As our editorial today states, the local Hispanics upset about a new driver’s license renewal requirement did themselves no favors by shouting at and calling Revenue Secretary Joan Wagnon a liar at a Wichita meeting last weekend. They came off as noncitizens demanding rights to which they are not legally entitled. Plus, the residents’ beef is mostly with Congress and the federal immigration boondoggle, not with Wagnon or state lawmakers.
That said, the residents’ plight is real and difficult. Many have visas and are in the process of attaining legal status, but they lack Social Security numbers and proof of citizenship. Some of them have had Kansas driver’s licenses for years. But early this year, the state, as part of the federal Real ID Act, stopped accepting license holders’ affidavits stating that they are legal residents. So suddenly, it’s unlawful for them to drive — something of a necessity in transit-challenged Wichita. The result is that we’re likely to have more people driving without licenses and insurance.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
45 Comments
The WE is dead wrong. Go to Dodge City, Garden City, go to any town in western Kansas and spend a day in traffic court. The illegals don’t have drivers licence nor do they have insurance. The new state law is not a hardship…the illegal does not need that piece of plastic to do what he does anyway.
….but, will they still be allowed to drive lawnmowers?
I guess I’m confused. I thought that if a person was in the U.S. on a visa, or as a legal resident, that they got a temporary SS#. Is that not true?
Interesting…
I guess the “free ride” is over for some.
I think TDT that some of the illegal immigrants have Individual Taxpayer Numbers, which is not eligible to be used as identification, but only for paying taxes.
Explained here in the URL below:
http://www.irs.gov/individuals/article/0,,id=96287,00.html
If they’re here illegally, they shouldn’t get licenses! If they have work VISAs and ARE here legally, the government should make it so they can get licenses.
What is so darn hard about that?
Thanks Kansas, I didn’t know there was a difference.
Im sure this guy, who is going bankrupt and now put in jail due to these illegals will feel bad.
http://freedomfolks.com/blog/2007/07/26/the-lone-protester/
See pictures taken by his son of him being arrested for protesting against illegal copper roofers. More of this needs to be done in the new development areas around this town.
I urge you new home owners out there to demand the builders hire LEGAL workers.
Its coming soon that ALL employers will have to use the new EEEVS verification system. Its going to be tied into the Drivers license systmes and VISA system and have Photographs etc. also.
http://www.gcn.com/print/26_17/44649-1.html
Currently over 16,000 businesses use it to verify legal status of ALL NEW HIRES. Heck, even Starbucks requires its use and verifies EVERY new hire.
Eventually, all business will be required to check status of ALL employees, just as they do with a credit card etc. Run a card and see if they can work.
You can sign up now, it used to be called the BASIC PILOT program. Its coming so I urge the business community to start learning the ropes early.
Just remember this is a Govrnment program and it has some quirks. You can NOT verify BEFORE you hire. You must hire first….then check,then fire them.
Dumb, but its the government.
AND QUIT BUYING ALL THAT CHINESE SHIT A WALMART.
Great post Mr. Bill, thanks for the info.
I agree, mrbill, businesses are best advised to get a jump on the new system.
Concerning your final comment, it actually makes sense for the system to operate in such a way. It takes away an excuse to discriminate in employment decisions based upon the ethnicity of the potential employee. Yes, I know ideally the employer could be allowed to check on the individual to see if he/she is “legal” before making the offer, and would not then hire an “illegal” but would hire a “legal”, but if the employer wants to avoid the minimal effort involved, it/he/she doesn’t offer a job to anyone who looks, say, Latino, based upon this justification. By requiring the hiring the person first (hopefully based upon job qualifications only), then being allowed to terminate if the individual is found to be “illegal”, this reduces the potential for blanket discrimination. Plus, if the person is terminated due to “illegal” status, there’s a record for INS to follow, should it be desired.
