More ACLU Idiocy: Sues to prevent Mass. DMV from denying drivers’ licenses to illegals
Posted on December 15, 2006
From the Boston Globe: Denied licenses, legal immigrants sue state Registry
Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles employees are routinely and unlawfully denying driver’s licenses to immigrants who are here legally, according to a class-action law suit filed yesterday.
According to the suit, Registry workers asked the immigrants for proof of legal residency when they were not authorized to do so. The workers then denied licenses to the applicants, incorrectly concluding that the immigrants had not demonstrated they were in the United States legally, the suit alleges.
In all cases, the immigrants’ lawyers said, the Registry workers were overstepping their legal authority and violating the immigrants’ constitutional rights.
“They don’t have the authority to enforce federal immigration law,” said Sarah Wunsch, staff attorney for the ACLU of Massachusetts, who is representing the seven immigrants who brought the suit. “But they’ve taken it upon themselves to do it, and they’re doing it wrong. It’s not an isolated case here and there. This appears to be policy.”
They are not “enforcing” federal immigration laws, they are making sure that no one who is breaking the laws gets a license to drive. If these people are “legal” immigrants, well, duh, they should be able to produce the effin’ proof! “It appears to be a policy?” Well, I hope there is a policy that people must prove they are legal to obtain government documents that require legal status. High Jackassery is the only way to describe this latest ACLU move.
Can anyone really argue that the ACLU gives a rip about law, order and national security? Recall that the 9/11 mass-murderers had several dozen illegal licenses between them which presumably allowed them to operate more easily in society under the radar. Oh yes, the ACLU wants us “Safe and Free.”
» Filed Under Uncategorized
Trackback URL
Comments
22 Responses to “More ACLU Idiocy: Sues to prevent Mass. DMV from denying drivers’ licenses to illegals”
-
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Advertise
Donate
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
Stop the ACLU blogburst
-
More blogs about the ACLU
Syndicate Me
Yes, they are. There are only a limited number of crimes that are anywhere near the DMV’s jurisdiction. Illegal immigration is not one of them.
Per the article:
It is unlawful for a department of the executive branch to add additional qualifications, especially based on race. If the people of Massachusetts wants its DMV to strengthen its residency requirements, they have to ask their legislature to do so and they will have to do it in a non-discriminatory way.
Um, you’re the one that doesn’t seem to care about the law. Sure, we need to do something about the illegal immigration problem, but there are proper ways to do it. It is not within the Department of Motor Vehicle’s charter to solve the immigration problem.
1) You have no evidence the rejection was based on race.
2) Your basic argument is that federal law does not apply to local situations. Interesting. I’m sure that traffickers everywhere use that defense all the time.
3) I love the final sentence. This is precisely the atomizing view of law that seeks to transform citizens into legalese-spouting automatons. It shorns them of their intelligence, their will, and their sense of national community. Some feel that there must be a law for everything and that everything requires a law. Not so. America functioned fine in handling immigration in previous generations, and how many laws do you suppose were on the books about instances such as these then? Certainly not half as many as there are now. What happened? The people at every level used their common sense.
In this case, the DMV officials did the right thing in refusing to be participants in violating federal law. They also did the right thing from a defense perspective. They also did the right thing from any number of other perspectives, except again from the perspective of atomizing law — a fiction promoted by those who think that you need authority granted by law to act instead of understand that law is restrictive by design, not prescriptive.
1) I, personally, have no evidence of anything. However, the ACLU said “hundreds of other immigrants have similarly been denied licenses”, so it seems they do.
2) No, my argument is that the DMV in its current form does not have the authority to demand additional documentation when it feels someone might be here illegally.
3)
I’m not such a person. I’m all for a greater reliance on the private sector.
That is not quite accurate. In this country, law is restrictive of individuals, and prescriptive of governments.
An individual can do anything he pleases, so long as he doesn’t break a law. A government, however, cannot do anything unless its constituents have authorized it do so in some way. It doesn’t always have to be spelled out in black and white, but it does have to draw its authorization from somewhere.
Jeff Molby,
Please quote where the states do not have the authority to execute federal immigration law in the U.S. Constitution. You will not find it because it is not there. In fact the Second Amendment grants the states and local communities the right to use violence in order to protect their rights. That sounds like they can do anything short of it because it makes no sense that you can shoot an illegal immigrant for trespassing and you can not card him or her. If you trespass on someone’s property then you put yourself at their mercy.
