Drivers Licenses for Illegal Aliens?

My gut instinct to the liscences to illegals thing was "i don't care"

But then I thought about it, and I don't see how it makes any sense to give a legal state document to people who are here illegaly. So really, first, we need to do the dirty work of solving our problems with our immigration and guest worker laws (which are obviously too stringent and aren't meeting the demand for labor in this country). Many politicians have a lot of good ideas for paths toward legalizing our illegals such as requiring all taxes paid, a fine paid, and so on and there are many ideas of fixing our laws - It just needs to be done! Lou Dobbians need to stop their redneck "kick 'em all out and fence 'em out" rally slogan so that the politicians can do what needs to be done for the country without it becoming a huge, crippling, political issue. There are a lot of issues more important to our well-being than wondering if Jose down the street has legal papers.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Nov 16 2007, 01:03 PM) [snapback]540670[/snapback]</div>

So under this guest worker program, everyone would have to be registered and have some sort of an ID to show that they are a guest worker... Could guest workers get drivers licenses?

Would you grant all illegals free entry into this guest worker program? Or would you force the government to go through the lengthy (and expensive) process of deporting all of them, only to readmit them a few days later under the guest worker program? How would you transition these workers over to a guest worker program without interrupting the economy?

I'm not saying that i'm against the idea of a guest worker program - in fact it would probably be a great way to help us move away from illegal immigrant labor. However, there are a number of very valid questions that have to be answered, and the program has to be implemented in the right way or it would only make things worse instead of better.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Nov 16 2007, 11:03 AM) [snapback]540670[/snapback]</div>

Here's what a guest worker program is:

It says to desperately-poor people in other countries (principally Mexico) "We want you to work for us. We'll pay you sub-standard wages. We'll make it impossible for you to form a union because if you try, your boss can fire you and then you get deported, because we want to make sure you have to work at those sub-standard wages. We won't give you any of the rights of citizens or legal residents, except the right to work for sub-standard wages. And as soon as your job ends we'll deport you without any benefits such as a social security account for the taxes you've paid in. And we will not give you any way to become legal residents or citizens because, even though we need your labor, we're not willing to acknowledge the contribution you're making to our country."

I say guest worker programs are bullshit. If we want people to come to this country to work, as we seem to want, invite them to come as legal residents with a reasonable path to citizenship.

Here's the approach I'd like to see: Pass minimum wages laws high enough that a citizen can support a family. The penalty for paying less than minimum wage should be one day in jail for every dollar below minimum wage you've paid, in the aggregate to all your employees. Once you've done that, and rigorously enforced it, there will either be no more jobs available for immigrants because citizens will have taken them all, or there will be no unemployment, and there will be jobs remaining to be filled, and at that point any immigrant who finds a job here should be given legal residency, and a path to citizenship.

If we need a person's labor, we have an obligation to treat that person with dignity and provide him or her with the opportunity to become a citizen.

 

It's very easy to say deport anyone here illegally. However, there are other considerations that aren't being thought of. There was an article in our paper today that addresses just this issue. Children like these deserve a chance to live the American dream.

http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index.ssf?/b....xml&coll=1

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Proco @ Nov 16 2007, 03:14 PM) [snapback]540730[/snapback]</div>

Sadly, there are a lot of Americans, including some here on Prius Chat, who do not believe that children like Neidy should be given a chance, and who would argue stridently that the second grader should be deported back to Guatemala, whether or not she has any relatives there who would take her in. For such people, the letter of the law is more important than any spirit of humanity that might once have flickered in their breast.

This case is one more example of why I agree with (true) libertarians, that people should be free to travel where they will. And one more example of how vile and un-American the new paranoid security laws are.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Nov 16 2007, 03:03 PM) [snapback]540727[/snapback]</div>

A minimum wage of $28.85/hr. would be required to be sole support for a family of four in Southern California. I like the idea of "rigorously enforced" and wish we would do that with laws already in existence. If employers were arrested for hiring illegal aliens, soon the jobs for them would dry up removing their chief incentive to enter the US.

BTW, Mexico has vast natural resources. Gold, silver, oil and a climate that can grow anything. It also has abundant hard-working people. Why can't it get its act together and become a prosperous nation so its people don't need to leave to make a living?

 

Giving any extra rights (other than basic human rights) to illegal
immigrants is NOT fair to legal immigrants, who have followed the
painful, expensive and lengthy procedure to become ones of us.
My answer is a simple NO.

But ....
Based on humane considerations, I don't support aggressive deportation.
However, I strongly support border patrol and penalizing hiring illegal immigrants.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(banjoman @ Nov 16 2007, 07:24 PM) [snapback]540786[/snapback]</div>

This is a very complicated question. Americans are in love with simple, one-dimensional answers, but the truth is far from simple. Mexico was colonized by people whose intention was to get rich and go home, while the U.S. was colonized by people whose intention was to stay and build a new life. Mexico inherited Spain's corrupt and inefficient bureaucracy and a religion (imposed by the sword) which demanded money and obedience. Mexico was under the colonial yoke longer than the U.S., and therefore got a slower start. The more powerful U.S. has exploited Mexico and supported a long string of corrupt Mexican leaders who have been all too happy (with a few exceptions) to sell out to the U.S., so that most of Mexico's wealth has gone to the U.S. and to its own corrupt leaders. The U.S. invaded Mexico on a pretext and stole roughly half its land area. Carlos Salinas, who was President of Mexico from about 1988 to 1993, if I remember the dates correctly, is said to have stolen about 15 billion dollars from his own country, and he was merely following a long-standing tradition. His brother, Raul (who was eventually convicted of ordering the murder of his own brother-in-law) carried suitcases full of money to Citibank in NYC using false passports, and Citibank accepted the deposits without saying a word, even though they were far in excess of the amount that is supposed to require reporting. And merely servicing the national debt (much of it loaned to Mexico but stolen by corrupt leaders) is an impossible burden. The corrupt bureaucracy makes it extremely difficult for small business to survive, and corruption is so deeply rooted that weeding it out may be impossible. Before 2000 Mexico had never had an honest election. And that long string of corrupt leaders, elected in fraudulent elections, has had the complete support and backing of the U.S.

