A blog about Kern County, Politics, and Religion & Faith.
  erikbako, I agree with you the Japanese never thought they would be interned, the Chinese never thought they would be deported after building the railroad, the Indians never thought that they would be deported, and limited to reservations  west of the Mississippi, so why should the Mexicans expect more than that out of historical American justice? What they need is halocaust justice,  right ErikBako? Fire up the ovens and turn on the gas, no. no that is too expensive, just turn off the air it does the same job. America is ready for a final solution. Hey maybe after halocaust II, they too can get a "Homeland" in maybe in Guantanamo or Puerto Rico

You are right, shsrebel, we don't need Vicente Fox threatening us with boycotts, if fact we don't need Vicente Fox at all , but he needs us because he cannot wipe his ass with Washington's approval beforehand.

Vicente or whoever succeeeds him needs some new allies, maybe Russia and China or Iran and Saudi Arabia, these countries would pay a premium price for access to the North Amrican continent. They could help Mexico develope it's vast oil reserves and natural resources without  robbing them blind as has been the history of their dealings with America. Hey they might just help build a parallel wall on the Mexican side.

Can you imagine the outcry if China was to help Mexico develope nuclear power? But Mexico will never do this because they are not a soverign nation, they are an American sattelite, a dependent welfare state that depends on the "generosity" of their neighbor to the North for its existence.

Someday if they ever get a soverign leader who will deal worldwide with America' s friend or foe and make it's own judgements and decisions Mexico will be truly independent but unlike Venezuela, they have yet to find that leader
posted by tonyh on Aug 28, 2006 at 12:13 PM
The Anasazi were all gone by about 1300 BC. They also lived in the Four Corners area, not the East Coast.
posted by anglo1 on Aug 28, 2006 at 01:47 PM
shsrebel, where do you draw the line at rich?  Neo con, if mexico has been around longer than the US, why do they still have to rely on the evil northern neigbors or China or Russia to develop their oil industry, cant they do anything  on their own?
posted by anonymous on Aug 28, 2006 at 02:46 PM
That is right, anglo1, how long do you think they would be our friends if they chose to be a soverign nation? They are next door, Iran is across the pond and they are a threat that makes our ass pucker at the mention of them having what everyone else has.
No, they cannot really do anything on their own, because they are not on their own.
Vicente Fox and his predecessors for WWII have tried too hard to please Washington and that has been their downfall. Why do they need China and Russia, m-o-n-e-y, they have none. However, these country's will pay a fortune to get a foothold on the North American Continent, like in China and Venzuela's latest deal. Mexico needs development money and technical assistance and accesss and other country's will provide it to get a closer look at the enemy/friend over the border depending on the time of the year.

Yeah, isolate Mexico, and you may open a pandora's box that you will not like.
posted by historyguy on Aug 28, 2006 at 10:24 PM

tony, 

To deny that "America" was absent of any political nation/state is just plain wrong. The Hurons had a firmly established political culture. They may not have been a "country" in the European sense but they were definitely  a nation/state. The Huron are just one example of the various Native American governments (don't forget the Algonquians had a "government" as described by some members of the first European colony - Jamestown)  that existed prior to and during European contact.

posted by anonymous on Aug 29, 2006 at 08:55 AM
Yes, we should continue to tax the wealthy and the big money companies until they get their greedy butts out of our country.  Then we can just all collect from the empty well.
posted by anonymous on Aug 30, 2006 at 07:35 AM
2638.
posted by robbwillis on Aug 30, 2006 at 10:30 AM
Congratulations on your arrest Warren!
posted by anonymous on Aug 30, 2006 at 10:58 AM
They got the wrong guy, again!!
posted by robbwillis on Aug 31, 2006 at 09:50 AM

Hehe! Sorry about the wigs - would have made the brushstrokes on your M&M paintings very smooth. 
Sounds like the LDS have a better deal than 72 virgins in Heaven with a lot less trouble... 