I made no such claim. I said the people of Massachusetts haven’t given the authority to execute federal immigration law to the DMV.
Jeff, you simply don’t understand. Brown people are just all-out *terrifying*, We’re all scared to death of them. A government that actually follows the law doesn’t make us feel any better, so following the law MUST take a back seat to cleansing our fatherland of these scum.
It’s just silly *not* walk up to every brown person whenever you see one and say, “Your papers, please”. If they look illegal, they probably are.
If Kerwin wants to go out and start shooting brown people, I say more power to him. We need more patriots like Kerwin, willing to go out and kill vermin who are here illegally.
The brown vermin that’s here legally, of course, are OK. We need gardeners and garbagemen.
Jeff, you simply don’t understand. Brown people are just all-out *terrifying*, We’re all scared to death of them. A government that actually follows the law doesn’t make us feel any better, so following the law MUST take a back seat to cleansing our fatherland of these scum.
It’s just silly *not* walk up to every brown person whenever you see one and say, “Your papers, please”. If they look illegal, they probably are.
If Kerwin wants to go out and start shooting brown people, I say more power to him. We need more patriots like Kerwin, willing to go out and kill vermin who are here illegally.
The brown vermin that’s here legally, of course, are OK. We need gardeners and garbagemen.
“I, personally, have no evidence of anything.”
Jeff, this should be your boilerplate comment for every time you enter a conversation. Thanks for the laugh.
Look at how craftily worded this passage from the story is:
“Under state policy, applicants for a driver’s license must present proof of their identity by providing a valid Social Security number, which the Registry checks against a Social Security Administration database.
In order to obtain a valid Social Security number, an immigrant must be in the country legally. Applicants must also show proof of their age and address.
All of the plaintiffs presented valid Social Security numbers when they applied for licenses, Wunsch said. Even so, Registry workers rejected their applications.”
Jeff..a common practice for illegals is to steal the identities of legal residents by using their socials. Could it be Jeff, could it be, that the reason the applications were rejected after presenting a “valid” social was because it was in fact someone else’s valid social? What this would show is that MDMV was was in fact aware of many violations of federal immigration law and did not report these criminals to ICE, just properly denied them licenses as per SOP.
Finally, I have a quick question just for you Jeff — One of the requirements for a license is LEGAL residency. Do you think that this is a valid requirement for the issuance of a license?
Yes, we would all do well to remember that our opinions are far from authoritative.
Sure, that’s very possible. If it is the case, I’m sure you’ll have the chance to gloat as the ACLU is laughed out of the courtroom in a few days. Until then, you should probably ease off the assumptions.
I recognize that it is and will remain one of the requirements.
But to answer your question, no I don’t. The driver’s license was created to ensure that only properly trained individuals operate vehicles. I’m not sure how residency is relevant at all.
Jeff–
I appreciate your honesty regarding the last question, despite the fact that it is a bizarre and dangerous position. Are saying that a driver’s license is a right for ANYONE in this country as long as he can make a three-point turn? Sounds like what you are saying is that anyone should be able to walk into a DMV, claim to be whoever they decide to be and be issued “proof” of identification to do nearly anything that requires proof of true identity when that true identity has not even been established.
Should there be an age requirement? If a six-year old can operate a vehicle should she be granted a license?
Should proof legal status and true identity be required be required to receive welfare or in-state tuition?
If a drivers license is only meant to endorse your ability to follow traffic signs, should we be required to get some other sort of identification to, say, board planes to guarantee that we are who we say we are? Knowing what I know about you Jeff, I can’t see you supporting a federally-issued, biometrics-infused national ID…but your requirement that it be ONLY the federal government that requires proof of legal residency or citizenship for anything, this is unavoidable.
If it seems that way, it’s only because you’ve made incorrect assumptions.
No, a three-point turn would only be one of many things required to qualify as being “able to operate a motor vehicle.” In fact, I’ll even amend it to “able to operate a motor vehicle responsibly.” Now it will cover everything from technical knowledge to risk appreciation. Heck, you could even toss in a chapter on the rights and responsibilities of a driver during a traffic stop.
No, I never said anything about loosening the authentication requirements.
I’m not a fan of age requirements. By their very nature, they are arbitrary. But we don’t have a better way to assess the “maturity factor”, so age requirements are a fact of life.