A possible alternative analogous to other employment related conditions: a provisional offer of employment, conditioned upon the person being found to be “legal” upon the checking, much as is done where pre-employment physicals are needed, for example.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19978003/
Judge voids Pa. city’s illegal immigration lawHazleton’s crackdown emulated across nation; ruling likely to be appealed
ALLENTOWN, Pa. – A federal judge on Thursday struck down the city of Hazleton’s tough crackdown on illegal immigrants, ruling unconstitutional a law that has been emulated by towns and cities around the United States.
The Illegal Immigration Relief Act sought to impose fines on landlords who rent to illegal immigrants and deny business permits to companies that give them jobs. Another measure would have required tenants to register with City Hall and pay for a rental permit. It was pushed by the Pennsylvania city’s Republican mayor last summer after two illegal immigrants were charged in a fatal shooting.
Hispanic groups and illegal immigrants sued in federal court to overturn the measures, saying they usurp the federal government’s exclusive power to regulate immigration, deprive residents of their constitutional rights to equal protection and due process, and violate state and federal housing law.”
I found this interesting after reading some of Sol’s and VT’s arguments in open thread about whether the federal gov’t or the state gov’t should enforce immigration law, and how it should be done. It seems like states are up against a catch-22. They can’t deny illegals housing, because it’s the feds job to enforce immigration.
Would that also apply to employers??? Say an employer does not have to follow the Federal minimum wage, due to one of the exemptions outlined in the minimum wage laws, does that also mean that they do not have to follow the feds regulations for hiring illegals?
TDT, I believe the federal judge was correct in the decision. That’s why when I heard that Hazelton, and other municipalities subsequently, adopted their ordinances I shook my head. See Article I, section 8, Constitution of the United States.
Because an employer is exempt from the minimum wage provisions of FLSA does not exempt the employer from other federal statutes and regulations governing employment.
BTW, TDT, the legal doctrine underlying the judge’s decision in the Hazelton case is preemption.
VT – So it was Clause 1 which you are referring to? That the fines are not uniform throughout the U.S.?
I’ve never really understood what the problem with illegal immigrants is myself.Who cares if they’re coming into the states?Oh, they’re stealing your job? If someone works harder than you for less money I personally think they should get to do the job instead of you no matter where they come from.It seems like alot of people here think they’re hot stuff because they were born in America, whoop de doo you were born. Congratulations! So was actually everyone else though, you know.Then I’ve got swedish and american citizenship, and could easily get italian and irish citizenship as well so I’m pretty lucky in that perspective, I can’t help but feel bad for those who aren’t though.I don’t see why it’s so hard to get american citizenship, honestly.If you can point out where I’m wrong and what part of what I’m saying is ignorant and stupid please do so.
One example Adam was in Mr. Bill’s post and the linkhttp://freedomfolks.com/blog/2007/07/26/the-lone-protester/
Here’s a small businessman being driven out of business because people are hiring “slave wage” illegal immigrants to do the work he was doing.
I don’t know what job you have, but if you were paid $20.00/hour and I could hire an illegal immigrant for $5.00, which would I do?
Even a someone with legal immigration status might work for half of what you do, then I would still be able to stuff the extra in my pocket and you would be out of a job.
The problem is not a few isolated cases of illegal and immigrants getting jobs, it’s in the tens of millions that are doing that.
It’s unfortunate that people have to work at slave wages, but if they do the same amount of work for a lower sum of money, I don’t see how what they’re doing is wrong.This should prompt people to get better educations instead, no? ;)
This should prompt people to get better educations instead, no? ;)
Posted by: Adam | July 26, 2007 at 05:14 PM
Unless you’re older Adam, have debts and unable to afford an education. Competing against an illegal alien who will work for half your hourly wage is a life killer.
Not everyone is 21 years of age and able to switch careers at a moments notice.
So Republicon(Kansas) is now going to take the liberal stance?
Uh… I think my head just exploded.
I didn’t think it was stance that was associated with any political party PMom. :)
It’s just my personal opinion. :)
” guess I’m confused. I thought that if a person was in the U.S. on a visa, or as a legal resident, that they got a temporary SS#. Is that not true?”
