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

[MichaeltheGreat]

No state that I've heard of grants any particular benefit based on an out of state drivers license.

[Ben Kenobi]

There is nothing quite so amusing as a recently arrived foreigner arguing the US Constution and US law.

Well, I'm not most 'furriners', as it's my job to teach civics. Plus much of this is applicable to my own situation so it rather behooves me to understand the law. If I've screwed up, fine, there's plenty I am learning as I go along here.

The law doesn't "imply" things. It is, or it isn't.

You might want to talk to Justice Ginsburg about that one. She seems to disagree.

Quit the job, and your federal status expires, but your state status vis-a-vis various things may or may not.

Quit and both expire. Your legal residency within the state hinges on your federal status. If, for whatever reason, your federal status expires, then so does your state residency. You're arguing here that state residency trumps federal residency, which is just not so. Look at it this way - legal state residency has different and additional requirements, but it has a prerequisite of already possessing a legal federal status.

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

Mail delivery from a certain date is considered sufficient proof of in-state residency when paired with out-of state driver's license. Which is why I specified that they would move to Texas and stay and then file for the TX benefits. It's do-able. Even here. You might not be able to do everything - but there are only a few things that explicitly require TX driver's licenses in order to obtain, and most, if not all of them, have additional requirements that could be fulfilled without the TX driver's license (including but not limited to stuff like the military ID - and birth certificates, etc.

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.

So your objection to the fact that it is possible is "that it doesn't happen often enough to worry about"? That's a significant admission that it is possible, and that's the point I was hammering home. I said nothing about frequency and certainly nothing about 'immigrants overwhelming the system'. That's all you - and why would I think that being an immigrant myself? Be rather shortsighted. I'm very thankful to be here, but I believe it's my duty to follow the laws of the United States per when I arrived.

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.

And constitutionally, they have no control over immigration and naturalization. Article 1, Section 8 - powers of Congress. "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization..."

Notice it says Uniform. It explicitly rejects the concept that individual states can set up their own immigration systems and pathways. Everyone has to play ball by the same rules.

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.

But they cannot arrest someone driving in their state, confiscate their license from another state and send them back to the state they came from. Nor can they arrest them for not having a license if they present an out of state license. That's my point. Illinois, (and WA and NM), are all abusing this principle by issuing driver's licenses to those who do not qualify for residency under the present US immigration laws. IN this they violate article 8 regarding naturalization.

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.

When was the last time this was prosecuted? It's not enforced, MtG. Providing sufficient documentation of a driver's license, and, say, bills delivered to your residence from a specific period is sufficient proof. It's all running on the honour system.

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.

Yeah, don't take a piss in California. Then you become a CA resident in perpetuity. I heard CA is considering putting up the 'Great wall of the Sierras' to prevent taxpayers from fleeing the state. Texas, is much, much better for this. Texas really doesn't care - since it makes it's bread and butter off the sales tax.

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.

State cannot legally issue the document without said proof!

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/DriverLicense/ApplyforLicense.htm

Look through all that.

Driving a car is not an immigration matter.

Acquiring a driver's license *is* an immigration matter.

[MichaeltheGreat]

You might want to talk to Justice Ginsburg about that one. She seems to disagree.

She can disagree in dicta all she wants. It's specific opinions that matter. "Imply" denotes ambiguity. It's a judge's job to remove ambiguity.

Quit and both expire. Your legal residency within the state hinges on your federal status. If, for whatever reason, your federal status expires, then so does your state residency.

No, it doesn't. They are two different things. Two different scopes, two different applications. Federal residency is a function of immigration status. State residency is nothing more than domicile.

You're arguing here that state residency trumps federal residency, which is just not so.

I would appreciate it if you'd refrain from telling me what my arguments are. Especially if you're going to be wrong about it. State residency doesn't "trump" federal residency. It doesn't address the same issues.

Look at it this way - legal state residency has different and additional requirements, but it has a prerequisite of already possessing a legal federal status.

If you want to look at it in a way that has no foundation in existing law, that's your prerogative.

Mail delivery from a certain date is considered sufficient proof of in-state residency when paired with out-of state driver's license. Which is why I specified that they would move to Texas and stay and then file for the TX benefits. It's do-able. Even here. You might not be able to do everything - but there are only a few things that explicitly require TX driver's licenses in order to obtain, and most, if not all of them, have additional requirements that could be fulfilled without the TX driver's license (including but not limited to stuff like the military ID - and birth certificates, etc.

I'm sure they'll get far with that Guatamalan birth certificate and another state issued DL

So your objection to the fact that it is possible is "that it doesn't happen often enough to worry about"? That's a significant admission that it is possible, and that's the point I was hammering home. I said nothing about frequency and certainly nothing about 'immigrants overwhelming the system'. That's all you

That's the GOP party line. There's that teen and near-teen obsession with what-ifs and X, Y or Z could happen. Anything can happen. Polling officials could all need to take a leak at the same time and leave the polling station. A meteorite could hit. You don't make policy on that sort of pseudo-intellectual masturbatory "it might be possible" nonsense. You make policy based on significant effects. A few dozen (non DL based) voter fraud cases over 10 years vs. revenue collection. licensure and insurance enforcement on tens of thousands of drivers on a continuing basis. One effect is significant, the other is not. Which one is the proper basis for policy?

And constitutionally, they have no control over immigration and naturalization. Article 1, Section 8 - powers of Congress. "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization..."

Notice it says Uniform. It explicitly rejects the concept that individual states can set up their own immigration systems and pathways. Everyone has to play ball by the same rules.

You really need to work on your legal vocabulary. Residency is not naturalization, and neither are related to driver's licensure.


