driver's license

A judge in U.S. District Court in Eugene has dismissed a lawsuit seeking to give illegal immigrants in Oregon access to short-term drivers’ licenses.

The suit, filed on behalf of five unnamed illegal immigrants from Mexico, sought to restore a 2013 law, passed by the Oregon ­Legislature as Senate Bill 833, creating those new licenses. That law was overturned after it was referred to Oregon voters as Measure 88 in November 2014 and soundly defeated.

Oregon’s refusal to issue driver cards is unconstitutional because immigration regulation is done at the federal level and “is not a legitimate state interest,” the illegal immigrants’ lawsuit had argued. The refusal to issue licenses is “arbitrary” and “capricious” and is “motivated, at least in part, by animus towards Mexicans and Central Americans,” it said. The lawsuit named Democratic Gov. Kate Brown and leaders of the state ­Department of Transportation as ­defendants.

But, in a ruling released Monday, U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken wrote that she lacked the authority to compel the state to issue drivers’ licenses outright. Moreover, she found, SB 833 never went into effect as an Oregon law. That means that, even if Aiken invalidated the voters’ rejection of Measure 88 as unconstitutional, “no (existing) law authorizes the state to grant driver cards,” Aiken wrote.

“As such, the state defendants are not refusing to issue driver cards because a referendum motivated by discriminatory animus prevents them from doing so; they cannot issue driver cards because no valid, existing Oregon law authorizes them to do so,” Aiken wrote.

Aiken’s ruling supported the argument made by the state attorney general’s office in its motion to dismiss.

Sarah Weston, assistant attorney general, wrote that the state “agrees that enacting a driver card program would have benefited (the plaintiffs) and would have been good policy for the state.”

But “the relief the plaintiffs seek — the enactment and implementation of SB 833 — cannot be imposed on the state by the federal court in this action,” Weston wrote.

“Just as would be the case with any other bill that failed to become law via the legislative process, if plaintiffs seek to have SB 833 enacted, they must try again via that process,” she added.

Representatives of the Oregon Law Center, which filed the suit on behalf of the five immigrants and two Latino-focused nonprofit organizations, could not be reached for comment on Aiken’s ruling Monday.

Oregonians for Immigration Reform, the chief opponents of Measure 88, applauded the decision.

“Today, the court has dismissed the meritless and frivolous case,” the group said in a statement. “Nearly a million voters said ‘no’ — and now the Court is standing with us. No driver cards for those who can’t prove they are legally present in the country.”

For many years, Oregon allowed residents to get a driver’s license regardless of his or her legal status. But starting in 2008, because of the federal REAL ID Act, ­residents have had to prove legal status to get one.

Measure 88 would have created a new type of short-term driver’s license, available to anyone who had lived in Oregon for at least a year.

Twelve states now provide drivers’ licenses regardless of people’s legal status, including Washington state, California and Nevada.

Follow Saul on Twitter @SaulAHubbard . Email saul.hubbard@registerguard.com .
  Read more about Federal judge dismisses lawsuit seeking drivers licenses for illegal immigrants in Oregon

  Read more about Court dismisses lawsuit against Oregon Measure 88!

EAST BRUNSWICK TOWNSHIP, Pa. -  State police say a 38-year-old man may be extradited and deported after he was arrested and charged for a hit-and-run crash in Schuylkill County.

The crash happened back on Feb. 26 along Route 443, about a half-mile east of New Ringgold Borough.

According to police, a Honda Accord and Dodge Dart were traveling westbound when the Accord tried to pass the Dart around a curve in the roadway.

When the Accord went to merge back into the right lane, police say the passenger side of the vehicle struck the front driver side of the Dart.

When both vehicles entered New Ringgold, the Accord fled the scene, turning left and traveling southbound, into a public park.

The driver of the Dart followed the Accord, and was able to photograph the vehicle's license plate with her cell phone.

Police say the Accord then fled the scene without stopping, and took off through New Ringgold.

Two weeks later, early Saturday morning, the Accord was spotted traveling eastbound along Route 443 outside the borough.

A traffic stop was initiated near Schuylkill Road, according to a state police press release.

The description of the driver matched the description that was given by the driver of the Dart in February, and police say the registration was also a match.

