Demo Debate & Drivers Licenses For Illegals

Anybody watch the Democratic Debate?

First why were they discussing issuing drivers licenses. I thought drivers licenses was a state and not a federal issue.

Dodd did not favor issuing drivers licenses to illegal immigrants; Obama favored issuing drivers licenses to illegal immigrants; and the candidates and audience were all confused by how Hillary Clinton answered the question as to what her stance was. And Obama uttered the devastating phrase for anyone who remembers the 2004 campaign: he said he couldn’t tell if she is “for it or against it.”

Link: Live-Blogging the Democratic Debate - The Caucus - Politics - New York Times Blog

Democrats do not wan't anything to be a state issue. Letting the states decide what to do takes power away from them, and they do not like it.

I am not sure Hillary actually has a position on anything. Ok, I understand how you could vote for Obama, he has some ideas, even if they are horrible. But Hillary stands up for absolutely nothing. She is pure politics, just answer the question as confusing as possible, don't make any specifics and pander to whatever audience you are in front of.

So then illegals would be required to get insurance right? How do they do that without a social security number?

Giving ill-freaking-legal immigrants drivers licenses may be the single worst idea out there. Why not just give them a trophy too for getting into this country illegally?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brianhos

Democrats do not wan't anything to be a state issue. Letting the states decide what to do takes power away from them, and they do not like it.

---

Did you sleep through the last 4 years? When Republicans are in charge it isn't any different. For example, the Bush Administration has repeatedly tried to overrule Oregon's Right-to-Die law. There are many other examples, including their gestapo techniques on medical marijuana.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bawbie

Did you sleep through the last 4 years? When Republicans are in charge it isn't any different. For example, the Bush Administration has repeatedly tried to overrule Oregon's Right-to-Die law. There are many other examples, including their gestapo techniques on medical marijuana.

---

#1. The Bush Administration doesn't have any over to "overrule" state laws.
#2. States cannot pass laws that are in direct conflict with federal laws. Federal laws take precedence over State laws.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cycloneworld

#1. The Bush Administration doesn't have any over to "overrule" state laws.
#2. States cannot pass laws that are in direct conflict with federal laws. Federal laws take precedence over State laws.

---

You must not be familiar with these cases. In both of them the Justice Department made regulatory rules that they tried to use to override the state law. I'm familiar with the federal system and how it works, but I'm not sure the Bush administration is.

In the Oregon case, their Right-to-Die law has been passed by popular referendum three times. But Bush's Justice Department then tried to make the law invalid issuing an "interpretive rule" to the Controlled Substances Act to make the drugs administered under the Right-to-Die law illegal to prescribe. In Gonzales v. Oregon the supreme court found that the Bush Administration couldn't do that, but coincidentally, the three supposed biggest "states rights" advocates on the Supreme Court (Thomas, Scalia and Roberts) voted against the state in this case.

My point being: Everybody in politics in this country, with maybe the exception of Ron Paul (but not in every case - abortion for example), uses "states rights" only to advocate other causes or positions or to grab power at the federal level. No one, Republican or Democrat, is an actual states rights advocate.

There is a federal initiative to roll out a new highly secure, nationally recognized license.

Due to intervention by Federal authorities, The New York governor Elliot Spitzer plans to implement a compromise plan under which the state would offer three levels of driver’s licenses beginning next year, including a limited license that illegal immigrants could obtain but that could not be used to board airplanes or cross borders.

Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/31/ny...er&oref=slogin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cycloneworld

So then illegals would be required to get insurance right? How do they do that without a social security number?

Giving ill-freaking-legal immigrants drivers licenses may be the single worst idea out there. Why not just give them a trophy too for getting into this country illegally?

---

The Governor claims that issuing drivers licenses to illegal immigrants will make the roads safer and therefore the legislation is warranted.

A New York Assemblyman, José R. Peralta, who initially supported issuing illegal immigrants drivers licenses made this statement, “We went out there to defend undocumented immigrants and individuals who were being targeted as far as not being allowed to get licenses ,and we were on the road to doing that until this agreement with the federal government.”

Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/31/ny...er&oref=slogin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bawbie

You must not be familiar with these cases. In both of them the Justice Department made regulatory rules that they tried to use to override the state law. I'm familiar with the federal system and how it works, but I'm not sure the Bush administration is.

In the Oregon case, their Right-to-Die law has been passed by popular referendum three times. But Bush's Justice Department then tried to make the law invalid issuing an "interpretive rule" to the Controlled Substances Act to make the drugs administered under the Right-to-Die law illegal to prescribe. In Gonzales v. Oregon the supreme court found that the Bush Administration couldn't do that, but coincidentally, the three supposed biggest "states rights" advocates on the Supreme Court (Thomas, Scalia and Roberts) voted against the state in this case.

My point being: Everybody in politics in this country, with maybe the exception of Ron Paul (but not in every case - abortion for example), uses "states rights" only to advocate other causes or positions or to grab power at the federal level. No one, Republican or Democrat, is an actual states rights advocate.

---

I'm not sure that you have correctly identified Ron Paul's stance on abortion. There is little question that Mr. Paul is staunchly pro-life. However, he appears to be a "pro-life libertarian". Pro-life and pro-choice libertarians, share the view that abortion is not a federal issue. The Libertarian party's official position supports repealing Roe v. Wade and leaving the abortion issue to the states to determine. My interpretation is that Paul's view is similar to that of the Libertarian party line: It's okay to restrict abortion at the state level, just not at the federal level.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cycloneworld

#1. The Bush Administration doesn't have any over to "overrule" state laws.
#2. States cannot pass laws that are in direct conflict with federal laws. Federal laws take precedence over State laws.

---

The federal government has a method to override state law. The feds cut off payment on a totally unrelated program if the states do not comply with federal directives.

A case in point is the minimum drinking age. Theortically the states have the authority to establish the minimum drinking age. However, the federal government threatened to withhold highway appropriations from those states that did not establish 21 as minimum drinking age. And of course the feds won since they controlled the purse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alaskaguy

The federal government has a method to override state law. The feds cut off payment on a totally unrelated program if the states do not comply with federal directives.

A case in point is the minimum drinking age. Theortically the states have the authority to establish the minimum drinking age. However, the federal government threatened to withhold highway appropriations from those states that did not establish 21 as minimum drinking age. And of course the feds won since they controlled the purse.

---

True....and unconstitutional. Not that that means anything any more.

Right now, we really don't (or can't) track illegal aliens. An ID card would allow that. My optimistic side thinks that's why the Feds and some states want to do issue them. My pessimistic side thinks that its a first step to muddy the waters to give illegal aliens the right to vote.

Having a valid ID would allow illegal aliens easier access to a much greater spectrum of commercial services (they're already covered for governmental services) - things like opening a bank account and the like.

But having said that, they're here illegally. I'm not sure that we should extend rights and services to them.

But if they're here working and doing a job that someone won't get off their butt to do, I'm not so sure that I have a problem with them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TykeClone

Right now, we really don't (or can't) track illegal aliens. An ID card would allow that. My optimistic side thinks that's why the Feds and some states want to do issue them. My pessimistic side thinks that its a first step to muddy the waters to give illegal aliens the right to vote.

Having a valid ID would allow illegal aliens easier access to a much greater spectrum of commercial services (they're already covered for governmental services) - things like opening a bank account and the like.

But having said that, they're here illegally. I'm not sure that we should extend rights and services to them.

But if they're here working and doing a job that someone won't get off their butt to do, I'm not so sure that I have a problem with them.

---

It really doesn't make a whole lot of sense to do this to be able to track them. They already turn them loose when they find them now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cyclonepride

It really doesn't make a whole lot of sense to do this to be able to track them. They already turn them loose when they find them now.

---

I agree - but like I said that's the optimistic view.