Some years back there was an attempt to offer the means to obtain driver's licenses for undocumented aliens but many people revolted at this and it did not pass. This would have allowed a means to document and track them and allow for them to comply with other broader laws.

Like it or not it appears that the American workforce needs temporary workers, or at least the corporate powers strongly desire to have such workers and cheap labor. Decades ago it was much easier to obtain temporary immigration status for such workers but there were problems such as labor unions being formed to uphold better working conditions for these people, sanitation facilities on the job, and provide them worker's rights, overtime pay, etc. It just was not economically profitable to allow this to go on. The solution was to not allow them full recognized legal status so that these labor demands could be side-stepped and their less than legal status made it precarious to obtain these conditions. By working "under the radar" all were happy, the workers got paid and the employers did not have to give them full worker's rights under the law.

This is a less-than-perfect world and now it seems other laws need to be side-stepped in order for our corporate leaders to continue side-stepping laws pertaining to labor. In my opinion our problems have to do with having too many laws and side-steps and now it becomes like crossing a minefield as these legal hazards continue to blow-up when navigating through them.

Why don't they do that for EVERY poor person and not just illegal immigrants? Sounds like racial discrimination to me.

I know I'm getting old, and they do say the memory is the first to go, but I swear I was taught back in school that the police force had two duties: Protect and serve the public, and uphold the laws.

Protect and serve was actually struck down by the courts. Now upholding the law is optional as well?

If I take a job washing dishes and refuse to wash the dishes, I get fired.

So when a police officer takes a job upholding the law and refuses to uphold the law, they get fired. Right?

If wrong, I submit that we no longer need police. We instead need vigilantes and guns-for-hire. At least they don't cost the taxpayers while ignoring the laws.

I hope I'm not wrong.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Protect and serve was actually struck down by the courts. Now upholding the law is optional as well?

If wrong, I submit that we no longer need police. We instead need vigilantes and guns-for-hire. At least they don't cost the taxpayers while ignoring the laws.

I hope I'm not wrong.

TheRedneck

The Wild West days and vigilante justice was a much less complicated system than the legal maze we have today. There were actually less people getting hurt and killed under those conditions and mass murdering and genocide didn't obtain a strong foothold until government stepped in to call it war or taming the west for us "civilized" people.

Our vast system of law and justice appears to be aimed less at creating an equality for everyone than it is to provide side-steps, loopholes, and back doors for those who feel a need to get around systems of fair play designed for the common man. Navigating through a minefield I believe is an apt analogy for living our modern lives in today's system of justice for all.

ETA: Recalling from last week's ATS Live discussion I seem to recall where it is legally precarious for police to physically handle or "smack" a subject, particularly minors. That is how it has now become acceptable to use a taser on a 9-year-old. - A bit off-topic comment but I belive it helps illustrate our modern legal reality.

Living in California is surreal.

Other states will follow.

I live in Los Angeles and if they they impound my car (as a LEGAL citizen) I'm going to sue the living S*** out of the city on discrimination.

Part of the reasons stated for the law says that Illegal Immigrants can't afford the impound fees and such...as if ANYONE can. As if I can?????

We live in a nation where citizens are now discriminated against in favor of ILLEGAL nationals who DON'T BELONG HERE.

I hope Los Angeles residents just start driving around without licenses to bait them into a law suit and break the bank of these traitors.

But knowing Los Angeles, the people are too lazy and to "Politically Correct" to even care.

Perhaps the police, when they encounter someone in this country illegally, should be required to give then $100 for the inconvenience of being stopped and then clean their windshields ?

Or better, the police should be required to provide them with donuts!

Originally posted by eazyriderl_l
After decades of watching the degradation of our state and country leaves me only one opinion. It has been on purpose.

Indeed it has been on purpose, and with too many competing reasons and justifications. That is the only way this all makes sense.

We may again achieve some balance and equality after the American economy crashes and wages fall to where American labor can once again compete with other countries that now provide our goods and services. That would be far from utopian but until then we will have to deal with these injustices and inequalities. I suspect some higher powers are looking at restoring that balance and equality. Wouldn't that be great?!?

As always the "what the hell is wrong with you people" is based on a lack of facts. The biggest part of the problem is the impounding of the cars. The City does NOT impound cars, they contract out to private companies. So, the car gets towed and HAS to stay in the lot for 30 days. The impound lot gets no money for this unless the guy returns to get it - most don't as the fee is more then the car is worth, but they are out money as it costs them (a private company) money to tow the car and hold it. So it has to be disposed of, junk cars are not worth anything anymore, the lots are bearing ALL of the cost of this policy and the city, which institutes the whole effort is out NOTHING at all. Think of it this way, the city does this policy but makes YOU come and get the car and put it in your driveway. They promise if the guy comes back you can get some money, but he never does. When you call the city and say 'what should I do now' the say - your problem not ours.

Further, the punishment does not fit the crime, the "crime" is federal, immigration is regulated by the Feds, the city is not involved unless it chooses to be, in this case cooler heads prevail in the city which only looses money, time, energy etc. for something of a Federal matter.

Mi no hablo english, senor officer.

The truth is that they can't expect the illegals to stay within the laws and still continue to let the rich benefit from their cheap labor.

Originally posted by beezzer

Is it any wonder why California hasn't been imploded by it's own stupidity?

Have you seen the state of the treasury there in CA...?Shouldn’t be long actually.

I can't wait till my tax dollars get to bail out the idiots and all their liberal PC BS who have been running the place for years.

It will be awesome they can bring down the rest of the States too - its a liberals dream...

Originally posted by jaynkeel
The Los Angeles Police Department will soon start ignoring California state law, which requires police to impound the vehicles of unlicensed drivers for 30 days.

The majority of unlicensed motorists in Los Angeles are immigrants who are in the country illegally and have low-income jobs. The LAPD says the state's impound law is unfair because it limits their ability to get to their jobs and imposes a steep fine to get their car back.

As long as drivers can produce some form of I.D., proof of insurance and vehicle registration, they'll be allowed to keep their car. Police Chief Charlie Beck insists that it's simply leveling the playing field.

Awesome - I was unaware that it was a Police Chief's job to "level the playing field". That's pretty neat.

Also, I was unaware that the Police Chief (an appointee in most cases) could disregard the duly enacted legislation. Since of course legislation is enacted by representatives who are accountable to the people.

Of course the LA Mayor or City Manager - whoever is responsible for appointing this yahoo will not fire him for dereliction of duty. Why – because they pander to the illegals that’s why…

Finally, I am no lawyer but I am pretty sure the State of California and its State Police can investigate him and remove him from office for failing to enforce the laws of the State. I doubt that will happen - but I'm pretty sure they could.

So this is a case of in order to uphold a law you have to ignore a law!

Brilliant!

But it's crap that illegals can drive around without license and not get held accountable for their actions while everybody else will be.