« Schiavo Case Headed To Supreme Court | Main | Zealot Watch »

Another brilliant idea from the same people that brought you John Kerry, Mike Dukakis, and Ted Kennedy...

Proving once again that there is no idea too liberal, too PC, too insanely stupid for Massachusetts, a representative has filed a bill to grant drivers' licenses to illegal immigrants.

Representative Timothy Toomey (D-The People's Democratic Republic of Cambridge -- now there's a shocker) introduced the measure, saying it would "help public safety."

Naturally, there's the sympathetic quote from an illegal alien. This time, it's a 30-year-old construction worker from Ireland. "It's just been unfortunate that after 9/11, we're basically lumped in with people who have come here to destroy the country."

Hey, sorry, Paddy. But here's a thought: if you don't want to be treated like a criminal, maybe you shouldn't BREAK OUR IMMIGRATION LAWS?

The bill looks like it's in trouble -- both the governor, Mitt Romney, and the Attorney General, Tom O'Reilly, oppose it. And they are the highest-elected Republican and Democrat respectively in Massachusetts. But I have faith in my neighbors to the south. They'll find some way, some compromise, some chicanery and get this through.

However, I sincerely look forward to eating my words.

Please, Massachusetts. Prove me wrong for presuming the worst about you just this once?

J.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Another brilliant idea from the same people that brought you John Kerry, Mike Dukakis, and Ted Kennedy...:

» Pirate's Cove linked with It's the media's fault

» Secure Liberty linked with Illegals To Get Licenses In Massachusetts?

Comments (42)

...we're basically lumpe... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

...we're basically lumped in with people who have come here to destroy the country.

I'm sure he thinks that this is about keeping terrorists only from entering the U.S., or maybe he's just prejudiced. Security concerns aside, that's a major misconception many have about illegal immigration - it's more than just that and to ignore it would be either foolish or an intentional attempt to remain grossly uninformed.

Driver's licenses? That's n... (Below threshold)
No argument for me about th... (Below threshold)
-S-:

No argument for me about the nature of the offense. So many Americans who oppose illegal immigration and yet support immigration done legally.

I can't get how it is that people try to continue to tweak these issues, that are even so blatant about the tweaking ("immigrant workers" instead of "illegal immigrants" is a great example of this).

I'm going to remain a Republican, remain supportive of President Bush's general politics and Cabinet's politics, certainly as to his personal values and interpretations of religious concepts in all walks of life, BUT, the whole issue of illegal immigration and how our country's responsible party's are failing, even refusing, to acknowledge citizen requests about this issue is driving a huge wedge among conservatives (d'oh).

I would very much enjoy hearing/reading President Bush begin to offer more details about why and how he invisions his "Guest Worker Program" because like a lot of people, there's the assumption that once someone's here in the country, with or without permissions, they're going to stay here. And that the people who continue to employ illegal immigrants are so emboldened about their behavior that they flaunt the fact that no one penalizes them for breaking our laws, much less those that they employ, illegally and illegals.

What steps could be taken to stop illegal immigration? First would be the cessation and severe penalty enforcements for and about those who employ them combined with increased immigration controls (the howto's of that last part are mind numbing, however). A wall along our southern border between here and Mexico does not seem reasonable but it would be effective to a point, but the Canadian border is hopelessly porous, impossible to police and maintain where human trafficking is concerned.

So, we have to start taking steps to enforce individual accountability within the country and to remove people with some finality from the country who are here illegally, although I don't know how that could be possible, I'm just saying that's the area that needs the resources: enforcement and individual accountability.

President Bush's Guest WP, however, remains woefully ill explained and has brought about a lot of ongoing confusion about what he means, coupled with Attorney General Gonzales actually saying to the effect that he doesn't accept that there is a thing called "an illegal immigrant."

It's not about immigration, it's about illegal immigration. Everyone in all aspects to both know well what is what and which is which but then again we get this ongoing word game issue and I have to add here that no one is fooling anyone else, regardless of who they are. You immigrate by means that violates existing immigration requirements, you're engaging in illegal immigration. Not rocket science.

There are people here in CA who actually brag about employing illegal immigrants and even in the media and no one so much as sends them a letter of complaint, much less brings them up on penalty.