posted by anonymous on Aug 31, 2006 at 12:30 PM
I thought you were busted and heading for Utah, first class?
posted by randomfactor on Aug 31, 2006 at 02:43 PM

Unless they're actually raisins and not virgins, Warren. 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/r...

posted by robbwillis on Aug 31, 2006 at 03:45 PM
How about a cartoon showing Allah laughing his butt off when a suicide bomber asks for virgins when it's raisins?
posted by anonymous on Aug 31, 2006 at 04:31 PM
2641.
posted by anonymous on Sep 1, 2006 at 09:52 AM
2642.
posted by TomW on Sep 1, 2006 at 10:41 AM
Especially the Kurds, killed with mustard gas.  Do you think we should bomb the people who helped Saddam by providing him money and weapons?
posted by randomfactor on Sep 1, 2006 at 10:45 AM
Who would have done such a thing, Tom?  What kind of idiot would give Saddam weapons like that?
.
http://www.billmon.org/arch...
1 2

Leave a Comment
Ground Rules for posting comments:
  • No profanity or personal attacks.
  • Please comment on the subject of the post itself.
If you do not follow these rules we will remove your comment. Please keep it civil.

To protect users from spam, please enter the text from the image on the left.
   

Our readers recommend:

About rightthinking


Member Since:
June 21, 2006
Last Signed In:
August 23, 2008
Profile Views:
5826
Blog Views:
45169
View Profile
Send a Message
Send To A Friend
Sign Guestbook
Add as a Friend

Previous Posts
Cops on cell phones? It's part of their job
McCarthy won't quiet down, luckily
Vegas' plan to run good news all around
The people will decide the same-sex marriage issue
Fireworks lovers are their own worst enemy
Duck attack horrible, but tragedy is in youths
He gave her the White House for celebration
Recalls should be last resort, not first
Barnett's views shouldn't be fodder for obsessive media
High school district admits Bible blunder
Archives
June 06
July 06
August 06
September 06
October 06
November 06
December 06
January 07
February 07
March 07
April 07
May 07
June 07
July 07
August 07
September 07
October 07
November 07
December 07
January 08
February 08
March 08
April 08
May 08
June 08
July 08
August 08
September 08
More archives
June 06
May 06
April 06
March 06

February 06
January 06
December 05
November 05
October 05
September 05
August 05
July 05

Blog Roll


Ask The Californian
Editorials
Entertainment
Eye of Bakersfield
Faith Forum
Fired Up!
Inside Sports
Neighbors
Right Thinking
Sound Off
Talk of the Town
Subscribe!
RSS 2.0 feed RSS 2.0
Add to My Yahoo
Add to My Google
Add to Bloglines
Add to My AOL

Share!


rightthinking - > Right Thinking -> Driver's licenses for illegals an issue that won't go away
Driver's licenses for illegals an issue that won't go away
Californians and their governor have made it clear they don't want to give driver's licenses to those who come into the United States illegally, but that matters little to state lawmakers now working to keep unlicensed illegal immigrants behind the wheel. 

An in-your-face measure that would allow the state to give driver's licenses to illegal immigrants was held up in the Assembly Appropriations Committee last week, a move that will likely kill it, at least for now. Killing the bill was a smart move by the Democrat-heavy committee, which no doubt wants to spare the party a high-profile veto 10 weeks before an election. 

But the Assembly is still expected to vote on SB626, a back-door bill already approved by the state Senate that would reduce the required 30-day impoundment of cars driven by unlicensed drivers to 24 hours - but only for those who were never able to get a license in the first place. 

Sound stupid? It is. 

Under current state law, citizens caught driving without a license - but who obtained a license legally at some point - lose their cars for up to 30 days. That doesn't change under the new bill except in cases where the driver never had a license, either because he chose not to get one or, as in the case of illegal immigrants, could not legally acquire one. 

In those cases the driver can get his car back in 24 hours. 

