The question whether illegal or undocumented immigrants should be given driver’s licenses has been touted as a big issue dividing Deval Patrick and Kerry Healey.
But unless I’m misreading the federal Real ID Act, the relevant portion of which goes into effect in 2008, this issue has been decided by the feds. Under the Real ID Act, federal agencies may not accept a state-issued driver’s license for any purpose (e.g., boarding an airplane) unless the state has been certified as in compliance with the Act. And among the Act’s requirements is the following (section 202(c)(2)(B)):
EVIDENCE OF LAWFUL STATUS- A State shall require, before issuing a driver’s license or identification card to a person, valid documentary evidence that the person–
(i) is a citizen or national of the United States;
(ii) is an alien lawfully admitted for permanent or temporary residence in the United States;
(iii) has conditional permanent resident status in the United States;
(iv) has an approved application for asylum in the United States or has entered into the United States in refugee status;
(v) has a valid, unexpired nonimmigrant visa or nonimmigrant visa status for entry into the United States;
(vi) has a pending application for asylum in the United States;
(vii) has a pending or approved application for temporary protected status in the United States;
(viii) has approved deferred action status; or
(ix) has a pending application for adjustment of status to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States or conditional permanent resident status in the United States.
The basic point is that you can’t get a driver’s license unless either you’re here legally, or you’ve got a pending application for legal status. So, as of May 11, 2008 (when Real ID goes into effect), the states simply cannot issue driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants.
That makes this a non-issue, doesn’t it? There’s no way MA or any other state can avoid complying with this law, since otherwise no one from the state will be able to use their driver’s license to board airplanes. So the answer is, it seems to me, the feds have decided this issue, and MA needs to move toward compliance. End of story.
Or am I missing something?
What about US citizens who simply have no proof of their citizenship? If you somehow lose your birth certificate and didn’t already have a passport, how on earth are you supposed to prove you’re a citizen?
<
p>
I mean, it’s not a problem for me because I have a passport (and my parents had my birth certificate which I needed back when I got one for the first time as a kid, and I’m sure they still have it somewhere if I need it), but I can definitely imagine scenarios where there simply is no proof of citizenship. Does someone know what happens in that case?
There’s a lot of controversy over this act – lots of people born here don’t have passports and can’t find their birth certificates, and the estimates of how much this law is going to cost the states run into the gazillions of dollars. Plus, it is guaranteed to quadruple waiting times at the registry when it’s time to renew your license.
<
p>
But it does seem to me to settle the undocumented immigrants question.
This has been a huge part of the GOP scam of the decade. They use the Fed Gov’t to leverage states to do what the Federal Congress wants, but they require the states to pay for it. We’ve seen it with No Child Left Behind, and we’ve seen it again with REAL ID.
<
p>
This way, they can be “tough” on crime, education, immigration, etc. and cut taxes. Meantime, the Federal deficit is enormous, and there’s even more pressure on the state, which are forced to cut aid to cities and towns. More of the shell game.
<
p>
As for REAL ID, I don’t think its going to play out like the legislation suggests. The Feds are going to play a staredown game with 50 governors, none of which have the cash to enforce this. You really think the Congress is going to hold ground with not letting people fly? I just don’t see it happening.
Patrick wants to change existing law to allow illegal immigrants to obtain driver’s licenses; Healy opposes this measure.
<
p>
The issue is moot because federal law requires certain documntation before obtaining a license.
<
p>
What is presently required to get a license? I seem to recall the need to document my residency and age before getting my first license; place of birth is established by the same piece of paper.
<
p>
So the only change is that the applicant must bring an additional piece of paper if he/she is an immigrant. And the surly clerk has an additional box to check before issuing the license.
<
p>
How is this costly at all, much less gazaillions of dollars?
<
p>
I don’t know, but I don’t understand why a Federal law would govern state licensing.
the federal law prohibits any federal agency (including, most importantly, TSA) from accepting driver’s licenses for any purpose unless the states are certified as meeting the Real ID Act’s requirements. Which means that unless states are in compliance by 2008, you can’t use your driver’s license to get on an airplane. Which means huge pains the asses of many state residents.
that should be “pains IN the asses.”
If enough states follow the lead of New Hampshire, the federal government will have to back down.
try here
Guess I should have read the entire post first.
It would have been more accurate to write “as a practical matter, moot” because of the extreme unliklihood that Massachusetts would willingly render the driver’s licenses of its residents useless under many of the circumstaqnces that drivers licenses are commonly used.
is not specifically about the immigration stuff. It’s mostly about the incredibly onerous documentation requirements, none of which is funded by the feds.
