Driving liberals, dhimmis and illegal alien apologists absolutely insane since 2005...

An HB 3202 Disaster

By Greg L | 23 June 2007 | Illegal Aliens, Virginia Politics | 34 Comments

The compromise transportation plan’s provisions to fine Virginia drivers exorbitant sums if they’re convicted of reckless driving might be something worthy of consideration.  That consideration becomes very difficult when you consider that out-of-state drivers won’t be subjected to these fines, which raises equal protection concerns under the Fourteenth Amendment.

But consider this:

If an illegal alien, driving without a license is convicted of reckless driving, will they be subjected to these penalties?  Nope.  Not only is the maximum fine for them ($1,500) lower than it would be for a citizen being cited for driving on a suspended license ($2,500), but because they don’t have a Virginia driver’s license, they’re exempt from the penalties.

It’s official.  Our government treats illegal aliens better than it does it’s own citizens.

The opinions expressed here are solely the views of the author, and not representative of the position of any organization, political party, doughnut shop, knitting guild, or waste recycling facility, but may be correctly attributed to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. If anything in the above article has offended you, please click here to receive an immediate apology.

BVBL is not a charity and your support is not tax-deductible.

You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed.


  1. AWCheney said on 23 Jun 2007 at 11:09 pm:
    Flag comment

    Greg, if you follow the link over at NLS regarding this, you will see that they are trying to get around the 14th Amendment by calling this a “tax” rather than a fine. That, however, may raise another issue over, what amounts to, arbitrary taxation. Whatever the Constitutional or other legal issues here, there is NO DOUBT that this is going to wind up decided by the court system…and I don’t mean traffic court!

  2. anon said on 23 Jun 2007 at 11:14 pm:
    Flag comment

    The speed limits are already artificially low in many areas. Now they want to charges us thousands of dollars in fines. Some people may just leave the state.

    I stopped doing business in Washington D.C. because of all the cameras and tickets and traffic.

    Notice there are no speed cameras on Independence Avenue where most congressional staffers and congressmen drive. You wouldn’t want to upset those people. So cameras are targeted in areas where it is more politically correct to give out tickets to politically unimportant people.

  3. James Young said on 23 Jun 2007 at 11:37 pm:
    Flag comment

    Careful, Anon. If I had said something like this, I would be accused of being a scofflaw.

    Interesting question. The issue may well be whether it is worth challenging, i.e., whether the attorney’s fees which will doubtless be incurred in challenging this practice will justify the challenge. As I understand it (I am not a Virginia attorney) there are no class actions under Virginia practice, in order to spread out the cost. If the challenge is in state court — which it almost certainly would have to be — the amount at issue for the individual challenging it will almost certainly be exceeded by his/her attorneys’ fees in doing so.

    The economics may govern whether such a challenge is brought. A few years back, I received a ticket in the mail for violating HOV regulations, while my wife and daughter were dropping me off at DCA. The Fairfax cops were apparently authorized to write and mail citations for such violations without actually stopping the car (which I think raises serious constitutional questions), and going to the trouble/demonstrating their skill at counting to three. I had to waste half a day sitting in Fairfax District Court (dragging them both along to testify, if necessary), and the case was immediately dismissed upon my explanation. I briefly considered raising such a challenge, but quickly made the economic calculation and did not do so.

    I don’t know if they still do this.

  4. Darkmage said on 24 Jun 2007 at 12:09 am:
    Flag comment

    Heh. What makes you think an illegal immigrant isn’t going to have a driver’s license. Have you seen the requirements to get a drivers license these days?

  5. AWCheney said on 24 Jun 2007 at 12:27 am:
    Flag comment

    Yes I have Darkmage…my kids were teenagers just a couple of years ago. You need a BIRTH CERTIFICATE, or proof of legal residency in the United States (like a Green Card).

