Simple questions: Drivers License; School enrollment

[Pure]

A person goes to the agency in his or her state to apply for a driver's license. Besides some form of I.D., address, telephone, etc., should the person be requested to supply proof of US citizenship or show valid immigration papers (e.g. green card, visa, etc.) in order to get the license. ADDED: By that term I mean an official doc from the US fed'l government establishing a legal right to be in the country as more than a transient or shortterm visitor.

A person goes to his or her local public elementary school. Besides some parental and child ID, address, phone, etc, should the person be requested to supply proof of US citizenship or show valid immigration papers for him or herself.?

[[NOTE 1: the question of the child's status also comes up, of course, but it was too difficult to include; the point about the parent's status, of course, is whether she or he pays property taxes, i.e., in any way supports the school.]]

[[NOTE 2. i am not asking for the law to be quoted to me, regarding the furnishing of documents, but asking what you think of such a law, if it exists, or is proposed.]]


(The implication is that if such papers are not produced or produceable, the driver's license or the school enrollment will not proceed.)

Check off two choices from the first and second parts of the list, respectively. This is a public poll.

 

[keeblercrumb]

A person goes to the agency in his or her state to apply for a driver's licence. Besides some form of I.D., address, telephone, etc., should the person be requested to supply proof of US citizenship or show valid "immigration" papers (e.g. green card, visa, etc.) in order to get the licence.

A person goes to his or her local public elementary school. Besides some parental and child ID, address, phone, etc, should the person be requested to supply proof of US citizenship or show valid immigration papers for him or herself.?

(The implication is that if such papers are not produced or produceable, the driver's license or the school enrollment will not proceed.)

Check off two choices from the first and second parts of the list, respectively. This is a public poll.

I understand the question.... and, in theory, I would answer yes to both. But the obvious fly in the ointment is that in the absence of any "valid" immigration papers, how reliable can any other "ID" be?

For the record, I am in favor of open immigration, and unlimited "worker" visas to both our Canadian and Mexican neighbors. I think that is beyond ironic and rising to absurd that many here who espouse "free market" principals are against this.

-KC

 

[Pure]

note to keebler, and others

well, for drivers license, a picture is taken. address and phone are pretty easy to verify (pick up the phone, for the latter; check phone listing). send the license to the address supplied, registered mail, as with credit cards. [[DELETED: possibly a fingerprint could be required for driver's license, with the understanding that it is NOT posted to a federal database, and federal authorities NOT have access to it, w/o a judge's order?]]

 

[keeblercrumb]

well, for drivers license, a picture is taken. address and phone are pretty easy to verify (pick up the phone, for the latter; check phone listing). send the license to the address supplied, registered mail, as with credit cards. possibly a fingerprint could be required for driver's license, with the understanding that it is NOT posted to a federal database, and federal authorities NOT have access to it, w/o a judge's order?

I will play.... but the fed's not having access to the driver license records, etc..? Problematic. Particulary under the "Patriot Act"....

But I understand you are trying to make a point.. so here we go...

-KC

 

[Weird Harold]

A person goes to the agency in his or her state to apply for a driver's license. Besides some form of I.D., address, telephone, etc., should the person be requested to supply proof of US citizenship or show valid "immigration" papers (e.g. green card, visa, etc.) in order to get the license.

(The implication is that if such papers are not produced or produceable, the driver's license or the school enrollment will not proceed.)

I didn't respond to the school question because you didn't provide a choice that fits -- proof of citizenship and/or legal residency FOR THE CHILD is what should be provided -- there are a lot of illegal alien parents of american citizens.

As to drivers' licenses, they are the de facto form of universal identification so they should reflect legal residency status as well as distinguishing minors from adults (by profile or frontal pictures.) Since illegal aliens by definition cannot meet the definition of legal residents of a State, they should not be issued a drivers' license which implies that they are legal residents.

To that end, proof of citizenship or legal "resident alien" status should be required in addition to each State's residency requirements and proof of age and identity.

 

[Pure]

hi wh,

that is a good point about the child's status. i was unable to include it. presumably a school might ask for docs from both parents and child.

i chose to focus on the parents for a couple reasons: some children are very much lacking in papers. supposing a child is born in the US, how many parents can document this? further, i'd suppose that a birth certificate does not, thechnically, prove citizenship; though citizenship is available *for the asking,* i'm assuming there is some necessary paperwork before citizenship papers for the child could be issued. and the parents may not have done it. in short, in many cases the parents' papers are in better order than the child's and if i'm not mistaken, in general we can assume the documented parents have children capable of being documented.

the second reason is that the parents' status affects their paying taxes, for instance property taxes. so the argument would be that although the child is theoretically entitled to an education, as a citizen, the usual tax contribution situation does NOT hold. one might say, the 'rights' of children to education are dependent on their parents and other adults shouldering the expenses through taxes.

