North Carolina Law Says Give Licenses to Illegal Aliens
Shubert Announces Golden Scissors Awards
For Attempts to Influence Public Opinion by Creative Omission of Words or Facts

 

For Immediate Release

There's an old lawyer saying along the lines: If the facts are against you, argue the law, and if the law is against you, argue the facts, and if they're both against you, muddy the water. Mike Easley, Richard Vinroot and Dan Barrett are all lawyers running against Fern Shubert and they've all tossed a little mud over an ad she ran to draw attention to the danger posed by Easley's support of a law that helps illegal aliens get drivers licenses. But at least Vinroot and Barrett agree the law needs to change. Easley and his friends are still trying to keep the public from knowing what the law actually says.

Easley's Campaign Manager “Reiff says the ad is false, and that since 9/11 it has become tougher to get licensed in North Carolina.” Mr. Reiff needs to put up or shut up. The facts are as follows:

Concerning the use of 9-11 footage, note the following quote from WRAL-TV's coverage:

“Aside from the debate over the law, the governor's office also objects to the use of 9/11 footage.

Peter Godiel heads 9/11 Families for a Secure America. His son died in the attacks, and Godiel voices the ad. "For him [Easley] to say that we can't talk about what happened to our loved ones is just absurd. He is just a politician who does not want his record to catch up with him," he [Gadiel] said.

Godiel says his group sought out Shubert for the ad.” (Note – the correct spelling is Gadiel.)

Ad Script:

The 9-11 Families for a Secure America urge you to vote for Fern Shubert on July 20th.

Within days after 9-11,

Mike Easley signed a law

that made it easier for terrorists, illegal aliens, drunk drivers and everyone except law-abiding citizens to get drivers licenses.

FERN SHUBERT IS THE ONLY PERSON running for Governor who has been fighting Mike Easley's policy of giving licenses to illegal aliens and the terrorists who hide among them.

Facts:

Their endorsement letter is posted at www.ForFern.com .

On September 26, 2001 to be precise

Easley signed Senate Bill 1005

Which said that people who had no SSN could use an ITIN and that people who had NO proof of NC residence could simply sign an affidavit.

We're not aware of anyone who has challenged this statement. The head of DMV's license division has said that NC gives licenses to illegal aliens. No one has questioned the 9-11 Families' assertion that some illegal aliens are terrorists. The law is still exactly as signed by Easley 9-26-2001.

One of the claims of those attacking the ad is that it suggests Easley was responsible for 9-11. Although the ad could have talked about what Easley did before 9-11, the decision was made to only talk about events subsequent to 9-11 since the goal was to draw attention to the need to change the law passed 9-26-2001 so that only people legally in the US who reside in NC could get licenses. That is why, after mentioning the 9-11 Families endorsement, the mention of Easley opens with the phrase, “Within days AFTER 9-11, Mike Easley signed a law…” It is hard to find anyone dumb enough to believe that something that happens AFTER an event is believed to have caused the event. But when the Charlotte Observer reported the suggestion that the ad blamed Easley for 9-11, they left out the key phrase, “Within days AFTER.”

Since the ad said Easley acted AFTER 9-11, it clearly didn't blame him for 9-11, but people reading the Charlotte Observer article that claimed the ad blamed the governor weren't told about that key phrase. That's how The Charlotte Observer earned the first, but unfortunately not the last, Golden Scissors Award for influencing public opinion by the creative use of omission.

To summarize:

Anyone who only saw the ad and did not hear it or read it did not see anything linking the images to Governor Easley.

Anyone who heard or read the ad was informed before the first mention of Easley that the actions described took place AFTER 9-11. Easley signed a bill shortly AFTER 9-11 which changed North Carolina law in a way that could help those planning future terrorist events. Anyone can verify that S1005 was signed on 9-26-2001 and made the changes described above. The ad could have talked about the things Easley did prior to 9-11 which helped terrorists, but the decision was made to stick to events after 9-11 for simplicity.

