Driving while undocumented---discrimination.
Discriminations
cogitations declarations contemplations inspirations conversations ruminations« "In A Perfect World ..." | Main | Professorial Punditry Worthy Of A Mainstream Pundit »
Driving While Undocumented
I'm convinced that one of the more powerful currents flowing into the rising tide of frustration and, increasingly, anger over illegal immigrants here is resentment produced by advocacy groups arguing that their rights are being violated. Most Americans would agree, I think, that being an illegal immigrant does not strip a person of all rights, but most would probably also agree that neither does simply being here confer all the legal and constitutional rights that citizens enjoy.
Over my coffee and bagel in Charlottesville this morning (the gastronomic explanation of this post) I happened to read three articles that highlighted arguments of unfair treatment of immigrants -- one in the Washington Post and two in the Charlottesville Daily Progress (though the latter's lousy online edition contained neither, and since thew were both Associated Press stories I cite them below from other sources).
In Maryland, according to this WaPo article, the number of people cited for driving without a license has risen 54% -- from19,878 citations in 2002 to 30,624 in the fiscal year that ended in June 2005.
[Del. Luiz R.S. Simmons (D-Montgomery)] released the findings as he prepares to introduce legislation that would make driving without a license an offense punishable by incarceration in Maryland. In the District [of Columbia] and Virginia, driving without a license can land a motorist in jail....
In Maryland, driving without a license carries a $315 fine but no threat of jail time, even for multiple offenses.
"You never even have to show up in court," Simmons said in an interview. "All you have to do is keep paying" the fine.
According to the article, federal immigration officials estimate that there are 56,000 illegal aliens in Maryland, and both law enforcement officials and immigrant advocates agree that the increase in undocumented driving is associated with the increasing numbers of undocumented workers.
... Gustavo Torres, executive director of Casa of Maryland, a Silver Spring-based immigrants' rights organization, said: "Even though Delegate Simmons says he is not targeting any group, it is very clear this is going to impact the immigrant community, Latinos and other immigrants."
Torres said he thinks illegal immigrants account for a significant part of the increase in unlicensed drivers in the state. "Regardless of whether they have driver's licenses, it is how people take their kids to school or go to work. That is the reality," Torres said.
Meanwhile, in Virginia, according to this article, Rep. Jack Reid (R-Henrico)
said he plans to introduce a measure that would deny in-state tuition to undocumented immigrants. "All across the state, there's a growing concern about the costs of the number of illegals that are here," Reid said.
This issue is being debated across the country,not just in Virginia, and those who oppose bills like Rep. Reid's often speak in terms of rights. Thus Florida state senator Frederica Wilson (D-Miami) has been introducing bills for four years that would provide in-state tuition for undocumented Florida high school graduates.
"These children are being penalized. It's no fault of theirs that they're not citizens," she said. Many were brought to the United States by their parents when they were as young as five or six, and worked hard for years in U.S. public schools.
"I think we owe them. They have a right. They want to be somebody. It's reminiscent of many civil rights battles that I as an African American had to fight," Wilson said.
It is certainly no fault of these children that they are not legal, but I'm not at all sure that means we owe them or that they have a "right" to in-state tuition that is denied to legal residents of other states, and I am especially not sure that any right is implicated here that can reasonably be compared to the right to be free from racial discrimination. (Especially squared, since I would be willing to bet that Sen. Wilson no longer opposes distributing benefits and burdens based on race.)
Also in Virginia, Manassas Ordinance Raises Cries of Bigotry.
The ordinance, adopted by the city Dec. 5 and modeled on one in Herndon, changed a definition of "family" in the zoning code so that, essentially, households are restricted to immediate relatives, even when the total is below the occupancy limit. With a few exceptions, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews and other extended relatives do not count as family in Manassas anymore. For instance, six cousins living in a six-bedroom house would be illegal, even though the number does not exceed the occupancy limit.
City officials said in statement Thursday that the ordinance was aimed at combating crowding.
"The City views residential zoning regulations as a covenant with citizens who purchase property in the community, and our actions honor this commitment," the statement said. "The suggestion that changes in the zoning ordinance reflect any other intent on the part of City government are absolutely false."
Whatever the intent behind the new ordinance, it is pretty clear that its impact falls primarily on immigrants. As an earlier article pointed out,
Although the city says the law was aimed narrowly at dealing with overcrowded housing, Vice Mayor Harry "Hal" Parrish said earlier this month that the law also was aimed at addressing illegal immigration and the problems the city associates with it -- including parking, garbage issues and tight school budgets.