---
as far as driver's license, i don't see from you or others who say 'require citizenship and immigration documents," a good reasons elaborated logically.

Since illegal aliens by definition cannot meet the definition of legal residents of a State, they should not be issued a drivers' license which implies that they are legal residents.

yes, that's the law; do you approve of it? the law reads as follows:

//http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d06/vc12801_5.htm

12801.5. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the department shall require an applicant for an original driver's license or identification card to submit satisfactory proof that the applicant's presence in the United States is authorized under federal law.

(b) The department shall not issue an original driver's license or identification card to a person who does not submit satisfactory proof that the applicant's presence in the United States is authorized under federal law. //

---

nor has anyone talked about the downside of refusing licenses; lots of illegal and uninsured driving, which has repercussions for the properly licensed drivers.

 

[slyc_willie]

as far as driver's license, i don't see from you or others who say 'require citizenship and immigration documents," a good reasons elaborated logically.

Since illegal aliens by definition cannot meet the definition of legal residents of a State, they should not be issued a drivers' license which implies that they are legal residents.

yes, that's the law; do you approve of it? the law reads as follows:

//http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d06/vc12801_5.htm

12801.5. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the department shall require an applicant for an original driver's license or identification card to submit satisfactory proof that the applicant's presence in the United States is authorized under federal law.

(b) The department shall not issue an original driver's license or identification card to a person who does not submit satisfactory proof that the applicant's presence in the United States is authorized under federal law. //

Yes, I agree with the law on this. After all, many of the 9/11 hijackers possessed New York State driver licenses, yet were not either citizens or legal immigrants.

Providing proof that one is either a US citizen, or is at least committed to paying taxes to the US government, goes to show at least a measure of complicity with the law, and therefore, 'good faith' toward the government of the US. In other words, receiving a driver license is on the order of a reward for complying with the law and showing support for the government via the paying of taxes.

 

[slyc_willie]

[[DELETED: possibly a fingerprint could be required for driver's license, with the understanding that it is NOT posted to a federal database, and federal authorities NOT have access to it, w/o a judge's order?]]

That's an interesting suggestion. However, if fingerprints were required either for and/or on a driver license, you can bet your butt that each and every print would certainly be placed in a database of some kind. That would be classic 'Big Brother' thinking, and the current US government frame of mind regarding national security would take advantage of it.

 

[Pure]

i seem to remember that most or all the 9-11 folks arrived legally, though at some point--for some small number of them-- their right to stay lapsed--e.g., when they were no longer students. so it would follow that in their initial period, they could obtain NY drivers licenses (assuming valid immigration papers are furnished.)

so although i'm not sure, my impression is that a california style law requireing proof of lawful immigration status, for a drivers license, would NOT have prevented the 9-11 folks from doing as they intended.

 

[keeblercrumb]

Yes, I agree with the law on this. After all, many of the 9/11 hijackers possessed New York State driver licenses, yet were not either citizens or legal immigrants.

Providing proof that one is either a US citizen, or is at least committed to paying taxes to the US government, goes to show at least a measure of complicity with the law, and therefore, 'good faith' toward the government of the US. In other words, receiving a driver license is on the order of a reward for complying with the law and showing support for the government via the paying of taxes.

This is obviously inspired by the actual case of the Ney York governer wanting to extend drivers licenses to illegal aliens... and then retracting it when it caused a storm of controversy....

(I do not know details of the situation in which the 9/11 guys got their licenses.. but perhaps the law was not enforced prior to that anywhere...)(And a mexican drivers license is valid to drive in the US, as far as I know.... certainly the reverse is true...)

The problems of unisured, unregistered aliens in the country is an easy one to fix..... as I described in my first post. Let them be legal!!!!!

-KC

 

[neonlyte]

I wouldn't want to see a child's educational opportunity eroded by parental non-compliance with immigration law. It penalizes the child and not the parent, though I understand the argument about funding contribution - that's really a different argument and little to do with a childs 'right' to receive an education.

On driving licences, the only reason, as far as I can see, to waive the need to produce residency papers is to keep unlicensed/uninsured drivers off the roads. Issuing a driving licence shouldn't 'de-facto' residency status and it is possibly the accepted use of driving licenses as 'identity cards' that creates the situation rather than requiring some other form of identity proof directly linked to right of residency.

In Portugal, you can do virtually nothing without an identity card or fiscal number. In the UK, often the only 'proof' you need is an utility bill confirming a home address - unless you are opening a bank account, then you need a passport, and it doesn't have to be British.

 

[slyc_willie]

i seem to remember that most or all the 9-11 folks arrived legally, though at some point--for some small number of them-- their right to stay lapsed--e.g., when they were no longer students. so it would follow that in their initial period, they could obtain NY drivers licenses (assuming valid immigration papers are furnished.)

so although i'm not sure, my impression is that a california style law requireing proof of lawful immigration status, for a drivers license, would NOT have prevented the 9-11 folks from doing as they intended.

