.
.
.
A newspaper reports that 650,000 California drivers licenses were issued last year to undocumented persons. This means that we have 650,000 more licensed drivers than a year ago.
One has to wonder how many of these new legal drivers, and their family members, used to use public transit but now use a personal automobile because they can legally do so. Could it be that this phenomenon is at least partly responsible for reports of public transit ridership declines in Orange and Los Angeles counties?
Is the theory of unintended consequences at work here?
Well, at his last gubernatorial debate when the DL’s for illegals subject came up Governor Brown said that he supported it because the illegals had to have a way to get to work in the morning. And that came from the lips of our governor who is sworn under oath to uphold the laws of California and the United States. It’s probably still on youtube if you care to watch it. Maybe that was one reason the crime rate has risen lately. I mean, if the governor promotes illegal activity why should the rest of us care?
This came from the lips of a Governor who is familiar with the real world. The “illegality” of these folks’ existence in the US is mainly the result of Congressional inaction. And we are all better off when they are licensed and insured.
Like they always were until 1994 – the year of Prop 187, when Califorians seemed to think undocumented Mexicans were the greatest threat to society since disco.
I don’t intend to get into a lengthy debate with you over this. But the fact remains that the governor holds the highest elected office in the State. The governor took a sworn oath to uphold the laws of the State and the Nation. The governor is a role model and example to the citizens that he governs. The governor promoted activity that is clearly illegal in my referenced example. So either one believes that elected officials should honor their sworn oaths or they have no obligation to honor their sworn oaths. I happen to fall into the former category. But I understand all of us have different opinions.
I could debate the DL’s for illegals and illegal immigration matter with you for days. But I don’t really want to go there. So I’ll focus on the governor’s position on DL’s for illegals and his reason for it. I guess I just expect more from our elected officials in high offices. That’s all.
Oh, I forgot, Zigs — you call them “illegals.” Yet you don’t use that term for banksters, wife beaters, and toxic dumpers, who are actually doing something illegal. I prefer the term “unauthorized residents,” which is as purely descriptive as I’ve seen. (No, I don’t like the term “undocumented workers” either, as it’s not designed to be neutral, but it sure is better than “illegals.” Oh well.
Once their having driver’s licenses was made legal, possessing a driver’s was no longer “illegal activity.” No call for nihilism here.
Everybody has their own nomenclature, Greg. That’s fine. As long as we understand that they aren’t legally supposed to be here – that’s all that really matters as far as I’m concerned.
I have no problem calling a wife beater an illegal. But if he did his time and paid his fine for his crime I would stop calling him an illegal. Same for the banksters and toxic dumpers. In fact, I have harsher terms for the banksters. They are some of the most heinous criminals that live amongst us who seem to be immune from the laws. Not the bank manager at the local BofA. Of course I’m referring to the financial criminals on Wall Street.
But you have to admit. Giving an illegal immigrant foreigner a CA driver’s license so that he can more conveniently (and legally) conduct business on our roadways sends a mixed message to the law abiding folks. IMO that’s a bad practice in a nation that’s supposed to promote “equality under the law”. That would be like the government encouraging me to illegally skirt my taxes. You and I know that would never happen unless were were billionaires who own banks.
So breaking the law is isn’t really “Illegal” when Vern disagrees with the law.
The reality, Mr. Vern, is the illegality of illegal immigrants’ residency results from their entering the country illegally and living here illegally. You can’t wash that away with scare quotes.
Vern’s ideologically-driven dumbness aside, this post raises a very interesting question, one it is unlikely the MSM will take up.
Being undocumented, or having your documents expired, is a violation akin to jaywalking. Those who bang the drum about the horrors of this “illegality” say more about themselves than I care to, and certainly have their own list of violations they consider petty.
Overstaying a visa — as happens often — isn’t a crime. It’s a civil infraction. Removal from the country is a civil remedy. That both is helpful and hurtful to the people in detention centers: they didn’t commit a crime, but they also have lessened due process.
That’s your opinion, and an flighty one, at that. Comparing control of the national border, sovereignty and naturalization laws to a minor traffic offense shows how far out on the fringe you are. And your instant impulse to impugn the motives of anyone who believes the law is the law shows how shallow your thinking is.
I just don’t see these undocumented immigrants as hurting me, hurting you, or anyone else. “Neither picks my pocket nor punches my nose,” as Jefferson said or something like that. I can only scratch my head over why it seems so TERRIBLE to some people.
Oh. Well, if it’s flighty, provide a citation for the law that you think is being violated. It will say whether it’s a felony, misdemeanor, wobbler, or infraction.
The end product of your reasoning, Vern, is that citizenship is ultimately meaningless.
Really??? To begin with, we citizens have the precious right to vote. Should I go on?
What about my basic premise – is the licensing of undocumented drivers a contributing factor to the decline in the use of public transit? Might the public transit management experts care to advance an opinion to help explain or not explain the ridership decline?
I doubt we will solve the issue of immigration here, but maybe we can help find at least one factor of what is contributing to the ridership decline problem..
Speaking only for myself, I have no way to assess the validity of your premise. It’s plausible, to some extent, but that doesn’t make it true. It might be useful to discuss how we would figure out how to assess it! (Or is that too wonky for me to suggest?)
What about cheaper gas? In 2011 or 2012 gas was $5 a gallon. Now it’s half that.
Well, putting on my economics hat it would seem that more drivers on the road would only cause gas prices to rise from a strict law of supply and demand analysis. So that would rule out DL’s for illegal causing a sharp decline in gas prices.
But all of us know (or should know) that government manipulation generally causes gas prices to go up and down. You don’t think the Saudi’s are cooperating with the think tanks in DC?
Historically with oil prices at about $30/barrell we should be paying less than $2 a gallon in Southern California. When Bush was in office toward the end of his last term oil prices weren’t near $30/barrell and we were paying about $1.90 a gallon. That’s called government manipulation or a unholy alliance between government and those who profit from the sales of gasoline.
Plus, we are in an economic war with Russia. Keeping oil prices at $30/barrel will eventually take a huge toll on one of the only other superpowers that could challenge us militarily. Much of Russia’s economic revenue comes from energy products, much of which is sold to foreigners.
There’s always more to the picture than what meets the eye. We must examine every angle and through the process of elimination come to a final determination of cause and effect. I’ve reached my conclusions but I am always open to new ideas.