Jay, as a conservative Mass... (Below threshold)
Mike:

Jay, as a conservative Massachusetts resident I will try my best to destroy this piece of crap legislation.

Interesting about this criminal the article quotes is that I thought that illegal immigrants are only doing the jobs Americans don't want to do? At least that is one of the prominant memes of those supporting these criminals. I didn't realize construction work was one of those jobs.

The state of Tennessee - ye... (Below threshold)
vanna516:

The state of Tennessee - yes Tennessee - has been giving out drivers licenses to illegals for about 5 years now. Even after 9/11 and the fact that the people of Tennessee are AGAINST it, the legislature refuses to elimate or restrict it in any meaningful fashion. Too much money flowing into the pockets of the politicians from big-time employers of illegals like Tyson Chicken, Opryland & construction industry, is my guess. Even the majority of the workers on water construction and road construction projects don't speak English. The minimum wait time to get a drivers license is now 3 hours. The state just hired Fed Ex as a consultant in an effort to determine how to decrease the wait time - that should be easy STOP GIVING OUT DRIVERS LICENSES TO ILLEGALS!

11 states allow illegals to... (Below threshold)

11 states allow illegals to obtain drivers licenses already. California's One Bill Gill Cedillo has brought the legistlation up 4 times now to grant illegals drivers licenses, yet 70% of the state doesn't want it to occur and we have according to the last PEW study, 25% (4.4 million) illegals living here.

In reference to what Mike w... (Below threshold)
-S-:

In reference to what Mike wrote (^^), I always respond to that bogus statement (the bogus statement that rationalizes illegal immigration by saying, "they do the work that Americans don't want to do"...some even say, "...won't do"):

I ask, "who do you think was doing the work before you got here?"

The fields were harvested, the steps were swept, the yards were maintained, the fruit got picked, the children were raised, the meals were cooked, there were nurses in clinics and hospitals, there were parking attendants, buildings were constructed, dams were built, trucks were driven, packages were delivered, cars were serviced...

People take employment where and how they can find it. If an employer can hire someone less qualified without documentation for one-half or even less than what they'd be required by various laws to pay a citizen, many of them opt to pay illegal immigrants and step around accountability. That's the motivation for illegal immigration, that and the fact that the quality of life here is finer than elsewhere, illegal immigrants can receive free healthcare and basic services and earn far more here than, particularly, Mexico.

But it doesn't make it right and it surely doesn't speak about Americans and the jobs they won't take or refuse. People who need work will accept work and Americans so far managed to do well enough before illegal immigrants arrived to "show" Americans what work was.

I find that partiuclar statement to be really, really offensive. Rather, the truth is that illegal immigrants take the work that otherwise Americans would be doing. That's the truth of the situation.

As much as we dislike the i... (Below threshold)
stuff:

As much as we dislike the idea of "illegals" they are here, we hire them, they pick our food and do many of the tasks that we are "above". Giving illegals a licence paves the way for them to become financially liable in the event of traffic accidents. Would you prefer that they just hit and run for fear of being arrested/deported? Sure it's not a perfect idea but it's better than the alternative.

Not completely on point, b... (Below threshold)
Old Coot:

Not completely on point, but what is the status of Teddy's drivers license? I do know that Mary Jo Kopechne's license has been inactive for some time.

'Giving illegals a licence ... (Below threshold)
Jack Tanner:

'Giving illegals a licence paves the way for them to become financially liable in the event of traffic accidents.'

No that would be buying insurance. One has no relation to the other.

With all due respect to "St... (Below threshold)
vanna516:

With all due respect to "Stuff", giving drivers licenses to illegals hasn't helped with the hit and run problem here in Tennessee. We have several high profile cases a year. But in TN, illegals can get drivers licenses but not insurance. One of the latest high profile case involved 2 Hispanics thought they hit a pregnant lady walking along the side of the road (it was later determined that she had merely tripped and fell) but the turned around and shot her - both she and the baby died. So drivers licenses are not the solution - controlling who comes over the border is.

"Other states are doing ... (Below threshold)

"Other states are doing it," said Rep. Timothy J. Toomey Jr. (D-Cambridge), who has filed a bill to allow the move.

That's his argument? "Other states are doing it"? Is he serious?

