Driver's licenses for illegals?

• icskins

  http://www.ohio.com/news/nation/100675194.html
  
  This is absolutely crazy!!!! How can this possibly be allowed?
• BGFalcons82

  

  icskins;451709 wrote:http://www.ohio.com/news/nation/100675194.html
  
  This is absolutely crazy!!!! How can this possibly be allowed?

  
  Why do you think it's crazy? They have access to health care, schools, hospitals, and having anchor babies. Pretty soon, they'll have access to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, ADC, unemployment compensation, welfare, and worker's compensation. America - home of the free and land of the unending supply of government handouts. Hallelujah!
• believer

  

  BGFalcons82;452243 wrote:Why do you think it's crazy? They have access to health care, schools, hospitals, and having anchor babies. Pretty soon, they'll have access to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, ADC, unemployment compensation, welfare, and worker's compensation. America - home of the free and land of the unending supply of government handouts. Hallelujah!

  NAW...They'd have to become citizens and maybe pretend to pay some taxes for that to happen.
  
  No wait...I guess that's what BHO & Co. want isn't it? Giving illegals a legal document like a drivers license is the first step I suppose. Maybe a prerequisite to getting that license is the requirement to carry a green card? NAW...that'd be too discriminatory.
  
  13 million new Democratic votes is very tempting. What WAS I thinking?
• BGFalcons82

  

  believer;452272 wrote:NAW...They'd have to become citizens and maybe pretend to pay some taxes for that to happen.
  
  No wait...I guess that's what BHO & Co. want isn't it? Giving illegals a legal document like a drivers license is the first step I suppose. Maybe a prerequisite to getting that license is the requirement to carry a green card? NAW...that'd be too discriminatory.
  
  13 million new Democratic votes is very tempting. What WAS I thinking?

  Yeah, that's what i was getting at. Amnesty for all. Woo hoo! Although, if you have a driver's license, you can have access to much more. Maybe open a bank account. Maybe find a legal way to transfer money to the homeys in Mexico without paying taxes. Maybe never pay taxes. Hhhmmm... I wonder if I should renounce my citizenship? Sure would save a ton in taxes, eh?
• majorspark

  

  BGFalcons82;452243 wrote: and having anchor babies.

  A huge bastardization of the 14th amendment.
• icskins

  In some states all you need is to send a copy of your driver's license to register to vote. Would this be a way to go ahead and get some brand new voters on the books?
• BoatShoes

  majorspark;452378 wrote:A huge bastardization of the 14th amendment.

  
  How so? Not a strict constructionist when you don't like what follows from the plain language?
  
  Secondly, the concept of "anchor babies" is blown way out of proportion. It is assumed that a natural born U.S. Citizen child confers immigration benefits on the parents. This is generally not the case. These children can't sponsor their parents until they turn 21 and a natural born citizen child is generally of no help in deportation cases, another widely held but false assumption. The child has to have an extreme and profound hardship in order for illegal immigrant parents to stay in the U.S. and 88,000 have been deported in the last 10 years for minor criminal offenses like simple assaults...leaving their children behind. The Supreme Court and the INS have ruled that a deportation can't be stayed simply because the illegal has a natural born U.S. Citizen as a child.
  
  The Supreme Court has also ruled that invading armies are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" so babies had by invading armies don't fall within the requirements of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment.
  
  Perhaps you think Jus Soli to be wrong...but it seems to me that the citizenship clause is pretty clear on its face so I'd like to hear why you think it's a bastardization...
• CenterBHSFan

  

  BGFalcons82;452353 wrote:Yeah, that's what i was getting at. Amnesty for all. Woo hoo! Although, if you have a driver's license, you can have access to much more. Maybe open a bank account. Maybe find a legal way to transfer money to the homeys in Mexico without paying taxes. Maybe never pay taxes. Hhhmmm... I wonder if I should renounce my citizenship? Sure would save a ton in taxes, eh?

  Alot of illegals DON'T want to pay taxes. That's why they are glad to sneak here, work under the table, live with 20 other illegals in a 1 bedroom apartment, and send the bulk of their money back to their home country.
  They're perfectly happy not paying taxes.
  They don't want to buy a home in America.
  They don't want to raise their kids here.
  
  $100 made under the table here in the states goes a long way to those folks from another country, such as Mexico. (talking about the interior, not spa-spots)
• jhay78

  

  icskins;451709 wrote:http://www.ohio.com/news/nation/100675194.html
  
  This is absolutely crazy!!!! How can this possibly be allowed?

  
  It's spelled D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T-S.
  
  From the article:
  

  Republican lawmakers in New Mexico and Washington state have pushed to tighten the laws in recent years, only to be thwarted by Democrats. The issue is less heated in Utah, where illegal immigrant licenses carry only driving privileges. People cannot use the IDs to board a plane, get a job or buy alcohol, for example.

  Susana Martinez needs to win in NM this November.
  

  Candidates in New Mexico's governor's race have made the licenses a campaign theme, with the Republican saying she would revoke IDs granted to illegal and legal immigrants since the state enacted the law in 2003. The Democratic candidate opposes illegal immigrant licenses but prefers a softer approach.

