quote: Latino groups said Tuesday they plan a statewide work walkout Dec. 12 in response to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's call for a special session of the Legislature to repeal the law granting driver's licenses to illegal immigrants.
"The objective is to demonstrate the essential role that Latino labor plays in the success of the state's economy," said Nativo Lopez, president of the Mexican American Political Association, a Latino rights group based in Los Angeles.
Today, 20 of my 25 person production crew announced that they were going to stay home to protest the repeal of the licensing law. No parades. No million person march on Sacramento. It’s just a home day.
I have to say that I believe this to be the most popular and least effective protest I’ve seen in a long time.
The people said that they had to show their support for the licensing bill. They said that their kids were being pushed by their teacher’s to make sure their parents stayed home.
Working people are going to stay home on a Friday during the holiday season. This is supposed to put a HUGE hurt on Arnold?
Nah. The only people it will hurt are small businesses like ours and the families of the people “protesting” who will be short 20% of this week’s income for the privilege of sending Arnold a message.
I personally think the repeal stinks. These folks are going to drive. If you make it impossible to do it legally, then why should they even try to pass the driver’s test and get insurance. I believe that it is better to have licensed and insured drivers on the road than to try and control immigration through putting the rest of California’s drivers at risk.
There are parts of this particular bill I’d like to see changed. I’m not too happy about the fine print that removes the PD’s ability to use the DMV database in crime investigation. And I don’t see what would be so difficult about making the license slightly different so that it is obviously a driving only identification.
The walk-out is aggravating. It meant that I had to call in friends to work to meet our promised lead-times. But the most disturbing thing was the seeming uselessness of the walkout.
I promised those that show-up tomorrow that we’ll craft a letter protesting the repeal.
So 1) I’ve come to Hatrack to vent. Thank you Hatrack.
2) I need help drafting a letter that they can sign that will let Sacramento know that our interests aren’t being served by an overall repeal of the bill.
If you could direct me to examples of such letters and links to sites (in English) supporting the bill, I’d be very grateful.
posted
I, for one, do not support this bill. I do feel for your business interests, though.
I won't support providing illegal immigrants with the privilege of driving on roads MY tax dollars pay for. (Just how many illegal immigrants pay taxes?) I can't come up with a better way to phrase my frustrations with this issue. I'm not against immigration. I'm not against people trying to find a better life. I won't support a new law to assist people who are breaking an original law, though. Now before someone jumps on me for...
Tstorm- They aren't denying them a license because they aren't paying taxes. In fact, they plan to use the tax ID# they give them as part of the proof to prevent duplicate licenses.
Also, you'd be surprised how many immigrants are using a tax ID#, paying taxes, yet are not elligible for the services those taxes fund.
They're denying the license on the basis of National Security. Saying that a terrorist could then just waltz right in, get a license and travel from state to state being mistaken for a citizen.
I'm not saying that they should have an ID that is mistaken for citizenship; I'm talking about a license that proves they know the laws of the road in California and have access to car insurance.
posted
This article from the L.A. Times says, in part:
quote: Support for such a strike is mixed, particularly because Schwarzenegger has suggested he would consider a new version of the driver's license measure if it was tied to insurance and background checks.
So you likely want to include pushing this "suggestion" of Schwarzenegger's.
This page has a letter that was used in a campaign to support the bill that was just repealed. Most of the it should be usable, with minor tweaks, I think.
This article has some relevant data from insurance companies.
This site has a statement from the ACLU in support of the bill.
quote: Cedillo, the bill's author, said he plans to work with Gov. Schwarzenegger on a compromise bill.
Schwarzenegger said publicly that he wants a "whole new package" that would deal with insurance, background checks and other concerns raised by the bill's opponents. The governor said he wanted to meet with Cedillo in January to work through the bill's "obstacles."
Assembly Democrats said those assurances allowed them to repeal the bill, knowing it would come back in form more acceptable to all.
posted
Here's my stupid question: Why does everyone in this country think that driving is some sort of right? We give out licenses to every idiot who can muddle his or her way through a driving test.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I personally think the repeal stinks. These folks are going to drive. If you make it impossible to do it legally, then why should they even try to pass the driver’s test and get insurance. I believe that it is better to have licensed and insured drivers on the road than to try and control immigration through putting the rest of California’s drivers at risk.
