Gov. Branstad, Iowa legislators reach health-care expansion accord
Iowa City proposes cuts to SEATS transit for elderly, disabled
Update: Authorities find backpacks, purse in Dayton abduction case
Peeping trial of accused Iowa City landlord moved to July
Cedar Rapids telethon today to aid in Oklahoma tornado recovery
Should Iowa issue driver’s licenses to work-eligible illegal immigrants?
Related Stories
A civil liberties organization is “terribly disappointed” in an Iowa Department of Transportation decision to cease issuing driver’s licenses to young illegal immigrants eligible to work in this country under an Obama administration deferred prosecution policy.
The department has issued at least one driver’s license and one non-operator’s ID since President Obama announced his Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. Obama changed federal policy in June to let certain illegal immigrants apply for a temporary work permit if they were brought to the country as children.
However, after reviewing the memorandum issued by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security on the deferred prosecution of illegal immigrants as it relates to Iowa law, the DOT concluded it did not have authority to issue those documents, DOT Director Paul Trombino III said in December.
Ben Stone of the American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa believes the DOT misinterpreted Iowa law. The ACLU and its allies will seek to reverse the decision through the courts and Iowa Legislature as well as ask DOT to reconsider.
It’s the ACLU Iowa’s contention that illegal immigrants who came to this country before they were 16 years old should be considered as lawful residents, Stone said.
A Gazette editorial published Wednesday questions the decision.
“This state-federal clash, also playing out in Michigan and Arizona, is troubling,” says the editorial. “Young illegal immigrants who qualify for a permit can hold a job in Iowa but won’t be able to drive to work. That could make it more difficult to get or keep jobs and be taxpayers.
“The American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa believes the DOT misinterpreted current Iowa law and plans a legal challenge if the DOT doesn’t reconsider. So who is correct?
“The DOT appears to be following at least the letter of the law,” the editorial continues. “Yet its decision strikes us as a narrow interpretation that penalizes young immigrants brought here illegally as children through no fault of their own who want to be responsible, productive workers. It’s also telling of the nation’s still-muddled immigration policy.
“Iowa legislative leaders have signaled little interest in resolving this issue. But instead of letting it drag out in the courts, couldn’t lawmakers issue a temporary waiver? That would seem more in line with the spirit of the work permit.”
What do you think? Should Iowa reconsider its decision to cease issuing driver’s licenses to young illegal immigrants eligible to work in this country?
-u20042.png?1366232523)
“Should Iowa issue driver’s licenses to work-eligible illegal immigrants?”
Seriously….what is it these people don’t understand about illegal???
What don’t you understand about “work-eligible” ?
The “Dream Act” is not an automatic pass. They are not illegal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DREAM_Act
I mean “legal”
Actually, Dave, what the deal is about are Dream Act kids. By executive order they are here legally. To arbitrarily deny them a driver’s license is both stupid and mean spirited.
Iowa DOT is wrong on this
And the Gazette deserves a wag of the finger for a sloppy headline
“By executive order they are here legally.”
Correction. By executive order they are not being charged with the crime they are commiting.
The are still violating the law.
Facts are facts
If you have a work visa in other countries they let you drive. Why should we discriminate based on country of origin when they are legally here? How does anyone work without a license for the most part? It isn’t fair and it isn’t good policy.
Yeah if you have a LEGAL work visa in other countries you can drive, that is correct. The key word is LEGAL visa, which means you are NOT a citizen and are here on a VISA. You cant have a work visa if you are an illegal immigrant.
Chrzan,
If you remember, which seems not the case, President Obama issued an executive order last June stopping deportation of Dream Act eligible individuals. For the time being these people are here legally and are eligible for a work permit. A LEGAL work permit
The president, not you, is empowered to make these decisions by Article II Section 1, clause 1 and Article II Section 3, clause 5 of the US Constitution.
Presidents have been issuing executive orders since 1785. The power to issue executive orders predates the Constitution by 2 years.
