llinois becomes the fourth and most populous U.S. state to issue driver's licenses to illegal immigrants.

[Guynemer]

When my ancestors came to this country from Ireland, the United States somehow managed to be sovereign without a whole bunch of immigration restrictions. Of course, the stampeding hordes of unwashed Irish apes prompted a change in political thinking that led directly to the Republican party, and to our current immigration crisis.

Well, to be fair, they were the Irish. Seems an underreaction, if anything. They should've just shot on sight.

[Felch]

So America wasn't sovereign until the Page Act of 1875? The previous hundred years were just a dry run, I guess.

[Felch]

Well, to be fair, they were the Irish. Seems an underreaction, if anything. They should've just shot on sight.

Sounds like a waste of a perfectly good bullet.

[Guynemer]

Sounds like a waste of a perfectly good bullet.

Fair point. Probably should've just clubbed 'em like baby seals.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Well, they allow you to buy alcohol with one ... but aside from that, yah, out of state licenses aren't worth anything.

When I was in college in Oregon in the late '70s, you couldn't buy liquor with an in-state driver's license. You had to have a special OLCC (Oregon Liquor Control Commission) photo ID. What was funny is I started going when I was 15, but I was a hippie kid with a scraggly ass beard so I looked older. And all these clean shaven 20 year old kids used to give me $ to buy beer for them. Happened maybe a dozen times between when I was 16 and 18. Long hair, a beard and audacity plus cash beat state mandated ID.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Given the failure of amnesties from the Simpson Mazzoli act (which had a border security package in it that was never put into practice) to the present to solve the problem, what reason do people have to believe the promises to fix the problem put out this time?

Nothing will fix the problem except labor demand. As long as there is no significant enforcement against employers, which came and went quickly during the Reagan administration, illegal immigration will only be controlled by the job market, not government regulation.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Nothing will fix the problem except labor demand. As long as there is no significant enforcement against employers, which came and went quickly during the Reagan administration, illegal immigration will only be controlled by the job market, not government regulation.

You'd think the free market types would want the government out of this hiring practice, no?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Ginsburg has a consistant jurisprudence? Who knew? She's ruled against the specific wording of the law many, many times, when it was contrary to her own desires.

As does every other justice to ever sit on that bench. Are you familiar with Frankfurter's quote on the subject? Her desires are simply less pigeon-holeable than say, Scalia's or Douglas's.

Which ceases to legally exist as such should your legal residence within America expire. You cannot legally maintain the domicile in the state without meeting Federal residency requirements.

State residence is a primarily a de facto matter and secondarily de jure. A state's civil process, for example, does not lose personal jurisdiction over an illegal alien because (in the Benoverse) that alien "is not a resident." State residence is essentially nothing more than "in what location do you primarily live?" It does not grant or connote any particular legal status.

You cannot acquire a state residency without acquiring legal residence federally. State residency is dependent on your federal status. At least de jure, anyways. De facto may be different.

As noted above, state residency is a different thing from federal residency (is a different thing from immigration and naturalization. e.g. there are non-immigrant visa classes which convey a right to reside during the term of the visa and any renewals, but which do not provide any path to immigrant visa status. The L1 and H1B are examples, as are the dependent visas for those classes and the K1)

Hence my citation of Texas law at present.

I'm sure New Mexico has some arcane law equally (ir)relevant.

As for policy - policy is geared towards what people believe ought to happen.

Which is what the good folks in Illinois have decided. They'd rather deal with thousands of drivers and enforce training and insurance than sweat some phantom of "evil spic voter fraud."

Residency is a prerequisite for naturalization. You can't get naturalization without establishing residency. Insofar as a drivers' licence requires residency, yes, a driver's licensure cannot violate federal laws regarding immigration.

You're talking in circles. Then again, you are Ben. That rhymes. "Naturalization" is not even at issue - naturalization is the process of acquiring CITIZENSHIP. It's a totally different situation from immigrant or non-immigrant resident visas. You can get a resident visa in several classes at the US embassy or consulate in foreign countries without ever setting foot in the US. Since driver's licenses merely convey authorization to operate a motor vehicle, they do not, by definition, relate to federal immigration law.

As an identity document, yes a driver's license is quite a bit more than just for driving down the road.

Not really. States also have non-driver ID cards. Identity does not equal or imply status.

But a valid license in CA is recognized as valid in TX. That's my point.

For the legal authority to operate a motor vehicle in the specific class. Anything else is up to the Texicans, so long as they have a legitimate public policy interest (e.g. they can't hinder travelers in interstate commerce without a valid competing policy interest)

Sure, it's serving the interests of the powers that be to bypass immigration requirements. We've seen that here in this thread. People want those requirements gone and that's probably what will happen.

The sky is falling, the sky is falling! Issuing driver's licenses means everybody can move here and get welfare and screw white women.

For someone signing as true information that they knew to be false? I'd like to see evidence of this.