This is exactly the right view of this, if you believe the various data analyses of the issue. Including one that I had the privelege to co-author for the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety.
Basically, you want every insured and you want everyone licensed IF they are going to drive. There are some people who will stop driving if they don't have a license, but by far the majority of people will drive without a license. That's especially true in locations where not driving means not working, and thus starving.
Personally, having grown up in California and seen the essential services provided by illegal and migrant workers (quasi-legal status), I do not understand people's reluctance to extend services to these folks. CA has restricted education to migrant workers' children. It now wants to try to punish illegals who drive there.
But you are just whistling in the wind if you think that you can control people through enforcement efforts alone. The chances of being "caught" for driving without a valid license are very small. The chances of being caught by immigration are fairly low too.
Face it, illegal aliens are part of your economy. They do contribute. They take jobs no-one else will. They help small businesses survive because they represent cheap abundant labor.
It's not exactly good for the stupid and low ambition citizens to have large numbers of illegals in the state, but other than that, their presence there is at least benign, if not actually a major contributor to the economy.
In return, they raise your insurance and education costs. If you had ways to "look the other way" legally on some of these issues, you'd actually save a lot of money by not wasting resources on fruitless enforcement efforts.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jon Boy, its not so much Driving as a right as it is the use of Driver's licences or other photo ID's that are required for so much of todays life.
You cannot open up a bank account without one. You cannot rent an apartment without one. You cannot do much of anything without one.
SO you earn a few hundred bucks, but end up carrying it all around in your pockets, to be mugged by knowing thugs every payday.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just in case people were wondering, all of my employees are legal. This was a matter of principle for them.
The good news is, only 2 of my people decided to stay home. The rest are here and we're going to write a letter. Posts: 2425 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
Turns out I didn't qualify as a rocket scientist and by the time they were done testing my aptitudes, it was either this or perfume spritzer at Macy's.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was planning on doing a Sakeriver editorial on this, but I guess I'll say it here.
I do not support the driver's license bill. I will not support the revised bill that will be introduced very soon, addressing the security concerns. It makes absolutely no sense to me to give driver's licenses to illegal immigrants (or undocumented immigrants, if you prefer).
Before you go and think I'm some sort of reactionary nut job, let me make a few points. First of all, the safety issue is not as big as you might think. California already recognizes foreign driver's licenses. A Mexican citizen is already licensed to be on our roads so long as he or she has a valid Mexican driver's license. And besides, the real issue is not licensing at all, it's insurance, and this bill does nothing to deal with that.
I flatly refuse to see this as a racial issue, and it makes me angry that it is becoming one. Race and citizenship are COMPLETELY different. California DOES NOT deny people driver's licenses on the basis of race. And yet, a recent article out of UCLA's Chicano Studies center claims that we discriminate heavily against non-citizens, and that this amounts to apartheid. Excuse me, apartheid? It's possible that I'm ignorant, but I know of no country in the world that gives non-citizens all of the same rights as citizens. Yet, this UCLA article claims that unless we give non-citizens the right to vote, we will be exactly the same as South Africa used to be.
This is absolutely absurd. If we give all of the same rights to non-citizens as we do to citizens, there will be no incentive whatsoever for anyone to naturalize. In fact, there'd be no reason for people to be citizens at all. Why not just have a big citizenship renunciation party? But, see, I think that the rights and privileges that come with citizenship also come with responsibility. Do the undocumented share the same responsibilities as citizens? I admit that my research is spotty at best, but I highly doubt it.
At this point, you may thinking of me in a similar light to Pat Buchanan, but, I assure you, nothing could be further from the truth. The fact is that immigrants, legal or illegal, are critical to the health of our state and country. Immigrants are a sizeable and necessary part of our workforce. Immigrants are also the only thing that keeps our population growing. And they add to the diversity of our population, and I can't see that as anything but a good thing.
What really frustrates me about this whole thing is that it's so completely misguided. Rather than giving driver's licenses or votes to illegal immigrants, what we need to be doing is taking a good look at our legal immigration system. There are thousands, even millions of people out in the world who want to come to this country to work, to contribute, but they feel that they can't because we won't let them. What we need to do is find a way to streamline the legal immigration and naturalization process so that these people can do so. It helps them and it helps us. And once they are citizens or legal residents, they'll be just as free as any of the rest of us to get driver's licenses or attend public schools or get medical care. They'll also be just as free to pay taxes, register for selective service, and serve on juries.