Of course. There may be a couple exceptions within those general terms (Doctors should probably stabilize any severely injured person, regardless of status), but by and large, those two programs were created for and paid by the legal residents of that state.
I’m not opposed to a federal identification document. I’m opposed to what it is likely to be used for. I won’t be any more specific at this time, because it would probably launch a completely different discussion.
Two missteps: biometrics are not inherently required and I never said “that it be ONLY the federal government that requires proof of legal residency.” I just said it wasn’t the DMV’s place.
A quick example that covers your concerns:
- A person of obvious Mexican descent walks into the DMV
- He authenticates himself as a resident of Cozumel, Mexico and demonstrates that he is able to operate a motor vehicle responsibly.
- DMV issues him a driver’s license, stating his residence in Mexico.
- If he were to apply for something that requires residency, it would be easy to determine that he isn’t qualified.
Now what do you do if he establishes illegal residence and tries to use that as the basis for his identity? That’s a little trickier, but the odds are he’d have a hard time authenticating himself at an address if no government agency knows he’s there.
Jeff, you might want to read the Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles’ Drivers Manual. There are lots of pages on the legal requirements for obtaining a license, including the identification required for non-citizens.
Also, what’s this assertion that the DMV has no right to take an interest in whether a person is an illegal immigrant? Should city health inspectors be prevented from taking any notice of other violations of the law that they may notice? The claim that only immigration officials have a right to take an interest in immigration violations is a invention of dishonest leftists who want to end all enforcement of immigration laws.
I never asserted that they couldn’t take an interest. It would probably be within their rights to report their suspicions to a proper authority.
My assertion was they didn’t have grounds to deny a license based on suspicions of something outside their jurisdiction.
Thanks. The manual lists a slew of documents which may be used to authenticate the individual and demonstrate residency. I saw nothing to indicate that workers were authorized to seek additional documentation if they still had doubts. In fact, page 21 goes on to say “No specific type of document on either list is required or preferred.”
Correction: Page 25 does state:
It remains to be seen whether or not there is a legal basis for this paragraph and if the DMV chooses to invoke it.
So even when the DMV’s actions are backed up by specific authorization, the man attempts to wheedle his way out of the situation, claiming that there is no legal basis for the document. Amazing. I wonder how such folks tie their shoes in the morning. Does my finger have the authority to infringe upon the rights of my shoelaces? How do my eyelets feel about that? Perhaps the workers who created my shoes have an overriding interest in the use of such shoes; perhaps Korean law has something to say about exported shoes, but I do not have the authority to determine the validity of Korean law as applied to my shoes vs. my laces.
Your comprehension skills are rusty, inrussetshadows.
I did not “claim there was no legal basis for the document.” I simply left open the possibility that one single paragraph might not have full legal weight behind it.
Furthermore, if I were trying to “wheedle” anything, I wouldn’t have even posted the paragraph in question. I very easily could have waited to see if you cared enough to find it.
Was that fun? Do you feel better? Have a nice weekend.
And no, we don’t yet know to what degree the DMV’s actions are backed by the paragraph in question. They have not responded to the lawsuit yet, so we don’t know if this paragraph will be relevant to their defense.
Jeff, I don’t think I have met any liberal minded person that I would like to have a few drinks with more than you. I do wish you could find a few more likeminded and polite individuals to help you along in your debates here. You have some friends you could introduce to the site?
I’m hosting a card game this weekend. You’re welcome to join, if you stop calling me liberal just because I take amendments I, V, and X more seriously than you.
No, I don’t discuss contentious issues with people I know. It’s a sad product of our electoral system. If someone shares your perspective, you end up patting each other on the back. If you don’t, the conversation devolves into useless attempts to “win” the “debate”.
“I made no such claim. I said the people of Massachusetts haven’t given the authority to execute federal immigration law to the DMV. “ JM
Then the question that should be asked is whether or not the DMV has been given authority by the state of Massachusetts to execute state law that would apply to this situation. If they have none and they claim to be executing federal laws then you can question if they have the jurisdiction to execute federal law.
I believe Illinois law does allow the DMV to require a person to present evidence of citizenship before giving you a license. According to this page you need a valid social security number as well as proving you are a resident of Illinois. It is rather hard for Illegal Aliens to legally fulfill the requirements. I assume Massachusetts is similar.
http://www.cyberdriveillinois.com/publications/rules_of_the_road/rr_chap01.html#license_requirements