  6. Lafayette said on 24 Jun 2007 at 4:30 am:
    Flag comment

    I’ve had four damaged by illegals, none of them had license, insurance, ID, or speak English. The last car was damaged at Kmart $5kdamage. Infact, the driver was driving an “amiga’s” car. Oh yeah, I must mention while waiting for PWCPD, she took off on foot to her employer’s establishment, the police had to bring out in handcuffs and kept her like that until the owner got there. The owner said please wait my husband’ll be here with proof of insurance. They had some BS Insurance company in NC, that told me I should it to my insurance, because their insured wasn’t driving. I didn’t have my own car to drive for 7weeks, hell it took 2 and half weeks for them to even come look at it. I’d like to they all started speaking English when the police arrived. I think plenty of illegals have license in VA, how does DMV, know if the documents brought to them are even official or documents that were gotten by an illegal means. If the Commonwealth wants these new fines, they should apply to all not just the good people of VA. How the hell does that happen????
    Looks like we the Virginians, are 2nd to the illegals.

  7. OPDitch said on 24 Jun 2007 at 6:40 am:
    Flag comment

    AWC, you notice how James conveniently dodges your reference to “they are calling it a tax” comment? This bill was passed by most of Jim Young’s “NO TAX” pledge friends. This can’t be a “tax”, that would break their “NO TAX” pledge!!

    This comment brought to you by Jim’s “tax advocate”

  8. NoVA Scout said on 24 Jun 2007 at 7:26 am:
    Flag comment

    Greg raises a good point. I don’t see what immigration has to do with it, but OP brings it back. The reason things like this happen is the effort to raise transportation funds (and perhaps some defense lawyer fees) by GA members who are afraid of the word “tax.” Many Republicans in the GA run like roaches when the lights are turned on when they have to confront legitimate fiscal issues facing the state. This year, knowing that they had to face voters in November, they cobbled together HB3202, call the revenue measures “fees” instead of “taxes” (although as AWC points out, the dodge now appears to be that it IS a tax to justify its not being applied to non-Virginians), and go around Northern Virginia boasting that they did something about transportation infrastructure issues. This is a “fleece the rubes” mentality, not good governance. Someone at NLS has advocated voting against all GA incumbents of either party. I’m not there yet, but I see his/her point.

  9. Ron said on 24 Jun 2007 at 8:35 am:
    Flag comment

    Greg, I agree that you bring up a good point. Shouldn’t they have *bigger* fines on the non-residents? That would make more sense to me! ;)

  10. AWCheney said on 24 Jun 2007 at 1:06 pm:
    Flag comment

    LOL OP…yeah, now that you mention it… :-)

  11. dolphin_Moon said on 24 Jun 2007 at 1:35 pm:
    Flag comment

    Getting a drivers license is a huge pain. Apparently Darkmage hasn’t made the pilgrimage to DMV lately. I unintentionally let my license expire. I did not realize that I had to renew before my birthday, not at the end of the month of my birth.

    I went out to DMV with my birth certificate. The name on my birth certificate did not match my DMV name. I tried to explain that I was not born married. That cut no ice. I had to come back home and get my marriage license. Give me a break. I was fortunate enough to have mine on hand.

    I have had a valid VA license to drive since 1961. One would think they could access my old records, but no such luck. DMV said they only keep records for a couple of years.

    I was born in Virginia and have only held a VA license. That did me no good. If you are a middle age plus white woman, it is not easy to get a license, regardless of your credentials.

  12. James Young said on 24 Jun 2007 at 1:53 pm:
    Flag comment

    OPD, notice how I ignored AWC. There is a difference between ignoring someone and “dodging” their reference.

    Let’s see if you “dodge” this one: I believe that the Commonwealth (and local governments; and the federal government) is extracting enough from taxpayers. Too much, really. Why don’t you tell us: (a) what percentage of a taxpayers’ income is “enough,” i.e., what is the maximum percentage of total income that an individual should be required to pay in taxes, a question those of you who regularly advocate more taxes regularly “dodge”: and (b) how much extra you’ve sent in this year.