If you think the 2000 election in the U.S. was bad, the election that brought Carlos Salinas to power made our 2000 election look fair by comparison: First, candidate Salinas, of the ruling Institutional Revolutionary Party, had his principal opponent, Cloutier (sp?) of the National Action Party, murdered, and then he still had to steal the election by fraud from the third-party candidate Cuauhtemoc Cardenas, of the Democratic Revolutionary Party. And there are no real checks on the power of the Mexican presidency. Mexican presidents have power that GWB can only dream about.

And don't get me started on the Mexican police. Mexicans have a saying: Thank god for the criminals, to protect us from the police. This is very black humor because criminals in Mexico can get awfully nasty. While I was living in Guadalajara there was a dispute over who should pay the salaries of the armed guards outside the banks of the city, and for a week there were none, and during that week there were ten bank robberies, all performed with such military precision, and all using weapons only available to cops and the military, that nobody had any doubt that cops had conducted the robberies.

It's all extremely sad, because the ordinary Mexicans (the ones not in government, the police, or the bureaucracy) are hard-working and friendly people. And hard-working and friendly people are the sort that make this country a better place when they come here.

 

This is an issue here in NJ as well.
New laws tightened car registration BECAUSE illegals are registering out of state, driving here with inadequate insurance, phony addresses, etc. Law has been labeled "biased" by certain factions.
And we have some of the highest insurance rates because??????
sorry.
you come here, you play by the rules.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Nov 16 2007, 12:12 PM) [snapback]540612[/snapback]</div>

So people should be able to move freely across the borders of sovereign nations, use our social services without paying taxes, and acquire driver's licenses and not carry insurance; however, if I should eat in my car I should lose my license? Is it that easy to switch from liberal to fascist depending on the topic at hand? :blink:

 

I don't get it. Even if drivers licenses were available, would the illegals be lining up to get them? And then realize or learn they needed to buy insurance, as well, sign up with All State? They may be poor and not speak English very well, but they're not dumb.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Les Gas @ Nov 17 2007, 02:47 PM) [snapback]541035[/snapback]</div>

Apparently you've read nothing I've posted.

Undocumented workers pay more than their share of taxes, because they have the regular withholding taxes taken out of their pay, but they cannot file for a refund. So any services they use are paid for by their own taxes.

I never said anybody should be allowed to drive without insurance. You are making this up, and there are few tactics in debate dirtier than accusing the other guy of saying things he never said.

 

It would be a handy way to compile a list of the names of the majority of illegal aliens in the US.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Nov 17 2007, 07:30 PM) [snapback]541053[/snapback]</div>

Undocumented workers have withholding? The very word undocumented means there's no documentation on them. Unless you mean they're paying taxes as the dead person whose social security number they stole. Even if that's the case, how many undocumented workers do you suppose get paid off the books?

As to the insurance topic, if you read carefully, I never said you said that either - otherwise I would have quoted it directly. I threw out a list of things that go hand-in-hand with the lax border freedoms you espouse. You want to have the freedom to cross borders, but you want to legislate nose picking in cars? And yes, I know you didn't say that, but I think you've got the smarts to realize sarcasm and not get you pants in a wad and slam me for putting words in your mouth again.

As to annoying debating tactics, how about the tactic of not answering the presenting question? How do you marry the logic of liberal borders with banning talking on cell phones and eating while driving? Or were you just spouting off and didn't mean it?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Les Gas @ Nov 18 2007, 05:25 PM) [snapback]541359[/snapback]</div>

To get a job you have to give either a social security number or a taxpayer ID number. The IRS actually issues taxpayer ID numbers to undocumented immigrants. Some people just make up a number. Whether you call that "stealing" a number or not, the point is that taxes are withheld and sent to the IRS, but whether the worker has given a made-up number or used a legitimate taxpayer ID number, he cannot file a tax return for a refund.

And as Evan points out, reckless driving is an entirely different class of behavior than crossing borders without documentation. Thousands of people die as the result of distracted driving, of which talking on the phone and eating are two examples.

It is my view that immigration makes this country stronger. I reject the claim of the xenophobes that immigrants are predominantly criminals and freeloaders. As I've noted before, such claims are typical of the lunatic fringe. Most immigrants, whether documented or not, come here to work and improve their lives, and I believe that by doing so they strengthen the country. You are free to disagree. But there is no contradiction in my arguing in favor of an immigration policy which strengthens the country, and at the same time argue against driving habits which kill people.

When you insist that the criminal behaviors you cite "go along with" immigration, you are repeating unfounded accusations commonly made against the most powerless groups of society. And you certainly implied that I was supporting those behaviors, even if you did not come right out and say it.

 

Honestly, I don't know enough about this issue to attempt a meaningful reply. I do feel that creation of more than one path to participation in US society tends always to be problematic, though.

From it will always arise the question: "are they getting a better deal than me?" among others. And it's impossible to prove the answer, one way or another, with any certainty.

I'm really naive, I guess, but I don't see why this is even necessary in the first place, except as an excuse to keep the supply of cheap labor plentiful, to artificially support our flagging economy.

 

I think it's a pity that there are any borders restricting the movement of people on any continent. North America should be one where people can move about freely east to west north to south and work where ever they can find work.

Isn't it a shame that the same people who would deny a person a first world life will gladly buy products made with third world labour?