You want to know what else "other states" are doing? They're allowing law-abiding citizens to legally carry concealed weapons without interference from liberal asswipe politicians such as Timmy Toomey here. There are currently 35 states that are "shall issue" with regard to the issuance of concealed carry permits. Clearly then, following his feeble-assed reasoning, we need to jump on board with that program.

I'm sure Rep. Toomey will lead the charge here too.

Some in the area may want t... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

Some in the area may want to visit nomoreamnesty.com and read up on their efforts.

Also, send respectful letters to your representatives indicating your preferences or thoughts. If they are unresponsive, or if this issue is really important to you and you have a candidate who supports the termination of illegal immigration (and who provides more than lip-service), vote for him/her. We are responsible for our representation and if they remain tone deaf, replace them.

If the Republicans remain unresponsive at the behest of GWBush and/or Karl Rove's political calculus, I will support another party.

Anonymous Drivel: I agree ... (Below threshold)
-S-:

Anonymous Drivel: I agree with you up to that last point because the "other party" options to the Republican Party are completely unsupportable to me. The issue of illegal immigration is also unacceptable to me but the sell-out involved to opt to vote as a Democrat or Liberatarian because President Bush and Karl Rove won't enforce immigration policy, I mean, I could not make the tradeoffs involved by voting for other party politics.

What I would rather see is that representatives within the GOP stop cowtowing about this issue and start honoring the wishes of voters and that has been almost always to bring about the end to illegal immigration, to enforce existing immigration policy, to stop the B.S. involved originating in other countries about what it is to illegally immigrate to America. It's actually very insulting to me to read that Irish guy's comments along with so many like him, right here in CA and currently on the teevee from the mouth of Fox and even Bush during their Presss Conference. So far, Martin (Canada) has been far to effete to pay much attention to (sorry, Canada, but he is effete).

President Bush could accomp... (Below threshold)
-S-:

President Bush could accomplish a lot if he'd just start explaining himself and his position about this issue. He continues to SUGGEST that he does, in fact, encourage if not support illegal immigration (by referring to illegal immigrants as "workers" as he is now during the News Conference with Fox and Martin).

He seems to suggest a great deal of leniancy and acceptance about illegal immigration, if not encouragement for it and that's where the problems begin. Because most Republicans don't agree with that. President Bush is also avoiding being candid with voters, I get the impression, about this issue and it bugs me. It also provides Hillary Clinton and Dean and the DNC with a great hammer that would otherwise not be theirs if Bush would just get real about this and start speaking directly about it -- he either now endorses illegal immigration and disagrees with a lot of his voter base or he doesn't (or something similar, thereabouts), but he should at least start being candid about his position and intentions about this and let the discussions be held. I'm disturbed that the problem continues in ever increasing amplification while voters continue to complain about it.

Amnesty policies are stupid... (Below threshold)
Just Me:

Amnesty policies are stupid, they just invite more illegal immigration.

My opinion on immigration has long been that we should make legal immigration easier and cheaper for those who want to come here to work, but we should have a zero tolerance policy for illegal immigration, and prosecute those who hire illegals, and deport any illegals we find.

I think neither party really wants to take this issue on in a sane manner that will create real policy because of a fear of losing votes to the other side.

As for Mass considering there is a veto proof majority in the state house, I figure it is unlikely that Romney can put a stop tothe bill, if there is enough support for it.

Not taking a position on th... (Below threshold)

Not taking a position on this issue, but I like how the sympathetic quote is from an Irish immigrant -- not, say, Mexican or Pakistani. Seems like the Herald has an agenda of its own.

RE: -S-'s posts (March 23, ... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

RE: -S-'s posts (March 23, 2005 12:43/12:48 PM)
...that last point... I could not make the tradeoffs involved by voting for other party politics.

-S-,

Don't think for a moment that this doesn't provide a considerable amount of consternation on my part. I'm not one for throwing the baby out with the bathwater either, but some issues are so important that they trump most other things. Republicans received my most recent votes based primarily on just a handful of issues with national security topping the short list. Values were important too but not in a religious sense... more in a "America is a decent country trying to do the right thing - it is not evil" one. That was a meme I felt the Left did not, en toto, embrace. I find that there is not that much different dividing the two major parties and that issues of convenience arise that divide constituencies here and there. Local politics supercede well defined ideologies - such is its nature.