    If the answer to the latter question is “none,” then please refrain from lecturing the rest of us on how taxes on the rest of us should be increased. At least until you put YOUR money where your mouth is.

  13. NoVA Scout said on 24 Jun 2007 at 3:57 pm:
    Flag comment

    I missed the part where OP said other people’s taxes should be increased. Either my reading skills are deficient or James’s are. I thought OP was saying that this nasty fee increase is a tax increase in disguise, put forward by a lot of people who profess to be anti-tax. I’m sure once James sees through the not very well disguised hypocrisy of this, he’ll share our view that one of the by-products of pols signing pledges to get elected is that they get sneaky about avoiding their undertakings. They’re assuming the voters are too dumb to see through it.

  14. Harry said on 24 Jun 2007 at 5:37 pm:
    Flag comment

    Why not just call this afine and get the out of staters too, duh, don’t they use our roads as well?

  15. OPDitch said on 24 Jun 2007 at 6:32 pm:
    Flag comment

    James, you did it again!!! “those of you who regularly advocate more taxes regularly” You have accused me of being a “tax advocate” without a single shred of proof. I am not a tax advocate and you can’t prove me to be one. All you can do is use your phony “guilt by association.” Oh, and NoVA Scout has you pegged pretty good. You just want to ignore the fact that your “no tax” guys passed a tax no matter how you look at it.

  16. anon said on 24 Jun 2007 at 7:46 pm:
    Flag comment

    We won’t have to worry too much because traffic congestion will keep the speeds down. I was on 66 Saturday afternoon going west and came to a complete stop.

    I cancelled my plans because of that. That is five hundred dollars not spent at certain retailers in the Dulles area.

    The one road I could have taken would be the Dulles airport road which never gets crowded. But I didn’t want to drive from 66 back onto route 7 through tysons corner to get to the Dulles Airport road then south on 28 to get to Chantilly which is almost a straight shot on 66.

    Of course the geniuses are spending billions on rail to go to the airport instead of on 66 where it is really needed.

  17. James Young said on 24 Jun 2007 at 8:50 pm:
    Flag comment

    OPD, you mean except for the e-mail (or comment) where you conceded that you support higher taxes? Perhaps you have forgotten it, but I haven’t.

    And as for “NoVA Scout,” you just love to have it both ways, don’t you? Demonize anti-tax conservatives, and then demonize them some more when they do something that you advocate.

    Why do some of you continue to try to posture as “Conservatives”?

    Oh, yeah. Because it’s electorally popular.

  18. NoVA Scout said on 24 Jun 2007 at 10:21 pm:
    Flag comment

    Anon 1946: There’s a certain delicious irony to the idea of legislators thinking they can raise funds to improve the road network by heavy fines when the network is so clogged up that no one can speed.

  19. NoVA Scout said on 25 Jun 2007 at 6:50 am:
    Flag comment

    James: I’m an anti-tax conservative of long-standing. I just don’t much care for the current crop of phonies (and the woods are full of them down your way). And I’m not running for anything, so electoral motivations aren’t really driving me on this point.

  20. OPDitch said on 25 Jun 2007 at 7:22 am:
    Flag comment

    “e-mail (or comment) where you conceded that you support higher taxes?” which was it? Can you please produce it, or at least the context so I can research it myself?
    NOW YOU HAVE TO PRODUCE YOUR EVIDENCE, JAMES. YOU CLAIM TO HAVE SOMETHING SPECIFIC, NOW PRODUCE IT! More than your ususal, well you supproted Connaughton, or you supported so and so… who wouldn’t sign the “tax pledge.”

  21. John Light said on 25 Jun 2007 at 9:15 am:
    Flag comment

    Careful, OP, James will probably produce an e-mail dated 1995 or something like that (ask Jane Beyer). James has a memory like a woman scorned.

    Hey Jim…how did Faisal do in his wreckless driving case last Thursday??? Was that for ticket number 2, or 3? I don’t remember.

