Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Note to Eleanora1: Other non-citizens have driver's licenses here, no state requires someone to be a U.S. citizen to be able to get a driver's license. Nor are you required to prove English fluency. You aren't able to win an argument that being issued a driver's license equates to "being handed" U.S. citizenship.
Yes, other non-citizens are issued driver's licenses. And, it has already been proven that some have taken advantage of the "honor system" and have in fact registered and voted in our elections. Unless voter registration forms are excluded from license applications for DACA, there is absolutely nothing to prevent people who have clearly shown their propensity for unlawful behavior, from registering and voting in our elections. This is only one of many reasons they should be denied a license.
As for the importance of English proficiency, please note the following.
Quote:
In Pennsylvania, a truck driver who could not understand English ran into and killed an entire family of five. The driver failed to heed a warning sign banning trucks over 10 tons on the road he was traveling. His truck weighed 40 tons.
Quote:
In Milwaukee, a family of eight perished after a truck’s tail light assembly fell off directly in front of their minivan. The truck driver did not speak English and did not understand other drivers who had tried to warn him of the imminent danger.
Quote:
Courts are overturning DWI convictions in cases in which violators are not given breathalyzer instructions and warnings in their native language. Courts have ruled that allowing drivers to take licensing tests in their native language creates an obligation for states to issue traffic warnings and citations in the same language.
Quote:
A rescuer tried to warn a Massachusetts man who could not speak English that his car was on fire and barely got him to leave before the car was engulfed in flames.
By law, English proficiency is a requirement for a commercial driver's license. It's ridiculous not to require the same for non-commercial drivers.
Quote:
§391.11 of the FMCSR outlines the general qualifications for CMV drivers, including a requirement that they be proficient in English:
…a person is qualified to drive a motor vehicle if he can read and speak the English language sufficiently to converse with the general public, to understand highway traffic signs and signals in the English language, to respond to official inquiries, and to make entries on reports and records … §391.11(b)(2)
A driver's license is the primary form of ID in the United States. Illegals should not be allowed to get one unless they apply for them as foreigners. The only change in the law should be to demand that foreigners who want a DL in the US should be required to illustrate that they speak, read and write fluent English and that such licenses be clearly maked as such.
Illegals know very few things but they know that if they have an American DL they won't be asked to provide any kind of other papers that might indicate they are illegal and therefore breaking our immigration laws. That's one of the reasons they don't want to apply for foreign DL's. The want the American license. They know the huge benefits that come with it.
There are DLs for foreign visitors. It's a temporary license. It's vertical instead of horizontal and has the bolded "temporary visitor" stamped on it. That is what Texas has as well as many other states.
There are DLs for foreign visitors. It's a temporary license. It's vertical instead of horizontal and has the bolded "temporary visitor" stamped on it. That is what Texas has as well as many other states.
You ask why shouldn't illegals have driver's licenses? Simple - because we should be making it as uncomfortable as possible for them to live in CA.
But instead we give them free education, free health care, all the welfare that they can steal and we set up sanctuary cities. Now they will get driver's licenses.
Our legislature would just as soon see Republican business owners scram out of California to be replaced by illegals who now have a way to vote. And to vote Democrat. Anyone surprised?
You got that right! i'm sure Obama will soon have a welcome wagon to welcome then?
So in other words they can legally drive. They just don't want to legally drive unless they get American driver's licenses. They would rather break our laws.
Your "misquoting" and misinterpreting what I said changes everything about what I said ... I don't recall that I referred to anything .highnlite has written in this thread ... perhaps I have and you can show me. But if you have a difference of opinion with .highnlite, you should discuss it with him. You attacked my post based on your false comprehension of what was completely clear and accurate.
I attacked your post? I simply pointed .highnlite to your post as he was stating something totally different. Then you get all indignant and attack me. Your comment #32 says "relies on" just like I said "relies on", but whatever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nullgeo
As for any "chips on shoulders" ... perhaps you think in those terms because you are a woodcutter and chips fly. I don't know. You don't like my style in responding to you? Increase your reading comprehension disciplines and skills and perhaps we won't butt heads in the future.
