocols are not in place to protect public safety,” Mr. Grassley said. “The fact is that this tragedy could have been avoided if the agency had a zero tolerance policy with regard to criminal aliens and gang members.” Continue reading this article
After the 2001 jihad attack on America that killed nearly 3000, the government sought to improve national security by implementing secure identification, as recommended by the 9/11 Commission. The legislation created was the REAL ID Act, signed in 2005, that established federal standards for state driver’s licenses, among other things. But despite the federal law requiring state driving permits for illegal aliens be easily recognizable as distinct from REAL ID compliant documents, several states are unwilling to comply.
Below, the California driver’s license for illegal aliens on the right has tiny type in the upper corner reading “Federal Limits Apply.” The license on the left that citizens get does not have that subtle marking. The licenses are nearly identical.
Fox report William La Jeunesse explained how California and several other states are violating federal law to coddle illegal aliens:
LA JEUNESSE: To board an airplane, TSA requires a secure ID. Driver’s licenses meet that standard; state IDs do not, which is why after 9/11 Congress passed the REAL ID Act, which said IDs for illegal immigrants must use a unique design or color to alert law enforcement they’re not secure.
The ACLU spokesman in the clip voiced concern that apparently sensitive illegal aliens would feel “stigmatized” by the “scarlet letter” of having a different looking license. Who knew that lawbreaking money-grubbing job thieves were so touchy about graphic design?
Democrat-run California is happy to indulge illegals, whom the liberals regard as future voters to create a permanent Democrat majority. Piecemeal amnesty is part of the deal.
After the 9/11 attacks, Congress passed the REAL ID Act to prevent foreign nationals from fraudulently obtaining a U.S. driver’s license — by requiring that any ID issued based on unverifiable foreign documents look different in “design or color” from an official driver’s license.
That way, TSA and other law enforcement would know the ID holder might not be who they say they are.
But more than a decade later, several state and local governments are openly flouting the law, issuing ID cards that are barely distinguishable from a bona fide driver’s license. That means those with mere ID cards, like illegal immigrants, might be able to pass off their cards as a driver’s license at the airport and elsewhere — creating a huge gap in security.
Examples include Washington, D.C., and Colorado.
For card-holders in the nation’s capital, a small star in the corner is the only visual cue that distinguishes a D.C. license from a mere ID card.
In Colorado, the distinguishing characteristic for the ID cards is a small black band.
“If you could issue a letter grade to the way states are handling this, it would be an ‘F’,” said Andrew Meehan, of the Coalition for a Secure Driver’s License.
From the outset, states have chafed at the new federal rules. They called the policy an unfunded mandate and federal intrusion.
More recently, advocates for illegal immigrants have opposed the parts of the law that require “noncompliant” cards for undocumented workers to look different than licenses for U.S. citizens and legal residents.
“What we object to is states that gratuitously would try to do much more than necessary for the sole purpose of stigmatizing individuals,” said American Civil Liberties Union lawyer Jon Blazer. “On the other hand, some states have taken a better approach in this regard, and have put the minimal requirements that they’re obliged to put under federal law.”
Meehan said 23 states currently meet Department of Homeland Security standards.
However, six of those states issue ID cards that look virtually identical to a standard driver’s license, violating the act’s language. Since January alone, one of those states — California — has issued licenses to 500,000 illegal immigrants. Continue reading this article
Fair Use: This site contains copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of issues related to culture and mass immigration. We believe this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information, see: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000107----000-.html. In order to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond "fair use", you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.