The argument here is whether or not the Iowa DOT can deny people who are here LEGALLY and with a LEGAL work permit a driver’s license
“The President must “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”[13] This clause in the U.S. Constitution imposes a duty on the President to take due care while executing laws and is called Take Care Clause,[14] also known as the Faithful Execution Clause.[15] The purpose of this clause is to ensure that a law is faithfully executed by the President,[14] even if the president disagrees with the purpose of that law”
As usual the words dont mean what you think they mean.
Besides the fact that you are out of your depth, the wholesale ignorance is astounding. I can hardly contain myself until you explain how executive orders have been around 2 years longer than the existance of the executive, and how any power can predate the constitution. Do tell.
On a side note, being in awe of the Presidents power to choose which laws to enforce, puts you in a postion to defend the next president who decides that restrictive laws passed by congress violating the enumerated rights of gun owners, shall just be ignored.
Be careful of what you advocate for.
Williamson,
You keep saying “words don’t mean what you think they mean.”
You know, every day in every way you are sounding more and more like John Ehrlichman. In case you’ve forgotten, he’s the guy that got smushed by Sam Ervin forty years ago. In case you’ve forgotten, you can look him up
As for your enumerated Second Amendment rights, on a side note, you have the right to keep and bear a single shot muzzle loading musket. You can throw in the bayonet for free. And the funny hat
Ms Bell I dont know what else to tell you. The cites you reference dont say what you think they say. The constitution directs the executive to faithfully enforce the laws as passed by congress. Your cite does not say what you think it says.
You are in awe of the president for picking and choosing the laws he wants the federal govt to enforce. I just pointed out that the power you love so can also be used by a president to ignore laws you think are important. Like gun restrictions.
As usual you fall back on the claim that according to the constitution I can only carry a musket, so your logic (?) would mean only newspapers are covered by the 1st amendment, and warrentless searches are fine for cars, since they didnt exist at the ratification of the constitution.
Try to be consistant.
“These perceived justifications cited by Presidents when authoring Executive Orders have come under criticism for exceeding Executive authority; at various times throughout U.S. history, challenges to the legal validity or justification for an order have resulted in legal proceedings”.
Our laws regarding immigration preceded Obama by many years….executive orders are not written in stone.
Yeah, Dave, but until they get changed or hit their expiration date, executive orders have the force of law which stones do not.
Don’t like it? Sue the president. You can do that you know.
As long as you’re going to be quoting without citing Wikipedia, we might as well go on to the next paragraph:
“U.S. presidents have issued executive orders since 1785. Although there is no Constitutional provision or statute that explicitly permits executive orders, there is a vague grant of “executive power” given in Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 of the Constitution, and furthered by the declaration “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” made in Article II, Section 3, Clause 5. Most Executive Orders use these Constitutional reasonings as the authorization allowing for their issuance”
Now please explain how the paragraph you copy/pasted relates to the Dream Act executive order. Did the President overstep his authority and if so, how?
“If you have a work visa in other countries they let you drive. Why should we discriminate based on country of origin when they are legally here?”
They aren’t here legally. No law was passed saying that; there was just a change in enforcement policy driven by a unilateral presdiential order.
Galt,
By executive order, repeat executive order, these people are here legally. Presidents have been issuing executive orders for the past two hundred and twenty eight years.
If you want to argue over the way our government has been functioning since day one, go ahead. But your objection to executive orders as such has no bearing whatsoever on the status of these individuals.
No, the law did not change; they were simply told that wouldn’t be prosecuted.
Just because you want something is so, and your grand exalted leader tells you it is, does not make it so.
I have to come forward and admit that Ms Bell is correct and everyone that disagrees (including myself) are wrong.
The constitutional tenet that the executive power of the President is superior to the laws enacted by congress was settled by a constitutional expert on May of 1977. We learned that when the President does it, its not illegal
http://my.spill.com/profiles/blogs/when-the-president-does-it
Yeah, Willliamson, except Nixon’s presumed abuses of power were vetted by both the House and the Senate. Nixon was impeached and would have been removed from office if he hadn’t removed himself first.
The topic here is the Dream Act which was first introduced in the Senate in 2001 by Dick Durbin (Illinois D) and Orin Hatch (Utah R). It has been re-introduced and re-introduced and re-introduced with majority support but has been blocked by procedural moves and filibusters.
