Letter To The Editor

Note: As of the date of this posting on the AmericanPatrol.com site the article below had not been published in the publication to which it was addressed.

Re: Immigrant driver's license plan stalls
Orange Co. Register, Dec. 16, 2001

More euphemisms, more fuzzy thinking

Editor:

The front-page article by Hanh Kim Quach describing the problems in installing a system for supplying driver's licenses to "undocumented immigrants" illustrates once again the prevalence of bias, euphemism, persiflage, and flummery in the treatment of illegal immigration among our elected representatives and our mainstream media ("Immigrant driver's license plan stalls," News, Deck. 16, p. 1). The article repeatedly refers to "undocumented immigrants," but what exactly does that expression mean? It sounds benign, conjuring up the image of a visitor who simply lacks the proper paperwork -- a minor technicality that can be corrected with a brief visit to the right office and completion of the right government forms. But let us remember that an undocumented immigrant is an illegal alien -- a foreign national who has violated our country's immigration laws and crossed our borders unlawfully. What a seemingly minor alteration in wording, but what a major impact in meaning! Why can't we call things what they are?

The proposed bill is sponsored by Assemblyman Gil Cedillo, who has made a reputation leading the effort to open our Southern borders and expand social services for illegals, a relevant fact that seems to have escaped the author of the article. And the statement by Liz Guillen, legislative counsel for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Foundation (MALDEF) is, to put it charitably, self-serving. In quoting Ms. Guillen the article says, "This year 'there was more of a recognition of the importance that being allowed to obtain a license was a necessity in our automobile society' than opposition to the fact that many of the immigrants were undocumented." It takes some effort to cut through the verbal fog here, but first of all, what's the main point of the sentence? Surely it is that somebody thought the illegals' desire to drive was more important than our desire to enforce our immigration laws. Note the vagueness of attribution in the "there was. . . a recognition" construction: exactly where, how, and by whom was this recognition manifested? Was this an epiphany on the part of Ms. Guillen? And where's the balance in reportorial treatment? Couldn't reporter Quach come up with even one perspective from an immigration reform source?

According to the article, Governor Davis's main concern with the proposed driver's license procedure is that licenses might "fall into the wrong hands" -- presumably meaning the hands of terrorists. Obviously the governor has no objection to supplying licenses to illegals. (This is, after all, the same governor who proclaimed at a townhall meeting televised via Spanish TV on May 19, 1999, his vision of open borders when he happily foresaw the day when California and Mexico would be viewed as "one vast, magnificent region.") Indeed, the issue of supplying licenses to illegals is practically lost in the article itself, including the quotations from Senator Ross Johnson and Assemblyman John Campbell. What everybody seems to be worried about is that the new system will let the wrong illegals get driver's licenses. Nobody seems to care much that we're installing a system designed to violate our immigration laws.

True S.
Los Alamitos, CA