While the Easley administration did announce some policy changes in December 2003 which went into effect in 2004, apparently as a result of the Shubert campaign's release of the IRS letter to Easley warning against the use ITINs, the law itself has not been changed. Either the Easley administration is ignoring the law, or reinterpreting it to say something different from the actual wording of the law (which certainly wouldn't be a first), or they're still helping illegal aliens, even those who live in other states, to get North Carolina drivers licenses.

In case anyone doubts the FACT that NC is helping illegal aliens, even those in other states, to get drivers licenses, attached is a copy of an email sent by Wayne Hurder, Head of the DMV License Division, in August 2003 dressing down an examiner for trying to deny licenses to illegal aliens with questionable documentation. According to examiners, this memo accurately reflects the policies of the Easley administration. No matter how much smoke Easley and his friends try to blow over minor details and cosmetic changes designed to confuse the public, the fact is that the law has not changed since this memo was written and it needs to be changed.

In order to be sure this message is transmitted clearly, this entire document, including the Wayne Hurder memo, will be posted on the campaign web site, www.ForFern.com . In addition, on Thursday, July 8th, voicemails will be sent to the roughly half a million likely primary voters containing the ad. And next week Peter Gadiel will be traveling through North Carolina to answer questions about the 9-11 ad and why his organization has endorsed Fern Shubert for Governor.

To Senator Shubert, the issue is not race or ethnicity or immigration, the issue is ILLEGAL. Undermining the rule of law endangers public safety. Subverting federal law violates the North Carolina Constitution. Easley and all of his allies responsible for making North Carolina a magnet for those who want to break the law need to be replaced in the November elections. If the public understands what Easley and his allies have done, including their reluctance to take any action to prevent illegal aliens from voting, there is a very good chance that will happen. If you want to prevent illegal aliens from voting, vote for Fern Shubert on July 20th.

Senator Shubert is available for comment to all TV, Radio, Internet, and Newspaper news sources on this issue. Please contact Senator Shubert at 704-242-2722 or Peter Gadiel at 860-927-3822 or 203-470-5820 for more information or an interview.

 
Subject: Issues Involving False Documents
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 09:44:56 –0400
From: “Wayne J. Hurder” whurder@dot.state.nc.us Director of DMV
Organization: North Carolina Department of Transportation

To: Devin W Drye dwdrye@dot.state.nc.us
CC: Dwight Godwin dgodwin@dot.state.nc.us
“Terry A. Blevins” Blevins@dot.state.nc.us
Bobbie Holloman bholloman@dot.state.nc.us
Patricia Robertson Glenn prglenn@dot.state.nc.us
Sylvia Spain srspain@dot.state.nc.us, Barbara Webb bwebb@dot.state.nc.us

We have received a variety of faxes from you concerning persons whose licenses you recommend for cancellation per NCGS 20-15. The information you are providing is out of line with my previous comments on this issue.

To start with, a number of your comments say the person was “was here illegally,” by which I presume you mean the person is an illegal alien or undocumented alien. As I stated for the last 9 years, the fact that a person is in the United States without the permission of the Department of Homeland Security (formerly INS) is irrelevant as far as North Carolina DMV is concerned, as per NCGS 20-7 and NCGS 4.01. The fact that you continue to make these references to a person's immigration status is cause for concern. If a person from the outside, such as a lawyer or a reporter, were to review the documents you sent us (as would be their legal right) then they might jump to the conclusion that DMV is targeting people due to their illegal status.

If local law enforcement wants to make an issue of their legal status, that obviously is their right and responsibility depending on the statutes under which they operate. But let me make it clear – for the umpteenth time – North Carolina General Statutes Chapter 20 does not involve itself with a person's legal status in determining their eligibility to apply for a license.

The second issue involves the false documents or information used as a basis for cancellation under NCGS 20-15. If that information is coming from law enforcement, you need to state the name of the law officer that brought you the information and the fact that that law officer told you a certain document was false. You need to name the type of false document. One fax you sent me states that a person “was arrested by Off. Wiley Used false passport & was here illegally.” I am left trying to figure out whether Officer Wiley said it was a false passport. You need to be very specific. In addition, we can cancel the license only if the false documents was used to obtain the license. Law enforcement rightfully can arrest someone for carrying a false passport, but we can cancel the license only if the false passport was one of the two ID documents presented to us. It is not clear in your statements that the false documents are connected to the issuance process.

