 |
| Gabriel Santos/PEXELS |
It is horrifying that Americans have to worry about whether their families may be killed on the interstate by a foreign trucker who was issued a CDL with insufficient scrutiny by a corrupt or incompetent state government.
A sickening recent crash of a motorcoach bus in Stafford County, Virginia, resulted in the death of five people, and if the United States had sane immigration laws, it never would have happened. The driver, Jing Shen Dong, was a Chinese man who was naturalized as an American citizen yet could not speak English. The Democrat-controlled state of New York issued his commercial driver’s license (CDL) in 2024. This is just the most recent instance of an ongoing phenomenon — immigrant drivers or truckers getting CDLs with little scrutiny and going on to cause deaths on U.S. highways. According to the Department of Transportation (DOT), non-domiciled truckers killed at least 30 people in 2025 in 17 fatal crashes.It is horrifying that Americans have to worry about whether their families may be killed on the interstate by a foreign trucker who was issued a CDL with insufficient scrutiny by a corrupt or incompetent state government. Not to mention, issuing CDLs to illegal aliens is against federal law.
The motorcoach crash in Virginia highlights the problem not just with illegal immigration, but with legal immigration and the naturalization process. How was such a man lawfully naturalized as a U.S. citizen when he could not speak English? United States law requires those under the age of 50 to speak English to be naturalized as a citizen, and that ought to be the bare minimum for everyone, with no age exception.
Stopping and reversing the illegal migration of millions of people into America is the most urgent demand of the day, but scrutinizing, reducing, and reversing even legal migration is almost as important. It is encouraging that President Trump has been using regulatory hurdles and discretion to reduce legal immigration into the United States. For decades, leftists— and even many conservatives — have told us that legal immigration is about the “best and brightest” coming to America, the land of opportunity. Yet the reality looks much more like Americans ending up dead in part because our government has “naturalized” people who never should have been eligible for citizenship.
Trucking as a key front of the immigration battle has even reached the Supreme Court in several recent decisions, although the results have been mixed. In Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, as recently reported by Danielle Chaffin in these pages, the court unanimously ruled that freight brokers can be held legally responsible if they hire truckers from companies with a record of unsafe drivers. This means freight brokers are legally incentivized to perform greater scrutiny when hiring trucking companies and not cut corners to save costs. Any step that increases scrutiny for hiring truckers is a good one at this point, and freight brokers should be required to perform their due diligence — especially if that means the difference between life and death for unsuspecting victims on the interstate.
The other recent Supreme Court ruling on trucking — Florida v. California — proved disappointing. The state of Florida sued California and Washington for those blue states’ lax issuance of CDLs to illegal alien truckers, resulting in the deaths of Florida residents on the interstate, such as the crash caused by Harjinder Singh on August 12, 2025. The Supreme Court issued no opinion but released an order dismissing the case.
Notably, Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented, indicating they wanted to hear the case. As Justice Thomas wrote: “An illegal alien who cannot read English road signs cannot drive an 80,000-pound tractor-trailer. Federal law and regulations prohibit States from providing commercial driver’s licenses to applicants unless they pass a driver’s test, sufficiently understand the English language, and show appropriate immigration status.” Thus, Florida had legitimate grievance to sue California and Washington over these states’ failure to comply with federal laws.
Thomas expressed frustration that SCOTUS “declines to even hear Florida’s claims, even though it has nowhere else to bring them.” As Thomas argued, a suit between states is one of the few kinds of cases over which the Supreme Court possesses original (as opposed to appellate) jurisdiction, and Thomas doubted whether “this Court has discretion to refuse to hear cases within its exclusive original jurisdiction.”
State governments ought to protect their citizens, and if Florida cannot sue other states whose negligence or corruption is wreaking havoc in Florida, then what legal recourse do states like Florida have? Must responsible states be doomed to reap the consequences of other states’ negligence, even when it results in deaths on their highways? --->READ MORE HERE
No comments:
Post a Comment