Illegal Alien Lobby Strikes Back
The illegal alien lobby is back with a vengeance. You may remember SB 60, the idiotic bill that Joe “Gray” “Gris” Davis signed in hopes of heading off the recall that ended his career last fall. You know the rest: referendum proponents easily gathered the signatures they needed, and the new governor used them to persuade the Legislature to repeal its own bill, promising to work with them in future bills that address its security issues. Among these issues was the fact that pre-1993 licenses, like the ones that would have been issued under SB 60, imply that illegal aliens are in fact legal residents. Soon it became clear that the Governator would not sign a bill that did not distinguish illegal aliens’ licenses from those of citizens or lawful resident, a requirement which long-time illegal alien lobbyist/legislator Gil “Ha, ha, just kidding about that ‘public safety’ thing” Cedillo decried as a deal-breaker. As recently as Thursday, the Orange County Register declared the concept dead.
So if you are like most rational human beings, you probably thought the Fake IDs for Illegal Aliens Act was dead and buried for at least the year, if not for the remainder of Schwarzenegger’s term. Think again. Since February, Ass. Bill 2895 was a bill relating to domestic violence, which had nothing whatsoever to do with driver licenses for illegal aliens. Suddenly, on Friday, the Legislature gutted and amended the old bill out of existence, replacing it with a new bill to issue driver licenses to illegal aliens. You know “illegal aliens,” right? You know, the guys who aren’t supposed to be here, but are anyway? They’re the same guys who cryptostupid people often refer to as “undocumented workers,” regardless of whether they actually work, and regardless of whether or not adequate documentation exists to prove the illegality of their presence in this country. Once that domestic violence bill had been beaten to death by the very woman it had trusted to protect it, the abuser turned murderer easily sailed through both houses of the Legislature, on a near-party line vote. On the one hand, every single Republican - including the moderate ones that an Angry Rottweiler or a Spoon might otherwise decry as a RINO - cast a vote against this monstrosity. On the other, only three Assembly Democrats - and none in the Senate - did, with three other Democrats in each house (and again,
No biggie, you might say. After all, Ahnold has already assured us that he would never sign a turkey like that, right? Right. Trouble is, he doesn’t have to. Unless you’ve been living under a rock, you are probably aware that something else is going on next week which just might lure Mr. Schwarzenegger out of the state. Once his plane crosses the Nevambleda state line, guess who becomes acting governor? That’s right, MEChA-Man himself!
Lest you harbor any illusions that MEChA-Man would hesitate to usurp the governor’s power and sign a driver licenses for illegal aliens bill himself if given the chance, take a gander at this L.A. Times article, which I obtained from the Save Our License email alert. Money quote:
On Saturday, Cedillo and members of the governor’s staff acknowledged that approval of the bill by Bustamante was a possibility, however remote.
Asked about such a move, the lieutenant governor declined to state any intention.
“I’m very supportive of the bill,” Bustamante said through a spokesman. “As to whether I would sign it or not — that calls for an extreme amount of speculation.”
Actually, no, it doesn’t. Based on a statement like that, I have to conclude that Bustamecha is either being deliberately coy, or he is planning on signing the bill and faxing a copy of his middle finger to the real governor’s hotel in New York. It wouldn’t take any speculation on his part to say what his intentions are. Thus, the real governor has to consider that there is a real possibility MEChA-Man will hijack the process and sign this horrible bill if given the chance. Given that possibility, here are the Governator’s options, as I see them:
- Veto the bill before leaving. This would be the ideal option, of course. I’m not sure it really is an option, though. According to the Legislature’s web site, Ass. Bill 2895 has not yet been enrolled or sent to the governor for signature. He can’t veto what isn’t on his desk, and the bill may not reach his desk until it’s too late to catch a flight to his scheduled speech. Even that assumes he hasn’t left already, which he probably has, as his original itinerary had him leaving yesterday. If he’s left, it’s a bit late to exercise that option, though theoretically he could fly back briefly just to veto it, and then fly back to New York again. Massive jetlag, but minor compared to traveling 45 years back in time, so it’s doable.