On one of your faxes (for customers Uricino and Cruz) you wrote “Both used BC.” I am not sure what the purpose of that statement is; I assume you meant to say that the BCs were false, but that is not what it says and I could not legally cancel their licenses based on that statement.

Now if it was a DL person who made the determination of the false document, then that needs to be said and it needs to be specifically documented in SADLS what aspect of the document was false and how the examiner reached that conclusion. If it was a DLE who made the determination and then summoned the law enforcement officer, then that DLE will need to be able to cite specifics in court as to why they reached that conclusion. You as Sr. Examiner should be in the loop on that and you have the responsibility to document that action and make sure the examiner has proper documentation of the issue.

Chapter 3, Section E of the Examiner's Manual has very critical information in this regard. This chapter was written on advice of the “Attorney General's office in 1994 soon after we were sued for a false arrest in March 1994. As long as you and your staff follow the policy and procedure in that Chapter, you should be on safe ground. If you deviate from the requirements of Chapter 3, Section E of the Examiner's Manual, you are asking for trouble. So you may want to read this carefully and make sure your staff understand the requirements of it.

In addition, while the Chapter does not specifically say this, you should know that we have a federal and state mandate to apply our policies and procedures fairly and equitably to all customers, regardless of race, sex, language, ethnicity, etc. The consequences for anyone who targets certain individuals (e.g. racial profiling) for arrest, cancellation of license, etc. because of these factors alone can be extremely serious. Obviously, Hispanics are not the only customers who may be presenting us false documents. We did a study last year of 100 cases of ID Theft/Fraud investigated by DMV Enforcement, and only 16% of the cases involved Hispanics. So we have to keep our eyes open to the potential from fraud from all customers, and in detecting fraud, we need to be consistent in our handling of the cases.

By this e-mail, I am requesting Dwight Godwin to work with you to ensure that all of your procedures on these issues are done consistent with the guidelines stated here and in the Examiner's Manual.

“Margaret C. Perry” mcperry@dot.state.nc.us
Marsha Harris mrharris@dot.state.nc.us
Nikki Broome ntbroome@dot.state.nc.us
Nadine Barnes nbarnes@dot.state.nc.us
Judy F Cowen jfcowen@dot.state.nc.us
Barbara Stancil Ford bsford@dot.state.nc.us
Gail Smith ggsmith@dot.state.nc.us
Jacqueline Florence jdflorence@dot.state.nc.us
Kirk Freeman kdfreeman@dot.state.nc.us
“Martha S. Hipp” mshipp@dot.state.nc.us
“Jere E. Hyder” jehyder@dot.state.nc.us, Page Partin pjpartin@dot.state.nc.us
John Wilburn Williamson jwwilliamson@dot.state.nc.us
“Robert Black Quinn, Jr.” rbquinn@dot.state.nc.us
“Samuel O. Blue” soblue@dot.state.nc.us
Susanne Ashley Byrd sabyrd@dot.state.nc.us
Brenda C Johnson bcjohnson@dot.state.nc.us
Kevin Brantley wkbrantley@dot.state.nc.us
“Dolphus R. Marshburn” dmarshburn@dot.state.nc.us
Judy Long jklong@dot.state.nc.us

Statutory Requirements on Matricula Consular, Confiscation of Documents & Legal Presence

In the last week, several issues have come up regarding service we provide to persons from foreign countries or persons who do not speak English. Please review each of these three issues. Please make sure each examiner in your office gets a copy of this e-mail. It is our responsibility to make sure that we follow the law on each of these issues, regardless of what our personal feelings are and regardless of what persons outside of DMV would like for us to do.

