PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Another day, another Tea Party initiative blocked


orange
08-31-2011, 09:38 PM
New Mexico Judge Blocks State Plan To Verify Immigrant Licenses

By BARRY MASSEY 08/31/11 08:05 PM ET AP

SANTA FE, N.M. -- A New Mexico judge blocked Republican Gov. Susana Martinez's administration Wednesday from requiring tens of thousands of immigrants to recertify their driver's licenses and verify whether they continue to live in the state.

Martinez last month announced the residency verification plan, which represents the administration's latest effort to focus attention on the state's politically charged license policy, which the governor contends poses a security risk.

New Mexico is one of three states – the others are Washington and Utah – where an illegal immigrant can get a driver's license because no proof of citizenship is required.

Under the residency verification plan, New Mexico sent notices to people that they must schedule an in-person appointment and bring documents, such as a utility bill or lease agreement, to prove they live in the state. The administration plans to cancel licenses of people who no longer are New Mexico residents.

Martinez wants the Legislature to repeal New Mexico's license policy by requiring people to have a Social Security number, which is not available to someone living in the country illegally, to obtain a driver's license. The governor's proposal failed in the Legislature earlier this year but she's renewing her push when lawmakers return to work next week in a special session.

District Court Judge Sarah Singleton on Wednesday issued an order temporarily halting the license residency verification program while it's being challenged in court.

A lawsuit was filed last week by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund against the administration's plan to check a random sample of 10,000 license holders who are foreign nationals.

The lawsuit contends that the license certification program is illegal because it discriminates against one segment of the population – foreign nationals. The suit also contends the governor doesn't have the power, without approval from the Legislature, to in effect require certain people to reapply for a driver's license.

David Urias, an Albuquerque lawyer helping to handle the case, said the judge's ruling was important "because it protects the rights of the people who are being ordered by the MVD to come before it and prove their identity and residency, even though the MVD has absolutely no reason to believe that any of these particular individuals did anything wrong."


Scott Darnell, a spokesman for the governor, said the judge's order was "fairly standard as the court examines the residency certification program."

"In the absence of the Legislature acting to put an end to the program that provides driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, the governor has the responsibility to identify and attempt to curb the dangerous fraud and identity theft that is inherent in it," Darnell said in a statement.

Wednesday was the last day of regularly scheduled appointments for residency certification. Any future appointments, according to the administration, would have been for people who had not yet complied or when the state lacked a forwarding address after the initial notice couldn't be delivered.

Of the 10,000 letters sent out, more than 30 percent have been returned as undeliverable for some reason.

The lawsuit was brought on behalf of several Democratic lawmakers and a Hispanic woman – a foreign national from Mexico who has been living legally in the state for more than a decade.

Marcela Diaz of Somos Un Pueblo Unido, an immigrant rights group, said in a statement that the license verification program "is nothing more than a bullying tactic that intimidates and threatens people for no reason."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/31/new-mexico-immigrant-licenses_n_944325.html

petegz28
08-31-2011, 09:46 PM
I'm glad you are all for anyone under the sun coming into this country, getting a license, etc., etc.

RJ
08-31-2011, 09:52 PM
Governor Martinez will likely get her wish in some form. About 70% of New Mexicans don't want illegals to be able to get NM licenses. There have been several instances where people were busted for supplying (for a fee) licenses to illegal Chinese and East European immigrants. It has generally just proven to be a bad idea and probably a valid security concern.

trndobrd
08-31-2011, 09:54 PM
Governor Martinez will likely get her wish in some form. About 70% of New Mexicans don't want illegals to be able to get NM licenses. There have been several instances where people were busted for supplying (for a fee) licenses to illegal Chinese and East European immigrants. It has generally just proven to be a bad idea and probably a valid security concern.


Don't rain on Orange's preliminary injunction parade.

HonestChieffan
08-31-2011, 09:58 PM
Its bad for America, bad for New Mexico so it must be good for Obama and Orange.

Der Flöprer
08-31-2011, 10:01 PM
Orange, is this okay with you? If so, why?

petegz28
08-31-2011, 10:01 PM
Orange, is this okay with you? If so, why?

Of course it is because the Tea Party wanted it.

orange
08-31-2011, 10:06 PM
Orange, is this okay with you? If so, why?

