Fernando Castillo-Solis, an illegal alien living in Georgia for more than ten years has a case before the Georgia Supreme Court that challenges a state law which requires driver’s licenses. Castillo-Solis and his legal team contend that requiring driver’s licenses discriminates against illegal aliens and encourages racial profiling.
In January 2010, a Gwinnett County officer stopped Castillo-Solis because his vehicle had been suspended and he was driving without a license. Castillo-Solis was cited accordingly. In August 2010, under the concept of unconstitutionality, Castillo-Solis’s then-attorney filed motions to suppress state’s evidence pertaining to the no license charge. The state then called an attorney as a witness who testified that an undocumented immigrant can be deported for driving without a license. The following month, the trial court denied Castillo-Solis’ motion to suppress the evidence and to find the law unconstitutional.
On November 5th, the Georgia Supreme Court heard arguments from Arturo Corso (Castillo-Solis’ attorney) and the State. Mr. Corso argued that the No License statute and the 287(g) program at the Gwinnett County jail “work in concert to create a discriminatory scheme to target undocumented immigrants for arrest and deportation from the US.”
Mr. Corso further argued that the statute OCGA 40-5-20 allows Georgia citizens to return within 30 days (prior to trial) to show they have obtained a license. According to Mr. Corso, his client did not have this option because illegal aliens are not granted driver’s licenses. And since Castillo-Solis didn’t have the option of obtaining a license in the 30-day interim, an “irrevocable special privilege” was created even though the Georgia Constitution prohibits such a privilege. Further, Mr. Corso argued that this “irrevocable special privilege” denied his client the right to a fair trial and isolated illegal aliens for discriminatory treatment.
Upon review of the code, the state found that Mr. Corso failed to present evidence that the law’s goal is to deport illegal aliens. In addition, the state argued that the foundation of the case lay on the presumption that, to use Mr. Corso’s words, an “illegal and undocumented alien” should have been afforded the same rights as a citizen or lawful resident.
The Castillo-Solis case and his defense represent good examples of what in Georgia we call incremental amnesty. Imagine the uproar if every illegal alien were issued drivers licenses. Imagine the greater uproar if illegal aliens were gradually, incrementally, granted citizenship. Illegal immigration advocates understand piecemeal maneuvering. So, they take miniscule steps toward amnesty, remaining under the radar and pushing to gain additional privileges as time passes. Their moves may go unnoticed. But as a wise person once said: “If your sword is too short, add to its length by taking one step forward.”
Pay attention to the small steps alien advocates take. By the time they’ve taken several of them, it’s too late. As for Castillo-Solis, check back with me on 03/30/2013, to find out what the Georgia Supreme Court decides.