DRIVING DOWN THE ROAD IS NOT IMMIGRATION,

But they cannot arrest someone driving in their state, confiscate their license from another state and send them back to the state they came from. Nor can they arrest them for not having a license if they present an out of state license.

Try getting your Texas license suspended and then drive in CA and get pulled over. If you're driving on an out of state license which has any validity issue, it is the same legally as having no license at all, and under current CA law, you will be arrested and your vehicle impounded. Confiscation of an out of state license is a technical property issue.

That's my point. Illinois, (and WA and NM), are all abusing this principle by issuing driver's licenses to those who do not qualify for residency under the present US immigration laws. IN this they violate article 8 regarding naturalization.

Go ahead and try to make that argument in federal court. They need a good laugh.

When was the last time this was prosecuted? It's not enforced, MtG. Providing sufficient documentation of a driver's license, and, say, bills delivered to your residence from a specific period is sufficient proof. It's all running on the honour system.

Voter registration fraud cases have been prosecuted as felonies. The voting remedy on detection is to invalidate the vote. Prosecution is a separate issue. I don't recall the details, but there were felony prosecutions in Nevada in 2010, and California had misdemeanor prosecutions in 2008 and 2010 that I recall. Probably a bunch more. News flash. California is a big state. Not every felony prosecution is deemed newsworthy. **** happens all over the state, but unless it's big, it's not news.

State cannot legally issue the document without said proof!

Cite the federal law or CFR

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/DriverLicense/ApplyforLicense.htm

Look through all that.

Not responsive. That is Texas' requirements to applicants, not Federal requirements imposed on Texas regarding authority to issue a state license.

Acquiring a driver's license *is* an immigration matter.

That's right. It's the Benoverse, where we just redefine things in whatever way feels good. That's nice dear.

[Ben Kenobi]

She can disagree in dicta all she wants. It's specific opinions that matter. "Imply" denotes ambiguity. It's a judge's job to remove ambiguity.

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.

No, it doesn't. They are two different things. Two different scopes, two different applications. Federal residency is a function of immigration status. State residency is nothing more than domicile.

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.

I would appreciate it if you'd refrain from telling me what my arguments are. Especially if you're going to be wrong about it. State residency doesn't "trump" federal residency. It doesn't address the same issues.

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.

If you want to look at it in a way that has no foundation in existing law, that's your prerogative.

Hence my citation of Texas law at present.

I'm sure they'll get far with that Guatamalan birth certificate and another state issued DL.

Kenya seemed to work just fine.

That's the GOP party line. There's that teen and near-teen obsession with what-ifs and X, Y or Z could happen. Anything can happen. Polling officials could all need to take a leak at the same time and leave the polling station. A meteorite could hit. You don't make policy on that sort of pseudo-intellectual masturbatory "it might be possible" nonsense. You make policy based on significant effects. A few dozen (non DL based) voter fraud cases over 10 years vs. revenue collection. licensure and insurance enforcement on tens of thousands of drivers on a continuing basis. One effect is significant, the other is not. Which one is the proper basis for policy?

You keep bluffing here, MtG. Is it possible? Yes. Is it particularly difficult to do if you know what you are doing? Not really. As for policy - policy is geared towards what people believe ought to happen.

You really need to work on your legal vocabulary. Residency is not naturalization, and neither are related to driver's licensure.

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.

DRIVING DOWN THE ROAD IS NOT IMMIGRATION,

As an identity document, yes a driver's license is quite a bit more than just for driving down the road. You can legally drive down the road without possession of an in-state license. There is plenty of other stuff that you cannot do.

Try getting your Texas license suspended and then drive in CA and get pulled over. If you're driving on an out of state license which has any validity issue, it is the same legally as having no license at all, and under current CA law, you will be arrested and your vehicle impounded. Confiscation of an out of state license is a technical property issue.

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

Go ahead and try to make that argument in federal court. They need a good laugh.

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.

Voter registration fraud cases have been prosecuted as felonies.

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

The voting remedy on detection is to invalidate the vote. Prosecution is a separate issue. I don't recall the details, but there were felony prosecutions in Nevada in 2010, and California had misdemeanor prosecutions in 2008 and 2010 that I recall. Probably a bunch more. News flash. California is a big state. Not every felony prosecution is deemed newsworthy. **** happens all over the state, but unless it's big, it's not news.

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.

Not responsive. That is Texas' requirements to applicants, not Federal requirements imposed on Texas regarding authority to issue a state license.

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.

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.

That's right. It's the Benoverse, where we just redefine things in whatever way feels good. That's nice dear.

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

[Imran Siddiqui]

No state that I've heard of grants any particular benefit based on an out of state drivers license.

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

[Imran Siddiqui]

it's my job to teach civics.

Oh, those poor, poor kids.

[PLATO]

Oh, those poor, poor kids.

I know, right? Explains a lot about why kids today have no understanding of the basic governmental structure of the country. Worse yet, some of these kids will go into politics and be future "leaders."

[DinoDoc]

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?

[DinoDoc]

I know, right? Explains a lot about why kids today have no understanding of the basic governmental structure of the country. Worse yet, some of these kids will go into politics and be future "leaders."

Obama was a lecturer on the US Constitution.

[PLATO]

Obama was a lecturer on the US Constitution.

I have nothing good to say about this statement.......

[Imran Siddiqui]

Obama was a lecturer on the US Constitution.

Comparing Ben with any leader in Washington, Republican or Democrat is a step too far.

[Felch]

I thought they existed for the benefit of those that care about US sovereignty and the rule of law.

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.

[DinoDoc]

Control of borders is one of the necessary conditions a state has to meet in order to be considered sovereign, Felch.

[Felch]

You think you need to have prohibitive immigration quotas to protect your borders?

[PLATO]

You think you need to have prohibitive immigration quotas to protect your borders?

Most countries do.