Yes, because the governor clearly exceeded her authority. The Legislature gets to change the law. And these people she summoned have done NOTHING wrong. The legal license holders - the ones who are actually living in New Mexico - are the ones who are being put out; the frauds who've moved on to greener pastures won't bother coming in, right?

"You there, with the funny accent - get your ass in here (at your expense and our convenience) and prove you're not a criminal!"

Der Flöprer
08-31-2011, 10:15 PM
Yes, because the governor clearly exceeded her authority. The Legislature gets to change the law. And these people she summoned have done NOTHING wrong. The legal license holders - the ones who are actually living in New Mexico - are the ones who are being put out; the frauds who've moved on to greener pastures won't bother coming in, right?

"You there, with the funny accent - get your ass in here (at your expense and our convenience) and prove you're not a criminal!"

So if she modified that where the state incurred the charges, how would you feel?

orange
08-31-2011, 10:19 PM
So if she modified that where the state incurred the charges, how would you feel?

Still unacceptable. Detention is detention. What she should do is get a new law passed.

I suspect you* "libertarians" would feel a lot different about this if the Gov. ordered all drivers 18-21 to come in and take a drug test, because, as you know, lots of young people drive on drugs.


* the general "you," not specifically Mr. Flopnuts. I don't know whether you consider yourself a libertarian or not.

Der Flöprer
08-31-2011, 10:21 PM
Still unacceptable. Detention is detention. What she should do is get a new law passed.

I suspect you "libertarians" would feel a lot different about this if the Gov. ordered all drivers 18-21 to come in and take a drug test, because, as you know, lots of young people drive on drugs.

Just to make my position clear, the war on drugs should be abolished. And licenses should require residency status.

Der Flöprer
08-31-2011, 10:23 PM
I'm pretty open minded on most things. Well, accept illegal immigration. I'm pretty firm that you should have to prove your legal status to get ANYTHING from the government. From ID, to bank accounts, to welfare.

Der Flöprer
08-31-2011, 10:23 PM
Oh, and most importantly, jobs.

go bowe
08-31-2011, 10:24 PM
the idea of putting a stop to fraudlent licenses being used by illegals is a very good idea and the legislature should require all new license applications and all renewals of licenses to have proof of residence...

the way the governor is proposing to go about this is wrong and won't be effective anyway, as orange pointed out...

orange
08-31-2011, 10:25 PM
Just to make my position clear, the war on drugs should be abolished. And licenses should require residency status.

Make your position clearer - would you still object to the drug testing order even if you knew the war on drugs isn't going anywhere? Maybe because it's an infringement on your liberty even though drugs are illegal?

go bowe
08-31-2011, 10:26 PM
Just to make my position clear, the war on drugs should be abolished. And licenses should require residency status.

yes and yes...

Der Flöprer
08-31-2011, 10:30 PM
Make your position clearer - would you still object to the drug testing order even if you knew the war on drugs isn't going anywhere? Maybe because it's an infringement on your liberty even though drugs are illegal?

I can't make my position any clearer than saying the war on drugs is one of the single most money draining expedentures in recent history. It's a complete waste of tax payers revenue and time. Full disclosure requires I state I smoke pot. But that is the only drug I partake in.

go bowe
08-31-2011, 10:31 PM
I'm pretty open minded on most things. Well, accept illegal immigration. I'm pretty firm that you should have to prove your legal status to get ANYTHING from the government. From ID, to bank accounts, to welfare.

i actually agree with you even though many of my wife's relatives overstayed their visas and were technically illegals for awhile...

the problem is that pesky constitution thingy, you know the one that guarantees equal protection under the law for all persons (not restricted to citizens) and things like that...

go bowe
08-31-2011, 10:32 PM
I can't make my position any clearer than saying the war on drugs is one of the single most money draining expedentures in recent history. It's a complete waste of tax payers revenue and time. Full disclosure requires I state I smoke pot. But that is the only drug I partake in.

you're not alone, baby... :bong: :bong: :bong:

Der Flöprer
08-31-2011, 10:33 PM
i actually agree with you even though many of my wife's relatives overstayed their visas and were technically illegals for awhile...

the problem is that pesky constitution thingy, you know the one that guarantees equal protection under the law for all persons (not restricted to citizens) and things like that...

Slippery slope. It should be restricted to citizens., at least here in 2011. JMO

go bowe
08-31-2011, 10:40 PM
Slippery slope. It should be restricted to citizens., at least here in 2011. JMO

you would need a constitutional amendment for that...

don't think there's much chance of that happening...

of course, i still agree with you, but it doesn't matter what we think...

