 Todd DormanTodd Dorman is a columnist for The Gazette. His blog has been bringing smiles to readers' faces since November 2007. |
|
Email the author
Immigrant driver’s license saga continues
I’ve had a couple of readers ask me lately if I’m going to write about the Iowa DOT’s decision to deny driver’s licenses to young immigrants who the Obama administration is allowing to stay in the country.
I haven’t, mainly because I expect this to get fixed, whether I whine about it or not.
In June the president deferred prosecution of illegal immigrants under age 30 who arrived here as children and meet a list of other conditions, granting them a legal OK to remain in the country for at least two years. In December, Iowa DOT Director Paul Trombino declared that those immigrants can’t get an Iowa driver’s license, which are issued only to those who are in the country legally. The DOT contends that the president’s deferral order isn’t the same as legal authorization, under the letter of state law.
The governor’s legal counsel, Brenna Findley, says prosecutorial discretion isn’t the same as legal status, so no licenses. Findley’s former boss, U.S. Rep. Steve King, has threatened to sue Obama over the deferrals, but I haven’t seen a petition filed.
I think the Branstad administration/DOT could have come to a different, less narrow, legal conclusion, but nobody’s asked me for a ruling. They never do. I’ve heard folks say this is a political decision. But I don’t see the upside.
The practical effect of all this legal hair-splitting is that there are an estimated 5,000 young people in Iowa who are now legally authorized to stay here, go to school, hold a job, etc., but can’t get a state driver’s license. It’s a prohibition that benefits absolutely no one but could do considerable harm. Even if you’re opposed to Obama’s action, it seems pretty clear that putting these immigrants’ jobs in jeopardy, or pushing them to drive without a license or insurance, is not a good outcome.
State lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have, smartly, raised objections, which raises the possibility of some sort of legislative remedy to the DOT’s ruling. Soon, hopefully.
The ACLU of Iowa has now weighed in, pointing to new guidance from the U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security clarifying that immigrants eligible for deferrals are authorized by the DHS to be “lawfully present” for two years. But lawfully present is still not “lawful status.”
So I doubt the Branstad administration or DOT will change its interpretation of existing law, but I bet the governor would sign a legislative fix. And I still expect this to be remedied when the dust settles. Call me an optimist or a fool.
If not, there will be plenty to write about.
-u20042.png?1366232523)
“State lawmakers on both sides of the isle have, smartly, raised objections…” One Republican lawmaker, Dawn Pettengill, of Benton County, has not raised objections but rather publicly voiced approval of the DOT decision.
The simple fact is the people are illegal aliens. As much as liberals love the idea of the executive ignoring laws, Remember that the next executive could just ignore all of the gun laws. All of the new laws in New York? Gone after then next election. Easy peasy. This used to be a nation that prided itself on the rule of law, sadly Obama has made it a joke.
As far as the drivers license issue. Officials have no choice. They are not elected. They are hired to uphold the law, Its one thing for Obama to ignore the law, quite another to demand every one ignore the law. Obama is not capable of thinking thru his actions and the domino effect they have down the line.
Prosecuters can choose not to prosecute, because the system of electing them is supposed to keep them honest. But like we know with David Gregory, laws are for the little people. And David Gregory is a member of the ruling elite, exempt from laws that returning veterans are jailed for breaking.
Did anybody bother to get the AG’s opinion on this? Seems like his office would carry a lot more weight in the interpretation of the Iowa Code than does a department head whose most important function is to ensure that the state lays in enough salt and sand to last the winter.
In any event, if there is a dispute between two parties over the interpretation of state law, it should be settled the Old Fashioned Way: in court.
I know little about the Director of the IDOT beyond the fact that he was a 2011 Branstad appointee, was a Wisconsin resident prior to that, and has a BS degree in engineering. How that qualifies him to make what in effect is a legal ruling is a mystery to me. He’s entitled to his opinion of course, but that should not have the force of law behind it.