After all, supporters of the bill say, it's not the illegal immigrant's fault if the state refuses to issue him a license, is it? 

No kidding, that's their argument. 

It's a they're-going-to-do-it anyway argument that underscores certain lawmakers' disdain for proper legal-immigration channels and their disregard for the safety of all those on the road. 

The bill does stipulate that the impounded cars may not be released without "presentation of the registered owner's or legal owner's valid driver's license," but how to guarantee the "registered owner" is the true owner and driver of the car?

To those who have voted in support of this measure, including Kern County Assemblywoman Nicole Parra, D-Hanford, and state Sen. Dean Florez, D-Shafter, we should ask "Are those who enter the United States illegally breaking the law or not?" 

Of course they are. 

So why, then, would we award those breaking the law a driver's license, a form of legal status they are not legally entitled to? And why should those breaking the law be spared the 30-day impound rule and accompanying fines that legal residents must pay when we're busted for driving without a license? 

Republican lawmakers Assemblyman Kevin McCarthy and state Sen. Roy Ashburn, both of Bakersfield, have voted against the bill, which Ashburn calls "another measure that's pulling the teeth out of existing law." 

"It will further undermine the law that's in place to deter people from driving without a license and encourages people to break the law by coming into the country illegally," he said. 

"Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has been talking tough on illegal immigration in recent weeks - tougher than opponent Phil Angelides is, anyway - so he's likely to veto SB 626, as he has vetoed similar bills, if the measure makes it to his desk. 

If he's a governor who's serious about immigration reform, he will. 
Posted in these Groups:
Topics:
posted by rightthinking on Saturday, August 26, 2006 at 05:41 PM
Report a Violation
Viewed 921 times
64 comments from 20 users

1 2

posted by Shsrebel10 on Aug 26, 2006 at 07:44 PM
Typical conservative propaganda.  The immigration issue sprung up by xenephobic repub-la-cons to divert attention away from the miserable failure in the war in Iraq, is conservatives last gasp of a white america.  Its pretty hypocritical that people complain about undocumented immigrants not paying car insurance, are against giving them drivers license which would make them eligible for insurance.  Their going to be driving down california roads anyways, might as well give them a chance to pay for car insurance.  Its ironic because you don't need a mexican drivers license to get car insurance, but here your required to have a permit or a drivers license to get insurance.
posted by anonymous on Aug 26, 2006 at 07:46 PM
I believe this is called a diversion shot!
posted by anonymous on Aug 26, 2006 at 07:50 PM

I guess breaking the law for a great good is OKAY!!!   Since it is called ILLEGAL immigrant, they should be treated as someone who breaks the  law!!  So are they saying I can rob a bank, if I have a legit reason, because my family was needy and anything I had left over, (after buying myself a cozy home in the Hamptons and several Rolls') give to the poor, I'm ok??  

You can't go anywhere else in this world without a passport, cause they won't let you through and if it expires, same thing applies!!  

Press 1 for English

Press 2 to disconnect till you can!

posted by anonymous on Aug 26, 2006 at 07:54 PM
I hear you, it is perfectly legal to EMPLOY an illegal, but it is illegal for person to fulfil that employment? Kinda like having your cake, and eating it too, how sweet it is.
posted by anonymous on Aug 26, 2006 at 07:55 PM
Oh and press 3              to whine some more.
posted by Shsrebel10 on Aug 26, 2006 at 07:57 PM
"Oh and press 3 to whine some more"

Yeah thats what conservatives do a lot of.  Whining about immigration, whining about gay marraige, whining about the rich paying more taxes, whining about affirmative action, exc.
posted by NancyII on Aug 26, 2006 at 08:50 PM
Yup...I whine about ILLEGAL immigration, don't care about gay marriage either way, think everyone should pay their fair share of tax but it seems a little crazy to say the rich should pay more just because they're rich..but they darn sure shouldn't have loopholes to get out of paying, (was that a whine?), and whine if an underqualified person gets a job over a qualified person just because of (pick one)  race, gender, religion, color, creed, nationality, sexual orientation or whether he/she is from another planet.  The job should go to the one who can do it.

