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

[MichaeltheGreat]

Nice to see Oerdin being pro-immigrant, if they're the right ethnic background.

Meanwhile only 5 days ago...

http://apolyton.net/showthread.php/201955-Your-tax-dollars-at-work?p=6190597&viewfull=1#post6190597

Someone on Apolyton has a race problem and it's not Sloww.

Naah, he probably just took an Al Qaeda Express (aka taxi) ride from the airport here, or drove down University in the direction of SDSU. San Diego has a very rapidly growing Afghan/Horn of Africa/Iraqi population, and a lot of them are milking the system.

[Ben Kenobi]

Generally, driver's licenses can be issued to any alien who is within a state for more then X days, depending on the state. Student visas, temporary workers, foreign employees of multinationals, etc. The driver's license just conveys the privilege to operate a vehicle on the states's public roads, nothing more.

Perhaps in CA that's the case. Not here. Here it requires a green card. With one, you can get one, without one - you're out of luck.

[Ben Kenobi]

Well, they could be made residents of Illinois without actually being legal residents of the United States. Thus making them eligible for an Illinois driver's license. It basically comes down to states having the authority to do whatever.

Constitutionally - immigration control is the purview of the federal government. The states have no say. This is a twin-edged sword, it makes things like granting residency etc unconstitutional, but, more to the point - it means that one state has to recognise the residency of the other states. You can't have it both ways. If IL, as well as WA and NM continue to pursue policies contrary to the rest of the states, that will cause problems further on down the line. Up to and including other states rejecting residency in other states as qualifying grounds.

Either states are sovereign, or they are not. You can't say some states (IL, WA and NM), come to mind have greater authority than the rest.

[MichaeltheGreat]

That's because you're in Texas. There's a few states, ironically close to the Messican border, that are a litttle odd about that. The thinking is they all want to be Amurkins and take their drivers licence and vote and get welfare checks and all sorts of things a driver's license won't actually help you with.

Trouble is, it gets in the way of intelligent things like requiring people who are around your state for a while to get qualifying auto insurance coverage (a lot of companies won't issue to an international license holder, and the ones who do are a pain in the ass to deal with).

That's just plain stupid of Texas, because there are a lot of legal resident visa status (F1&2, H1B&4, J1&2, L1&2, K1 at least, unless the system has changed) which have nothing to do with a green card (except a K1 gets you in that line assuming you actually tie the knot)

[Dinner]

Nice to see Oerdin being pro-immigrant, if they're the right ethnic background.

Meanwhile only 5 days ago...

http://apolyton.net/showthread.php/201955-Your-tax-dollars-at-work?p=6190597&viewfull=1#post6190597

Someone on Apolyton has a race problem and it's not Sloww.

Up your's, dumb ass. I'm for people coming who are willing to work or who bring skills to the table. Worthless slugs who want to suck up welfare can **** off back to which ever cesspit they crawled out of. No wonder the Marine Corp doesn't want you, you're too stupid to read.

[Ben Kenobi]

That's because you're in Texas. There's a few states, ironically close to the Messican border, that are a litttle odd about that. The thinking is they all want to be Amurkins and take their drivers licence and vote and get welfare checks and all sorts of things a driver's license won't actually help you with.

Trouble is, it gets in the way of intelligent things like requiring people who are around your state for a while to get qualifying auto insurance coverage (a lot of companies won't issue to an international license holder, and the ones who do are a pain in the ass to deal with).

Actually, insurance hasn't been difficult. I have ran into issues with the police once, but that was resolved by switching providers. Apparently 'State Farm' doesn't do jack when you need them.

That's just plain stupid of Texas, because there are a lot of legal resident visa status (F1&2, H1B&4, J1&2, L1&2, K1 at least, unless the system has changed) which have nothing to do with a green card (except a K1 gets you in that line assuming you actually tie the knot)

Yep. But, it makes sense to me. With a driver's license it's all to easy to get around all the other regulations. I could even vote with it. Heck, I probably could have voted last election with just my mail. With TX driver's license, I don't believe there would be anything I wouldn't qualify for - and that includes state assistance, etc. At least here in TX, the driver's license is the most common form of identification which is why things are so restrictive in acquiring one.

[SlowwHand]

You can most definitely start with it.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Constitutionally - immigration control is the purview of the federal government. The states have no say. This is a twin-edged sword, it makes things like granting residency etc unconstitutional, but, more to the point - it means that one state has to recognise the residency of the other states. You can't have it both ways. If IL, as well as WA and NM continue to pursue policies contrary to the rest of the states, that will cause problems further on down the line. Up to and including other states rejecting residency in other states as qualifying grounds.