No you do not get a “temporary SS number”. You get a Tax ID number that you can use only to pay taxes. While you can work with this number and a work permit, the requirement that you have a Social Security number for a license will in fact cause lots of hardship for many legal immigrants. My wife is an immigrant from Canada and it took almost a year for her to get a PRID card (aka Green Card) although it took “only” 90 days to get a work permit. She could and did drive on her Canadian license during that year but they would not allow me to out her on my car insurance although we were a legally married couple because she did not have a license from the USA. So she drove without insurance which is risky. A better way would be to issue a temporary license- one that expires in a year or so- to people that can prove a legal presence in the country (such as a visa or work permit) using the Tax ID number.
As regards D.L.s; isn’t there reciprocity among countries regarding this issue, or is it only easy for foreign tourists to drive in this country?
“If they’re here illegally, they shouldn’t get licenses! If they have work VISAs and ARE here legally, the government should make it so they can get licenses.
What is so darn hard about that?”
The problem is that the requirement of a SS number will catch lots of legal immigrants too. Most immigrants enter the country on visas and then apply for Permanent Residency. Social Security will not issue a number to visa holders because they are considered “temporary” residents or visitors. They can only get Tax ID numbers from the IRS and have to have a work permit to work. The problem is that it can take up to a year to get a Permanent Resident card which means that, during that period, one will not now be able to get a driver’s license. You can drive on a license from your country of orgin- which is what many foreign students do but getting insurance from a US insurance company is impossible. I support Real ID but I also think it is silly to deny licenses to illegal aliens. A better approach would be to just stamp the license “For Driving Purposes Only- Not A US Citizen” on the license which would allow the alien to drive and buy insurance but not use the license for ID.
“As regards D.L.s; isn’t there reciprocity among countries regarding this issue, or is it only easy for foreign tourists to drive in this country?”
You can drive in the USA on a license issued in a foreign country so long as you legally qualify for the same license in the state where you are driving. Most states require “new residents” to obtain that states license within a certain period- usually 30 to 90 days- but as a practical matter the law is unenforceable because any cop that stops you has no idea how long you have been in the state and whether or not you intend to live there. And, until now, states did not require you to have an in state license to get tags (in fact Georgia is the only state that ever asked me to show any DL to buy tags) but now some states are starting to require that you show an in state license to buy or renew your tags.
“Judge voids Pa. city’s illegal immigration lawHazleton’s crackdown emulated across nation; ruling likely to be appealed
ALLENTOWN, Pa. – A federal judge on Thursday struck down the city of Hazleton’s tough crackdown on illegal immigrants, ruling unconstitutional a law that has been emulated by towns and cities around the United States. ”
I agree with that. It is not a city government’s business to tell a landlord who he can rent to or to require a “renters permit” to live there. If crowding is a problem, there are other ways to deal with it like they do here by limiting the number of people and vehicles per square foot of a home.
“Some of them have had Kansas driver’s licenses for years. But early this year, the state, as part of the federal Real ID Act, stopped accepting license holders’ affidavits stating that they are legal residents. So suddenly, it’s unlawful for them to drive — something of a necessity in transit-challenged Wichita. The result is that we’re likely to have more people driving without licenses and insurance.”
Maybe they ought to make Wichita a bit less “transit challenged” by improving the bus service and extending the hours. Wichita is a 24 hour city. The bus service should run until midnight.
Unless you’re older Adam, have debts and unable to afford an education. Competing against an illegal alien who will work for half your hourly wage is a life killer.
Not everyone is 21 years of age and able to switch careers at a moments notice.
Posted by: Kansas | July 26, 2007 at 05:26 PM
That’s indeed a good argument, I still feel though that wherever you’re born you shouldn’t be limited to that country.I do realize that if you’re old and working at walmart you’ll have a hard time changing “careers”Really are there alot of illegal immigrants pushing the people with a college graduation away from their work?
The South Carolina contractor Terry Funderburk is not being driven out of business. He’s being driven out of LAWFUL business, by CRIMINAL activity. He has a choice: close the business or join the criminal class by also hiring illegal aliens and keep the business.
