Licensing illegals: Calif. opens a gateway
Published: Friday, Oct. 18, 2013, 8:57 p.m.
Where Congress has refused — at least so far — in providing a so-called “pathway to citizenship” for illegal aliens, California has succeeded.
Amid a cheering crowd, Golden State Gov. Jerry Brown signed legislation approving driver's licenses for an estimated 1.4 million illegals, effective Jan. 1, 2015. Never mind that Californians repeatedly have opposed this measure, Investor's Business Daily reports. In fact, those unpopular quickie licenses were among issues that led to former Gov. Gray Davis' recall.
Nevertheless, the public's say in leftward California is secondary to the political prize, and this one's a whopper — in time, the registration of more than a million liberal voters.
Proponents, of course, insist that the law “forbids” the use of the new licenses for voter registration. But as Bruce Bialosky writes for Townhall.com, that's provided the folks signing up voters are paying attention — or even care.
Moreover, amnesty groups like La Raza will use the new licenses to push through as many illegals as they can, Mr. Bialosky writes.
The license law states that it's a “violation ... to discriminate against an individual because he or she holds or presents a license issued under these provisions.” Never mind how illegals, once licensed in California, will use their new IDs in other states.
In a gateway state for illegals, California's liberals have shoved through a law with serious national ramifications.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- More ObamaCare fallout: Medicare disadvantage
- Chaos in Venezuela: Maduro’s madness
- Greensburg Laurels & Lances
- The coming holidays: Get out & enjoy
- Saturday essay: Taylor’s trains
- Sunday pops
- Dear Steelers: Perhaps “postseason” is but a quaint notion after all. Yours, Old Man River.
- What’s that smell?: WAMs return to Harrisburg
- Selling GM stock: A $10 billion public hook
- ‘Racism’? No
- Anti-fracking scandal: More junk ‘science’