<
p>
Example:
<
p>
<
p>
That’s from a 2-minute Google search. There’s tons more about there.
You can always obtain a birth certificate from the clerk’s office where you were born. I’ve always wondered about what would happen if there were a fire/flood that destroyed the orignial. I’m encouraged by the efforts I’ve seen to get legitimate archiving completed, either electronically or in approved structures.
<
p>
One thing that disappointed me about Galvin was his reported negative statements on the use of Open Document Format. I would hope that moving forward, he would recognize the value of adopting an open standard for record retention.
And what do you use to prove to them that you are, in fact, the person on the certficate? Once conservatives figure out that loophole, look for mandatory fingerprinting or some other highly invasive way to “prove” your identity.
But, I don’t think there is a foolproof proof. Have a document — someone will counterfit it. Need private information — someone will steal it. Furnish a ‘trail’ — someone will fabricate it.
<
p>
That said, I last requested my in the early 90s. I think I had to give my parents’ names, including my mother’s maiden name, and place of birth. Would most people know this information about me? Probably not. But I’m sure plenty have access to it.
<
p>
That said, birth certificates (at least the old ones) are so easy to forge. Why would anyone bother pretending to be someone just to get a copy?
A friend of mine recently had a heck of a time trying to get a birth certificate for one of her children from city hall, because they were going to travel together. It was a homebirth. City hall told her, nonsense, there haven’t been any homebirths in our city! She’s had four, in the same house, in their city, with registered midwives, duly documented.
Yeah, I’m guessing there are a few people born in New Orleans who might have some problems along those lines. Just a hunch.
Didn’t New Hampshire vote not to comply with this federal mandate? I’d like Massachusetts to follow NH’s lead.
how are people supposed to get on airplanes? Do we have to bring our passports every time we take the shuttle to NYC? What about people who don’t have passports?
And passports are expensive, too. Almost $100 to get a new one.
If we are currently issuing drivers licenses to illegal immigrants, and Patrick supports that position, then there’s a problem. We should be moving towards ending that practice.
<
p>
Healey has already spoken out against the issuance of these licenses, and now with the federal law to back up her position, she has been and will continue to be pushing the message that this is the direction we need to be heading.
<
p>
Brings to mind how (thankfully!) MA was way ahead of many states in designing, testing and implementing MCAS testing. It put us way ahead of the game when the federal mandates finally arrived.
I agree that pragmatically, Healey will go after Patrick on this issue.
<
p>
Philosophically, why shouldn’t MA allow undocumenteds to get drivers licenses? MA isn’t in the immigration business — that’s up to the Feds. MA, however, is in the business of paying for roads and police, and improving safety. Training undocumented people how to drive well can only improve safety, and might even help to maintain/reduce insurance rates.
<
p>
Don’t use one government service to leverage a wholly unrelated issue. If anyone gets hurt — anyone — we as a society ought to help mend him. Every child deserves an education, not to mention food and shelter.
<
p>
If the Feds want to build a crocodile moat around tUSA, there’s not much MA can do. But we should expect the Commonwealth to look out for the interests of the Commonwealth and to do the right thing. Improving public safety inside the commonwealth is served by encouraging safe driving, and that means drivers licenses.
giving licenses to undocumented aliens as the bill’s main sponsor was Eugene O’Flaherty and we all know he is out of touch.
Is there a proposal that illegal immigrants be required to attend (and pass) a driver education course? If not, than what equates holding a MA license with being a safe driver?!?
<
p>
But more to the point, what you are doing is giving illegal immigrants MORE priveleges than law abiding citizens. Philosophically, I have a problem with that.
<
p>
For example, foreign visitors from certain countries are able to drive legally for one year. They are also advised to carry their I-94. So, foreigners here legally can drive for one year, but those here illegally have no limit?
<
p>
And heck, any U.S. citizen is required to have their SS# on record with the RMV. But those here illegally are not? Give me a break.
<
p>
We should expect the Commonwealth to look out for the interests of the Commonwealth. And that means upholding the law — both state and federal.
<
p>
I think what you and your fellow travellers don’t recognize is this isn’t personal. It’s the law. Are we truly welcoming people into our society when we condone illegal behavior, or are we simply coddling them? Resources should be devoted to helping people obtain legal residence and becoming citizens. Skirting this process by providing benefits isn’t a shortcut, it’s just simply wrong.
<
p>
Is this really what progressives think? Is this really what the care and compassion that I once thought the Democratic party was based on has become? I hope Ms. Healey calls this out for what it is — a complete lack of good judgment.