  22. James Young said on 25 Jun 2007 at 10:23 am:
    Flag comment

    So now a good memory is a bad thing, John? However, in this case, one needn’t have a good memory to demonstrate OP’s bad one.

    First, notice how OPD dodged my questions. How about it, OP? What percentage of a taxpayers’ income is “enough,” i.e., what is the maximum percentage of total income that an individual should be required to pay in taxes, a question those of you who regularly advocate more taxes regularly “dodge”? How much extra you’ve sent in this year?

    OP, you said this (I presume Greg won’t censor it, in light of your request for it, lest he likewise censor your comment) in a comment on my blog:

    I don’t doubt that I may have spoken or even written against the idea or the need for any politician having to sign a “NO TAX PLEDGE.” I wonder how Del Lingamfelter, among others, feels now that he has broken his “pledge.”


    You therefore inveigh against people who make the pledge, condemn those whom you believe to have broken the pledge, and remain utterly silent about those who both took the pledge, and whom you apparently don’t believe to have broken it (Jeff Frederick and Bob Marshall come to mind).

    The legal phrase is “res ipsa loquitor”: the thing speaks for itself. It is entirely logical to conclude that you don’t like the pledge because of your enthusiasm for/belief in tax increases, or a tax increase. Now, I suppose you can try to quibble your way out of it, but that’s what it would be: quibbling. Furthermore, you have long been an apologist for Chairman Sean and his tax increases (kind of like “NoVA Scout,” whose claim to credentials as “an anti-tax conservative of long-standing” are laughable in light of his comments elsewhere on the same subject).

  23. freedom said on 25 Jun 2007 at 11:10 am:
    Flag comment

    OP, in some cases, it’s like teaching a pig to whistle…impossible!! If they don’t WANT to understand, they won’t.

  24. freedom said on 25 Jun 2007 at 11:17 am:
    Flag comment

    Fits you and your argument, James — “res ipsa loquitor”: the thing speaks for itself.”

  25. Darkmage said on 25 Jun 2007 at 11:19 am:
    Flag comment

    Huh. I guess they finally fixed the documentation requirements. The last time I got my license, all you really needed was a friend and a phone bill with your name & address on it.

    I stand corrected.

  26. Not Jack Herrity said on 25 Jun 2007 at 11:49 am:
    Flag comment

    Holy crap! Did James Young just resurrect res ipsa loquitur??? I haven’t heard anyone inject res ipsa into a conversation since I took torts in law school! It would have been even better if he had spelled it correctly.

    Thanks for bringing back bad memories, James! :)


  27. NoVA Scout said on 25 Jun 2007 at 2:08 pm:
    Flag comment

    NJH: “loquitor”, “loquitur”, “locquitur” . de minimis non curat lex.

    I used to race against an impressive sailboat named “Res Ipsa Loquitur” And it did. Often at my expense.

  28. anonymous said on 25 Jun 2007 at 2:18 pm:
    Flag comment

    I can’t believe your spin on this is that this legislation is about illegal immigration.

  29. freedom said on 25 Jun 2007 at 8:46 pm:
    Flag comment

    No, anonymous, I don’t believe Greg said anything about “illegal immigration,” I believe he was talking about aliens who are in this country illegally…and spin or not, that’s certainly a part of the issue, would you not agree? What would YOUR spin be, by the way, that illegal aliens should be exempt from fines to which you and I are subject? Come on….:(

  30. James Young said on 26 Jun 2007 at 10:42 am:
    Flag comment

    Mea culpa (think I got that one right). I made a spelling — really, a typographical — error.

    Where are those who savage me for pointing out more glaring errors? Not rising to my defense?

    I love the double-standards around here, though I acknowledge “NoVA Scout’s” comment (which I had to look up; I acknowledge his superior Latin skills).