1. Acceptance of the Matricula Consular as Proof of Residence (NCGS20-7(b3) and (b4)—The Driver License Section accepts the Matricula Consular as proof of residency. It is specified in statute that the “matricula consular or substantially similar document issued by the Mexican Consulate for North Carolina” is to be considered a “reasonably reliable” indicator of residency. There are no ifs, ands or buts about the statutory language. It is not an issue for statutory interpretation as to what proof of residence the Mexican consulate used before issuing the Matricula, just as it is not an issue what proof of residence a bank used before setting up a bank account. In reality, most agencies, businesses, banks, etc. rely on the customer's statement of address when conducting business. We have heard allegations that some examiners have rejected the matricula consular because the Consulate did not require proof of residence address before issuing the card. If that were our standard, we would have to reject a lot more than just the Matricula as proof of residence address. In fact, the standard that we apply is the North Carolina General Statutes, and the General Statutes specify we will accept the Matricula Consular.

We do realize that we have customers who provide us fraudulent addresses. This past year, we tried to get Expansion Budget funding for hardware and software systems that would allow us to systematically check all customers address – not just those persons of a certain ethnicity. We will continue to try to obtain funds to implement this technology. We will continue to look at ways to address this issue as it involves ALL of our customers.

2. Confiscation of Customer Documents (NCGS 20-7(b1))-- North Carolina law says “The Division may copy the identification presented or hold it for a brief period of time to verify its authenticity.” We do not have any statutory authority to confiscate a customer's documents. According to interpretation by the Attorney General, a “brief period of time” can be considered up to 30 minutes. During that time, you can photocopy it, make an optical scan of it, or call someone in your chain of command to discuss it. But do not confiscate any customer's documents. Only law enforcement agencies have the authority to confiscate documents. Do not confiscate documents even if requested to do so by law enforcement agencies. In 1994, the Driver License Section was sued because in several instances examiners had confiscated documents at the request of INS agents. It subsequently turned out that the INS documents were legitimate. It created considerable embarrassment to the Section because (1) in confiscating the document, we violated the law; (2) the INS was wrong in its initial assessment of the validity of the document.

3. Proof of Legal Presence—North Carolina law (20-7(b1) says “To obtain a drivers license from the Division, a person shall…be a resident of this State…” The definition of a resident under 20-4.01(34) does not say you have to be a U.S. citizen or that you have to be legally present in the United States. The legal definition says you are presumed to be a resident of the state if you reside here longer than 6 months “for other than a temporary or transitory purpose” but it does not specify a minimum amount of time that you have to live here in order to be a resident. Since about 1989, the Attorney General's office has interpreted the statute to mean that a person does not have to be legally present in the state to qualify for a license. North Carolina is one of 20 states in the United States that do not require proof of legal presence. Thirty states do require proof of legal presence.

As you well know, the fact that the General Statutes do not require proof of legal presence upsets some people who wish we would decline to serve people here without proof of legal presence. Whichever way you may feel, or whichever way your friends or associates feel, we are required to follow General Statutes. For that reason, we do not require customers to prove legal presence. In requesting customers to provide identification documentation, you should not be requesting that the customer prove legal presence. Contrary to what some people say, there is nothing in federal law that says a person must be legally present in the country to receive a driver license. You should not make statements to the customers accusing them of being here “illegally” or without proper immigration documentation. It is your responsibility to follow the laws of the State of North Carolina. If and when the General Assembly changes the laws of the State, we will change our policies and procedures accordingly.

U.S. law requires that we serve all of our customers without discrimination based on race, religion, ethnicity, national origin, language, etc. That does not mean customers are excused from meeting the statutory requirements of North Carolina law, but that does mean we cannot impose our personal standards based on opinion of their legal status, their religion, their national origin, etc. This is a standard that we expect all examiners to adhere to.

Wayne Hurder
Director

Paid for by People Who Want Better Government
Send Contributions to:

106 East Main Street, Marshville, NC 28103 or Contribute Online at www.ForFern.com


Sign up for email from Fern
and add your friends and
family to our update list!

Join our effort to improve North Carolina by signing up for occasional e-mail updates. Please enter your e-mail below or sign up your friends and family.

 


 

 

 

 

Official website of NC Senator Fern Shubert - Republican Candidate for NC Governor in 2004. All rights reserved 2001 © 2004
Paid for by People Who Want Better Government