You know, I believe you're right. But then, that begs the question as to why a driver license was allowed to extend beyond the time limit of their Visas. A loophole, obviously, that was exploited.

Keebler: yes, my argument was inspired by the proposed NY State legislation that was so thoroughly opposed by over 70% of New Yorkers that the governor felt compelled to publicly withdraw the measure and apologize.

Obtaining a driver license, for the majority of Americans, is a rite of passage. One of the first steps a 15- or 16-year-old takes to being considered an adult. In at least some way, the idea that anyone could cross the border and get a license, without proving they are a citizen or legal immigrant, is an affront to what is widely considered an important -- and practically sacred -- American tradition.

 

[slyc_willie]

I wouldn't want to see a child's educational opportunity eroded by parental non-compliance with immigration law. It penalizes the child and not the parent, though I understand the argument about funding contribution - that's really a different argument and little to do with a childs 'right' to receive an education.

On driving licences, the only reason, as far as I can see, to waive the need to produce residency papers is to keep unlicensed/uninsured drivers off the roads. Issuing a driving licence shouldn't 'de-facto' residency status and it is possibly the accepted use of driving licenses as 'identity cards' that creates the situation rather than requiring some other form of identity proof directly linked to right of residency.

In Portugal, you can do virtually nothing without an identity card or fiscal number. In the UK, often the only 'proof' you need is an utility bill confirming a home address - unless you are opening a bank account, then you need a passport, and it doesn't have to be British.

In New Mexico, it is state law that everyone must have a driver license or state-issued ID card on them at all times, even if the person is not driving or patronizing a bar or restaurant where alcoholic beverages are served. Part of the reason for this stems from the gross problem of drunk driving in the state. But another part is due to New Mexico's placement on the border. I've heard from some police officers in New Mexico that the lack of identification is taken as suspicion that the person is an illegal alien.

 

[Weird Harold]

Since illegal aliens by definition cannot meet the definition of legal residents of a State, they should not be issued a drivers' license which implies that they are legal residents.

yes, that's the law; do you approve of it? the law reads as follows:

//http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d06/vc12801_5.htm

12801.5. (a) ...
(b) ...

The wording of the California law is, to my mind, flawed -- they are explicitly targeting illegal aliens when they should be targeting non-residents by putting that wording in their definition of a "California Resident," which would automatically cover drivers' licensing, school enrollments, voter registration, and any other government service enabled by meeting residency requirements.

As to the consequences of not issuing a drivers' license, the consequences of denying a license because of this law is no more or less than the consequences of denying a license for failing the test or any other reason; the person denied a license will either obey the law and let someone else drive or they will break the law and drive without a license. Most of the illegal aliens in California don't need a California drivers' license because the US recognises the validity of Mexican licenses -- it's US Insurance that's a problem.

I don't have any particular objection to issuing a drivers' license to an illegal resident or non-citizen as long as it has some clearly identifiable difference from a legal resident and/or citizen's license. I'm especially in favor of requiring a US Commercial Drivers' License for foreign nationals making deliveries beyond the immediate border areas -- or at least requiring a US endorsement on their national or international commercial license.

i chose to focus on the parents for a couple reasons: some children are very much lacking in papers. supposing a child is born in the US, how many parents can document this? further, i'd suppose that a birth certificate does not, technically, prove citizenship; though citizenship is available *for the asking,* i'm assuming there is some necessary paperwork before citizenship papers for the child could be issued.

If there is some paperwork other than a birth certificate required to claim US citizenship, I'm in big trouble -- all I have to prove I'm a US citizen is a birth certificate and I'm not positive I actually still have a copy of mine; I used to have a credit card sized birth certificate but that was lost along with my wallet a couple of decades ago.

I do have a military (retired) ID card that asserts I'm a citizen of the US, but that assertion is based entirely on the birth certificate I presented when I enlisted.

FWIW, there is additional paperwork required for a child born outside of the US to an American parent but that's only required because the birth certificate shows a place of birth other than the US -- for official purposes, the embassy certification then becomes the "US birth certificate" and the actual birth certificate issued by the hospital or foreign country is redundant.

 

[slyc_willie]

I still have my plastic birth certificate. Strangely enough, it lists my place of birth as Fairfax, Virginia, and not Zweibrucken, Germany. I figure that's due to some government oversight or something, perhaps applied when my Social Security number was assigned.

 

[Weird Harold]

I still have my plastic birth certificate. Strangely enough, it lists my place of birth as Fairfax, Virginia, and not Zweibrucken, Germany.

I think that's because the birth certificate was issued from the headquarters of the medical corps rather than the individual base hospital -- a bit of sleight-of-hand to save military personnel from having to deal with the process of registering births through the embassy system.