The judge’s ruling in Hazleton was flat wrong. The federal government has sole authority regulating immigration. It does not have authority governing intrastate trade. Furthermore, there is no violation of the Constitution for localities to enact ordinances that are entirely compatible with federal law.
There is no statutory provision in the U.S. Code that provides right or privilege to persons, individual or corporate, to employ individual persons whose very presence in a community constitutes violation of federal statutes. There is no provision that provides a privilege to persons to provide domicile, which is to say harbor, individuals whose presence in the United States constitutes a violation of the U.S. Code.
The false bench law propounded to the contrary creates three potential outcomes: communities must accept unlawful settlement and employment; communities must elect Presidents who will enforce, not ignore, laws on the books; communities must sue the Executive Branch which will stonewall and claim that it lacks the law enforcement personnel to carry out its statutory-required duties; or vigilante groups must be formed to extralegally send a message to illegal employers and housing providers to cease and desist their illegal actions.
The town of Hazleton doesn’t have the authority to send its young men and women to Arizona to guard the national border. It doesn’t have the authority to prohibit 1986 amnesty act beneficiaries and federally-issued work-visa holders from working and living in the community, because these are federally-specified matters. It does have the authority to prohibit local companies and individuals from illegally hiring unregistered aliens, who are taking jobs that local citizens will fill, if reasonably compensated. It has the authority to prohibit landlords from providing housing to people who have no legal right to be in the community.
The Constitution isn’t a suicide pact. “We the People” means “We American Citizens”. Those in offices of power who destroy the livelihoods of American citizens, are egregiously destroying the fundamental principles of the Constitution. What the Hazleton case judge ruled was, “Illegal activity is endorsed by the Constitution, even though the Constitution and constitutionally-derived federal statutes give no evidence of this. The Constitution requires the Executive Branch to faithfully execute the laws, but if it doesn’t that’s okay. Our Founders never intended for local ordinances and laws that were consistent with the Constitution and Congressional statutes to be enacted and locally enforced.”
BushCo wanted to pass a new amnesty statute. The People rejected this, so the matter was dropped like a hot turd by Congressmen who didn’t want to lose their jobs. The Hazleton judge essentially imposed his own amnesty ruling: “These immigrants are illegal, and their employment is illegal, but I’m ruling they can stay, and keep working.” So, he should be impeached and removed from the bench, for trashing the law and the General Welfare of We the People, i.e. American citizens.
Folks, if you want some real solutions to the illegal immigration problem then tune into my show. Man up!!http://www.halturnershow.com/
GOOD LORD Rhonda! You made this statement:
“They came off as noncitizens demanding rights to which they are not legally entitled.”
They are most certianly “non-citizesn” if they do not have the doucments. That is what “Undocumented means=illegal”!!
Then you go to make a grossly misleading statment:
“That said, the residents’ plight is real and difficult. Many have visas and are in the process of attaining legal status, but they lack Social Security numbers and proof of citizenship.”
HOw dop you know that ALL of them are in this status???? No these are ILLEGAL ALIENS and they are NOT “IMMIGRANTS”. Immigrants come here legally and HAVE ALL THE PROPER DOCUMENTATION!!!!
If one does not hav the documentation, THEN THEY ARE ILLEGAL!!!
WAKE UP AND START DOING SOME REAL JOURNALISM!!!!!!
Then you stupidly go on to say:
“Some of them have had Kansas driver’s licenses for years……. So suddenly, it’s unlawful for them to drive — something of a necessity in transit-challenged Wichita.”
IF they had DL’s illegally (since non-citizens of the US and Kansas cannot apply or posess DL’s legally) they broke the law.
THEY ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE IN THIS COUNTRY!!!!!!!!
This has to be your dumbest post Rhonda, clearly you are an illegal alien supporter, … and a traitor to the United States, and a LOUSY journalist!
and a traitor to the United States, and a LOUSY journalist!
Posted by: Tyler Durden | July 26, 2007 at 09:22 PM
Tyler, I heard that during journalism school, the students learn to always emphasize with the opposite of government position in all cases. They are trained to focus on finding “victims” of government.
