Another local citizen killed by illegal alien drunk driver

| | Comments (22) | TrackBacks (0)

Whether driving-while-drunk-and-illegal is a cultural thing or not, in light of the increasing number of instances, citizens are going to start getting very ticked off right about now, I predict.

The latest victim: Matthew Watson, 20, of Ellicott City, Md.

It appears an illegal alien named Never Leopoldo Navarro-Montoya got wasted, got in his truck and smashed into the back of a Jeep Mr. Watson was riding in. Mr. Watson was killed; Mr. Navarro-Montoya was found several hours later lying on the side of the road.

Mr. Navarro-Montoya was driving without a license and "undocumented" according to the Baltimore Sun, and is the second such case in the Maryland suburbs in the past six months:

In November, Eduardo Raul Morales-Soriano, a Laurel landscaper from Mexico, was charged with vehicular homicide and drunken driving in a Thanksgiving night crash at Routes 175 and 108 that killed a Columbia Marine home on leave and his date from Montgomery County.

Actually, Mr. Navarro-Montoya was "documented," but his documents happened to be forged or stolen:

Police said Mr. Navarro-Montoya produced a permanent resident card and a Social Security card bearing his name. He told a Prince George's County police officer that the documents were fake and purchased in Texas. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) confirmed that Mr. Navarro-Montoya was an illegal alien from Mexico, according to the charging documents.

Eventually, the U.S. must institute a biometric ID card which will be required of every worker in order to be employed. The logical place to start would be to replace the Social Security card since it is integrally tied to employment. The only question is when this will happen.

0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Another local citizen killed by illegal alien drunk driver.

TrackBack URL for this entry:


zimzo said:

I thought three was a trend, not two. If you are really concerned about people killed by drunk drivers why don't you ban beer-swilling rednecks from driving. I bet you will save a lot more lives.

And great conservative proposal to have a national "biometric" ID. Why don't you just tattoo a bar code on all of us?

stay puft said:

biometrics are awesome. so are teleporters, which could really speed up deportation

A tattoo bar code is exactly what I had in mind for you, Zimzo. :-|

Puft, you realize a photo is "biometric."

stay puft said:

photo ID?! is that what you had in mind?? lame. hey everyone, let's burn more coal and carry around photo ids like it's 1989.

where are the retina scans They promised us?

Kevin said:

May Ellicott City and Catonsville both drop off the face of the earth. I can tell you with almost near absolute certainty that the majority of drunk drivers in that area are legal citizens. And white.

Puft, a photo on the Social Security card would make a big difference. Think about it. Add a magnetic strip and you could have a pretty effective ID for employment.

zimzo said:

Which is really what this War on Terror and War on Illegal Immigrants is about, right? Taking away the rights that you are supposedly defending. A national ID is just one more step toward authoritarianism. But since you don't seem to care if the government listens to your phone calls, opens your mail or suspends habeus corpus, I guess it's no surprise you don't care about this either. Scratch a "conservative" and you get an authoritarian. You guys are truly scary.

stay puft said:

scratch-n-sniff! truly an American institution, even though it probably originated in Germany (along with musical birthday cards)

here's some interesting data from Time Magazine (and if you don't like it, you can write it off as mainstream media liberal propaganda!):

Percentage of African Americans-compared with 8.8% of Hispanics and 3.6% of whites-who are likely to be searched after being pulled over by police. African Americans are more than twice as likely to be arrested

Percentage of white people ages 16 to 20 who reported driving a vehicle under the influence of alcohol or illicit drugs, compared with 10% of African Americans

Jack said:

Interesting stats, puffalump. But let's see, since Blacks are more likely to commit crimes than Whites, it stands to reason that more of them will be caught when pulled over.

Second point, that statistic is based on self-reporting, and so is completely unreliable.

Jack said:

"Which is really what this War on Terror and War on Illegal Immigrants is about, right? Taking away the rights that you are supposedly defending."

Illiegal immigrants do not have the right to work here, or to even be here.

Do you have a better solution?

Anyway, we already have a national ID. It's called a passport. Just require a passport for employment.

jacob said:

Which rights (which belong to citizen's) are abrogated when we require non-citizens to have a permit to work here?

Could you explain that? I seriously doubt it, but I would like to see it if only for the humor value.

You make the statement "Taking away the rights that you are supposedly defending" OK. Which rights?

Remember, it is non-citizens we are leveling this requirement upon, so I am real interested to see how _our_ rights are 'taken away'.

One more thing, a worker's visa (green card) has been part of the immigration landscape since before WWII, so I actually would also like to see the link to the "war on terror", are you trying to telling me workers permits are something new?

I don't know anyone who considers the requirement of a valid social security number in order to be employed an invasion of privacy. All the new card would do is make it more difficult to cheat.

However if it is an invasion of privacy, Zimzo, you are decades behind in your campaign to expose this particular harbinger of "authoritarianism."

I recommend you take to the streets with a sandwich board sign, posthaste. Here is your text.

