Presumably because there are so many of them. The whole situation has gone so completely wrong that they are now handing out driving licenses to undocumented immigrants:
I love how we legitimize the past and current commission of a crime by saying "here, let me give you identity documents".
They make it sound like the poor "undocumented immigrants" are being unfairly punished by having their cars impounded. WTF, really? They are here illegally. They should be deported. If they want to immigrate then do it LEGALLY like millions of other people.
Do I think we should change the immigration laws to make free movement of people easier? Hell yeah.
Do I think we should be obliged to follow the laws as currently written? Of course.
If you do something illegal you get punished, simple enough.
Being an illegal immigrant isn't necessarily a crime. It can be, but in a great many cases it's just an administrative violation. 'The laws as currently written' are not as simple as they sound - in many cases immigration law is arbitrary or self-contradictory.
I take issue with trying to classify it as an administrative violation. If your residency status is not legal, then you are committing a crime. Big or little, it is still a violation of the laws as written.
crime n. an action or omission that constitutes an offense that may be prosecuted by the state and is punishable by law.
As far as the laws being arbitrary and/or self-contradictory, I won't disagree. THAT is what all the immigrant advocate organizations should be addressing. Not finding ways to make a person living here illegally get things like drivers licenses. Get the laws changed so they can more easily apply to live here legally.
Most laws are arbitrary and/or self-contradictory, yet we are still punished if we are caught violating them. In addition, there are so many laws, that most of us are constantly committing crimes (at a rate of three felonies a day).[1]
Harvey Silverglate is full of it and I wouldn't trust him to tell me the time. When you look into the cases he mentions you always find all kinds of incriminating detail that he left out of his articles. I've debunked some of his claims in detail before here on HN but I can't be bothered to dig that up again now. You should probably be able to find with a Google search though, I'm pretty sure they addressed this very WSJ article.
The problem occurs with children. Imagine you spent seventeen years of your life growing up in the USA and then someone tells you you are not here legally.
You consider yourself american in every way and know no other country.
Committing a crime requires you to have awareness that what you are doing is likely something illegal. Children like these have no idea.
>"Committing a crime requires you to have awareness that what you are doing is likely something illegal. Children like these have no idea."
Most recent laws do not require mens rea.[1] It used to be that conviction of almost any crime would require mens rea, but there are now so many complex laws in the western world, (over 10k felonies in the USA, and at least 3000 federal ones;) that this requirement has been relaxed in most cases.[2] I believe that mens rea should be a requirement of all laws, and that the criminal laws should be drastically simplified, but my will is not law.
Well, being born here solves the problem from one angle.
The other issue would be a baby brought here illegally, right? Answer me this, how did they get services, like schooling, when they have no legal status to be here? If their parents are not legal residents, how are they getting paid? If they are getting paid under the table then there is no tax money going into the system for the services they and their children receive, right? So, if we rewind back to when the child was first enrolled in school, how did that happen? they should have been identified as a non-legal resident at that point in time. The fact that they made it until high school is tragic but still not legal.
Really, how is it that an illegal resident can do things like enroll in school, register a car, etc. when they have no legal standing to be here? If you are here legally you have a visa, green card, or citizenship, right? Those are all verifiable states.
Yes. Children have rights enshrined in the UNCRC. People have rights in the UDHR.
Article 2 of UNRC says:
> 1. States Parties shall respect and ensure the rights set forth in the present Convention to each child within their jurisdiction without discrimination of any kind, irrespective of the child's or his or her parent's or legal guardian's race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, property, disability, birth or other status.
> 2. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that the child is protected against all forms of discrimination or punishment on the basis of the status, activities, expressed opinions, or beliefs of the child's parents, legal guardians, or family members.
Article 7 says:
> 1. The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality and. as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents.
Article 8 says:
> 1. States Parties undertake to respect the right of the child to preserve his or her identity, including nationality, name and family relations as recognized by law without unlawful interference.
> 2. Where a child is illegally deprived of some or all of the elements of his or her identity, States Parties shall provide appropriate assistance and protection, with a view to re-establishing speedily his or her identity.
Article 15 of the UNDHR says:
> (1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
> (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/15/california-undocume...
(Theres no judgement here, it's just a very strange way of dealing with the problem at hand)