On The Side: Brad Hicks

Martha Aracely Martinez, now 30, moved to Muscatine, Iowa, from Mexico with her parents when she was 11. The family entered the country illegally. When she was 17, she obtained a driver’s license with a false identification, an identity that was alleged to have been stolen, so she could go to work at a sanitation company.
In 2013, the Obama administration – not Congress – established the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA. According to a report from The Des Moines Register, the action protects immigrants who came to the country illegally as children from deportation.
The Muscatine County Attorney’s Office charged Martinez in 2014, after an investigation showed she used the false identity to get her license. The matter is now before the Iowa Supreme Court, and it asks a very fundamental question: Can a county take action against an immigrant now considered legal under DACA for actions taken that were illegal before DACA existed? President Obama’s declaration was designed to eradicate these types of questions, but law enforcement and prosecutors are following the congressionally-approved laws that are on the books – laws which have not been repealed by Congress.
Martinez could be deported if the ruling goes against her. Either way, there is a good chance that political operatives and attorneys on both sides of the immigration debate are going to push the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, which is the next step after our state’s highest court makes its ruling.
So what do you do with this situation?
Her parents brought her to the U.S. at age 11.
She is the mother of four children, all considered to be U.S. citizens.
The identification number she used to get the driver’s license as a 17-year-old apparently was “stolen” from someone named Diana Castenada, whose name was also found on records used in Arkansas, California and Kentucky. A friend-of-the-court brief filed by DREAM Iowa and other groups argued there is no evidence that Diana Castenada was a real person.
Martinez’ use of the identity was revealed when she tried to get a driver’s license using her real name and Social Security number after receiving the DACA protection. The Register reported she was flagged when facial recognition software used by the Iowa Department of Transportation found similarities between her new photo and the one on the old license with a different name.
She was charged, as the law prescribed, with identity theft and forgery. Prosecutors said they are following the law, regardless of whether the individual is a citizen, immigrant, or non-citizen.
Courts have leaned heavily toward allowing federal enforcement of immigration law, and have seldom allowed state or local efforts to prevail in the face of federal regulations.
So what do you do with this situation?
It’s federal law versus an executive action versus a local law enforcement prosecution versus federal jurisdiction involving a mom.
To be sure, it’s evidence of an inconsistent federal government. Congress can’t get enough support either way to change the laws. Congress can’t muster enough votes to overturn a unilateral action by the president, which may or may not have been legal in that it supersedes exiting laws. Congress, no doubt, is hoping the judicial branch – again – will take care of its problem. Given it’s our duty to hold Congress accountable, maybe I should ask how you would rule in this situation.

Brad Hicks is editor and publisher of the Red Oak Express. Contact him at publisher@redoakexpress.com.