Given that only a few issues define a party during any particular election cycle, one must choose the lesser of two "evils". As I've said before, government is an intrusion in wait that is integral to a functioning society but must be heavily checked. With that as fundamental, I parse my mental checklist of important issues (at least the ones any party will define as platform) and see where the scales tip. The ideal to me is the one that most closely adheres to the Constitution and more deference to state's rights. Since ideal fluctuates from administration to administration, I adjust accordingly... sometimes that requires a dramatic shift in voting pattern to correct what I perceive to be a dangerous momentum.

Now you have some insight to some of my mental machinations for political behaviour. The wiggle room I allowed myself was the requirement that a candidate "provides more than lip-service" to the position. I've not seen many Democrats clamoring for reform, though if one in my district did and proposed legislation, you can bet they'd get my attention. The Tancredos of the world carry considerable political clout and are receiving kudos from a public ever frustrated by a deaf GOP. This WND poll, however anecdotal, is indicative of sentiment from the Right. Why doesn't the GOP listen? I suspect fear of alienting(?!) illegal aliens who might become constituents or a fear of being labelled xenophobic by Democrats. It's a looong-term calculus to appeal to the most explosive voting demographic in America. And it is wrong and Constitutionally derelict behaviour. The Bush administration in specific and government in general has a duty to defend the nation's borders and immigration laws... it is NOT doing that.

Is Bush sitting on the fence? Yes, but he is only delaying to the point where he can open the floodgates without getting tarred and feathered. Politics dictate that he conceal the process with PC terminology and guest-worker programs disguising wholesale amnesty. I don't care how he ties the bow on the pig, it still stinks. He abdicated his responsibility of border control while in Texas and was a strong advocate of NAFTA and maquiladoras. He carried that mentality to Washington and vocalizes in Spanish whenever possible? Can you say "pander"? (Of course, at least he's not pandering in French.)

While I strongly support some of his (GOP's?) policies, I am equally opposed on just about as many others. It would only take one or two major issues for me to switch to a better option should one arise. I've done so before and will do so again. Suffice it to say I've cast principled votes before that contributed to the election of a contemptible candidate. I've also swallowed my principles to elect a candidate with whom I've had serious reservations. Neither option is partcularly pleasant. However, sometimes the better tact long term for the sake of the country is to cast a vote to change the leadership to notify incumbents in no uncertain terms that they better listen to their constituency and not assume they are locked in ad infinitum. I look back at the Gingrich Congress and "Contract with America" (with third party prodding from Ross Perot) to be evidential of dramatic and immediate change. Its repercussions continue to this day... and it can be repeated though some temporal sacrifice may be in order.

Maybe this is too absolutist and extreme. Maybe the Constitution and sincere citizens demand absolutism. Wait a minute - strike that second maybe.

But you know AD I honestly ... (Below threshold)
Just Me:

But you know AD I honestly don't think either party is going to do much on this issue. It is like the plague as far as they are concerned.

I think both sides pander on it at certain times, but I also think you are right that the reluctance for a get tough policy on part of the GOP is probably fear of the "racism/no compassion" attack, and the loss of hispanic voters who are in favor of very loos imigration policy. Hispanics are a huge swing vote, although they tend to fall more in the DNC camp, they tend to also be fairly socially conservative, so I think the GOP thinks they can appeal on this angle, but they have to avoid pissing them off on the immigration one, so they choose instead to make a few token comments and avoid the issue.

I think Michelle Malkin has a lot of interesting comments on the immigration issue, and the lack of the GOP to really touch it with any meaningful policy.

I also think Bush's experience in Texas colors his perception of what immigration policy should be. Economically illegal immigration can be good for some businesses, and that very well may be plahing a roll as well.

I wouldn't count on it - it... (Below threshold)
firstbrokenangel:

I wouldn't count on it - it's certainly better than having an illegal alien driving without a license; it also helps on who's here, from where, where they live so we can keep tabs on them. I do believe this same measure will be taken up by the two houses of Congress in DC and in many other states.

Cindy

What's the difference Cindy... (Below threshold)
Mike:

What's the difference Cindy if they have a license or not? They are criminals once they set foot on United States soil without the proper paperwork. Who cares if they are driving legally, they are already breaking the law by being here. By granting them a license you give them legitimacy for coming here illegally.