"I know there's frustration out in the community from the people we talk to, our citizens, and largely they believe, as do I, that the federal government hasn't followed through with enforcing its [immigration] laws . . .," he said. "And we're trying our best to deal with it."
The ACLU is planning to file a suit, and Jonathan Turley, the George Washington University law professor who is a frequent talking head, was, for once, almost inarticulate:
"It's hard to describe how many parts of the U.S. Constitution this law actually violates . . . " said Jonathan Turley, a constitutional law professor at George Washington University. "It interferes with constitutional guarantees regarding contracts [to rent rooms], families, equal protection, even First Amendment issues like freedom of association. . . . It's hard to believe any attorney actually reviewed this law."
Whether this ordinance and other laws and regulations that have a disparate impact on recent immigrants (many of whom are illegal) will hold up in court is certainly unclear, but whatever the legality I suspect many Americans will see nothing unfair about, say, a law providing a jail sentence for driving without a license or a zoning ordinance to prevent overcrowding that have a disparate impact on illegals. Such measures, after all, would have a disparate impact on immigrants (legal or illegal) only if immigrants were disproportionately represented among those who drive while undocumented or overcrowd.
Posted by John Rosenberg on January 2, 2006 8:31 PM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.discriminations.us/sa/mt-tb.cgi/4189
Say What?
"Most Americans would agree, I think, that being an illegal immigrant does not strip a person of all rights, but most would probably also agree that neither does simply being here confer all the legal and constitutional rights that citizens enjoy."
Whats interesting is that not much of the bill of rights is limited to citizens. At least, if you follow the text, and not something else.
"The ordinance, adopted by the city Dec. 5 and modeled on one in Herndon, changed a definition of "family" in the zoning code so that, essentially, households are restricted to immediate relatives, even when the total is below the occupancy limit."
Thankfully, the courts have found that government can't quite tell us how to organize our home life like this.
"Whether this ordinance and other laws and regulations that have a disparate impact on recent immigrants (many of whom are illegal) will hold up in court is certainly unclear"
A pretty similar one was tossed awhile ago. Moore v. East Cleveland, 1977.
Posted by: actus | January 2, 2006 9:11 PM
According to the article, federal immigration officials estimate that there are 56,000 illegal aliens in Maryland, and both law enforcement officials and immigrant advocates agree that the increase in undocumented driving is associated with the increasing numbers of undocumented workers.
The use of the word undocumented in place of illegal is political correctness gone mad. Will we soon start reading about undocumented brain surgeons?
Posted by: Richard Nieporent | January 2, 2006 10:45 PM
A few years ago a local child was run over and killed by an illegal who did not know that you don't pass a stopped school bus. Her father was holding her hand and crossing her but he couldn't pull her out of the way in time. The driver had a daughter back home in Mexico and he was very torn up about it. Of course he didn't like being in prison charged with vehicular manslaughter or whatever, but he really didn't want to have killed a little girl.
I wish we would stop being so schizophrenic about this. Either regularize these people so they can learn the rules of the road and so forth, or round them up and deport them. It's crazy.
As a side-issue, I wonder when the term "citizen" came into use in this country. Brits aren't citizens, they're subjects. Would the writers of the Bill of Rights have used that term? Did they differentiate between "the people" and "citizens"? Did they control immigration? Don't think so.
Posted by: Laura | January 2, 2006 11:04 PM
I do believe that Constitution very clearly delineated between citizens and non-citizens, through the article that grants citizenship to anyone living in the US during the revolution or born on US soil. Those are the individuals enjoying the rights and priveleges of the United States Constitution. Clearly, all humans enjoy minimum human rights of treatment by government, so that when illegal immigrants are arrested they have to be treated with a certain dignity by law enforcement, but non-citizens are not entitled to the same level of priveleges that citizens would be.
Whether immigration should be freer or tighter controlled is a political question then, left to the US Congress in overall form (dealing with total legal limits and border control) and the individual states in specific form (dealing with enforcement of local laws).
Zoning family size to change immigrant residency patterns would be unconstitutional because family size zoning would illegally affect all citizens associational rights. The city there should simply have cracked down on illegal immigrants - except the federal government has been so inane on the issue. As to Jonathan Turley, it's hard to believe a Con. Law professor would say that there is a Constitutional law right to 1) "rent rooms" 2) "families", 3) that this has anything to do with "equal protection" (it appears to equally deprive everyone of associational rights, which is what he's right about, but his attempt to "pile on" was dumb):
"It interferes with constitutional guarantees regarding contracts [to rent rooms], families, equal protection, even First Amendment issues like freedom of association. . . . It's hard to believe any attorney actually reviewed this law."