Read the news more. Remember the paid registration clown in NV who registered Mickey Mouse, Tony Romo and others? He was charged with a felony, no idea and I frankly don't give a **** about what happened next. Not my state and it doesn't affect me, but it was funny. Believe it or not, the US of A is a big country. Even killings don't always make the news. I saw one first hand in San Diego, gangbanger that shot himself drunk, no way he survived, never made the news. Maybe some small town in Upper Bum****ia Province in Canada keeps a database of spitting on the sidewalk citations issued, but random misdemeanors and felonies are not publicized in most of the US of A, unless a small town paper needs something to fit between the ads.

So, the end result to someone committing fraud is what, 4 prosecutions in 4 years? That's not exactly 'enforcement'. Pretty good odds against getting caught.

Best work on your reading comprehension. You said it doesn't get enforced. I stated I can recall 4 specific cases I've read about in two elections. That doesn't mean there aren't more. It's enough to rebut your claim. Assuming, arguendo, 4 in 4 years, that has nothing to do with enforcement without knowing how many actual violations took place. This has been a GOP fetish since the '90s, because the obvious reason for the shrinking brand must be hordes of undomented spics.

So what you're saying is that it's just a coincidence that Texas's requirements include providing legal evidence for federal immigration status? Why might they include that, MtG? If there was no connection between the two - why has Texas chosen to make it so that there is an intimate connection between both of them.

Because Texas has a long history of not liking brown people, and Texas is a GOP stronghold, with the same fetish about the Evil Brown Hordes(tm) as the rest of the GOP.

You'll see the answer right there - Texas is combatting fraud. Fraud against what? Fraud against the state both at the federal and state level.
You've stated, "this doesn't happen", yet Texas is taking steps to combat it.

It's like putting up bars on your windows when a spic moves into the neighborhood. Texas is jerking itself off on what it deems to be a feel good measure chasing a phantom. The GOP was able to document less than 100 clear cases of vote fraud nationwide in ten years. That encompasses how many hundreds of millions of voters? They were convinced they were going to blow the lid off a big scandal and prove how Dems were conspiring with the Evil Brown Hordes(tm) to disencfranchise Real Amurkin (e.g. white) voters. They couldn't dig up squat.

In Texas, yes, very much so. I've provided evidence for it - it's right there in the laws.

That's the nice thing about quasi-sovereignty. Texas doesn't make policy for the rest of us.

[DinoDoc]

Nothing will fix the problem except labor demand. As long as there is no significant enforcement against employers, which came and went quickly during the Reagan administration, illegal immigration will only be controlled by the job market, not government regulation.

Then amnesty serves little to no purpose as we'll only be here again in another decade. Hell it isn't even as if past amnesties have significantly helped the GOP with the Hispanic population. George H W Bush (a supporter of Simpson Mazzoli) only pulled 30% of the Hispanic vote.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Yeah, go figure. Them spics are more than one-issue voters. Guess the GOP needs to go back to the drawing board until they figure out that concept.

"Hey, we're still the party for rich white people, but we let your cousin become legal so we didn't get in any hot water over hiring her to be our housekeeper. Vote for us."

[MichaeltheGreat]

Then amnesty serves little to no purpose as we'll only be here again in another decade. Hell it isn't even as if past amnesties have significantly helped the GOP with the Hispanic population. George H W Bush (a supporter of Simpson Mazzoli) only pulled 30% of the Hispanic vote.

Not necessarily. Not unless the demand for jobs filled by illegals and nobody else opens up more. That's the true controlling factor.

[DinoDoc]

Yeah, go figure. Them spics are more than one-issue voters.

a) That total is down from Reagan's 1984 total of 37%. I'm still waiting for any empirical evidence that amnesty coupled with no enforcement is an electoral winner politically given its failure in the past.
b) It certainly seems to be the case that they are single issue voters as it certainly wasn't the economy that tipped the scales given the Hispanic unemployment rate during the 1st term.

[DinoDoc]

Not necessarily. Not unless the demand for jobs filled by illegals and nobody else opens up more. That's the true controlling factor.

You have about 30 years worth of data to use. You show me when amnesty with no enforcement has done anything other than increase the problem.

[Dinner]

a) That total is down from Reagan's 1984 total of 37%. I'm still waiting for any empirical evidence that amnesty coupled with no enforcement is an electoral winner politically given its failure in the past.
b) It certainly seems to be the case that they are single issue voters as it certainly wasn't the economy that tipped the scales given the Hispanic unemployment rate during the 1st term.

Anyone who says there is no enforcement or that enforcement at the border hasn't been dramatically increased since Obama took office is not being serious. I would support draconian fines for employers, fines so big we see headlines like "Tyson Chicken bankrupt, shareholders wiped out" because if there aren't jobs then you won't get illegals. It will never happen though because moneyed special interests own this country and buy what ever politicians they want.

[MRT144]

You have about 30 years worth of data to use. You show me when amnesty with no enforcement has done anything other than increase the problem.

What problem?