Why on earth would you think that illigal immigrants wouldn’t have to pass a drivers test? Isn’t that what a drivers license is? Last I checked, they didn’t just hand out legal ones on street corners. The ones they hand out on corners are the illegal ones, and you don’t need to show any ability to drive. Why would an illigal immigrant that could legally get a licence NOT learn how to drive so as to pass the test, instead of using a forged license that could potentially get him into more trouble?
<
p>
Legal immigrants have that 1 year grace period so that they can pass the US test: it’s not “oh, you’ve been here a year, and now you can no longer drive!”
There are several paths to getting a license. For example, if you are from out of state, you do not need to take a exam to get an MA license. If you are foreigner on a legal visa, you do not need to take an exam in order to drive (assuming you are from one of the listed countries).
<
p>
The only people that need to take a test are those that have never been licensed before. So, unless the proposed regulation stipulates that they must take a drivers test, I think it’s highly optimistic to think that people will voluntarily go through the time and trouble of passing a drivers test (especially if they already know how to drive!).
<
p>
If it is in the regulation, and let’s say an illegal immigrant has a drivers license from one of those listed countries, is that fair? If you’re a legal immigrant with a Group C country license, you don’t need a test, but if you’re an illegal immigrant with a Group C country license you do? Where’s the logic in that?
<
p>
I’m not sure you get the point about the 1 year period. I suppose some people may use the 1 year period to apply for a MA license, but regardless one’s legal eligibility to drive using one’s home country license expires (but is renewable) at the end of a year. If a person does want to apply for a license, they will need to furnish a SS#. Everyone is required to do this under MA law. Will illegal immigrants be exempted?
<
p>
It’s in PDF format and I don’t feel like typing over the whole thing, but if you go to the very bottom of the second to last page of http://www.mass.gov/… you’ll see that licensed drivers from the approved list may drive with their foreign licences for up to 1 year. After that, they must get a MA license. Licensed drivers not from the approved countries cannot drive at all with their foreign licenses.
I don’t mind typing:
<
p>
<
p>
Sorry you missed that part. Maybe the word “lawfully” threw you? 🙂
<
p>
Even if you are legally in the US, if you’re here for more than a year, yes, you must get a MA drivers license. That means, you must furnish a SS#.
<
p>
But, excellent point about the folks from countries other than those on the list. So, how would this proposal of giving illegal immigrants licenses address those folks? They’d probably have to apply for a license, which gets us back to furnishing a SS#, which gets us back to the point that they cannot get a SS#.
<
p>
Stop trying to put band-aids on the problem. Put your energies into addressing the real issue, which is not whether or not these people can get a MA license, but whether these people can become citizens. That’s what they want. Everything else is false hope. Just like you get from your guy Patrick.
According to the RMV web site, you don’t need a SS# if you can prove that you can’t get one.
<
p>
Oh, I did find a pastable bit of info on the RMV web site:
“Converting a License from a Foreign Country
<
p>
If you are converting a license from a country other than Canada, Mexico or one of the US Territories, you must take the full – written and road – test plus the eye test.
<
p>
If you are from a country listed in the 1949 Road Acts Convention, you must have a sponsor and you must present your valid driver’s license from that country and if needed, an English translation of the license. “
<
p>
http://www.mass.gov/…
Thanks! And good snooping!
<
p>
So, is it a good thing to apply the same rule to illegal immigrants? If you’re illegal from Canada, Mexico or a US territory, no test?
<
p>
But as your for statement about the SS#, let’s be real here. Emphasis mine.
<
p>
<
p>
“I can’t get a SS# because I’m not here legally” isn’t going to float.
<
p>
Why such dedication to breaking the law? Your heart seems to be in the right place. But, it’s “teach a man to fish”, not “teach a man to steal.”
I prefer that all drivers be licensed and insured. I see no reason for the state of Massachusetts to take any note whatsoever of someone’s immigration status for this purpose.
Would you say the same about commercial driver licenses?
<
p>
How about licenses to run a day care, a restaurant, a hair salon?
<
p>
What about a medical license, or those needed to give a tatoo or massage?
<
p>
How about to vote? Would that be okay, too?
What on earth does being an immigrant, legal or not, have to do with any of the first three lines, and what does being able to vote have to do with any of the other things?
…you’re equating the right to open a tatoo parlor with the right to vote? Would you be adverse to ANYONE who can’t vote not being able to have a job? I’m sorry, I’m still not really seeing the correlation.
Rights to go to school? Sure, we know that because of 14th amendment.