Not sure if this is true, but I haven’t read any positive news articles about any portion of our government in years.
Maybe I’m just not well read.
TD,”They are most certianly “non-citizesn” if they do not have the doucments. That is what “Undocumented means=illegal”!!”
If I recall my American History, the colonists came here on land grants given them by the British, French and Spanish Monarchies, who didn’t own the land they were giving away. The rightful owners resisted mightily for over 300 years, until they were decimated and cheated out of their rights by undocumented aliens. So now you’re saying the latest wave of undocumented aliens don’t have the right to do what your ancestors did?
Soory Vaughn, that Section 8 talks about naturalization , IE bacoming a citizen.
Your statment on “See Article I, section 8, Constitution of the United States.”
Isclueless and incooorrect application. The judge was citing a Due process violation, but I do not see how due process can be aopplied to someome who is not here legally in the first palce. Their crossing the border illegally is one swing against the EXISTING IMMIGRATION LAWS which ARE IN EFFECT..
Equal enforcement and application of the existing law is the answer!!!!It states NOTHIN on the fact of giving illegal aliens rights nor is there ANYTHING in the consititution that can support this Judge. The American Citizens of Hazelton whom are legal citizens have a right to EQUAL APPLICATION OF THE LAW onunder the 14the amendment of the Constitution. Acts of Congress define the requirements by which immigrants can become citizens.
Jed is traitor just like all liberals. The liberals used to betray our country to the reds, now they betray us to third world filth, raghead terrorists and minority criminals.http://www.halturnershow.com/
Mexican’s wouldn’t by insurance even if they could. Earlier this week a family member of mine was hit by a car full of them. Guess what? No insurance, no license. Imagine that. This wouldn’t be so bad, except this is the third family member to be in an accident with illegals who were unlicensed and uninsured. Its time they have to live by the same rules we do. If they don’t want to, swim back across the river.
Jed, do we really want to surrender our country to live like Mexico?
Think about it.
I have nothing against their race. I have issues with their culture. I don’t want to live under Vatican City culture either.
I have Spanish/Mediteranian roots.Many of my relatives, on my fathers side, moved to Puerto Rico instead of going through Ellis Island.Illegal Immigration is not my most important issue, but I do think we need to enforce our existing laws.We have huge labor shortages comming in this country, with the aging Baby Boom generation.However, there is no reason why we should sacrifice our culture and national security by allowing “open borders”
Lets face it: The illegals come here because MEXICO SUCKS!Why, then, do the illegals insist on bringing their lawless, corrupt, MEXICAN culture with them?
Think I am being harsh?
My son works in a local restaurant. Many of the Hispanic co-workers in that joint joke, openly, about how they will “take over” large sections of the South Western US and start a “New” country.
This is stupid for the Mexicans, is it not? American culture and economics brought them here in the first place. Why ruin the things that attacted them?
Mexico does not protect contracts, does not enforce the law equally, does not have a well-developed insurance industry, allows wide-spread bribery and corruption.
Get a clue, Mexicans: You came here because your country sucks eggs, big time. Your country has two huge, beautiful beaches, a year round growing season, huge natural resource to draw upon — and OBVIOUSLY, a cheap and willing labor force.
Mexico is a failure!
Shut up and learn something, my Mexican friends.
Otherwise, your kids will be Illegal “MEXARICANS” sneaking over the Canadian border because you ruined America the way your ancestors ruined Mexico!
VTI think Hazelton will win on appeal.Nobody, at the local level, is trying to “naturalize” or “de-naturalize” anyone.As long as local jurisdictions follow federal law as far as deciding who is, and is not, “legal” I think they are on solid ground when they make some destinctions between those two groups.
After all, states and local goverments can grant special status to Veterans, even if they have no say in who does or does not get into the military.