- Skip the convention. Short of actually signing Ass. Bill 2895, this is the worst option of all. For all we know, maybe Cedillo, Nunez and the rest knew their bill wouldn’t stick and the whole idea behind this stunt was to put the national GOP convention in disarray. If he takes that bait, the terrorists will have won.
- Stick to the Original Schedule. This option all but invites MEChA-Man to “make Schwarzenegger’s day.” It’s high stakes poker, in a way, but the stakes aren’t really as high as they may look at a glance. After all, if the bill were signed during Schwarzenegger’s absence, he could suspend enforcement pending a referendum that would easily qualify for the ballot, even more easily than the last effort, in which Schwarzenegger played no role. So in a sense, the bill wouldn’t really do anything, except to “get out the vote” among Republicans, independents and sane Democrats, and maybe even spark a new recall effort against that moron who never should have been elected to the position in the first place. I’d like to think it may lead to a reform allowing statewide recalls of individual legislators, but that may be a bit too much to hope for.
UPDATE: Dan Weintraub says no way, no how, citing a KTKZ interview in which the governor’s ommunications director, Rob Stutzman, assured listeners that the governor will veto AB 2895 and “won’t let anyone else get their hands on it before he does so.” I’m not convinced, for two reasons. First, Weintraub names the wrong bill, SB 1160 (the original Cedillo bill), and dismisses as a “rumor” and a “tale” the possibility that Cruz Bustamante might sign the bill - a possibility Bustamante himself refuses to rule out. These two errors suggest that Weintraub has not been following this issue as closely he ordinarily would. Second, neither Weintraub nor Stutzman has offered any explanation at all as to what, exactly, a governor can do from outside the state to prevent the Legislature from sending an enrolled bill to the desk of the acting governor. Until Ahnold’s plane touches down in Kalifornia, I don’t rule anything out.
UPDATE x2: Weintraub has fixed the reference to the bill number, but has not explained how, or even if, a governor absent from the state can prevent a lieutenant governor from doing anything that the governor himself could do while inside the state. Meanwhile, this idle radio talk show rumor has spread to the pages of Weintraub’s own newspaper, which reported as recently as Tuesday that Gil Cedillo was still urging Cruz Bustamante to sign the bill (h/t: Lonewacko) if it reached his desk before Schwarzenegger returned. Forget Weintraub and Stutzman’s glib assurances, folks. This one ain’t over till it’s over, and may not even be over then.







August 29th, 2004 at 9:42 pm
I’ve got a 2003 quote from Bustamante saying he won’t be like Mike (Curb).
If Bustamante signs this, it might end up being a good thing all things considered. I’m pretty sure a lot of people would get really angry. Angry enough to forget that you aren’t supposed to be opposed to legislators who more or less represent other countries.
I also doubt whether Arnold enjoys the Nazi allusions Gil and others have been inserting in newspaper articles about this.
This whole episode should be put into a brochure and mailed to R and centrist politicians in other states. Hopefully they’d see that illegal immigration isn’t worth it and put pressure on Bush to finally enforce our laws and on their local business community to mechanize rather than import serfs.
August 30th, 2004 at 1:10 pm
In this morning’s news: an illegal immigrants lobby is complaining that the process whereby they can choose to be flown home - at our expence - rather than go though an immigration hearing, deprives them of their rights.
Other people are grumbling about the 14th Amendment, whereby anyone born here is a citizen.
I don’t think we’re going to be able to change that, but I think I gave a good alternative plan:
If you’re born here, you’re a citizen, fair and square. But your parents are not.
Keep the kid, deport the parents. Put the kids in state-supported schools - boarding schools, where they’d all be taught - in English - according to their abilities. The end result would be loyal, patriotic laborers, engineers, scientists, soldiers, lawmakers, &c.