It has, and has had, majority and bi-partisan support in both the House and the Senate, and strong public support as well. A Pew Research Poll done in May of 2011 found 74% support for a path to citizenship for undocumented people living in the United States.
Obama’s executive order is a clear expression of not only the will of Congress but also the will of the people.
Just because you don’t like what the President does doesn’t make it illegal or unconstitutional or any of the other things you may want to claim.
Now can you drop the name calling and give me a valid and researched and fact-based argument. For a change
“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they’re ignorant; it’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.”
Wow! How true is that?!
Nixon was not impeached (Must have him confused with Clinton)
There is NO Dream Act. A piece of legislation that has never been passed by the legislature is out there, but we are not governed by pieces if legislation.
We are not governed by Pew polls, if we were we would have fewer abortions and more guns.
I never said executive orders are not legal or unconstitutional. In this case Obama’s executive order to enforcement officials to ignore the law and stop enforcement, does not invalidate the law. Other agencies, like the Iowa DOT are still bound by the letter, and intent, of the law. They also do not have the power to operate under the power of the Pew Polling Corp.
I have yet to call you or anyone else pajorative names.
I’m sure in all of your posts there is something factual, I just dont recall.
Williamson,
My very favorite line in your post is “We are not governed by Pew polls, if we were we would have fewer abortions and more guns”.
You do know, Mr Williamson, what is meant by the phrase “to live in a bubble”. No we are not governed by Pew Polls, but we are governed by elections. And you, obviously, haven’t been paying attention.
What happens next with regard to abortion, guns, or even the Gazette topic at hand—which is immigration reform, not guns or abortion—-is not up to you. Because people who think the way you do are not in the majority. People who think the way you do got blindsided in the last election because you firmly believe that public opinion polls are irrelevant, rigged, false. It’s the old “Silent Majority” all over again.
Got news for you. If you continue to believe that the Majority is Silent, prepare to be blindsided again
“This state-federal clash, also playing out in Michigan and Arizona, is troubling,” says the editorial. “Young illegal immigrants who qualify for a permit can hold a job in Iowa but won’t be able to drive to work.”
Or vote.
“That could make it more difficult to get or keep jobs and be taxpayers.”
At a time of high unemployment, when American citizens find it hard to get or keep job and be taxpayers, that doesn’t seem like a high-priority concern.
“It’s also telling of the nation’s still-muddled immigration policy.”
The enforcement may be muddled, but the law is clear. It just isn’t what the Gazette would apparently like.
“Iowa legislative leaders have signaled little interest in resolving this issue.”
Which is no excuse to bypass the legislature. Perhaps they are just representing the interests of their constituents.
Galt,
You said “Perhaps they are just representing the interests of their constituents”
I’m old enough to remember jim crow. Perhaps you are not or you simply don’t care. The state legislators who passed those laws were representing the interests and wishes of their constituents. That didn’t make those laws any less wrong or any less reprehensible.
Now we can get into a discussion of what, exactly, is in the interest of, say, the Iowa business sector—as in why do certain businesses keep on hiring undocumented workers when they know they are breaking the law—but that’s anohter topic.
Or is it.
So you’re basically saying “we can’t have representatives actually represent the wishes of their constitutents because there was Jim Crow in the old south!”
Do you really think emotional appeals based on recounting injustices that were done before I was born have, which have nothing to do with the topic at hand will sway me?
And then in the second paragraph, on to another irrelevant argument involving unproven allegations and false moral equivalency, all the while ignoring lawbreaking by the group you’re arguing.
Mr Galt, what I am saying is that the appalling three hundred year history of slavery and jim crow in this country is why we must be careful when it comes to the wishes of constituents.
We are a nation based on rule of law, not mob. Please keep that in mind.
As for injustices done before you were born being irrelevant, I thought you were one of those people who thought that way. Just a reminder. The world didn’t begin on the day you were born and it won’t end on the day you die.
“Mr Galt, what I am saying is that the appalling three hundred year history of slavery and jim crow in this country is why we must be careful when it comes to the wishes of constituents.
We are a nation based on rule of law, not mob.”
Except when you want to use that mob to trample the Second Amendment rights of people, amiright?