The driver of the Accord - identified as 38-year-old Daniel Naploes Herrera - admitted to being the driver involved in the hit-and-run. Herrera told police he fled because he did not have a valid driver's license.

Herrera was taken into custody and transported back to the state police barracks in Frackville where he was fingerprinted.

That's when police discovered Herrera was a wanted person from Oregon, and also illegally entered into the United States as a citizen of Mexico.

Herrera was hit with a number of traffic-related charges, including careless driving and failing to have a valid license. He was arraigned and committed to the Schuylkill County Prison.

State police say a detainer was also placed on Herrera by the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Department.

Herrera is currently awaiting possible extradition back to Oregon and possible deportation back to Mexico. Read more about Hit-and-run driver facing possible extradition, deportation

Maybe it's understandable that immigration reform remains stalled in Congress during an election year. And that the fate of President Obama's executive actions on immigration before the U.S. Supreme Court remains unclear, especially in the aftermath of the death of Justice Antonin Scalia.

But lawmakers in virtually every state in the union aren't waiting for Washington. The number of states taking action by passing immigration-related laws is growing — by 26 percent last year...

Last year, 216 immigration laws were enacted as opposed to 171 laws in 2014...

The new laws cover health, education, employment and licensing issues.

In some cases, the laws expand rights for immigrants, legal or otherwise. For example, California allows health care for all children regardless of their immigration status. In other instances, some states impose more restrictive measures, such as Idaho, where an applicant for a driver's license must provide proof of U.S. citizenship or lawful permanent residency.

Here are some other examples contained in the report:

Education

— An Oregon law allows students in the country without valid visas to apply for state-funded financial aid programs.

— A West Virginia law establishes that only U.S. citizens are eligible for teacher's certificates. However, an allowance is permitted to a person who is an exchange teacher from a foreign country.

Employment

— In North Carolina, a new law requires all state government contractors to use E-Verify, the federal government's online system for checking whether prospective employees are authorized to work in the U.S. It also prohibits cities and counties from adopting sanctuary ordinances that would limit enforcement of federal immigration laws.

Law Enforcement

— Illinois passed a law requiring that when foreign nationals are arrested or detained, they must be advised of their right to have their consular officials notified.

— Texas now requires the attorney general to establish a transnational and organized crime division to address border security and organized crime, including prosecuting trafficking in persons and assisting victims of trafficking.
  Read more about States Step Up As Washington Stalls On Immigration

(Washington, D.C.) – On Wednesday, January 13, 2016, the Immigration Reform Law Institute (“IRLI”), along with Jill Gibson of the Gibson Law Firm, LLC, filed on behalf of their client Oregonians for Immigration Reform (“OFIR”) a motion to intervene in an Oregon federal court lawsuit brought by five admitted illegal aliens and two illegal alien special interest groups (collectively “plaintiffs”). At the same time, IRLI and Ms. Gibson filed on OFIR’s behalf a motion to dismiss the lawsuit as lacking merit. The lawsuit seeks to force the State of Oregon to grant driving privileges to illegal aliens.

Specifically, the suit seeks to overturn as unconstitutional the outcome of the November 2014 general election in Oregon, when, through the Oregon Constitution’s referendum veto process, Oregon voters overwhelmingly rejected (by 66%) a bill passed by the legislature and signed by the governor that would have extended eligibility for driving privileges to unlawfully present persons (OFIR was the driving force behind the referendum veto who collected the requisite number of signatures to get the issue placed on the ballot.). Conspicuously absent from the plaintiffs’ complaint is any mention of the alleged fundamental right denied them. Certainly it is not the right to a driver’s license or interstate travel as every court to address this issue has held that illegal aliens hold no such rights.

States actually have a number of legitimate public purposes that are rationally served by laws that restrict driving privileges to persons lawfully present in the U.S. For instance, states have a legitimate interest in limiting their finite resources to citizens and legal aliens and in not allowing their government machinery to be a facilitator for the concealment of illegal aliens. States also have a legitimate concern that persons subject to immediate or subsequent deportation will not be financially responsible for property damage or personal injury due to automobile accidents. Finally, states have a legitimate interest in promoting national security. Granting driving privileges to illegal aliens harms national security because, unlike legal aliens, illegal aliens have not undergone background checks or face-to-face interviews to determine whether they pose a national security threat.