For the front sign:


For the back:


zimzo said:

Here's the text of Section 2 of the 14th Amendment Jacob (which I guess you've never read): "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Not that only the first phrase refers to "citizens," safeguarding their "immunities and privileges." Then it very clearly and pointedly changes in the second phrase to "any person" not just "citizens" saying the state cannot deprive "any person" of "life, liberty or property life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" nor deny "any person" equal protection of the law.

I know English isn't your first language Jacob but perhaps you can find some translation of the Constitution into your native tongue so that you can understand better the laws of the country you live in.

Jack said:

So if everyone is required to be here legally to get a job, then they are all under the equal protection of the law.

jacob said:

If anything you are the one deficient in his reading comprehension skills. What part of 'due process of law' escapes you? The work permit concept has been law for decades. Therefore the due process has been performed. It went through congress and was signed by the president, years ago. I know, you are ignoring that because it is 'an inconvenient truth.'

Furthermore oh quasi-literate one, the immigration laws are a FEDERAL matter. Therefore they by default apply to all states and denizens within the country. So how are we NOT meeting our obligation under Section 2 of the 14th Amendment regarding equal protection? All immigrants are required to apply for a work visa, in all states. Is that somehow unequal?

Is your position that you refuse to acknowledge there is a difference between the rights and prerogatives of a citizen and those of an alien? If so then the idea of sovereignty is abolished in your little universe. Well, welcome to reality. Sovereignty is a fact, and citizens do have more rights under the law than non-citizens. Nice try, in the future try reading the part of the constitution you are attempting to use in your argument. Also context is something to keep in mind as well otherwise you wind up in something known in logic as a 'maniacs circle'. You know, Jack's wife teaches ESL, ask him and he can hook you up.

Furthermore yet, you refugee from an English department! If I need to jump through some hoops to work in another state because of the tax issues so all aliens must register and be given permits as well. In the case of a citizen the issue is pro-forma regarding the permission part, but the state MUST be informed none the less because they want their cut of the salary.

Jack said:

Perhaps you are not familiar with the lingo of the day, jacob, but perhaps we should send zimzo to David and Jonathan to "hook up."

zimzo said:

Perhaps you need to refresh yourself on what the concept "due process of law" means. Passing legislation is not "due process of law." Due process is actually a restraint on the legislative branch as well as the executive and judicial branches. It requires that the application of laws be fair and equitable and in the 14th Amendment as well as the fifth amendment it guarantees this right to citizens and non-citizens alike.

So in answer to your question illegal immigrants do have rights in this country that can be taken away unless you are trying to argue that they are not "persons," which frankly would not surprise me.

I am surprised that you seem to know so little about the Constitution you claim to be defending from terrorists and liberals.

Jack said:

Illegal immigrants do NOT have the right to a job here, nor even to BE here.

jacob said:

from wiki: Due Process of law is the principle that the government must normally respect all of a person's legal rights instead of just some or most of those legal rights when the government deprives a person of life, liberty, or property.

Since an illegal alien does not have the right to be here, then they have NO right to having a job. The contra-positive is: the legal alien who has a green card, has the right to work.

Part of the legal due process is that we operate under the law of the land and the and the law of the land says you need a green card in this matter. I am surprised that as a liberal super genius, busy defending the country from conservatives and Christians, you do not know what 'needs a green card' means.

Do you get it, 'needs a green card', of course not, you are too busy slandering me saying I do not think illegal aliens are people. You bigoted, self-righteous asshole, keep your slander to yourself. The illegal aliens who come here are human beings, more so than you will ever be. As such they do not only have rights, they have responsibilities as well. Something that apparently totally escapes you.

One responsibility is to NOT break the law. By sneaking across the border they break the law. By driving without a license they break the law. By not paying income taxes they break the law. By not getting a green card they break the law. It all starts with the first act, and the remedy for this act is to send them home.

However, liberal uber-bigot that you are, you think they should not face the consequences of their actions, because they are not white. The poor little dears cannot help themselves and so can live outside the law. We need to 'help' them. Bullshit, they can help themselves, and they are doing so quite well because unlike you they are industrious, hardworking bastards. So make them play by the rules, because without the rule of law we will descend into chaos. They don't need your sorry, supercilious, bigoted ass to protect them from the law and the consequences of breaking it.

zimzo said:

Clearly, Jacob, you are unable to have a discussion without name-calling. So as far as I am concerned any discussion with you is over until you can prove you are mature enough to communicate with people who disagree with you.

jacob said:

Clearly zimzo, you are blind to your own name calling. Mine was a direct response to you. You want to get offended? Fine.

I find YOU offensive. Being lumped in with the likes of the Islamists by you is beyond the pale. Being told I do not consider others human is also offensive. You did all this first, without provovation. You then call me immature?!

You don't like the response. GOOD. Stop slandering those who disagree with you.

You can disagree all day. Please note all the 'colorless' commentary that came before. You got out of line first.

Leave a comment

Type the characters you see in the picture above.

Old Dominion Blog Alliance


Technorati search

» Blogs that link here