“Illegal alien” is no longer a politically correct term to describe a person who came across the U.S. border or overstayed a visa in violation of federal law. But it remains a term used to describe a class of people who are illegally in the country without permission from all over the world.
The term is a legal classification set forth in federal law as follows:
Section 1252(c) “Aliens and Nationality” – “Authorizing State and local law enforcement officials to arrest and detain certain illegal aliens.” ICE and other law enforcement are authorized to:
“…arrest and detain an individual who— (1) is an alien illegally present in the United States; and (2) has previously been convicted of a felony in the United States and deported or left the United States after such conviction.”
But many terms exist that can describe the same type of person who snuck across or overstayed their travel, or student Visa without permission, including:
“inadmissible aliens” or “unauthorized aliens.” Su wrote that “inadmissible aliens” and “deportable aliens” are different individuals under the INA, and have specific criteria, he said, with “inadmissible aliens” probably “closest to how the term ‘illegal aliens’ is commonly used (federal law treats those who enter without inspection to be construed as not having been ‘admitted’)” (See above source).
But due to the number of terms to describe someone here without permission, “illegal alien” has been the term that has stuck. Liberals believe the term is racist, and conservatives think the name is simply a legal term to describe someone who broke the law. As a result, liberal cities and states have declared themselves sanctuary states, and are now offering illegal aliens special protections from federal law not available to natural-born citizens. California set down a controversial path when it decided to issue driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants.
The reasoning went that these alien immigrants would now be covered with automobile insurance in case of a crash. So like all pretexts with good intentions, the reasons are given to give these people valid identifications were reducing and spreading many risks on California’s roads. One of the issues that led to the decision was the high number of hit and run accidents that occurred after an uninsured driver hit another vehicle or pedestrian.
What California is finding out quickly is that this well-meaning bit of social engineering made the situation worse– a lot worse. Some of the illegals did get the required insurance. But many others decided not to keep the policy. So now, the state needs all drivers to show proof of insurance when receiving a license– but not during the period afterward. Accordingly, it has become a prevalent trend for illegal immigrants to drop coverage the day they receive their licenses.
Growing out of Assembly Bill 60, Governor Jerry Brown signed it into law in 2013 as one of his significant accomplishments. Recently, the Fresno Bee published an editorial in which it explained that the issue with drivers sans insurance did not go away. In 2014 a half million illegals gained driver’s licenses under the plan.
California expanded a program to allow these drivers to buy subsidized auto insurance. So far just a paltry 875 have. During a similar period, the California Highway Patrol reported 66,000 citations for operating a vehicle with no insurance.
Good intentions often have adverse outcomes. In fact, there have been high-profile crashes in which drivers will give false information to the other driver or police. However, this has reached near epidemic levels, with many accident cases going unsolved.
It has hit many in the legal field especially hard, as, it has become desperate to take on auto accident liability cases because of these factors. The problem only compounds as those that cause such accidents to drive off with little to no repercussions.
New Jersey is considering going down a similar path, local media reported. So the disaster on California’s roads should act as a lesson, rather than a precedent for other states. Rather than being an act of compassion, the state’s activism has instead directly led to hundreds of unreported accidents. And because of this, there are untold numbers of injuries and fatalities.
Our legislators in Sacramento have the opportunity to step up over the next several years. At least they could put in place much stricter guidelines to check insurance. After all, this would significantly reduce strain on drivers fearing a hit-and-run accident. And this helps serve justice in and out of court.