Multiple KABOOMS! From “The Good Illegal Immigrant” Files: The Good, Well, OK, Maybe Not So Good, Illegal Immigrant Driver

One head explosion after another splattered my office with gore as I read the New York Times sad, sad, <sniff> piece about poor, abused, illegal immigrants who drive without licenses. It began:

“Heading to church one evening in late March, a farmworker and her sister were stopped for speeding in the village of Geneseo, N.Y. They were driving with their five children in the back of the minivan. Two were not in car seats, as required. The police officer, trying to cite the driver for the infractions, discovered she had no driver’s license, so he called Border Patrol to review her Guatemalan passport. Both sisters were undocumented immigrants. They were detained and are facing deportation.”

Good.

The Times, however, currently engaged in a full-on “Let’s make illegal immigrants as sympathetic as possible” campaign—how can we  be so mean to people who were just trying to go to church?—makes it clear that such an event is just more cruelty and lack of compassion emanating from the Trump Presidency.

“Under a Trump administration that has taken an aggressive stance on illegal immigration, the moving car has become an easy target. A broken headlight, a seatbelt not worn, a child not in a car seat may be minor traffic violations, but for unauthorized immigrants, they can have life-altering consequences.”

KABOOM! #1. How shameless will the Times’s misrepresentations regarding this issue get? These people are not being deported for “minor traffic violations.” They are being deported because they ahve absolutely no business being in the country at all. The Yorkshire Ripper was caught because of a police stop for a minor traffic violation.  By the Times reasoning, this, and not  the 13 women he murdered, is why he was sentenced to life in prison.

These drivers are also not “undocumented.” Undocumented is what I was when I was stopped for speeding with an expired license. I was, however, still a citizen. “Undocumented” is a Times and illegal immigration lobby cover-word for what illegal immigrants really are: illegal immigrants.

The term deceitfully suggests that the “undocumented” individual was just missing some papers—t could happen to anybody! No, you are not just “missing papers” that you never had the right to have.

KABOOM! #2:

“As many as 12 states, along with the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, offer driver’s licenses for unauthorized immigrants, up from three in 2010. New York, which has the third-largest immigrant population in the country, is not one of them.”

Three was unconscionable. Twelve is a scandal and a dangerous attack on sovereignty and the Rule of Law.

KABOOM! #3 and #4:

Supporters of efforts to allow those who are undocumented to get driver’s licenses say that public safety would improve because they would be required to pass road tests and obtain insurance. But critics said that licenses represented a privilege that unauthorized immigrants should not hold, because they should not be here in the first place.

The first sentence is a logical disconnect: Let’s make what these people do legal, because they’ll break the law if we don’t. Yes, and the fact that they’ll break the law if they can’t do something legally is why they are here illegally and why they cannot be trusted as citizens. To its credit, the Times at least quotes a Republican lawmaker who is not deceived, though the paper suggests that she has a comprehension problem:

Senator Kathleen A. Marchione, a Republican representing the Upper Hudson Valley…does not understand the argument for giving licenses to those who are undocumented.“Driving without a license should not give you a right to have a driver’s license when you are already breaking the law in two instances,” she said in an interview. “That’s like saying if a kid is drinking at 16 years old, we might as well let him.”

That is exactly what it is like. She “doesn’t understand” the argument because it doesn’t make sense and never has. The Times won’t accept this, as the second sentence in the quote above makes clear. This isn’t merely what “critics” say. It is a fact. There is no “other side” to facts, and the Times is misleading its readers to suggest that this is just a contrarian position.

KABBOOM #5 and #6 came after reading this quote:

Anne Doebler, a private immigration lawyer in Buffalo, said that undocumented immigrants want to follow traffic laws, and that civil law and immigration law should be kept distinct. “Why do we want to use our vehicle and traffic laws to enforce an immigration policy when it’s detrimental to public safety?” she asked. “I don’t want someone to hit me who doesn’t have insurance…I don’t care what their immigration status is.”

“Undocumented” as a cover-word for “illegal” no longer makes my head explode, it just makes me angry. But Doebler’s spin is outrageous. Oh, the illegal immigrants want to obey laws that make it easier for them to live here illegally, do they? Well, isn’t that wonderful! Why don’t they want to obey the immigration laws? Heck, why don’t we just stop enforcing all laws, since avoiding law enforcement often makes criminals and law breakers breach other rules, laws, and ethical obligations?

The Times cites statistics showing that hit and run accidents by illegal immigrants declines significantly when they are allowed to have licenses and insurance. Hey! I just thought of an even better way to reduce hit and run accidents by illegal residents!  Can you guess what that would be?