 

[slyc_willie]

I think that's because the birth certificate was issued from the headquarters of the medical corps rather than the individual base hospital -- a bit of sleight-of-hand to save military personnel from having to deal with the process of registering births through the embassy system.

Probably. I wonder, if I ever lose it, and have to get a copy in the future, will I have to acquiesce to the DOD's assertion that I was born in the states?

I rather enjoy the fact that I was born across the pond. I feel more of a connection there.

 

[Weird Harold]

Probably. I wonder, if I ever lose it, and have to get a copy in the future, will I have to acquiesce to the DOD's assertion that I was born in the states?

I rather enjoy the fact that I was born across the pond. I feel more of a connection there.

Don't know.

Have you ever looked at the full birth certificate rather than the plastic extract? That should have a bit mor information on it, like the name/location of the actual hospital.

 

[slyc_willie]

Don't know.

Have you ever looked at the full birth certificate rather than the plastic extract? That should have a bit mor information on it, like the name/location of the actual hospital.

I never had the chance. The original paper copy was kept in my father's files, but after his death, quite a few thigns were lost.

I do know, however, that my certificate had an addendum attached to it, since I have three middle names. . . .

 

[Liar]

Define "immigration papers"

Russians comes to Sweden and Finland as tourists to get drivers licenses. Why? Because we have much more rigrous demands to pass the tests and the highest standard of traffic schools in the neighborhood. So with a Swedish driver's license, a russian man can get hired for well paid driving jobs, like for the major cab franchises and parcel services.

The only "immigration paper" they need to show is their passport and EU approved identification papers (might be the same thing, not sure about russian passports).

I don't see the problem.

 

[angelicminx]

I answered the poll before reading the posts. My gut reaction is that legal immigration papers should be required before a license is issued. That feeling is mostly based on the rigamarole U.S. Citizens have to go through to be licensed.

Although my husband has been a licensed driver since he came of age, and obviously had to produce a birth certificate to get the initial license, he was required to produce his birth certificate to get a Kentucky license. Since that would have taken upwards of 6 weeks (his original had been lost years ago), we made the 3 hour drive to the vital statistics office in Ohio to obtain a copy. Also, he had changed his name more than 40 years ago, which was reflected on his out of state license as well as his social security card, but the DMV couldn't find a record of it. (His copy of the court documentation had also been lost.) We were forced to go to a Kentucky court and have his name changed. There were other problems with getting his license, which I won't go into, but it took over 9 months to get it.

After reading some of the posts, I'm reminded of something Cloudy said a while back. I can't quote it exactly, but it was to the effect of this nation being built by immigrants.

Someone else (forgive me, I don't recall who right off hand) made the observation that if the immigrants weren't licensed without the required papers, they may just drive illegally and without insurance. They may drive without insurance anyway (some U.S. citizens still do), but to the best of my knowledge, insurance companies require a valid driver's license before they will issue an insurance policy. Interesting point.

Whether the paperwork is required or not, I don't think it would make a difference from a terroristic standpoint. So now, I don't know if it should be required or not. Bears some thought.

As to the children, more often than not they didn't have a choice whether to immigrate or not. Right off the top of my head I'd have to say, require a physical and the shots US children are required to have and enroll them. Some of the US children don't have parents that pay taxes or pay anything toward public school funding, so what's the difference? I'll have to think on this some more.

 

[Pure]

friends,

i gonna go with obama on this one. no imm'n docs for a state driver's license. but some valid identification or enough infor (biometric data) to establish who it is, picture(s), etc.

it also might be stated on the license-- "this card is not based on fed'l immigration status, or to be used for proof of it."

 

[Caitano]

I think we have to go ahead and put a child in school, regardless of anything.

When the draft was being used, we could draft any male of the proper age, even citizens of other countries. We did, many times, and we sent them to Southeast Asia, too. We would also have had a case for draft evasion if a Brazilian or somebody didn't register with Selective Service. As far as I know, that is still the case in the current version of Selective Service law, even though both genders are now liable to register.

You don't refuse a five-year-old the schools for some paranoid reason having to do with the politics. It's kindergarten. Let them in, get 'em books, and have 'em pledge allegiance with the rest of 'em.

 

[cantdog]

Renters and members of the military on bases don't pay property taxes. They still send their kids to school. For some reason, the schools continue to accept them.

Weird says the schools are only open to citizens. What the hell for? Are we to fear the presence of a Canadian ten-year-old is Mrs. Grundy's math class? People on visas work in places like universities for years, sometimes. Their kids go to the schools in my neck of the woods.

 

[Pure]

ok, cant, one canadian is not problem.

how about if 30% of the class is non english speaking, undocumented kids.? that's a lot of time for Mrs. Grundy, and a challenge. who's paying for the math books, and her salary?