Dale L. Wilcox, IRLI’s Executive Director commented, “This is a ridiculous case with no merit and is a waste of the court’s time and precious resources. The audacity of trespassers on our sovereign soil to demand taxpayer-funded benefits, like a driver’s license or card, just boggles the mind.” Wilcox continued, “Illegal aliens do not have a right to driving privileges, nor do they have a right to travel freely in the U.S. as federal law makes their very presence in the U.S. unlawful. In short, this case is about sour grapes as the overwhelming majority of Oregonians have spoken and rejected taxpayer-funded giveaways to those who have no legal right to be here.”

A copy of both motions as filed can be seen here:

http://Irli.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/stamped-motion-to-intervene.pdf

http://Irli.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/stamped-motion-to-dismiss.pdf

For additional information, contact:

Dale L. Wilcox
202-232-5590
dwilcox@irli.org Read more about IRLI Files Motions to Intervene and Dismiss in Illegal Alien Lawsuit Seeking Driving Privileges

Fox News is reporting that a group of aliens living illegally in the United States, Oregon specifically, is suing to overturn a ballot initiative in that state in which voters resoundingly rebuffed attempts to legislatively permit illegal aliens to obtain Oregon driver's licenses.

The basis? Discrimination. The plaintiffs allege that the ballot initiative, Measure 88, is unconstitutional "because it 'arbitrarily' denies driving privileges based on membership in a 'disfavored minority group.' It [the lawsuit] alleges Oregon voters were motivated by "animus toward persons from Mexico and Central America."

Fox quotes Norman Williams, associate dean for academic affairs at the Willamette University College of Law in Salem, as saying "that the plaintiffs' best argument is under the U.S. Constitution's Equal Protection Clause — and to claim Oregon has no rational basis for depriving undocumented Latin Americans of the ability to drive on Oregon's roads."

Mr. Williams goes on to say, "The U.S. Supreme Court has been clear that neither legislators nor voters may target a minority group because of their race or ethnicity."

He seems to be missing the point that it is immigration status, not race or ethnicity, that is key to the license denial. It is beyond argument that the state has a legitimate interest in deciding to whom it will issue driver's licenses; certainly Oregonian voters think so. So does the Federal Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which recently sustained a restraining order against the Obama administration issued by a U.S. District Court in Texas after that state (and 25 others) filed suit. Perhaps the good dean should read that opinion.

It is hard to imagine how a claim of unconstitutional discrimination could possibly be sustained. First, the ballot measure is facially neutral. It denies a license to anyone who is illegally in the country, without regard to race, ethnicity, or national origins. An overstayed Canadian of Northern European origins would be denied a license as surely as a mestizo from Mexico.

Second, individuals lawfully residing in the United States — including, obviously, people of Mexican or Central American origin — are all entitled to licenses without other qualifiers or caveats, so they are clearly unaffected. Surely if there were state-sanctioned "animus toward persons from Mexico and Central America" it would leak over into other provisions of the motor vehicle laws. But it clearly has not.

While it is true that Mexicans make up a large (but shrinking) portion of the population of aliens illegally in the United States — the Pew Research Center estimates 5.6 million in 2014, down from 6.4 million in 2009 — it is equally true that Mexicans represent the highest proportion of lawful resident aliens living in the United States as of 2013, according to the Department of Homeland Security. (See Table 4, here.)

The only thing one can reliably conclude from available statistics is that, by geographical circumstance (Mexico being the neighbor to our immediate south and the Central American countries just a bit further south), a large proportion of both our legal and our illegal populations will almost inevitably emanate from those countries. How this translates into a claim of discrimination is beyond me.

Let us watch and see how this mini-drama plays out. One suspects that the legal organizations representing the plaintiffs know full well that they are attempting to tilt the tables in the ongoing struggle between the states and the administration in the Fifth Circuit case, which the Justice Department has asked the Supreme Court to hear, by playing off of the same issues under the guise of discrimination.
  Read more about On Driver's Licenses for Illegal Aliens, States' Rights, and Discrimination