Maybe you should remember the order of your words since your comment #32 says "relies on". Maybe heed your own advice, imjusayin.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nullgeo
"Hyper-simplified" is not CYA ... it is a strategy to try and cut the quibble factor down to essentials when dealing with people of limited comprehension. I stand by my observation that the field work in California is not seasonal ... it is seasonal in Maine and Washington ... it is not for many crops and growing areas of the California valleys. There are so many crops and constant rotations that the availability of work is year round -- not seasonal. There are always gaps between work opportunities, however, even in year round growing. Thus, just as construction workers don't work 40 hours a week 50 weeks a year due to changing job sites and tasks and opening of contracts -- field workers are always going to have down days and even weeks. They do not have down seasons in California. The work is not seasonal.
When you type one thing and then come back and say it means something else, "hyper-simplified" is a CYA. There is some that work year round in field work, I have already shown that, comment #47. About 20 - 40% of the workers work year round, and about 60% are seasonal workers. The limited comprehension seems to fall on you, imjusayin. If you would follow the converstation vs knee jerk reaction to non-sequitur claims, you might realize you have no need to attack with your self righteous indignation. We wouldn't be butting heads if you followed along.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nullgeo
Construction tradesmen and laborers often cannot apply for and collect unemployment for the days and weeks they are off. Until they are laid off for extended times (definitions of 'extended' are different from state to state, I believe) they are considered "full-time employed" -- even though they are not actually full-time. Such is the life of 'independent contract workers'.
Actually they can if they have already had their 2 week waiting period done after they filed. California considers full time employment if worked more than 32 hours per week. Independent contractors are totally different, they work on their own schedule and "independent contractor" can not be checked if the person is told where to be and at what times they work, CA employer law. Field workers can not be employed as "independent contractors", itsjusthewaytis.
I attacked your post? I simply pointed .highnlite to your post as he was stating something totally different. Then you get all indignant and attack me. Your comment #32 says "relies on" just like I said "relies on", but whatever.
Maybe you should remember the order of your words since your comment #32 says "relies on". Maybe heed your own advice, imjusayin.
Now this is getting funnier by the post ... read the difference carefully:
My post #32
Quote:
Originally Posted by nullgeo
... I did not represent that 80% of illegals work in agriculture.
I represented that California agriculture relies on illegals for 80% of its field work...
Your critique:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns
Take that up with nullgeo as he first made the claim California relies on 80% illegal workers.
for 80% of its field work
is not the same as relies on 80% [of] illegal workers.
in which the [of] I inserted is inferred ... or even if it is not, the meaning is changed.
Look. Your profession sounds like an interesting line of work. You are probably someone I could find some things in common with to jaw about. But you are not dealing with language well here. And you have made assumptions based on misinterpretations. What I am pointing out to you are not cases of quibbling over English ... your misunderstandings change meanings.
Now, I have done a variety of things to earn my way through life and support a large family over the years -- including plenty of physical labor. But the profession that I probably earned more at than all the others combined is writing ... journalism, research, marketing, creative ... all. I do dash things off here on the forum without nearly the care I would take if writing a piece for publication .... but, I am generally pretty damn clear. You need to stop and think about what you are reading and what you are writing ... what I wrote (above) and what you wrote (above) use a number of the same words ... in different orders and contexts change. Seriously. They are not the same.
Now then:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns
When you type one thing and then come back and say it means something else, "hyper-simplified" is a CYA.
There is no CYA about it. It is not seasonal work in most of California.
Illegals get drivers licenses all the time. They just buy them. Break one law, what is the big deal about breaking a few more? Theft, forgery, bribery, black market...
As for having to know English in order to drive....ha....you have obviously not been to Miami. Everything there is in Spanish.
So in other words they can legally drive. They just don't want to legally drive unless they get American driver's licenses. They would rather break our laws.
That's disgusting.
Yes, that is the outrage.
Texas requires a lawful presence for a temporary visitor DL which means some legal form that says you have a right to be here.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Your comment #32 says "relies on" just like I said "relies on", but whatever.
