Put Drivers Licenses for Illegal Aliens to a Vote? (Boston: section 8, fingerprints)

[htfdcolt]

Originally Posted by Mr. Joshua

I am amazed that you didn't understand that I was talking about their driving records in their home countries. And in this state, we let the illegal defenders walk out the back door of the court house or we don't notify DHS about an illegal breaking the law at all.

Then why would you be opposed to them being licensed & insured, and establishing a driving record in this country? Wouldn't that create the transparency you want?

[Mr. Joshua]

Originally Posted by htfdcolt

You aren't bringing any facts, only an opinion, to your argument.

And you are believing the steaming pile of crap spewed by the Democrats who have enacted the law.

Tell me htfdcolt, where are the statistics showing the fundamental problems faced by this state because of the many unlicensed illegals driving around? Show me just one anecdote that proves that this was an itch that desperately needed to be scratched.

[Mr. Joshua]

Originally Posted by htfdcolt

Then why would you be opposed to them being licensed & insured, and establishing a driving record in this country? Wouldn't that create the transparency you want?

They are here illegally. What part of that has you confused????

[htfdcolt]

Originally Posted by Mr. Joshua

They are here illegally. What part of that has you confused????

Circular argument. Understand your position--they're illegal, so in your opinion they have no rights whatsoever.

[jayrandom]

Originally Posted by htfdcolt

Circular argument. Understand your position--they're illegal, so in your opinion they have no rights whatsoever.

You don't have to agree with the argument, but it's not hard to understand. Someone here illegally shouldn't be extended the privilege of being allowed to operate a motor vehicle on the road. Extending them privileges, even those that result in a net positive for society, encourage undesirable behavior.

I don't think "so they don't deserve any rights?" is really so much of an argument as it is an appeal to some emotional reaction against "conservatives". More reasonable arguments might include:

1) They're here, nothing is going to really be done about that, and it's safer to regulate their driving to the extent we can

or

2) Immigration is grossly unfair and anything we can do to resist (federally imposed) immigration laws is a good thing.

[htfdcolt]

Originally Posted by jayrandom

You don't have to agree with the argument, but it's not hard to understand. Someone here illegally shouldn't be extended the privilege of being allowed to operate a motor vehicle on the road. Extending them privileges, even those that result in a net positive for society, encourage undesirable behavior.

I don't think "so they don't deserve any rights?" is really so much of an argument as it is an appeal to some emotional reaction against "conservatives". More reasonable arguments might include:

1) They're here, nothing is going to really be done about that, and it's safer to regulate their driving to the extent we can

or

2) Immigration is grossly unfair and anything we can do to resist (federally imposed) immigration laws is a good thing.

If you look at my posts above, I've been arguing based solely on (1). My comments about not deserving any rights were sarcasm...which is tough to convey in this forum and online in general.

[jayrandom]

Originally Posted by htfdcolt

If you look at my posts above, I've been arguing based solely on (1). My comments about not deserving any rights were sarcasm...which is tough to convey in this forum and online in general.

I mean sarcasm generally involves claiming the opposite of what is intended, not exaggerating someone else's argument to make it look stupid. The "you need to be here legally to get a driver's license" crowd isn't proposing something crazy, that's the way the law actually does work in most states and even in Massachusetts until recently. It's not like they're proposing immigration checkpoints at every town line and a deportation for people who can't quickly produce their papers.

I'm squarely in category 1) myself, but I don't think anyone benefits from having make-believe arguments. Not everyone operates pragmatically--or more likely no one operates pragmatically for everything. If you made the ideologically opposite sort of argument, say something like locking up in mentally ill or drug-addicted homeless people against their will would result in better outcomes for them and for society at large, some people would still be opposed on the grounds that even the mentally ill or drug-addicted have the right to self-determination. Some people might be swayed by data supporting the underlying assertion that forced care is of a net benefit, but quite a few would dig their heels in and stick by their fundamental principles.

In this case, I think enough people in Massachusetts are either in category 1 or category 2 in this particular case that a ballot initiative would be a colossal waste of everyone's time.

[Mr. Joshua]

Originally Posted by jayrandom

I mean sarcasm generally involves claiming the opposite of what is intended, not exaggerating someone else's argument to make it look stupid. The "you need to be here legally to get a driver's license" crowd isn't proposing something crazy, that's the way the law actually does work in most states and even in Massachusetts until recently. It's not like they're proposing immigration checkpoints at every town line and a deportation for people who can't quickly produce their papers.

I'm squarely in category 1) myself, but I don't think anyone benefits from having make-believe arguments. Not everyone operates pragmatically--or more likely no one operates pragmatically for everything. If you made the ideologically opposite sort of argument, say something like locking up in mentally ill or drug-addicted homeless people against their will would result in better outcomes for them and for society at large, some people would still be opposed on the grounds that even the mentally ill or drug-addicted have the right to self-determination. Some people might be swayed by data supporting the underlying assertion that forced care is of a net benefit, but quite a few would dig their heels in and stick by their fundamental principles.

In this case, I think enough people in Massachusetts are either in category 1 or category 2 in this particular case that a ballot initiative would be a colossal waste of everyone's time.

It will take me about 2 seconds to fill in the circle with my vote against this so I don't know what you mean by a colossal waste of everyone's time.

And while you are probably correct about the state's stupid electorate, they do frequently defeat loony liberal legislation on ballot questions.

[htfdcolt]

Looks like it may get put to a vote after all

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/08/...publicans-say/

[raidgirl]

Originally Posted by htfdcolt

Well for sure they won't have the Real ID *, which requires proof of citizenship.

What I'm saying is--there is obviously a process in place today, to prevent other legal non-citizens who own driver's licenses from getting on the town voter rolls in MA. This would require an expansion of that process to include the undocumented license holders.

Real ID does not need proof of citizenship, it does require proof of legal residence.
In other words , one can have Real ID and not be a citizen YET legal.