You folks can call it being a conservative or a Republican if you want to...I call it common sense.

You can also call it whining if you want to....but I call it voicing my opinion.  Just like you all do.
posted by Hardliner4freedom on Aug 26, 2006 at 09:20 PM

Don't feel lonely, Nancy.  This is one issue where I'm solidly conservative.

My apologies, shsrebel, but we'll agree to agree on some other issues.  :-)

 

posted by Shsrebel10 on Aug 26, 2006 at 09:39 PM
Common sense?  Is xenephobia, homophobia, and supporting the rich really common sense?  While I do see people's point about undocumented immigration (don't worry hardliner, no hard feelings), I see a lot of people using their arguements against not just illegal immigration, but immigration alltogether as motivated by xenephobia, and some people even using race.  It sickens me to hear someone like Glenn Beck saying Mexicans are destroying our culture.  Our culture is a melting pot, and immigration creates diversity.  And really, does America have one single culture?  We have not only mexicans, but whites, blacks, asians, and native americans all with different cultures.  I don't see how anyone immigrating (rather legally or illegally) here is destroying our culture, and I have no problem with people practicing their culture here.  Another thing, they contribute to our economy significantly, and many (with the exception of some drug smugglers) obey the law.  And honestly, I don't see people complaining about Canadians, Europeans, and Asians (quite a few asian immigrants are also here undocumented) coming here undocumented.  Its always about mexicans.  Also, not everyone needs a passport or something to enter a country legally.  Americans are allowed in Mexico and Canada (along the border in both countries) without passports, while Canadians are allowed here without a passport.  

As far as gay marraige, why should it matter that gays want to marry?  This is suppose to be a country of freedom, and equality.  Is denying gays the right to marry really giving them freedom and equality?  Honestly, if they marry is it really hurting hetersexual couples?  Let gays do what they want, let them marry, its their business.

As for tax cuts for the rich, you know that when the government looses tax money (which the rich give the bulk of the tax money) they lose money to fund for education, health care, and to create jobs through law enforcement, medical, exc.  And honestly, is it really fair to poor people if they pay as much taxes as the rich?  The rich can afford it (and in all likelyhood, wouldn't be able to spend all the money they have thats not deducted by taxes).  Lower and middle class people can't afford it.
posted by NancyII on Aug 26, 2006 at 10:07 PM
You need to explain to me where you see xenophobia or homophobia in my post.  You also need to explain where you see me supporting the rich.  I didn't make that money..maybe they didn't either..but just the fact that they have it and you don't, you think they ought to be taxed at a higher rate?  You think they should be punished for being rich?  IF you became rich..would YOU feel the same way.

Furthermore I didn't say ANYTHING about tax cuts for the rich..if you'll re read what I DID say..it was about NOT letting them have loopholes.

Is it just that you have such dislike for conservatives that you want to make an arguement where none exists?
posted by Shsrebel10 on Aug 26, 2006 at 10:36 PM
First off Erik,  these are not the views of California (this is a mostly liberal state), and second, you can't make me leave so get over it.Furthermore, I never said I had problems with enforcing the laws.  But everyone wants to blame the immigrants and not the money thirsty employers who hire them.  You really think building a wall is going to stop them?  I'm sure smugglers know what tunnels, ladders, and boats are.  Also, about half of all undocumented immigrants come here legally on visas, and overstay them.  Do you really think closing the border is really going to stop visa overstayers?  Furthermore, deporting them all not only is unrealistic, it would be political suicide.  Not only will you have industries like the agriculture business severely underemployed, it would cost hundreds of billions of dollars to deport all of them, putting us further in the national debt.  Furthermore, most undocumented immigrants come here for work, not to cause any problems or anything.
posted by NancyII on Aug 27, 2006 at 08:25 AM
One thing I've learned here for a lot of folks......the law only applies if they agree with it.
posted by Hardliner4freedom on Aug 27, 2006 at 09:40 AM
Well, there is where I have to rap the Left...  We're not complaining about immigrants.  We're complaining about people who come here illegally.