<
p>
Rights to drive? to vote? to own land? against self-incrimination? to work? Stack ’em up. You obviously feel it’s appropriate that an illegal have a ‘right’ to a drivers license; perhaps a right to instate tuition.
<
p>
How about a right to work? How about a right to vote? How about a right (license) to open a tatoo parlor?
<
p>
Where’s the line? How can you justify a position to support a right to in-state tuition and a license, THEN endourse a candidate who intends to enforce wage and hour laws if an employer hires the very same person to whom you’ve given the right to in-state tuition and a license.
<
p>
i.e. You can go to school and drive, but you can’t work to pay for school or a car.
Others have answered this question quite well; I’d just like to draw an analogy with pop culture, namely all the various cop shows on TV.
<
p>
Ever watch one of these and see the cops catch up with some guy who’s broken the law — for example, smoking pot — and they tell him, “Relax, we’re homicide; we don’t care about your weed. We just want to know if you have any information on who killed Jane Doe.”
<
p>
Sure, they could bust the guy and uphold every single law on the books, but that hurts their immediate goal of solving murder cases.
<
p>
Same thing here. Sure, MA could use driver’s licenses to enforce federal immigration policy, but that hurts our primary reason for having licenses in the first place. They grant you a LICENSE to operate a motor vehicle. Like a hunting license or a fishing license. The state says, “OK, you pass our safety and legal requirements; you may operate a motor vehicle on our roads.”
<
p>
It’s got nothing to do with citizenship. It’s about safety. It’s about the fact that these people are going to operate motor vehicles, and we have a choice between seeing that they know how to do so safely, or kicking them out of the country AFTER they’ve killed five people in a three-car pile-up because they didn’t know not to turn left on red.
I have heard nothing about even so much as a road test.
Contrast the positions of Mr. Reilly versus Mr. Patrick:
<
p>
Mr. Reilly:
<
p>
Mr. Patrick:
<
p>
You see that the drivers’ license law is yet another ‘feel-good’ law: Let’s help the wretched refuse of our teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to school with instate tuition and allow them a drivers license too.
<
p>
THEN spin 180 to cow-tow to the folks that brung you: the Unions and Big-Labor. Time to crack down on those evil employers and fine those evil-doers if they evilly hire the VERY SAME DRIVERS AND SUBSIDIZED STUDENTS that the warm-fuzzy people want to protect.
Just because you haven’t heard of it doesn’t mean it’s not there. Look at it this way: if somebody were thinking of the ludicrous proposition of just giving licenses to illegal immigrants without any road tests, it’d be all over the place. That’s a ridiculous idea and dangerous too (for reasons cited above).
<
p>
I don’t know why you would assume this scenario.
A piece on this on NRP noted that Massachusetts residents had better expect personal appearances and long lines to get a license renewed. The last time of an email reup is a memory. Bring a book or some cryptic puzzles.
I think the right position for every governor to take, totally unrelated to undocumented immigrants, is that all the states need to band together to fight Real ID and get Congress to repeal it ASAP. It’s a poorly thought out, dangerous, police-state, spending extravagance of a horrorshow. It encourages and promotes identity theft, voter suppression, budget deficits, and massive friction on the economy.
I may end up agreeing with you, but I need to hear how it would do all of those things.
<
p>
To my understanding, Real ID is not a national ID — it’s simply a nationwide standard for the issuance of state IDs. That would probably impose some costs on states at first, until they’re in compliance. But where’s the rest of this come from?
REAL ID Impact Study
<
p>
also MIRA has a FAQ sheet on it too.
<
p>
Also, this from the State House News Service,
<
p>
Source: STATE HOUSE NEWS SERVICE
Author: Gintautas Dumcius
Date: September 21, 2006
STATE HOUSE, BOSTON, SEPT. 21, 2006 .On top of facing an insurmountable May 2008 deadline, implementing a federal law that nationalizes standards for drivers licenses and identification cards will cost states more than $11 billion over five years, according to a new survey released Thursday.
<
p>
The study, conducted jointly by the National Governors Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, and the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, surveyed 47 state motor vehicle agencies across the U.S. via a questionnaire on estimated start-up costs in implementing the Real ID Act…
<
p>
…Much of the cost, which state officials said was the calculated minimum, will come from re-credentialing the countrys 245 million license and cardholders. That will cost $8.5 billion, according to the surveys estimates. The survey did not include a state-by-state breakdown.
<
p>
Every renewal will be processed as an original issuance, said Tom Wolfsohn, AAMVAs chief policy officer, in a media briefing held in Washington D.C.
