There are dozens of questions concerning the bill awarding to
illegal immigrants special licenses marked “FOR DRIVING PURPOSES ONLY,” some of
which were discussed, others not, as the bill wended its way through the
General Assembly .
Just to begin with, the notation on the license is at least
in one respect like the Jewish star pinned on clothing during the Nazi period,
the purpose of which was to alert authorities that the wearer was a doubtful-citizen
slated for special treatment – or, as it turned out, mistreatment.
Legal immigrants, once they are embraced by their chosen
country, simply disappear into the patriotic woodwork; they become citizens.
“Undocumented immigrants,” having been documented with a license that singles
them out as “the other,” do not therefore become citizens invested with the
full panoply of citizens’ rights. They cannot use their licenses to vote, for
example, which seems to be the primary reason their license will be marked “FOR
DRIVING PURPOSES ONLY.”
Senator Joe Markley lightly fingered the point when he
explained why he opposed the bill:
“I oppose this legislation because I
believe firmly in the essential importance of citizenship. And I believe there
is no other ground on which we can meet, but as citizens of the United States.
As citizens, we are equal. We stand on the same principles. We stand devoted to
the same flag. We are subject to the same laws."
Illegal
immigrants do not become legal immigrants simply because Connecticut, possibly
the most progressive state in the union, has chosen to invest illegals with
documentation that sets them apart from other citizens.
Governor Dannel
Malloy, who used to be a prosecutor before he began to dabble in politics,
issued a brief statement after he had signed the bill into law:
“This bill is first and foremost about public safety. It’s
about knowing who is driving on our roads, and doing everything we can to make
sure those drivers are safe and that they’re operating registered, insured
vehicles. There’s a reason these measures have been supported by local police
and city leaders, and that other states are taking similar common-sense
steps. They’re changes that benefit
everyone taking a car out onto our roads and highways.
“It should also be noted that, like many issues, action on
the federal level would address this problem in an even more comprehensive and
sensible way. I continue to support
those broader efforts at national reform, and urge Congress to follow the example
being set by Connecticut and other states.”
The other states that have taken the “similar common sense
steps” mention by Mr. Malloy are few in number. Only five states have passed a
law similar to the one signed by Mr. Malloy. These few states, we are to
understand from Mr. Malloy’s media release following passage of the bill, are
blessed with legislators who are blessed with “common sense.” The slim numbers confirm the common suspicion
that “nothing is so uncommon as common sense.” We are left to ponder the
proposition that the 45 states that have not passed similar legislation are
populated by arrant dreamers. The “police and city leaders” in other states
less cutting edge than Connecticut who have not yet been thunderstruck by
commonsense are, however, in the majority.
How will the special licenses be distributed? Does
Connecticut have a list of undocumented, about to be documented, illegal immigrants?
Will those awarded the license – hopefully after passing driving tests – be
required to show they have purchased insurance before the licenses are handed
out? Will the insurance and registration documentation similarly be marked to
show that the holder is not invested with full citizenship rights? Will the
insurance and registration cards be marked “FOR DRIVING PURPOSES ONLY?” If not,
can the insurance or registration documents be presented to poll watchers as
proof that the bearer may legitimately vote in federal, state and municipal
election and referenda?
Mr. Malloy has noted that the federal government could
address the issue of quasi- citizenship “in an even more comprehensive and
sensible way.” But of course it has not, and the difference in treatment
creates a certain moral and legal stress in Connecticut. What are the
obligations of ordinary citizens presented with documentation that certifies the
holder is in the country illegally? Is there a legal obligation to report such
persons to federal authorities and may the person who fails to do so be cited? If
a police officer pulls over for a driving infraction an undocumented immigrant
who has no “FOR DRIVING PURPOSES ONLY” license, must the officer report that
person to federal authorities for deportation? Will the record of illegal
immigrants eligible to receive special licenses in Connecticut be shared with
a) Connecticut enforcement officials and b) federal enforcement officials?
The process written into law in Connecticut not only creates
a quasi-dual citizenship; it also creates – since federal and state laws are
now in opposition to each other – dual legal obligations. Common sense would
suggest that citizens of Connecticut should not be torn thus between the state Scylla
and the federal Charybdis.
Comments