You're out of your league. State residency has nothing to do with US residency/citizenship. State residency is simply a function of duration, location and intent. States don't "grant" (or have the power to deny) "residency." Eligibility for "resident status" is also a case by case situation in each state. You can be a non-resident for certain status purposes (e.g. resident university tuition), while a resident for others (tax purposes).

Your understanding of the Full Faith and Credit Clause is also completely off. Go back and read it. Unless an individual's "residency" is the subject of legislative act or executive or judicial process, there is nothing for another state to recognize.

Either states are sovereign, or they are not. You can't say some states (IL, WA and NM), come to mind have greater authority than the rest.

States are quasi-sovereign. Issuing drivers licenses isn't governed by the Supremacy Clause.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Actually, insurance hasn't been difficult. I have ran into issues with the police once, but that was resolved by switching providers. Apparently 'State Farm' doesn't do jack when you need them.

Insurance companies operate under state regulation, so they're all different. In California, Arizona, Washington and a few other states at least, there are plenty of companies that won't write policies on international drivers licenses. Maybe if you have a Canuckistani license, they consider that almost tolerable, but if you're from a lot of other places here on any temporary resident visa, you can run into issues.

Yep. But, it makes sense to me. With a driver's license it's all to easy to get around all the other regulations. I could even vote with it. Heck, I probably could have voted last election with just my mail. With TX driver's license, I don't believe there would be anything I wouldn't qualify for - and that includes state assistance, etc. At least here in TX, the driver's license is the most common form of identification which is why things are so restrictive in acquiring one.

That's only because Texican bureaucrats are lazy and stupid, then. A DL may be proof of identity, but that doesn't mean squat in terms of status.

[Ben Kenobi]

You're out of your league. State residency has nothing to do with US residency/citizenship.

Yes, it does. It has everything to do with it. Granting residency status for a part of the nation implies residency status for the whole. This is why people were going to WA + NM (and now IL, and soon to be CA), to get drivers licenses in these jurisdictions and then going to other parts of the nation and using that license for plenty of other things. Heck, with motor voter, and sufficient proof of residency in whatever state they land up with and a valid Driver's license, - that's more than enough to vote, and show up on the voter rolls.

This is the problem. States are either sovereign or they are not. "Quasi-sovereign" isn't a thing. If, this stuff stands that a state can issue licenses to state residents that are not US residents, then other states can choose to reject them.

Your understanding of the Full Faith and Credit Clause is also completely off. Go back and read it. Unless an individual's "residency" is the subject of legislative act or executive or judicial process, there is nothing for another state to recognize.

Again, you can do pretty much anything you want in another state with the correct documentation and residency requirements. Including vote. No fraud required.

State residency is simply a function of duration, location and intent. States don't "grant" (or have the power to deny) "residency." Eligibility for "resident status" is also a case by case situation in each state. You can be a non-resident for certain status purposes (e.g. resident university tuition), while a resident for others (tax purposes).

Perhaps in some jurisdictions, yes, but the reality is quite different. Tax purposes, I've been a resident here in TX since last April, which was the first time I had to file for US taxes here. Something like 100 days continuous residency in the state from the start of the calendar year. So I paid for 2011 taxes, and then again will be doing so for last year, this year.

That does not make me a legal resident of the United States of America by any stretch of the word. Nor does it entitle me to the provisions and benefits associated with legal permanent residents. I am, and remain a legal alien for every other purpose than taxation. Here's the rub.

Someone off the boat who enters the US and ends up in Illinois, and stays there for the 'residency' period would qualify (under this new law) for an Illinois driver's license. They then could take that same driver's license, hop on a bus, and get here to Texas. Guess what - they would now be eligible for all the benefits provided to American citizens.

Issuing drivers licenses isn't governed by the Supremacy Clause.

States are legally required to abide by the Immigration and Customs laws when issuing them. They can choose to ignore those regulations as WA and NM and now IL do, but that doesn't change the fact that constitutionally, immigration has and always will be a federal obligation. States doing an end-around the federal law isn't going to end up with good outcomes.

[Ben Kenobi]

Insurance companies operate under state regulation, so they're all different. In California, Arizona, Washington and a few other states at least, there are plenty of companies that won't write policies on international drivers licenses. Maybe if you have a Canuckistani license, they consider that almost tolerable, but if you're from a lot of other places here on any temporary resident visa, you can run into issues.

Can't speak for those other states. Wasn't a problem here. Far cheaper than Canada, FWIW about 1/4 as expensive.

That's only because Texican bureaucrats are lazy and stupid, then. A DL may be proof of identity, but that doesn't mean squat in terms of status.

Given the residency requirements attached to them - yes, here in Texas it is.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Yes, it does. It has everything to do with it. Granting residency status for a part of the nation implies residency status for the whole.