Posted by: Chetly Zarko | January 3, 2006 1:18 AM
"I do believe that Constitution very clearly delineated between citizens and non-citizens, through the article that grants citizenship to anyone living in the US during the revolution or born on US soil. Those are the individuals enjoying the rights and priveleges of the United States Constitution."
It says the first thing, but not the second. But there are other things besides the text, of course.
Posted by: actus | January 3, 2006 7:15 AM
They can tell 1 how many pets they have, why not people?
What's density planning for, anyway?
Besides, it takes care of Latinos, and it takes care of terrorists.
Anyone remember 9/11 and the house in PA(?) w/12 living in it and someone was always in the car watching the street?
Posted by: Sandy P | January 3, 2006 11:45 AM
Wasn't the citizenship terminology put in for slaves?
Posted by: Sandy P | January 3, 2006 11:47 AM
John, re Manassas, if the problem is "crowding," then why don't they just change the f'in' occupancy limit? I read the long WaPo article on this, and noticed that the enforcement is "by complaint." In other words, unless someone rats on you, your aunt or nephew or cousin can live with you as long as you like. You don't suppose white Manassas residents are going to be enforcing this on one another, do you? The article noted that the "overwhelming" majority of complaints were against . . . well, guess who?
This law is not going to survive the courts. actus above points to a very similar case that figures prominently in Con. Law texts.
Driver's licenses for illegal immigrants, though. Different sort of question. When this came up in CA, the argument in favor was "They're driving anyway; let's make sure they know the rules of the road." Left unspoken was the fact that if they're driving anyway, it would be absurd for them to bother taking the tests and putting up with the hassle and expense of getting a driver's license unless it conferred benefits apart from "being able to drive." Access to Government-issued photo ID is the only incentive an illegal immigrant could possibly have to go through the process. If s/he wants to learn the rules of the road, it's easy enough to do on one's own.
Posted by: Michelle Dulak Thomson | January 3, 2006 12:09 PM
To say that everyone who manages to cross the border has the rights of a citizen is to degrade the value of citizenship. It also degrades the law, the benefits of following rules, feelings of unity based on citizenship (which necessarily means that non citizens are excluded from certain benefits) and other elements required for nationhood. To say we are all in this together, we should embrace everyone is not what people want. It is not satisfactory to the human spirit. It is not possible to care equally about all. One of the perimeters in modern life is drawn at citizenship and nationality. A place where anyone can come and immediately be as "good" as anyone else is eventually a place that no one will value. This is a fact of human nature. Liberals will say that the need to belong to some identifiable group is also the source of racism and bigotry. It is. But the need will not be done away with by liberals pointing this out. Everything in life has a negative side and we're always trying to reduce the negative (rightly so) without at the same time reducing the positive. Without some exclusitivity, there can be no group cohesion. Liberals should note that the US is already very liberal in this regard. Most nations and peoples, especially non westerners are much more exclusive than we are, to the point that non muslims or other races or tribes are barelyc considered human.
Posted by: Anita | January 3, 2006 12:14 PM
The problem with such occupancy laws is that they end up striking at traditional family configurations that ought to be encouraged. Let me offer an example that should make your blood boil.
My wife and I have no children and live in a three-bedroom house. Her niece has recently gone through a divorce and has been unable to find employment in her home town in the Rust Belt. We've made the offer to let her and her two little girls move down so that she can find work and the girls can have a stable home environment and good schools. Under the Manassas law, this would be illegal because she and the girls do not qualify as "family members", so she would either have to leave her daughters up north with her parents or either my wife or I would have to move out of the house. Three adults and two children does not constitute overcrowding -- but the Manassas government seeks to prune the family tree in an absurd manner.
Posted by: Rhymes With Right | January 4, 2006 10:45 AM
Regarding the issue of "rights" to the Children of undocumented immigrants that were brought over to America, in seek of a better life.
The last time I checked equals rights are not given to people base on where they are born but are given because they were borned, un-alienable rights. A vast majority of immigrants are hard working people, that want to contribute to this great country, and here we are telling them to go back home.
Posted by: Will T. | June 5, 2006 1:45 AM
Post a comment
If you have a TypeKey identity, you can sign in to use it here.
Name:
Email Address:
URL:
Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)