* It really is that simple *
posted by anonymous on Aug 27, 2006 at 11:00 AM
As far as I'm concerned if you don't have native american blood then you are an illegal immigrant. So get out. I agree with you nancy, the bush administration does it all the time. An H4F I wonder if it was "legal" to come here if the complaints would go away or just change. warren, erik, et al, face it, your side will NEVER get rid of the mexican population (legally or other wise) in this country. wine all you want; I just laugh....
posted by dgrealish on Aug 27, 2006 at 11:16 AM
I don't know.  My kids are descended from a Cherokee princess on one side and an Irish immigrant on the other.  Woe is me, what should we do?
posted by Hardliner4freedom on Aug 27, 2006 at 11:31 AM
Maybe this analogy will help, Neo.

It is no more "anti-immigrant" to oppose illegal immigration than it is "anti-Christian" to oppose illegally mixing church and state.  :-)
posted by medlock on Aug 27, 2006 at 01:13 PM
I saw a t-shirt at the Standing Bear Pow-Wow that had a cartoon of Pilgrims and Native Americans, the Native Americans were telling the Pilgrims, "What?  No documents?  No Green Card?  We're sorry, but you can't stay here."

It made a point and was funny at the same time.  Wish now I would have bought it.
posted by anonymous on Aug 27, 2006 at 03:04 PM

2622.

posted by tonyh on Aug 27, 2006 at 05:44 PM
That's nice and funny and everything, but.........................there wasn't a country with a government here, when the Pilgrims came over. This was part of the undeveloped world then......................................
posted by NancyII on Aug 27, 2006 at 06:02 PM
I keep saying "I'm constantly amazed" on blogs so what the heck..I might as well say it again.  Hardliner just said it all.  But I'll say it again.

Every time this subject comes up I hear all about how we oppose immigration.  How many time do we have to say it?  I'M NOT OPPOSED TO IMMIGRATION..I AM OPPOSED TO ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION.  Was that loud enough or clear enough?

If the folks slinging rocks and arrows on this subject can't find a better way to argue then you might as well give up.   Please..don't put words in my mouth.  I'm pretty darned straight forward with my posts so don't try to twist what I say to suit your agenda.
posted by anonymous on Aug 27, 2006 at 06:05 PM
Still crying Nancy , be honest not loud!
posted by tonyh on Aug 27, 2006 at 06:07 PM
AAHHHHHH, 

Once again, we hear from THE ONE..............THE ONLY................Neocon Savior.    

.............................you're an idiot..........
posted by anonymous on Aug 27, 2006 at 06:23 PM
tonyh, and you my dear lady are a ...rocket scientist? Be serious if stupidity was a requirement for life, you would be born again,and again, and again, ad naseum.
posted by anonymous on Aug 27, 2006 at 07:43 PM
Ummm, tony you need to review your history. there was, indeed "nations" with "governments"  (anasazi, aztecs, etc., etc., etc.)here when the pilgrims came. Also, remember that the pilgrims were NOT the first europeans to reach the so-called "new world." Ignorance is bliss....
posted by anonymous on Aug 27, 2006 at 07:44 PM

and neo-con is not the only "anny" posting on here...so narrow minded...

posted by dgrealish on Aug 27, 2006 at 08:43 PM

We're a little too far north for the Aztecs aren't we, Neo?  You are talking about U.S. history, right?

posted by dgrealish on Aug 27, 2006 at 08:46 PM
BTW, NeoCon, that's short for NeoConservative, which means New Conservative, right?
posted by dgrealish on Aug 27, 2006 at 08:57 PM

