Did anyone see the news tonight? There was a blurb about Deval changing his position on giving illegal immigrants licenses…apparently due to a new law passed. Social Security agencies and other federal agencies would not recognize the licenses as acceptable. Does this hurt or help him..Is the new law change an acceptable reason to change positions? I’m a newbie so be easy…..
UPDATE (by David): my understanding is that DP has not changed his view that it’s a good idea for the state to have documentation of the names and addresses of everyone in the state, whether they’re in the US legally or not. But the federal Real ID law, as I wrote several weeks ago, will make it basically impossible for drivers licenses to be the state’s means of doing that.
I wrote about this several weeks ago. The federal law is the Real ID Act — not really all that new (enacted in 2005, I think). As I said then:
<
p>
<
p>
BMG: blazing the trail! đŸ˜‰
Massachusetts can issue “non-complying cards” to illegal immigrants…but those cards would have to clearly indicate that they are not acceptable for Fed. ID purposes…Healey’s newest bogus ad says that “Deval would issue licenses to be used for boarding planes”…obviously that would not be possible under the law…but, what does a criminologist know about law (or truth?)
<
p>
Reference:
THE REAL ID CARD FEDERAL REGULATIONS:
<
p>
RE:National standards for state driver’s licenses and ID cards
<
p>
In the United States, driver’s licenses are issued by the states, not by the federal government. States also issue identification cards for non-drivers. States set the rules for what data is on the card and what documents must be provided in order to obtain one. States also maintain databases of licensed drivers and ID-card holders.
<
p>
After May 11, 2008, “a Federal agency may not accept, for any official purpose, a driver’s license or identification card issued by a State to any person unless the State is meeting the requirements” specified in the Real ID Act. States remain free to also issue non-complying licenses and ID’s, so long as these have a unique design and a clear statement that they cannot be accepted for any Federal identification purpose. The federal Transportation Security Administration is responsible for security check-in at airports, so bearers of non-compliant documents would no longer be able to travel on common carrier aircraft.
<
p>
The national license/ID standards cover:
<
p> * What data must be included on the card; * What documentation must be presented before a card can be issued; and * How the states must share their databases.
<
p>
Strictly speaking, many of these requirements are not new. They replace similar language in Section 7212 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-458), which had not yet gone into effect before being repealed by the Real ID Act.
several states (including Utah and Tennessee) already have these liscenses. It’s not exactly a liberal idea. It just makes sense that drivers should be liscensed and insured. Healey’s insistence that we all just close our eyes and pretend illegal immigrants are not here is foolish and dangerous. I wonder if Healey’s ever shopped at any department store in or around Boston. I worked at a Filene’s for a holiday season once, and there were illegal immigrants working there. There were also a ton of open shifts they couldn’t fill. They were a unionized store that paid pretty good for retail and still they always had open jobs. One girl was fired after the Feds let the store know her id didn’t match up. A week later she was working at wholefoods. Despite how distasteful illegal immigrantion is to some people, the businesses in MA need the workers.
which is why I am concerned that Deval changed his position regarding this two days before the debate. think he should have maintained his position regarding the matter.
with that being said…why would Deval change his position today? I hope this isn’t going to be considered a flip-flop on his behalf…..
I didn’t see the news either but my understanding in explaining this position on the phones was the REAL ID Federal Act wouldn’t allow them to board planes but rather DP wanted to make sure immigrants had insurance as they traveled our roads to work and that it also allows us to know where they are….
<
p>
I maybe way off on this but that was my understanding.
Illegal immigrant terrorists won’t be able to board planes with these liscenses.
The RMV now issues two kinds of ID – driver’s licenses and State ID for those who cannot, or do not wish to, drive. They latter are often referred to as handicapped ID’s since that is the main use of them, but you do not have to be handicapped to get one.
<
p>
You DO have to be a Mass. resident and US citizen, however.
<
p>
Before the legislature changed the law, I used to be able to sell auto insurance with an international driver’s license and a driving test (because the bulk were from Ireland, and Europe, who may or may not be able to drive on OUR side of the road). The legislature could change that back tomorrow – recognize foreign driver’s licenses with a road test – and avoid the whole illegal immigrant/insurance issue.
<
p>
But they want to give illegal immigrants driver’s licenses instead. Hmmmm.
On another site, Left In Lowell, there was an editorial published that you all may want to read, it says alot of things that have been overlooked by the local media.
<
p>
http://www.leftinlow…
<
p>
I reccomend it.