Various states might have employment laws barring the hiring of anyone convicted of a felony, whether that crime commited at the federal or state level. This would simply be a statement, but that state, that they dont want someone with a criminal past in, say law enforcement. If the crime was poaching rare sea fish, I think Coffeyville Kansas could still say they don’t want to hire law breakers, even if they don’t have any rare, endangered sea critters in Coffeyville.
I think any local jurisdiction which decides to “descriminate” against criminal acts will be vindicated in the higher courts, eventually, as long as that descrimination is in the public interest. Promoting the law is in the public interest.
discriminate
P-Mom,I was mostly pointing out how ridiculous it is for Americans to be quoting rule of law in complaints about illegal immigration to a country our ancestors for all practical purposes stole from it’s rightful owners.I also don’t believe that we are about to be taken over by Mexicans, any more than we were taken over by Irish, Chinese, German, Jewish, Italian, Eastern European or Vietnamese immigrants. They will certainly add to our wildly varied cultural mulligan stew, as previous waves of immigrants have done, and in time, will assimilate and become as American as Pizza.
JedGet your facts straight, please!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican-American_War
The slavery issue played a big part in the fact that Texas did NOT enter the Union right after gaining Independence from Mexico.
However, regardless of that issue, would you please face reality: NEARLY EVERY BORDER IN THE WORLD WAS SETTLED BY A TREATY, AFTER AN ARMED CONFLICT!
To say that we “stole” Mexico is like saying Canada “stole” territory from the United States, due to borders set, pretty much, by the French and Indian wars, I believe.
If the argument is that we stole states such as California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas from the Mexicans, I CAN buy it! Fact is that we DID steal them. So then I will make them a deal: I will grant amnesty and citizenship to any and all Mexicans living within the borders of those 4 states. As long as you live there, you are a citizen. But if you move elsewhere- such as Illinois, Kansas or New York, you are an illegal alien!
“To say that we “stole” Mexico is like saying Canada “stole” territory from the United States, due to borders set, pretty much, by the French and Indian wars, I believe.”
We stole lots of Canada too. Basically everything above Pennsylvania! I will make the same deal with any Canadians that want to sneak in and live in New York!
KevLake Erie is “above Pennsylvania” — I am there often.
Your logic is not tracking well at all.
If you do not wish to allow wars and treaties to set boundary lines, and if we can dispute those borders, now, —- Arent we setting ourselves up for MORE wars?
The country of Mexico agreed to the current boundary.
There was NO theft.
On September 27, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) announced that the DREAM Act would not be considered as an amendment to H.R. 1585, the Defense Department authorization bill for fiscal year 2008.
The Washington Times reports, however, that Reid will push for passage of the DREAM Act, which would grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens, by different means (possibly in its stand-alone form [S. 774, sponsored by Assistant Majority Leader Dick Durbin {D-Ill.}]) before the Senate adjourns for the year (i.e., on or about November 16).
Reid’s concession on the DoD authorization bill may doom other immigration-related amendments to the defense bill as well.
Please fax your senators: We have stopped the DREAM Act for now, but there is already a push to pass it as a stand-alone bill.
Senator Sam Brownback contact information- Taken from his web site
Office location Phone # Fax #Washington DC office 1-202-224-6521 1-202-228-1265Overland Park Office 1-913-492-6378 1-913-492-7253Topeka office 1-785-233-2503 1-785-233-2616Garden City office 1-620-231-6040 1-620-231-6347Wichita office 1-316-264-8066 1-316-264-9078
Senator Pat Roberts Contact Information Taken from his web site
Washington DC office 1-202-224-4774 1-202-224-3514Overland Park Office 1-913-451-9343 1-913-451-9446Topeka office 1-785-295-2745 1-785-235-3665Wichita office 1-316-263-0416 1-316-263-0273Dodge City Office 1-620-227-2244 1-620-227-2264
Representative Todd Tiahrt, Contact information taken from his web site
Wichita OfficeAddress: 155 North Market St.Suite 400Wichita, KS 67202Phone: 316.262.8992Fax: 316.262.5309Washington OfficeAddress: 2441 Rayburn BuildingWashington, DC 20515Phone: 202.225.6216Fax: 202.225.3489