    And NJH, aren’t most memories from law school “bad” ones? ;-)

  31. BeagleMan said on 11 Jul 2007 at 10:42 am:
    Flag comment

    Talk about a thread going astray…this conversation started out about how unfair HB3202 would be to the average VA resident and has turned into a slugfest of old cronies that can’t see the forest from the trees. It is an unjust bill that unfairly targets VA (licensed) residents and it is an unjust “TAX.” If you gentlemen want to turn this into a political analysis of something else (as well as open up old wounds), so be it. But use another thread.
    You’re all beginning to sound like the politicians in Richmond that backed this whacky bill.
    Why not return to the original issue that was brought up here?
    I would love to here some thought provoking dialog on HB3202 itself…maybe?

  32. BT said on 14 Jul 2007 at 8:53 pm:
    Flag comment

    Thanks BeagleMan for getting the conversation back in focus. I am new to the site, a lifelong Republican who works for PWC and volunteers for the GOP every election where I live (not PWC). Albo has certainly birthed a monstrosity that should, if I have anything to do with it, cost him his job. This thing stinks on so many counts that I don’t even know where to begin. I’ve enjoyed Young’s columns when he was writing for the Potomac News. I certainly hope that he will put principle above any friendships he might have and seek the repeal of this legislation.

  33. JJ said on 20 Jul 2007 at 10:06 pm:
    Flag comment

    Incumbent Virginia Senator Marty Williams (Hampton Roads area) was defeated in the primaries by Patricia Stall. Patricia Stall advocates an immediate repeal of HB 3202. stallforvasenate.com - Looks to me like the voters are speaking out early. Let’s hope this year they speak out often in November….

  34. D. Bier said on 22 Jul 2007 at 10:37 pm:
    Flag comment

    The Civil Remedial Fees (CRF) apply not only to “abusive drivers” but to each and every Virginia driver who commits even the tiniest offense or has a citable vehicle safety problem. Fees range up beyond $1,000 to $3,000 for some felony offenses. However, the CRF’s are not just for “abusive drivers” but any Virginia driver who makes a goof or error leading to the smallest misdemeanor violation. The new paragraph 4 of § 46.2-206.1 (C). says (in part…paragraphs 1 through 3 omitted):

    “4. Any other misdemeanor conviction for a driving and/or motor vehicle related violation of Title 18.2 or this title that is not included in one of the preceding three subdivisions shall be assessed a fee to be paid in three annual payments of $300 each;”.
    (http://www.courts.state.va.us/publications/hb_3202.pdf )

    Failing to signal properly costs $900, as does not wearing a seat belt or any other minor driver goof, even defective tires or inoperable lights, per paragraph 4.

    Kaine, Howell, and the members of the Legislature who voted for this monster law are mendaciously engaged in panic spin control, using the propaganda tactic of misleading the public by using a negative term, “abusive driver”, when the new civil remedial fees really apply to ANY Virginia driver who makes a mistake, however small.

    And don’t forget, in many situations, especially accidents, there can be multiple violations cited and EACH ONE is subject to its own CRF! At $900 minimum each, even a few misdemeanors can rocket up to thousands of dollars in fees. One accident could put one’s economic future, credit rating, and security clearance at risk!

    The fees are a disguised, discriminatory, regressive tax which will have a gigantic impact on the young, poor and elderly legal residents (out of state drivers and illegal aliens won’t have to pay) of Virginia.

    Voters should remember the deception involved and, in the election coming up, throw the rascals out, Republican or Democrat, who voted for or supported the CRF measure; most of whom are now misleading the public in a rush to cover their posteriors. And that includes Delegate Scott Lingamfelter whose “good attempt to set the record straight” in another thread on this site is instead an effort to stay in office.

    Rest assured Senator Davis in Fairfax will not get my vote in the general election and I will actively campaign against her relentlessly unless she and the others involved call a special session and erase the CRF section of the law. Those in Delegate Scott Lingamfelter’s or Delegate Albo’s districts and elsewhere might consiger similar actions.

Comments are closed.

Views: 4382