You're reasoning is baffling, unfortunately it's not the first time I've heard it. This immigrant in particular is taking a job from an American who could do it just as well.

Uh, I don't know where you'... (Below threshold)

Uh, I don't know where you're coming from Suzi, but as a Californian, it was Gray Davis who SOLD US OUT. Gray Davis was our last Governor (who screwed us over during the energy crisis), who just before his term ended, signed a bill giving illegal immigrants the right to obtain driver's licenses....

It's not just the Repubs. It's ALL politicians who are wishy'washing on this matter. Don't vote Democrat because of this, they don't care about pure Americans either (or even legal immigrants).

RE: Just Me's post (March 2... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

RE: Just Me's post (March 23, 2005 03:07 PM)
But you know AD I honestly don't think either party is going to do much on this issue. It is like the plague as far as they are concerned.

Good points, and I think this one is the best. Neither wants to touch it so there is a sort of political collusion at the Federal level. I can't know about state since each one is different. This may be one of those issues where the voters rise up spontaneously and vote out of accumulated frustration. I'd liken it to the "values" issue of '04. No one saw it coming but the common wo/man was ever impatient with an isolated elite and voted accordingly. Only in retrospect after that bus had already crushed some incumbents did those near the accident scene start looking for its number.

it's certainly better th... (Below threshold)
Julie:

it's certainly better than having an illegal alien driving without a license;

No, it isn't. Without a license and ins. in California they can't sue. If that changes, expect a rise in fraudulent law suits again. While ins. is required, all they have to do is obtain ins. in which to apply for a license and then cancel it immediately afterwards. So, we can expect our ins. premiums to go up. To add insult too injury, they want us to subsidized paying ins. for anyone making less than $25k.

Plus, with driver licenses, they can be hired as drivers. Another flood of cheap labor driving the wages down and creating more jobs "Americans don't want to do. "

"Who cares if they are driv... (Below threshold)
Just Me:

"Who cares if they are driving legally, they are already breaking the law by being here. By granting them a license you give them legitimacy for coming here illegally."

Also, by issuing a liscense you have effectively given them a legal document, that they can misuse. Just think of motor voter registrations etc. This is one reason I think the DNC is so keen on these laws, because they see it as a way to get fraudulent votes.

RE: Julie's post (March 23,... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

RE: Julie's post (March 23, 2005 04:39 PM)
Plus, with driver licenses, they can be hired as drivers. Another flood of cheap labor...

Doh! I never even thought about extrapolating it to an explicit pass to employment. The trucking industry would change almost instantaneously as other states would have to recognize that license. If one state allows it, full faith and credit kicks in and the floodgates open. Every interstate shipper would likely either dump their current drivers, cut salaries or pay scales, or lock out unions whenever possible knowing a new pool of labor was waiting at the curb. The company might not even need to set up a business node in such a "license friendly" state to change their hiring policies. This is a skill that is readily transferrable and would shake one component of interstate commerce to its core.

"The trucking industry woul... (Below threshold)
Just Me:

"The trucking industry would change almost instantaneously as other states would have to recognize that license."

I can just see the teamsters loving this idea. They already got pissed over something with Mexican truckers being allowed to haul into the US a while back (I remember way too vaguely what it was all about just that the union was up in arms over it).

Whoa, Henry, you misunderst... (Below threshold)
-S-:

Whoa, Henry, you misunderstood what I wrote.

I'm a Republican and I reject the CA DNC politics, and completely. I remember well Pete Wilson and his attempts to enforce the state created (and voter endorsed and approved) legislation that would boot illegals out and eliminate their access to taxpayer funds and more, an dhow that legislation was overturned in CA by "rights" groups despite the fact that it was passed into law by most of the CA voters.

And, I remember that Grey Davis landed in office as a Democrat shortly afterward and that Pete Wilson, a Republican, was vilified in CA by mostly the Liberal press and by nearly all Hispanic interest groups, as if to be Hispanic renders one above and immune to legal requirements in the state, that immigration was their entitlement by any means possible (and it seems to still be thought as such by same).