August 30th, 2004 at 1:26 pm
The Dems are just fighting to hold on to Parra’s seat. If they had Bustamante sign the bill they’d galvanize Republicans in time for November ‘04, probably get the referendum on the March or November ‘05 ballot or whatever, and get Bustamante recalled. All in all, I doubt it…It would be a very VERY high stakes game of chicken with almost all risk and no reward for the Dems, doesn’t mean it won’t happen, but it does make the whole thing unlikely.
August 30th, 2004 at 9:48 pm
Ugh.
Statewide recall of local legislators would be bad. It would turn local elections into statewide ones, with all of the implications of that - they would become more expensive, legislators would become less responsive to their constituents and more responsive to the people paying for campaigns, etc. It’s a terrible idea, no matter how much you might like to recall bay area legislators and I might like to recall OC legislators.
August 30th, 2004 at 11:44 pm
I understand the cost issue, but I’m not sure why you think it would be such a bad thing for legislators to have some level of responsibility to the state as a whole. Care to elaborate a bit further? After all, the laws they pass affect the entire state, not just their local districts, which are themselves drawn in strange ways to protect their turf, not to represent discrete segments of the population who each need to be represented.
Also, I’m curious as to your position on California’s policy of assigning all electoral votes to whoever wins the “popular vote” statewide. Isn’t the issue fundamentally the same? I for one rather resent the fact that I’ve already effectively “voted” for John Kerry in November and for the Hildebeest (or whoever) in 2008, solely by virtue of having admitted to the U.S. Census that I resided in California in 2000.
August 31st, 2004 at 12:53 am
Nightmare Scenario in California?
XRLQ has the goods, via David Orland: So if you are like most rational human beings, you probably thought the Fake IDs for Illegal Aliens Act was dead and buried for at least the year, if not for the remainder…
August 31st, 2004 at 10:38 am
XRLQ - the entire point behind having districted elections is to allow the interests of the particular region to be represented, right? My legislator should be free to argue that gay marriage should be allowed despite the fact that it’s a minority position statewide; he should not be subject to recall for it if he is accurately representing the people of this area. Similarly, your legislator should be able to argue on the floor of the legislature for a resumption of offshore oil drilling, if it accurately represents the views of your district.
This is especially true given the size of the state. It’s one thing to allow recalls locally; there’s a reasonable chance that i’ll know what my legislator stands for (in Santa Cruz I did; in San Mateo, it’s less clear to me, but then i’ve just moved here). I don’t know what the vast majority of individuals in the legislature stand for - which means that smear campaigns are far more likely to work.
As for the electoral college: i’d just as soon abolish it. :) But if we’re going to be stuck with it, then I really don’t care whether it’s districted or not.
As a side note, this is another example of why California should ditch the anachronistic provision that makes the governor not the governor whenever he leaves the state.
August 31st, 2004 at 12:09 pm
We may be talking about two different things. I agree that California voters as a group should not be allowed to recall Mark Leno simply because he supports gay marriage and they don’t. Perhaps they should be able to recall him, though, for refusing to abide by the California Constitution and sponsoring AB 1967. Appealing to voters to abolish Prop 22 is fine; merely ignoring the law and attempting to circumvent it is not.
That’s kind of how I feel about this driver licenses for illegals issue. Gil Cedillo basically gave away the game when he refused to agree to Arnold’s suggestion that illegal aliens’ licenses be marked as such. That basically killed whatever credibility the “public safety” argument may have once enjoyed, making it clear that Cedillo’s only real motive for pushing this issue was to undermine federal immigration law.
In both cases, malfeasance is the issue, not mere disagreement on the substantive issue. The trouble is, the locals will never bust their guy for breaking the rules, as long as the rules are broken in a manner that helps their side of the debate. If Gavin Newsom had issued 4,000 illegal concealed carry permits to people who did not qualify for them, Frisco voters would have had his head on a platter. But when he showed equal contempt for the Family Code, he became a hero.