Several states already do, including Utah (not exactly a blue state). Jeb, like Deval, have cited public safety as the reason for there endorsement. He wants to know who is in his state. George Bush would also like to allow temporary licenses to illegal immigrants. I guess the Bush brothers are just another couple of crazy liberals.
Could you provide links to some references for this?
Can you be a tad more specific? What station, what newscast, who reported it?
<
p>
Frankly, I don’t think a “blurb” on some unknown newscast is a reliable indication of any candidate’s position on much of anything. Until we hear or read something more substantive, I wouldn’t go jumping to conclusions.
Can any astute BMG readers and writers tell me who filed the bill to give illegal immigrants drivers licences in mass?
someone had mentioned that Rep. O’Flaherty was a co-sponsor of this bill soon after the Healey press conference in which he and few other Dems praised the Lt Gov, but I don’t think we was the lead.
sorry
I never would have imagined O’Flarity sponsoring such a liberal piece of legislation; the globe says he’s conservative also can Democrats ever show up at a press conference again on legislation that’s worked on in a bipartisan way? Are we Democrats advocating the partisanship of DC to descend on Massachusetts?
and so you know…the “blurb” was on ABC Boston news on the 5 or 6 o’clock news so I am not jumping to any conclusion. I dont believe any and everything on the news but what I heard was “Deval Patrick states that now he is not in favor of giving illegal immigrants licenses” that info was added after they discussed the new law (or not so new law )Whether they reported his position accuarately is a horse of another color. By the they were talking of this on John Depitro’s show with Healy this morning. John accused Patrick of “backing off on his position on giving illegals licenses” and flip-flopping Healy had the nerve to say that it waa typical of Deval…..just reporting what I heard and I am sure I can’t be the only one who has heard something remotely similar to this. I would be surprised if this didn’t come up tomorrow
Thebostonchannel.com:
<
p>
“In an unexpected turnabout, Patrick released a statement Tuesday that cited a new federal law, which goes into effect in 2008. Licenses issued by any state to illegal immigrants would no longer be recognized by federal agencies, including the TSA, the Veterans Administration or the Social Security administration.
<
p>
“Patrick said, for the first time, that he no longer supports driver’s licenses for illegals.”
<
p>
I can’t say this is a particularly big issue for me, I certainly hope it isn’t for most voters. But this campaign is veering off on such irrelevancy based on the latest Healey attack smears that who knows what the media will be obsessing on for the rest of the week.
See the Patrick Campaign’s statement as reported last night HERE.
<
p>
Deval’s position has been supported by the MA Police Chiefs Association as of 2003. The simple fact is that it is NOT an issue worth debating because the point is moot. It doesn’t matter who the Governor is or what he or she wants. The Federal law, REAL ID, passed in May 2005 supercedes any State legislation.
<
p>
Healey is pushing the fear campaign to a whole new level. She is just lying now, most of the time. She doesn’t care that her ads are lies because no one is going to stop her ads. As long as she can convince enough voters, she might as well be saying that the world is flat, the emperor’s clothes look great, and Deval wants to populate MA with illegal alien rapist terrorists.
<
p>
Does anyone know when the next poll is coming out. I’m wondering whether her fear tactics have been working or whether her numbers leveled and she is more desperate than ever.
a dead horse as someone stated in a previous post. Also I am not to be ever confused with being on the side of the Others….Deval flopped on this after the negative ad by Healy and I think that we are refusing to say that. [http://www.issues200…] During the debate he clearly stated that he was in favor of licenses for illegals for security reasons.
<
p>
Drivers licenses for illegals, for security and safety
Q: Should illegals be issued drivers licenses?
<
p>
PATRICK: ” I support that because of the security issues. I want to know the names and addresses and faces of the people who are here.The people who are driving on the roads, I want the insurance issues dealt with, I want to know the people on the road know the rules of the road. Let’s be clear, people are not coming to Massachusetts to get a drivers license, they’re coming to get jobs. The first thing we have to do is secure our borders. “
<
p>
This was well after the Real ID Act. Deval’s position was clearly understandable and defendable. As previously stated by some of you, there are other not so liberal folk who are in favor of this as well. If this is the case why is his camp issuing statements that he is not in favor of this…Im just saying if we are gonna call Muffy out, we need to acknowledge when our own candidate changes his mind on an issue that might be important to some of the constituents….an obviously something Muffy is trying to hang us on…I know I’ll probably get blasted but I am just being honest
<
p>
I can’t see where the flop is… Healey is straight out lying and splitting hairs in the process: We’re all just dizzy trying to keep up with her. Why does DP have to suffer for that?? And least of all here?