I was responding to AnonymousDrivel's suggestion that I switch political party alignment (from Republican to something else) because of the illegal immigration problem, because President Bush and current GOP appear to be fascilitating illegal immigration by one way or others, and not enforcing the laws against illegal immigration, all that.

Anyway, I wrote that it wasn't incentive enough for me to switch party alignment, for this issue alone, although I do find President Bush's avoidance of enforcing existing immigration laws and what I interpret as his submissiveness with Mexico about this problem to be unacceptable.

And, I think Bush is handing the Dems a hammer with this issue, given Hillary Clinton's already campaigning upon this issue.

But, about the issue of illegal immigration and Bush's apparent inducement to actually encouragement it (my perception, not speaking on his behalf, just saying that is how I interpret Bush's positions and statements and lack of forceful actions about the problem), for all the detriments involved, the other political parties are far worse. The DNC opposing illegal immigration and enforcing existing immigration laws is just not something I would ever rely on taking place, not something I'd ever place faith in the DNC as representing, so anything H. Clinton has to say about that seems to be fiction, or perhaps her imagined utopian statements from among a group of peers indulging her but who would never act to support her idealism where illegal immigration is concerned (meaning, I have no faith, none, in the DNC to address the problem but assume that they would actually amplify the problem of illegal immigration however possible)...

------------------------------------

To something someone else wrote here (Anonymous Drivel's later comments), I just bought Newt Gingrich's book and am looking forward to reading it this coming weekend...

Just Me: they were upset a... (Below threshold)
-S-:

Just Me: they were upset about the legislation that's now passed that allows trucks from Mexico being driven by Mexicans (not U.S. citizens) to continue on into the country past the border and in most cases to bypass an inspections stop altogether.

The drivers are assumed to then go to wherever they want in the U.S. driving their trucks from Mexico in whatever state of disrepair or configurations they may be, driven by whomever, and then supposedly to be driven back to Mexico and all is well.

They were right to be upset because what it also involves is that the Americans who would previously have taken those loads on their trucks into and around the U.S. have now been displaced by continuously driven trucks from Mexico into the U.S. and around and wherever without intervention or controls.

Another concession to Mexic... (Below threshold)
-S-:

Another concession to Mexico (^^) that defies all reasonable understanding by American taxpayers.

I read a snappy comment by ... (Below threshold)
-S-:

I read a snappy comment by an illegal immigrant from Mexico who was quoted as being here in the U.S. for a while now and who commented on the issue of healthcare in the U.S. and that many low income American citizens have to pay and pay royally for healthcare when especially they have a grave medical problem...while immigrants who are not contributing the same level of taxes receive literally "free" (to them) healthcare by way of Medicaid.

The woman commented that, to paraphrase here, Americans have enjoyed a good education and good incomes and can afford to pay the health care costs on behalf of the illegal immigrants in the state of CA who have not had a good education and a history of good employment. So, according to her way of thinking, there was not only no sympathy or empathy for the low income Americans who struggle to pay doctors and hospitals and high insurance premiums but are just above the Medicaid enrollment income limits, and that she and other illegal immigrants were entitled to the healthcare at taxpayer expense.

The biggest problem among the references that many from Mexico and Central America have is that they come from a highly socialist, often communist influenced, culture and they assume that there's supposed to be a payment for what they need provided to them and are indignant when there's not the offering of same, and then go about lecturing everyone in the U.S. why we're obligated to give them what they want.

S I wasn't implying they di... (Below threshold)
Just Me:

S I wasn't implying they didn't have a right to be upset, only that giving illegals driver's liscenses and AD's speculation that it could have effects on the long haul trucking industry would probably bring out the teamsters in protest, although they havent really said anything, so maybe they haven't thought about it yet.

But I think AD's speculation that illegals getting a legal driver's liscense affecting the trucking industry is on the money, most illegals don't care about unions or union wages, since even below minimum wage salaries is more than they made in Mexico.

Jay Tea writes ..... (Below threshold)
s9:

Jay Tea writes ...a representative has filed a bill to grant drivers' licenses to illegal immigrants.

But is that really true? This is the Herald we're talking about here— not a newspaper with a spotless record for objectively characterizing the news in its headline. The headline says the bill is intended to allow undocumented immigrants to obtain driver licenses.