There is nothing quite so amusing as a recently arrived foreigner arguing the US Constution and US law. The law doesn't "imply" things. It is, or it isn't. Case in point. An F1 visa holder's status is, by law, attached to a particular school, so long as the student is in attendance. Residency is granted at the federal level based on visa status. Residency occurs at the state level based on intent and duration. Residency at both federal and state level is temporary and limited to only the the state in which the school is located. L1 visas are tied to a specific company, but if you're a Korean executive sent to open a new office in a particular state, you go there (and become a resident of that state by effect). Get transferred (or transfer yourself if you're the head of the US subsidiary), and you can establish state-level residency in any state where your company maintains an office, but not in any other state. Quit the job, and your federal status expires, but your state status vis-a-vis various things may or may not.

This is why people were going to WA + NM (and now IL, and soon to be CA), to get drivers licenses in these jurisdictions and then going to other parts of the nation and using that license for plenty of other things.

See how much you can do with an out of state driver's license and no proof of in-state residence.

Heck, with motor voter, and sufficient proof of residency in whatever state they land up with and a valid Driver's license, - that's more than enough to vote, and show up on the voter rolls.

Good for you. You're parroting a GOP line since at least the mid-90s when "B1 Bob" Dornan couldn't believe he lost his Orange County congressional seat to not only a woman, but a spic too. Must have been those hordes of illegal immigrant voters. Trouble is, he couldn't actually find any, and finally the (Republican) Orange County Registrar of Voters told him to put up or shut up. Proven cases of illegal immigrant voting in the US are in the ridiculously small handful - as in a few dozen cases nationwide in more than a decade. It's a non-issue.

This is the problem. States are either sovereign or they are not. "Quasi-sovereign" isn't a thing.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the term has been in use for a while. Say, a century and a half, at least. US states are quasi-sovereign. They do not have full sovereignty, e.g. they are not nations.

If, this stuff stands that a state can issue licenses to state residents that are not US residents, then other states can choose to reject them.

Of course - they can and they do, long before this issue. Some farm states have traditionally had very young minimum ages for drivers licenses. Other states can freely reject drivers licensed in another state not eligible for licensure in that state.

Again, you can do pretty much anything you want in another state with the correct documentation and residency requirements. Including vote. No fraud required.

Again, you don't have a ****ing clue. You can't vote legally without meeting the residency requirements set by the state in which you are voting, AND being a citizen of the US. When you register to vote, you sign the registration, and that signature denotes that the information you have provided is true and correct. If you vote without legal authority (i.e. meeting the requirements of the jurisdiction), that is voter fraud by definition.

Perhaps in some jurisdictions, yes, but the reality is quite different. Tax purposes, I've been a resident here in TX since last April, which was the first time I had to file for US taxes here. Something like 100 days continuous residency in the state from the start of the calendar year. So I paid for 2011 taxes, and then again will be doing so for last year, this year.

That does not make me a legal resident of the United States of America by any stretch of the word. Nor does it entitle me to the provisions and benefits associated with legal permanent residents. I am, and remain a legal alien for every other purpose than taxation. Here's the rub.

Every state has its own set of rules. Florida (at least last time I was there) had different resident and non-resident user fees for state parks and campgrounds. California has a bunch of different rules for residency.

Someone off the boat who enters the US and ends up in Illinois, and stays there for the 'residency' period would qualify (under this new law) for an Illinois driver's license. They then could take that same driver's license, hop on a bus, and get here to Texas. Guess what - they would now be eligible for all the benefits provided to American citizens.

Well, then maybe the cow-****ing Texas legislature should repeal that (non-existent) provision of Texas law that states that possession of an Illinois driver's license obviates any other requirement in Texas law for anything.

States are legally required to abide by the Immigration and Customs laws when issuing them.

Cite and quote the statute or applicable CFR applied to the state? The state is not obligated to call ICE and run an immigration check on every DL applicant.

They can choose to ignore those regulations as WA and NM and now IL do,

Cite the regulation?

but that doesn't change the fact that constitutionally, immigration has and always will be a federal obligation. States doing an end-around the federal law isn't going to end up with good outcomes.

Driving a car is not an immigration matter.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Given the residency requirements attached to them - yes, here in Texas it is.

Well, they may think their licenses are golden like one of Speer's showers, but how much you want to bet the good ol' folks in Texas won't treat an out of state DL the same as an in-state DL?

[Alexander's Horse]

okay I get it now - thanks the explanations.

[Ben Kenobi]

Well, they may think their licenses are golden like one of Speer's showers, but how much you want to bet the good ol' folks in Texas won't treat an out of state DL the same as an in-state DL?

That's exactly it - they don't. Texas figured out this game quite awhile ago. They figured there was more security in their driver's license than in plenty of other forms of ID, plus they have more local control. However, in terms of legally driving here, there's no issue.