Der Flöprer
08-31-2011, 10:42 PM
Pretty much. Just like everything else...

Taco John
08-31-2011, 11:16 PM
I don't really consider this a tea party issue.

go bowe
08-31-2011, 11:36 PM
yeah, what's the connection?

is the governor a teaba... er, tea partier?

does the tea party even have a position on drivers license fraud by illegals?

it just doesn't seem like that an important of an issue in these difficult times...

orange
08-31-2011, 11:49 PM
I keep seeing Martinez being identified as a Tea Partier.

The newly elected Republican governor of New Mexico, Susana Martinez, is making driver’s license for illegal immigrants a top priority. The first Latina governor, she is of Mexican-American descent, came to office as a Tea Party candidate and strict fiscal conservative with a strong anti-immigrant position.
http://www.hispanicallyspeakingnews.com/notitas-de-noticias/details/new-mexicos-new-gov.-susana-martinez-to-tackle-licenses-for-illegal-im/4481/

Tea Party favorite and Conservative New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez renewed her concealed carry permit today and she got a perfect score and hit every target during the shooting portion of the exam with a .38 and .45 caliber handgun.

This video alone makes me want her as Vice President in 2012. Sorry Rubio.
http://politicons.net/awesome-new-mexico-gov-susana-martinez-renews-her-concealed-carry-permit-gets-perfect-score-video/

Is it something like a hairstyle for women, changeable on a whim?

Taco John
08-31-2011, 11:49 PM
yeah, what's the connection?

is the governor a teaba... er, tea partier?

does the tea party even have a position on drivers license fraud by illegals?

it just doesn't seem like that an important of an issue in these difficult times...

I think that the connection is that there are conservatives who consider themselves tea partiers who care about this issue. But as for it being an actual "tea party" issue, it doesn't really have all that much traction.

BucEyedPea
09-01-2011, 07:36 AM
* the general "you," not specifically Mr. Flopnuts. I don't know whether you consider yourself a libertarian or not.[/size]

Someone doesn't understand libertarianism. They are for open borders and people being able to work wherever they want without the state stipulating where they can. There are some that don't support this but generally this is where they are at.

I think you would be characterizing things better if you just labeled the illegal immigration matter to having broad bi-partisan support or should I say multi-partisan support.

BucEyedPea
09-01-2011, 07:38 AM
I don't really consider this a tea party issue.

Nor is it libertarian aka original tea party.

Ron Paul does support borders where as one of his biggest supporters, Lew Rockwell, does support open borders.

FishingRod
09-01-2011, 07:52 AM
We really have 2 choices, get control of the borders and illegal immigration or shitcan all the public assistance programs. I certainly have sympathy for those willing to risk life and limb to sneak into this country in attempt to better their and their families lives. That idea was what this country was founded on. The difference is, in the past immigrants would either sink or swim on their own. Our state, local and federal Governments are already spending monies far in excess of the revenues they collect and with the exception of a few truly rich guys, the rest of us do not feel we are under taxed. So we either need to get calloused to the point where an illegal shows up bleeding at the hospital and they say, “ Wow sucks to be you” or both the Republicans and the Democrats need to stop ignoring and in some cases exacerbating the problem. Now having said all of that, I think a simpler and more palatable plan would be for all new and all renewals of drivers licenses to require proof of citizenship, once that is done they are issues a license that somehow shows this to be the case and it is noted in the database so their license itself is proof of citizenship in the future.

mlyonsd
09-01-2011, 07:57 AM
Why on earth would a state want to give licenses to people that can't prove they're citizens?

Ace Gunner
09-01-2011, 08:20 AM
so they can pass new laws that allow them to circumvent the US Constitution and do it with social approval.

vaporizadordelmerd
09-01-2011, 06:38 PM
Another day, another hate filled leftist agitprop post from the resident scumbag, orange (red and yellow).

orange
09-01-2011, 07:20 PM
Another day, another name of the same old idiot on my Ignore list.

RJ
09-01-2011, 10:13 PM
I keep seeing Martinez being identified as a Tea Partier.