<
p>
Individuals will have to gather documents you havent seen in years and personally take them to the local motor vehicle agency, which in turn has to verify the validity of the documents, he said.
<
p>
While states were making moves towards compliance, they are also strained in dealing with regular requests, and the act will cause a surge in calls, visits, and complaints, leading to increased hiring costs and expanded business hours to meet the five-year enrollment deadline, he said. This country runs the risk of overwhelming the system that keeps the economy humming, and ensures both highway safety and homeland security, he added.
<
p>
The survey recommends a 10-year re-enrollment schedule, up from the proposed five-year schedule, and that federal funds be provided and the 2008 compliance deadline extended, since the Department of Homeland Security has not yet released guidelines, and does not plan to do so until the end of the year.
<
p>
I think the states definitely feel that they need funds to implement this, Wolfsohn said.
<
p>
Regardless of the system, a billion dollars is going to be necessary, said Raymond Sheppach, executive director of the National Governors Association, pointing to the estimated one-time upfront cost of $1 billion to states.
<
p>
An earlier estimate, released by market research firm Input Inc. in August, estimates states spending at $2.5 billion over five years, and also charged states are unlikely to meet the deadline.
<
p>
We are obviously concerned, Sheppach said, noting that while the groups are unopposed to the act, Congress has a history of passing unfunded mandates, such as in education reform through the No Child Left Behind Act. They seldom pay for them, and this is huge.
<
p>
“At some point, if we want to live in a secure world, we need to do things differently,” Baddour said. “I think the federal government should help fund it. At the end of the day, it’s in everyone’s best interest.”
<
p>
Baddour added: “It’s like giving driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants. It’s ridiculous. We need to toughen up that part of our security side,” he said. “We need to make sure people aren’t falsifying information.” …
Did the Globe or Herald pick this up at all?
<
p>
Now the cost and economic friction part of the problem makes sense. This is going to be a huge burden on the states, and a major annoyance for everyone.
<
p>
But… responding again to those who want the states to resist Real ID… I don’t see what the rest of the problem is, other than the government’s failure to fund what would appear to be an important homeland security measure. (I’m not surprised on that score; the Republicans have shown absolutely zero interest in actually making us more secure, only in making us more afraid, and lavishing pork on a lot of Republican states without any major terrorist targets.)
<
p>
Is it “police state”-esque simply to iron out inconsistencies in different states’ standards for IDs? Of course not. Clearly this law was passed precisely because people had “police state” concerns with a national ID.
<
p>
And far from abetting “voter suppression,” creating a uniform standard for state IDs would actually serve to take us one step forward toward a more uniform standard for state regulation of voting — no longer would your ability to get an ID vary from state to state, and it creates a nice precedent, by showing how a national standard and state control can co-exist. Again, the only problem is the unfunded mandate.
<
p>
Can anyone else give me another argument against Real ID?
http://www.wired.com…
David – does this change your position on in-state tuition? It seems the noose is tightening on what illegal immigrants are allowed (via non-enforcement and ambiguity etc…) to do.
Attract illegal immigrants to Massachusetts with tales of drivers licenses and cheap schooling. They have to get jobs to pay for these neat things so they go lookin’.
<
p>
Employers hire them, and BAM the trap falls: “Enforce Wage and Hour Laws. If we get serious about enforcement, work with the business community, legislators, and labor, we can recover $150 million for the Commonwealth each year.” -D. Patrick, cerca 2006.
<
p>
It’s money in the bank! Illegal aliens as a revenue source! Almost like soylent green, but without the processing.
How is this bill constitutional in light of Printz v. US? Recall that in Printz, the statute in question (Brady Act) called for state Chief Law Enforcement Officers (CLEOs) to run background checks on gun buyers.
<
p>
The court held that Congress cannot conscript state officials to administer or enforce federal legislation. The court struck down this act on 10th amendment grounds, emphasizing that (i) no federal statute has ever conscripted a state offical before (state judges notwithstanding), (ii) the act poses problems of accountability: if the states fail to comply with the proposed act because of, say, Congress’ failure to adequately fund this program, who will be held accountable? The states or the feds?, and (iii) the power to faithfully execute the laws of the United States falls on the President, not 50 CLEOs.
<
p>
In this case, the bill fails on all three counts: the bill (i) requires States (presumably the state executive branch/secretary of state/dmv) to implement federal legislation, (ii) blurs lines of accountability – who will be held to account if a state fails to come up with an adequate system of checking applicants’ backgrounds?, and (iii) nowhere in this bill is the President called upon to faithfully execute the laws.
<
p>
Unconstitutional, no?