• BoatShoes

  CenterBHSFan;452594 wrote:Alot of illegals DON'T want to pay taxes. That's why they are glad to sneak here, work under the table, live with 20 other illegals in a 1 bedroom apartment, and send the bulk of their money back to their home country.

  
  Been hanging out with a lot of illegals these days?
• majorspark

  

  BoatShoes;452564 wrote:How so? Not a strict constructionist when you don't like what follows from the plain language?
  
  Secondly, the concept of "anchor babies" is blown way out of proportion. It is assumed that a natural born U.S. Citizen child confers immigration benefits on the parents. This is generally not the case. These children can't sponsor their parents until they turn 21 and a natural born citizen child is generally of no help in deportation cases, another widely held but false assumption. The child has to have an extreme and profound hardship in order for illegal immigrant parents to stay in the U.S. and 88,000 have been deported in the last 10 years for minor criminal offenses like simple assaults...leaving their children behind. The Supreme Court and the INS have ruled that a deportation can't be stayed simply because the illegal has a natural born U.S. Citizen as a child.
  
  The Supreme Court has also ruled that invading armies are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" so babies had by invading armies don't fall within the requirements of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment.
  
  Perhaps you think Jus Soli to be wrong...but it seems to me that the citizenship clause is pretty clear on its face so I'd like to hear why you think it's a bastardization...

  The 14th amendment's primary context on citizenship was that of the former slave population. They were at the time legally brought into the USA. Those brought here and their decedents were under USA's jurisdiction. Therefore the amendment establishes those born under the legal jurisdiction of the USA as US citizens.
  
  Interpreting this amendment outside of its context allows for a free for all interpretation. Should we confer citizenship to children born to foreign diplomats while serving their foreign governments? How about a foreign couple vacationing and the women goes into unexpected early labor? It all falls on who is under the jurisdiction of the USA.
  
  As you stated the SCOTUS has recognized that those illegally invading our nation as a member of a foreign army and a member gives birth, the baby is not under jurisdiction of the USA, so it is not granted citizenship. So why should an illegal civilian invader that gives birth have their baby be granted citizenship under the 14th amendment? I see no logical argument for it.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  BoatShoes;452599 wrote:Been hanging out with a lot of illegals these days?

  
  
  Actually, no, not lately.
  
  Although I'm no "expert", I used to live in Ca. where it's dealt with all the time.
  I hired lots of people in Ca. and trust me, most of the illegals want jobs, they just don't want paychecks. And the ones that DO want paychecks are very clever with their work visas. (You really be careful with that stuff) The average person in Ohio, that never lived in a border state, probably just can't appreciate how things really are. And that's not knocking anybody. It is just the way things are. It's a way of life in some states.
  
  The "gotcha" moment falls flat.
• I Wear Pants

  Is the problem them being here or them not paying taxes? Serious question.
• tk421

  

  The problem is them breaking federal law.
• I Wear Pants

  Fair enough.
• Jason Bourne

  

  I think the big picture will show that there is a certain party that is leading the charge in gaining illegals as voters for them. The problem is that they are leading people is this persuit! The other party will eventually start doing the same thing, just under a different paradigm. (See health-care or going green for examples.)
  
  For me, I see this as a loss of the importance of our sovereignty as a nation based on the (albeit correct) notion that all people are people. And while this maybe true, not all people are citzens of a country with our specific guidelines on how we choose to treat people. If freedom of speech is right, then let other governments afford the rights to its people. Don't let other people take advantage of our system. If freedom of religion is right, then let other countries allow it!
  
  I think sometimes people living in this country see these rights, as well as the rest of our philosophy on freedom and want to appropriate it to all individuals on earth. The only problem is we do not run the world! And I for one am glad. Let's stick to our 57 or 58 states (just kidding; 50) and let others govern how they so choose.
  
  My guess is the end result will be people will flood this nation because something inside them craves freedom! But let it be known, if you want to be a part of this great nation, there are responsibilities that the individual must take on. And being a citizen is an excellent starting point!
• jmog

  BoatShoes;452564 wrote:How so? Not a strict constructionist when you don't like what follows from the plain language?
  
  Secondly, the concept of "anchor babies" is blown way out of proportion. It is assumed that a natural born U.S. Citizen child confers immigration benefits on the parents. This is generally not the case. These children can't sponsor their parents until they turn 21 and a natural born citizen child is generally of no help in deportation cases, another widely held but false assumption. The child has to have an extreme and profound hardship in order for illegal immigrant parents to stay in the U.S. and 88,000 have been deported in the last 10 years for minor criminal offenses like simple assaults...leaving their children behind. The Supreme Court and the INS have ruled that a deportation can't be stayed simply because the illegal has a natural born U.S. Citizen as a child.
  
  The Supreme Court has also ruled that invading armies are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" so babies had by invading armies don't fall within the requirements of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment.
  
  Perhaps you think Jus Soli to be wrong...but it seems to me that the citizenship clause is pretty clear on its face so I'd like to hear why you think it's a bastardization...

  
  One point of contention, when I read the citizenship clause of the 14th...
  
  "Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. "
  
  The parents of "anchor babies" are NOT subject to the jurisdiction of the US, so the baby should not be a citizen. If the parents were here legally (green card, etc) then they would be under the jurisdiction of the US and their baby would be a citizen. However, because they are here illegally, they are still under the jurisdiction of Mexico, not the US.