I think that immigration reform is a win-win situation. So why aren't we focusing on that, instead?
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:what we need to be doing is taking a good look at our legal immigration system. There are thousands, even millions of people out in the world who want to come to this country to work, to contribute, but they feel that they can't because we won't let them. What we need to do is find a way to streamline the legal immigration and naturalization process so that these people can do so. It helps them and it helps us. And once they are citizens or legal residents, they'll be just as free as any of the rest of us to get driver's licenses or attend public schools or get medical care. They'll also be just as free to pay taxes, register for selective service, and serve on juries.
Mike, I agree completely with this. But with the current immigration and naturalization system, it takes anywhere from 5-15 years to become a citizen. What are they supposed to do in the meantime?
What really blows is that the candidates for citizenship have to either prove residency for that period of time or be on a short list of skills that will allow them to have a "speed pass" into the country.
And if they're a resident (they must prove this because it then shows a mental hardship if they're forced to leave), are they supposed to be here without contributing to the GNP or paying taxes?
Funny, part of the acceptable proof is pay stubs, but they're not supposed to be working. Nasty little catch-22, huh?
So granting the license is offering a bandage where major surgery is called for. I recognize this. But it's the only thing immediately available and I think it will do more good than harm.
posted
I think a good start would be to make it easier to become a legal resident, or at least to get a long-term work visa.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
And, actually, I disagree that this is even a band-aid, because I think it majorly disincentivizes legal immigration, as well as postponing the necessary reforms. If people cared about it we could make immigration reform happen in a reasonable time frame.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jon Boy- in answer to your question, the right to drive is an essential component of the auto industry marketing machine.
I think the provision that licensing info would be off limits to law enforcement does make it a security risk, much as Homeland-security-think bothers me. I'm not in love with the whole idea of the law.
By the way, illegal immigrants who pay tax have been working to be ablet to collect social security, even if they retire in Mexico. I think they should have to be maintaining residence in the U.S. to collect. Why not for Mexico when we do it for other countries? Fine, stop it for the other countries. Or give people a refund of their dollar contributions if they don't want to remain residents.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Why does everyone in this country think that driving is some sort of right?"
Cuz people who'd give permission to a 14year old -- for whom they had responsibility -- to drive without a license or even a licensed driver in the car would never be granted a license. Probably wouldn't even give one to someone who'd jump out of a moving car to avoid being squirted with water.
posted
Hey Bob I'm going to read your report in down times at work so I saved it to my hard drive.
I'm confused though by this statment on pg 10. (I have acrobat pro so I cut and pasted.)
quote: The six states all have open container and ignition interlock laws. Three have special repeat offender laws on the books. Four allow vehicle impoundment. Two have special plates or markings for repeat offenders. Four allow vehicle confiscation. And two can also block vehicle registrations by offenders who were driving under the influence of alcohol.
The most notable comparison between all other states and the six participating states involves vehicle impoundment. The majority of other nonparticipating states(78%) do not have laws regarding vehicle impoundment; however, five of the six participating states do have such laws.
What is the difference between impoundment and confiscation and how come in the first paragraph you say 4 states do impoundment and then in the second paragraph you say five states do impoundment?
posted
I'm guessing impoundment is when they take it to the impound lot and then you have to pay a fee to get it back, whereas confiscation is where they just take it and that's that.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
saxon is correct. And the two laws are so closely tied together that in the 2nd paragraph we combined them to say that 5 states allow either or both impoundment/confiscation. It probably lost something when the hired-gun technical editor tried to make it read more smoothly.
I'm a big proponent of precision, but it sometimes gets in the way of easy readability. Unfortunately, if you read a "readable" document closely, you often find that they left out nagging details.
This report was viewed as extremely important so the foundation actually hired someone to make it look nice and read more easily than if it were just a normal research report. I don't blame them, but I do think there are spots where it suffered as a result.
all in all, however, the tech editor did such a great job that I'm more pleased with the final than I was with the original we turned in. If that makes sense.
A good technical editor is worth their weight in semicolons, IMHO. And they may be forgiven a few miswordings, especially since it was probably my job to catch the ones that really mattered (i.e., changed the sense of what the document said).
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
Bob-Traffic professional, its not just a lifestyle, its a career.
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Monkeys]](graemlins/monkeys.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