Erik, you remind me of when the Japanese were buying up a lot of American property and businesses.  I mentioned this to a wise old friend and she told me we had nothing to worry about.  They could buy all of America they wanted, after all, where were they going to take it.  Mexico may think they have a plan to "take back" parts of the United States, but it ain't going nowhere, and we're not giving it up without one hell of a fight.

posted by anonymous on Aug 28, 2006 at 07:24 AM
2628.
posted by randomfactor on Aug 28, 2006 at 07:28 AM
The Japanese had little choice but to start buying California real estate.  At the time, they didn't have anywhere else to put their money--the real estate bubble in Japan was so taut that, reportedly, downtown Tokyo was valued (on paper) as being worth more than California.  
.
Of course, it didn't last.  The bursting of the bubble came with all kinds of hardships.  A lesson which is now being repeated for the edifiction of California and the nation as a whole...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...
posted by NancyII on Aug 28, 2006 at 07:33 AM
Isn't Wikipedia just the coolest thing since google?
posted by MyLefteFoot on Aug 28, 2006 at 10:06 AM

shsrebel
It's unfair of you to call people who disagree with you xenophobic.  I am a liberal but like Nancy and H4F I'm also against issuing drivers licenses to illegal aliens.

Illegal immigration is not a new issue.  If you're going to disagree at least be honest with your accusations.  The issue of  illegal immigration wasn't dreamed up by the GOP to divert attention away from the war.  It has been addressed in the past by presidents of both parties (with little success).  What is new is the attention it's getting from states that have been unaffected by  immigration until this decade.  The sheer numbers of people immigrating from Mexico and Ssouth America into the midwest and northern states have turned from a  trickle into a flood.

How many people do you feel the U.S. can accommocate?  And, how fair is it to the people from other parts of the world who would like to immigrate but are held off because of the huge numbers of illegals that we're trying to assimilate from Mexico and South America?  Common sense has got to come into play on this issue at some point.  

Why should we allow someone who is breaking the law (entering our country illegally) to participate in a priviledge that is reserved for law abiding citizens.  We deny driver's licenses to parents who fail to pay child support.  We also deny them to people who are arrested for DUIs.  What makes illegal aliens any more entitled to a license than these people are?

Americans have the right to protect themselves from overcrowding and overuse of our goods and services.  We should not be forced to feed, clothe, doctor or educate people that break the law to enter our country.  We should encourage (and help) Mexico fix the problems that plague their economy so they can become a haven to their own people.
We don't need Vincente Fox threatening us with boycots if we don't take Mexico's unemployed (underemployed) poor.

posted by anonymous on Aug 28, 2006 at 10:36 AM
erikbako, I agree with you the Japanese never thought they would be interned, the Chinese never thought they wwould be deported after building the railroad, the Indians never thought that the would be deported, and limtied to reservations  west of the Mississippi, so why should the Mexicans expect more than out historical American justice? What they need id halocaust justice right ErikBako? Fire up the even and turn on the gas, no. no that too expensive, just turn off the air it does the same job and American is ready for a final solution. Hey maybe after halocaust II, they too can get a "Homeland" in Guantanamo.

You are right, shsrebel, we don't need Vicente Fox thratening us with boycotts, if fact we don't need Vicente Fox, but he needs us because he cannot wipe his ass with Washington's approval beforehand.

Vicente or whoever succeeeds him need some new allies, maybe Russian and China or Iran and Saudi Arabia, these countries would pay a good price for access to the North Amrican continent. They could help Mexico develope it's vast oil reserves and natural resources without  robbing them blind as has been the history of their dealings with America.

Can you imagine the outcry if China was to help Mexico develope nuclear power? But Mexico will never do this because they are not a soverign nation, they are an American sattelite, a dependent welfare state that depends on the "generosity" of their neighbor for its existence.

Someday if they ever get a soverign leader who will deal worlwide with America' friend or foe and make its own judgements will it be truly independent but unlike Venezuela, they have yet to find that leader.
posted by anonymous on Aug 28, 2006 at 12:04 PM