Would Doebler care what the immigration status of someone who, say, ran down her child was, if that individual had been allowed to stay in the country after a previous traffic infraction? Would she really think, “Illegal, legal, what’s the difference?” I think not. I think she would say, “the driver who killed my kid should not have been on the streets at all,” because that would be obvious and true.

22 Comments

Filed under Character, Citizenship, Daily Life, Ethics Dunces, Government & Politics, Journalism & Media, Kaboom!, Law & Law Enforcement, Rights

22 responses to “Multiple KABOOMS! From “The Good Illegal Immigrant” Files: The Good, Well, OK, Maybe Not So Good, Illegal Immigrant Driver

  1. Rick M

    Why, Jack – they are all”Dreamers.”

  2. Did you see the shift between “undocumented” and “unauthorized” immigrant in the news story? Is “unauthorized” the new terminology in the immigration debate for people here without immigration status?

    This was particularly frustrating: “Supporters of efforts to allow those who are undocumented to get driver’s licenses say that public safety would improve because they would be required to pass road tests and obtain insurance.”

    I live in Houston, TX. According to the Dallas Morning News, “the percentage of uninsured has increased slightly in large metro areas, based on department data reviewed by The Dallas Morning News. Statewide, 14 percent have no insurance — more than 2.5 million drivers.”
    According to one estimate, Harris County is even with El Paso County in terms of percentage of uninsured motorists with 14.46 percent of people driving their cars without registered insurance. There was no break down of the numbers of uninsured motorists who are also undocumented or unauthorized. I suspect that there is a correlation between uninsured and unauthorized immigrants, so the ability to obtain a driver’s license is not dependent on the obligation to have auto insurance. .

    jvb

  3. Other Bill

    Another pro-illegal argument I’ve never understood is the notion that a city’s police shouldn’t be involved in enforcing immigration law because then illegal immigrants won’t report crimes to police. This strikes me and totally made up.

  4. #3 & #4). Since licenses are probably the simplest way to get on voter rolls, can there be any question what the democrats True motivation is being the whole license “controversy”?

    • I’ve raised the drivers license point hundreds of times in conversations with Democrats about illegal immigration and Voter ID and I get “verbally” attacked every single time I do it.

      • For the most part your argument has been:

        Voter ID will solve the problem.

        Their counterargument has been: The problem is at registration not at the voter booth, so Voter ID won’t solve the problem.

        Then they assume the argument is settled. Except it isn’t. There’s still a problem that needs to be solved. They don’t want it solved because unsecure elections don’t seem to be a problem to them.

        • texagg04 wrote, “For the most part your argument has been: Voter ID will solve the problem.”

          I have intentionally inserted into that argument that absolutely all forms of legal identification that have to possibility of being used for voting MUST specifically identify when the person is NOT a United States citizen regardless of their immigration status (legal or illegal) – absolutely no exceptions! I believe that this should be a federally mandated law.

        • There’s still a problem that needs to be solved. They don’t want it solved because unsecure elections d̶o̶n̶’̶t̶ ̶s̶e̶e̶m̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶b̶e̶ ̶a̶ ̶p̶r̶o̶b̶l̶e̶m̶
          ̶ are necessary to elect Democrats to them.

          Fixed it for you

        • I wonder why they think unsecured elections are not a problem.

          http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/12/robert-farago/caught-on-tape-new-jerseys-denial-of-americans-gun-rights/#comment-2350942

          And I DO, EVERY chance I get: “If voter ID laws are racist, aren’t gunowner ID laws just as racist if not more so?”

          You know you’ve struck a nerve when you reduce an anti-gun cultist to trying to minimize Jim Crow and telling the lie that he’s never heard of “literacy tests” used to suppress the Black vote.

          They’ve told one lie too many, and every day more and more people are catching on and turning away from them.

  5. Mrs. Q

    No car seats, no license, speeding, and not citizens. That’s 4 laws broken but the Times uses their church outing as a means to make us believe these are innocent people & stir sympathy. Apparently the Times normal hatred of Christians can take a (ahem) backseat when it’s in the name of their own ideology.

    • Other Bill

      Hah! Nice catch, Mrs. Q. They must have been on their way to the local mosque. Hah.

    • Mrs. Q wrote, “No car seats, no license, speeding, and not citizens. That’s 4 laws broken but the Times uses their church outing as a means to make us believe these are innocent people & stir sympathy. Apparently the Times normal hatred of Christians can take a (ahem) backseat when it’s in the name of their own ideology.”

      People that believe that the ends justifies the means don’t give a shit about logic, reason, or common sense; it all about framing their propaganda to incite an emotional response from dumbed down people.

  6. Eternal Optometrist

    Poor Timothy McVeigh. Sentenced to death for not having a plate on his car. So sad.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s