The newly elected Republican governor of New Mexico, Susana Martinez, is making driver’s license for illegal immigrants a top priority. The first Latina governor, she is of Mexican-American descent, came to office as a Tea Party candidate and strict fiscal conservative with a strong anti-immigrant position.
http://www.hispanicallyspeakingnews.com/notitas-de-noticias/details/new-mexicos-new-gov.-susana-martinez-to-tackle-licenses-for-illegal-im/4481/

Tea Party favorite and Conservative New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez renewed her concealed carry permit today and she got a perfect score and hit every target during the shooting portion of the exam with a .38 and .45 caliber handgun.

This video alone makes me want her as Vice President in 2012. Sorry Rubio.
http://politicons.net/awesome-new-mexico-gov-susana-martinez-renews-her-concealed-carry-permit-gets-perfect-score-video/

Is it something like a hairstyle for women, changeable on a whim?


She's sort of Tea Party-Lite. You won't see her going out on any Scott Walker type limbs.

The local Republican talk radio station callers love her but the truth is that so far she's not really accomplished anything - she's been more symbolic than substantive. Personally, I voted for her as the lesser of two evils and I'm sure many others did the same.

She'll be a big deal at the convention for sure.

alnorth
09-01-2011, 10:26 PM
I'm fine with this court order. On the surface, it looks correct to me.

The governor should not have the authority to arbitrarily order some sample of a particular sub-group to come in and prove they are legal with the threat of losing their legally-obtained license, not because the law said she could, but just because she ordered it, backed by nothing.

Change the law. Require social security numbers or proof of citizenship to get or renew a drivers license.

BucEyedPea
09-01-2011, 11:26 PM
so they can pass new laws that allow them to circumvent the US Constitution and do it with social approval.

Where does the US Constitution disallow this?

orange
09-02-2011, 12:11 AM
Where does the US Constitution disallow this?

Fourteenth Amendment.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

More:

Procedural due processIn the United States, criminal prosecutions and civil cases are generally governed by explicit guarantees of procedural rights under the Bill of Rights. Most of these rights have been incorporated under the Fourteenth Amendment to the States. Among those rights is the constitutional right to procedural due process, which has been broadly construed to protect the individual so that statutes, regulations, and enforcement actions must ensure that no one is deprived of "life, liberty, or property" without a fair opportunity to affect the judgment or result.

This protection extends to all government proceedings that can result in an individual's deprivation, whether civil or criminal in nature, from parole violation hearings to administrative hearings regarding government benefits and entitlements to full-blown criminal trials. In criminal cases, many of these due process protections overlap with procedural protections provided by the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which guarantees reliable procedures that protect innocent people from being executed, which would be an obvious example of cruel and unusual punishment.[30]

At a basic level, procedural due process is essentially based on the concept of "fundamental fairness." For example, in 1934, the United States Supreme Court held that due process is violated "if a practice or rule offends some principle of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental."[31] As construed by the courts, it includes an individual's right to be adequately notified of charges or proceedings, the opportunity to be heard at these proceedings, and that the person or panel making the final decision over the proceedings be impartial in regards to the matter before them.[32]

Or, to put it more simply, where an individual is facing a (1) deprivation of (2) life, liberty, or property, (3) procedural due process mandates that he or she is entitled to adequate notice, a hearing, and a neutral judge.

The Supreme Court has formulated a balancing test to determine the rigor with which the requirements of procedural due process should be applied to a particular deprivation, for the obvious reason that mandating such requirements in the most expansive way for even the most minor deprivations would bring the machinery of government to a halt. The Court set out the test as follows: "[I]dentification of the specific dictates of due process generally requires consideration of three distinct factors: first, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and, finally, the Government's interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail."[33]

Procedural due process has also been an important factor in the development of the law of personal jurisdiction, in the sense that it is inherently unfair for the judicial machinery of a state to take away the property of a person who has no connection to it whatsoever. A significant portion of U.S. constitutional law is therefore directed to what kinds of connections to a state are enough for that state's assertion of jurisdiction over a nonresident to comport with procedural due process.

The requirement of a neutral judge has introduced a constitutional dimension into the question of whether a judge should recuse himself or herself from a case. Specifically, the Supreme Court has ruled that in certain circumstances, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires a judge to recuse himself on account of a potential or actual conflict of interest. For example, on June 8, 2009, in Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co. (2009), the Court ruled that a justice of the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia could not participate in a case involving a major donor to his election to that court.[34]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process#The_U.S._Constitution

go bowe
09-02-2011, 06:56 PM
pfffft...

who cares what the constitution says, anyway?