A careful reading of the opinion piece suggests that the bill simply eliminates the requirement for a Social Security number to get a driver license in Massachusetts. What is the real story, Jay?

Do you even care?

*snort* I love the rational... (Below threshold)
KB:

*snort* I love the rationalization for giving illegals drivers licenses for the following statements: Illegals aliens would follow traffic laws if they only had licenses, and Illegals just want licenses in order to drive.

We are supposed to believe that illegals, whose very presence is in continuous violation of US laws, and whose presence requires them to break various other laws, such as working illegally, will magically decide to obey US laws? Why in the world would an illegal decide to stick around after causing a traffic accident and open himself up for deportation if he is facing being booked into jail? And buying insurance - the fact that most illegals are poor, would they suddenly bother to buy insurance when they are scratching out a meager living?

And as for just wanting a license to drive, well, look at those states who have actually offered illegals driving certificates. Not good enough, they wail; racist, discriminatory, etc. If they really "just wanted to drive" it seems driving certificates would be happily accepted. Clearly they want the "breeder document" that a driver's license is - to use as one of the accepted US documents to pass themselves off as "legal" to get a job, to board a plane, to rent an apartment, to get a loan, to buy a house, to get credit. Basically the document that easily facilitiates their continued illegal presence.

s9: Oh knock it off. It's n... (Below threshold)
Julie:

s9: Oh knock it off. It's not exactly unheard of since they are fighting tooth and nail to do the same in the state that you live in.

RE: s9's post (March 23, 20... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

RE: s9's post (March 23, 2005 10:57 PM)

From The Herald - "Pols pitch driver's licenses for illegal immigrants"

Not "undocumented". Was that intentional? ;)

At any rate:

S9 - A careful reading of the opinion piece suggests that the bill simply eliminates the requirement for a Social Security number to get a driver license in Massachusetts.

One need not read that carefully. The first line reads "Bay State lawmakers pushing to allow illegal immigrants to get driver's licenses...", which is what the headline states. Secondly, I'm not sure I get your point. The brief touches on numerous things, none of which are in depth. The essence is that Toomey filed a bill to enable illegal immigrants to get a DL and it is currently being blocked due to concerns for public safety. Does the rationale of proponents to advance such nonsense matter? Again, I don't follow. If it has some connection to SS policy, please spell it out explicitly. I'd like to follow the conspiracy if that's where you're going.

Just Me: I never thought o... (Below threshold)
-S-:

Just Me: I never thought or suggested here that there was no justification for the Teamsters (among others) for having been upset about that recent legislative change, allowing truckers from Mexico to enter into the U.S. and continue on afterward, all that.

I was just explaining a bit about the issue that you earlier suggested you'd heard about but were without furhter information about, that's all.

My comment about the Teamsters being right to be upset about it was me just talking about my own opinion, not written to modify any of your own perspectives, just an independent (from yours) opinion included.

For anyone wondering about ... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

For anyone wondering about Mr. Bush's opinion on illegal immigration, this is exhibit A. If it is discovered that a terrorist group entered through our borders and ended up killing Americans, I'll head the line that petitions for his impeachment.

He is actively blocking Americans peacefully defending their land on American soil. Unbelievable.

Bush decries border project
By James G. Lakely
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

WACO, Texas — President Bush yesterday said he opposes a civilian project to monitor illegal aliens crossing the border, characterizing them as "vigilantes."

He said he would pressure Congress to further loosen immigration law.

More than 1,000 people — including 30 pilots and their private planes — have volunteered for the Minuteman Project, beginning next month along the Arizona-Mexico border. Civilians will monitor the movement of illegal aliens for the month of April and report them to the Border Patrol.

Mr. Bush said after yesterday's continental summit, with Mexican President Vicente Fox and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin at Baylor University, that he finds such actions unacceptable.

"I'm against vigilantes in the United States of America," Mr. Bush said at a joint press conference. "I'm for enforcing the law in a rational way."

The Minuteman Project was born out of a long-held perception among many residents that more Border Patrol agents are needed to handle the flow of illegal immigrants.

Mr. Bush was criticized by both Republicans and Democrats earlier this month for failing to add 2,000 agents to the Border Patrol, as set out in the intelligence overhaul legislation he signed in December.

The president's 2006 budget allows enough money to add only 210 agents for the U.S. borders with Canada and Mexico.

Mr. Bush said he will "continue to push for reasonable, common-sense immigration policy." He has proposed legislation to grant guest-worker status to millions of illegal aliens already in the United States.

According to Mr. Bush, Americans helping to protect this country by merely reporting to an undermanned Border Control illegal immigration is irrational and unacceptable. Again, unbelievable. The government is intentionally ignoring the law and civilians are trying to halt that active dereliction of duty. Were I on the border, I'd tell Mr. Bush to put his "rational" methods where the sun don't shine. In a way, I guess I'm telling him that already.

MIKE AKA IRISHMAN: It is qu... (Below threshold)
firstbrokenangel:

MIKE AKA IRISHMAN: It is quite possible that "Paddy" came over to visit family here and decided he liked it here, got a job and started working on getting his citizenship. Did that ever occur to you? I know of many Irish families even my own that came over to visit, then decided to stay and went to work on filling out and filing paperwork towards their own citizen here. While Jay is whining, I would have to say that the illegal aliens from Mexico and Cuba are the ones we have to worry about not the ones from Ireland.

CINDY

BY THE WAY, MIKE, MY NAME I... (Below threshold)
firstbrokenangel:

BY THE WAY, MIKE, MY NAME IS CINDY CALLAHAN AND HALF MY FAMILY IS IN IRELAND. If you are on American soil, the process to become a resident and citizen is quicker than it would be if "Paddy" went home and started the process there.

I also believe that it is necessary for illegal aliens to have a drivers license, specially marked, for the first reasons I stated way above.

Match, Set, Game.

I'm also from MA but have been living in NH since 1980.

Cindy

From the linked article: <i... (Below threshold)
s9:

From the linked article: Toomey said 150,000 illegal immigrants in Massachusetts are driving without insurance or a license because they don't have a Social Security number.

Why should you need to have a Social Security number to get a driver license? It's a simple question. If the answer is that it supposedly prevents fraud, I have a bridge to sell you. There are better ways to prevent fraud anyway, so why not use those?

If you're really concerned about public safety, then what help does a Social Security number bring to the equation? Are you at all concerned about the pressing need to get more uninsured drivers into the risk pool? Wouldn't expanding the risk pool be a secondary benefit to public safety?

What possible good argument is there for requiring proof of citizenship to be licensed to drive? Really. Think about it and tell us what it is. Because it is not obvious.

RE: s9's post (March 25, 20... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

RE: s9's post (March 25, 2005 02:20 AM)

s9, OK. Now I see where you are going.

Why should you need to have a Social Security number to get a driver license? It's a simple question. If the answer is that it supposedly prevents fraud, I have a bridge to sell you. There are better ways to prevent fraud anyway, so why not use those?

The SS# is the most universally accepted federally distributed documentation in our country, so it would make sense to use it as a unique identifier to "monitor" the action or paper trail of any given individual. You are right, however, that it does not prevent fraud and is a forgeable "document". Unfortunately (or maybe fortunately) civil libertarians wince at the idea of making a true universal ID card because it harkens back to an unsavory era where "papers please" instilled into everyone fear. Appropriately, we rely on something else but I'd endorse something better if it could be implemented. I'm all for considering any alternative you or others may present.


Wouldn't expanding the risk pool be a secondary benefit to public safety?

Possibly, but others have already mentioned some pitfalls. I'd rather focus on the primary benefit to public safety and dispense with the secondary until the primary is under control. Too often attention is improperly redirected from the main point and it lingers on in the background, unsolved, while we tweak the less important side issues. Such behavior allows people (read politicians) to look like they are acting to solve the problem when they really are intentionally avoiding the problem. That's an escape hatch I'd prefer not to provide in this illegal immigration scenario.


What possible good argument is there for requiring proof of citizenship to be licensed to drive?

My argument, good or bad, is that it serves as a check to ensure that legal citizens are allowed to exercise their legal priviledge to partake in typical American life, legally. It's not all that difficult or unreasonable to me... a legal citizen. We may debate the finer points on the methodology engaged to ensure validated and verifiable documentation, but the legality issue is not trivial. I am receptive to any alternate considerations you may proffer to implement a better screening process.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy