There is a big debate in New York State concerning Governor Spitzer's intention of giving driver's licenses to illegal aliens. Even though New York is among the most liberal of states opposition to the governor's plan is overwhelming.

What do you think? Should driver's licenses be restricted to those who are citizens or who are in the United States legally or not?

http://www.newsday.com/media/photo/2007-07/31295721.jpg

Voters may dump Spitzer over license plan

Gov. Eliot Spitzer's favorability rating has dropped to an all-time low of 41 percent, and has left only 25 percent of voters planning to re-elect him, according to a poll the Siena Research Institute released Tuesday. (Mike Groll, Associated Press / July 19, 2007)



BY MELISSA MANSFIELD | melissa.mansfield@newsday.com
1:48 PM EST, November 13, 2007

ALBANY - Things aren't getting better for Gov. Eliot Spitzer as a new Siena poll out Tuesday morning showed that less than half of New Yorkers have a favorable opinion of him. Thirty-three percent of New Yorkers say he is doing a good job, while 64 percent say its fair or poor.

This governor had a 75 percent favorability rating in January when he took office.

Seven of ten voters who know about the governor's plan to give undocumented immigrants licenses oppose his original plan and two-thirds oppose the new three-tier system.


Poll: How do you feel about Spitzer Vote
"He changed the plan, but he hasn't changed the mind of the voters. New plan, old plan, it just doesn't matter - New Yorkers continue to overwhelmingly oppose the governor on his plan," said Siena Poll spokesman Steven Greenberg. "The governor has American's Homeland Security secretary agreeing with him that the state will have one of the most secure licensing systems in the nation, but by a three-to-two margin, New Yorkers don't buy it."

When asked about the governor's revised plan that would have three different license options, 65 percent opposed it, five percent less than the original plan.

The poll was conducted the first week of November, by telephone, to 625 registered voters. The margin of error is 3.9 percent.

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/state/ny-stpoll1114,0,4106930.story?coll=ny_home_rail_headl ines

Driving has nothing to do with citizenship. What are you going to do? Maybe these Mexicans can drive to Mexico if they have licenses.

Driver's licenses are used as a legal form of identification when boarding an airplane or when cashing a check. If there is nothing backing up their validity what use will they be as a form of identification?

Isn't giving them driver's licenses rewarding lawbreakers? If you have no legal right to be in the country how can you have a legal right to an official document of that country?

I lived in another country for a year. At no time did I have a Driver's license in that country. It amazes me that people think our government ought to give people who are actively engaged in criminal behavior an official document that aids in that illicit behavior.

You can put something on it to identify the person as a non-citizen. I have a mark on there that says I can drive a motorbike and I need to be wearing corrective lenses.

I think you're confusing the issue. If non-citizens are here legally, that is if they have a green card or work permit, I'm pretty sure they can obtain a driver's license.

However, in the scenario you mention, if we're giving non-citizens something like that, the common sense would demand we investigate that person's status to determine what it is. If they say they're illegal or found to be illegal, the license is moot. They should be arrested and deported.

I think you're confusing the issue. If non-citizens are here legally, that is if they have a green card or work permit, I'm pretty sure they can obtain a driver's license.

However, in the scenario you mention, if we're giving non-citizens something like that, the common sense would demand we investigate that person's status to determine what it is. If they say they're illegal or found to be illegal, the license is moot. They should be arrested and deported.

I agree, if you are not a legal citizen or a non citizen with a work permit or green card then you have no right to own a license.

Driver's licenses are used as a legal form of identification when boarding an airplane or when cashing a check. If there is nothing backing up their validity what use will they be as a form of identification?

Isn't giving them driver's licenses rewarding lawbreakers? If you have no legal right to be in the country how can you have a legal right to an official document of that country?

Well Spitzer's revised plan allows them to get a license that can't be used to board planes or cross the boarder. So those objections seem moot now.

I also don't see how giving them driver's licenses is rewarding them. The intent is to keep them from driving without a license and without insurance (which is required in NY)--it's to help the people and the gov't of NY (including the police) not to help people who have to pay for a license, pay to register their car, & pay to get insurance.

Would you rather have people fleeing accidents and being unable to reimburse people who they hit or would you rather not? If someone is wanted by the police do you want an address on file for them or would prefer to have no idea where they've lived?

Let me address that.

I think it's worth pointing out that the problem that is trying to be corrected here has little or nothing to do with a license and everything to do with personal responsibility.

For example, as a student abroad, I could rent and drive a car even though I had no license in that country and no applicable insurance. However, if I wrecked, I was liable for what happened. Ostensibly, Spitzer (and others) say this license business is being proposed to make the roads "safer." That is, it will allow the government to track the illegals and ensure they have insurance, so that when they wreck, they can be held accountable.

There's nothing that convinces me that this will correct that problem. People can get a license without insurance and they can allow insurance to lapse. What's to stop an illegal with a license from not showing up at court (the way they do now, without the license)? Nothing. The addresses they give will be wrong or out-of-date. And if they wreck, they will disappear, just as they do now — license or no license.

I doubt very seriously any illegal alien would actually apply, for fear of being deported. It's a ridiculous idea.

We all know that they are here...the choice isn't really between having them be here licensed or not be here at all. The choice is between having illegals who are generally good drivers versus having illegals who are generally bad drivers.

These are people who are going to be driving on our streets licensed or not. I'd rather they learn the rules of the road and demonstrate the minimum competency that having a license requires than simply drive according to the traffic laws (if any) of their own nation. If the feds want to crack down on them, I'm okay with that too (though they provide a lot of services up here in NYC), but yammering about states giving them drivers licenses just suggests that the federal strategy is "bury your head in the sand if you don't see the illegals, then they don't exist!" The problem with Spitzer's plan is that it forces everyone to admit the truth, that there are a lot of illegals here, so many that number driving without licenses is a significant problem all by itself.

It's not a reward for them, it's just one solution to that real problem. How else do you handle it at the State level? The answer isn't "deport them" because New York State can't do that (and the feds don't seem to have the capacity or interest for that). Emergency Backup Answer: make sure they know how to drive. It's not a reward for them, it's a reward for all the people they'd have been in accidents with over the coming years.

Personally, i have no problem if airlines stop accepting driver's licenses. It should be passports only, imo.

For example, as a student abroad, I could rent and drive a car even though I had no license in that country and no applicable insurance. However, if I wrecked, I was liable for what happened. Ostensibly, Spitzer (and others) say this license business is being proposed to make the roads "safer." That is, it will allow the government to track the illegals and ensure they have insurance, so that when they wreck, they can be held accountable.

There's nothing that convinces me that this will correct that problem. People can get a license without insurance and they can allow insurance to lapse. What's to stop an illegal with a license from not showing up at court (the way they do now, without the license)? Nothing. The addresses they give will be wrong or out-of-date. And if they wreck, they will disappear, just as they do now — license or no license.

There's another problem that everyone here is overlooking: you have to have a drivers license to get insurance. The system as it is now actively prevents illegal immigrants from carrying auto insurance. So, before we get all worked up about how irresponsible they are, let's at least give them a chance to do the right thing and get auto insurance.

Another point: immigration is the concern of the federal government, drivers licenses are handled at the state level. So, anyone wishing to turn the state DMVs into enforcement tools against illegal immigrants is asking the states to shoulder the costs of federal policies and (in)actions.

Please explain how giving an illegal alien a driver's license turns him from a poor driver into a good driver.

As far as liability is concerned the licenses proposed by Governor Spitzer do not address the issue.

Pandaemoni, you say they are going to be here anyway as if that is some reason to reward them. By issuing them driver's licenses the government would be de facto recognizing that they have a legal right to be here. They don't have that right and rather athan being given driver's licenses they should be deported to their home countries.

By issuing them driver's licenses the government would be de facto recognizing that they have a legal right to be here.

Kind of like how collecting taxes on their income is de facto recognition that they have a legal right to be here?

Explain why anyone should have a driver's license? A license is not a reward, nor does it entitle anyone to live in the US. It is issued by the state gov. not the federal gov. By your same reasoning, teens shouldn't be able to get condoms because it means they can have sex. Let's deal with the reality, teens are doing it, and illegals are driving.

You cannot deport them, that's just wishful thinking.

Please explain how giving an illegal alien a driver's license turns him from a poor driver into a good driver.

Because you have to pass a test of your driving skills to get it. There is a written part and an actual road test, where you must meet certain standards. In meeting the standards, you generally have to train, learn the rules and maneuvers and practice driving under the instruction of an already licensed driver.

As far as I know, Spitzer is not talking about waiving the skill requirements to get that license, just to open it up so that U.S. residency does not need to be established as a prerequisite.

Pandaemoni, you say they are going to be here anyway as if that is some reason to reward them. By issuing them driver's licenses the government would be de facto recognizing that they have a legal right to be here. They don't have that right and rather athan being given driver's licenses they should be deported to their home countries.

How would it recognize their "right" to be here? By giving driver's licenses to wife beaters, do we condone spousal abuse? Perhaps we should not give wife beaters driver's licenses then.

All that a driver's license "recognizes" is your right to drive a car according the standards of the State that issued it. Secondarily, it used to also be pretty good proof that you were a citizen or legal resident, and Spitzer's plan would change that. If you have $100 and half an hour though, you can already get a fake I.D. in New York that seems to establish residency, to the value of the driver's license on that point declined a long time ago. Moreover, the legislation would make fake driver's licenses in circulation less useful since they could no longer be used as proof of residency.

And as for "that is some reason to reward them" nice how you put the word 'reward' in my mouth. I don't see it as a reward. I see it as a way of dealing with the problem of illegal immigrants who don't know the rules of the road, yet drive anyway. Giving them a license is not some sneaky way of saying, "Welcome to America! Good job sneaking in! Hehehe." I see it more as saying, "I don't care who you are or how you got here, but if you're in my state, learn how to fuckin' drive before you get behind the wheel."

No. I do not think Illegals should be allowed to get state drivers licenses.

Should Americans ditch the term 'illegal alien'? I don't know of anyone using this derogatory terminology outside of the USA.

My first thought was: "Why would they need drivers licences when they have UFOs?"

So it confuses us foreigners as much as anything else.

As for the question in hand: I'm undecided.

Should Americans ditch the term 'illegal alien'? I don't know of anyone using this derogatory terminology outside of the USA.

My first thought was: "Why would they need drivers licences when they have UFOs?"

So it confuses us foreigners as much as anything else.

As for the question in hand: I'm undecided.

PC language sucks.

How about Documentation Challenged Migrants?

Felon....
Lawful Compliance Deficients?

nah, illegals is easier to type

PC language sucks.

How about Documentation Challenged Migrants?

Felon....
Lawful Compliance Deficients?

nah, illegals is easier to type


It's not a felony to merely be here illegally, unless they changed the law. The criminality of being in the U.S. without documentation depends on circumstances...specifically whether or not you've been previously deported and came back. See, for example this opinion (http://www.kscourts.org/Cases-and-Opinions/opinions/ctapp/2007/20070817/96613.htm) (stating, "[W]hile an illegal alien is subject to deportation, that person's ongoing presence in the United States in and of itself is not a crime unless that person had been previously deported and regained illegal entry into this country....If [defendant] entered the country in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1325 but has not previously been deported, his ongoing presence is not a crime though he is subject to deportation.") That is why some people use "undocumented alien."

That said "alien" is the right word. It doesn't mean "extra-terrestrial" but "foreigner." It's applied to extra-terrestrials because they are the ultimate foreigners.

look!
this is America!
We are a Generous and Giving Nation
it is how our Founding Fathers would have Wanted It

so here is my proposal
your honest consideration please

qu'ils mangent de la brioche!

It's not a felony to merely be here illegally, unless they changed the law.

That said "alien" is the right word. It doesn't mean "extra-terrestrial" but "foreigner." It's applied to extra-terrestrials because they are the ultimate foreigners.

I did not mean to imply an illegal alien is a felon.

I was referring only to PC language.

Please explain how giving an illegal alien a driver's license turns him from a poor driver into a good driver.

Well they have to pass a driver's test. I believe this is purpose of licensing drivers to begin with. By your logic why issue licenses at all?

As far as liability is concerned the licenses proposed by Governor Spitzer do not address the issue.

Sorry but you can't register a car in NY without insurance and failing to provide insurance results in cancellation of your license. Of course, if you're unlicensed you have no reason to even submit the insurance information if you could get it (which you can't without a license).

Pandaemoni, you say they are going to be here anyway as if that is some reason to reward them. By issuing them driver's licenses the government would be de facto recognizing that they have a legal right to be here. They don't have that right and rather athan being given driver's licenses they should be deported to their home countries.

The State of NY has no right to recognize anyone as a citizen of the US, nor is it their responsibility to deport people who aren't citizens. The Federal gov't takes more than enough of our tax dollars to handle this function, if they care to.

Poor Spitzer, he's giving up on his plan. A shame cause I thought his latest revision was the one that actually deserved to go through.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2007/11/13/2007-11-13_gov_spitzer_gives_up_on_license_plan_for-3.html

Illegal aliens, and that is what they are, are breaking the law simply by being in the country. The operative word is illegal. As many as can be found should be deported to whatever country they came from. That means not just the Mexicans, Guatemalan, and other Latin Americans but also the illegals from Europe, Asia and Africa. It might be impossible to round them all up but that doesn't mean you don't round up as many as possible. You don't give up any more than you give up trying to apprehend thieves simply because you can't catch them all.

It is the right and responsibility of the receiving nation, in this case the United States to decide who may and who may not reside here.

Illegal aliens, and that is what they are, are breaking the law simply by being in the country. The operative word is illegal. As many as can be found should be deported to whatever country they came from.

no cake then, huh? :D

as the most Preeminent Member and Representative of the Chumash Indian Casino Caucus in Sciforums, i demand, nay, insist, you get the fuck out of my Land

now!
get out!!!

no cake then, huh? :D

as the most Preeminent Member and Representative of the Chumash Indian Casino Caucus in Sciforums, i demand, nay, insist, you get the fuck out of my Land

now!
get out!!!

It is no longer your land. It is ours by right of conquest. You can demand all you want but will get only what we want to give you.

It is no longer your land. It is ours by right of conquest. You can demand all you want but will get only what we want to give you.

tis' war, then

/sharpens spear

once again the white man emerges from the smokescreen of his legalities and the rule of law, naked, in blue warpaint, with utter barbarity and bloodlust, to loot, rape, plunder and kill!

the Chumash Casino has blacklisted your name
you will be denied enty
so......there!


/activates terror cells

I haven't looked at the law, but I can't see how one isn't a felon if they violate federal law by illegally crossing the borders of the nation. The feds protect the borders, th laws governing them are federal. So violating would seem to be a federal offence. However, as I said, I haven't looked at the law.

I do know the term "illegal alien" is a legal term used by both law enforcement and the courts. Lobbying groups and the like have tried to do away with it, but it is an actual term, just as resident alien is. I remember last year at work we got a memo from cooperate about using the undocumented term which was largely a bunch of multiculturalism rubbish, cobbled together by interest groups with an obvious bias.

I haven't looked at the law, but I can't see how one isn't a felon if they violate federal law by illegally crossing the borders of the nation. The feds protect the borders, th laws governing them are federal. So violating would seem to be a federal offence.

It's also a Federal offense to hire an illegal alien, although one that is even less enforced than the laws against immigrating without permission. If people want to enforce the letter of the law, we'll also have to go after every McDonald's and Wal-Mart in America, not to mention the tens of millions of households that employ illegal immigrants for housework, day labor, etc. After all, those illegal immigrants would have no motivation to come here at all if they didn't know that they'd easily find a job. Employment is the key: if you crack down on the illegal immigrants without making it harder for them to gain employment, all you do is increase the motivation for them to continue immigrating, while pushing them further underground and out of your control. Conversely, if you made it very difficult to get employment without solid proof of legal residency, you wouldn't have any border control problem, since there'd be no reason for anyone to immigrate illegaly in the first place.

Of course, it's a lot harder to sell a crackdown on people who flout federal laws when they're red-blooded Americans. So we're left with the dysfunctional politics of attacking immigrants, which accomplishes nothing except to energize the various racists.

Dear Gustav,

Please accept this gift of blankets as a token of my esteem and respect. Don't worry if you and your family suddenly break out in spots. It is only a temporary condition caused by the lanolin in the wool.

It is no longer your land. It is ours by right of conquest.
Can't beating the border patrols be considered a conquest of sorts?

Actually, I insist that it can.

I haven't looked at the law, but I can't see how one isn't a felon if they violate federal law by illegally crossing the borders of the nation. The feds protect the borders, th laws governing them are federal. So violating would seem to be a federal offence. However, as I said, I haven't looked at the law.

There are legal distinctions between "crimes" and mere rule violations. If you make a mistake on your taxes, you may have to pay a penalty, because that's the rule, but you aren't a "felon" or even a "criminal" necessarily. If the mistake is big enough, then it might rise to a criminal level, but there are specific elements that must be met for it to be deemed a crime.

In general a "felony", is a crime for which the punishment is a year or more jail time or a very high fine criminal fine. Historically it was a crime for which the punishment was forfeiture of land, loss of a body part, or death.

If you are caught in the U.S. without proper documentation, there is no criminal punishment for that, unless you have been previously deported. The only punishment is that they send you home. The same treatment generally applies to Americans who travel abroad and run afoul of some visa restriction...they don't get thrown into prison just because they're "illegal aliens," under the legal definition; they just get sent home (unless they can get a waiver or a less restrictive visa, of course).

I agree that "illegal alien" is a generally used and recognized term (even in legal circles), but it does not imply that there has been a crime amongst the people in those circles. "Undocumented" is a term used by people who think "illegal" implies the commission of a crime and so seek some more neutral sounding term.

I agree that "illegal alien" is a generally used and recognized term (even in legal circles)
Generally? No.

There is a big debate in New York State concerning Governor Spitzer's intention of giving driver's licenses to illegal aliens. Even though New York is among the most liberal of states opposition to the governor's plan is overwhelming.
GAME OVER.

Spitzer Drops Bid to Offer Licenses More Widely (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/14/nyregion/14cnd-spitzer.html?hp)

WASHINGTON, Nov. 14 — Gov. Eliot Spitzer formally announced today that he would abandon his plan to give driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants, conceding that his best efforts to sell New Yorkers on the merits of his proposal had clearly failed.

"Little Lord Fauntleroy" loses again...
:cool:

36 posts and no mention of "real id"?
interesting
all politics is local eh?

Generally? No.

Well...if you google the specific phrase "illegal alien" you get 1.5 million hits. If you limit yourself to the '.gov' sites you get 35,500. The Customs and Border Protection uses the term quite frequently on their website, including in the FAQs the question, "What is an illegal alien?" (link (http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/border_security/border_patrol/border_patrol_sectors/sandiego_sector_ca/faqs.xml))

That seems general enough to me.

Personally, I'm sympathetic to the argument that "illegal" implies a certain criminality in everyday parlance and so things might be more clear if they went with "undocumented." That said, that change will never happen, because there are too many conservatives who prefer implication remain, false or not.

Whose .gov sites?

Don't bother. I already know. Join the real world.

Dear Gustav,

Please accept this gift of blankets as a token of my esteem and respect. Don't worry if you and your family suddenly break out in spots. It is only a temporary condition caused by the lanolin in the wool.

ahh
the white man, peddling his disease
after all these years
old habits do die hard

i refuse your offer
i refuse you!

/hawks......

Personally, I'm sympathetic to the argument that "illegal" implies a certain criminality in everyday parlance and so things might be more clear if they went with "undocumented." That said, that change will never happen, because there are too many conservatives who prefer implication remain, false or not.

I'm not sure whether I would disagree with the term, for precisely the reason you stated. Yes, it implies persistent criminality, but I suppose that comes from the fact that they can't legally pay taxes every year.

Personally it's the 'alien' part that I object to. No other civilised society in the world is using this terminology. It's dehumanising. It disgusts me more than I can put into words. Language as a blunt instrument to beat people with. Vile. Just vile.

Personally it's the 'alien' part that I object to. No other civilised society in the world is using this terminology. It's dehumanising. It disgusts me more than I can put into words. Language as a blunt instrument to beat people with. Vile. Just vile.

While I have to admit that 'alien' is technically an apt term for someone arriving in another country (after all, the word just means someone belonging to somewhere else), I agree that 'alien' has come to be associated with connotations that make the term less 'friendly', as it were. Also, once someone has lived in a country for a couple years and adapted to it, even if they haven't become a citizen, they can't exactly still be referred to as aliens as the term ceases to apply.

No, not an innocent term that's somehow become corrupted, but hateful in its inception. Designed to provoke. Reminiscent of the language of Nazi Germany. Like I said: disgusting.

No, not an innocent term that's somehow become corrupted, but hateful in its inception. Designed to provoke. Reminiscent of the language of Nazi Germany. Like I said: disgusting.

Well I guess that depends when the term began to be "officially" used. I can't really comment because I don't know the answer.

Whose .gov sites?

Don't bother. I already know. Join the real world.

Okay: Here's the BBC giving tips on "How to Avoid Being an Illegal Alien in Italy."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A558362

Still seems to be in general use. You're free to disagree, and the term isn't universal (nor did I claim it was), but it's not one of those specialized phrases used only by conservatives in an effort to "control the debate" the way "death tax" was used in preference to "estate tax" or "enhanced interrogation techniques" was used as euphemism for "torture and nearly torture."

And the first of the two comments to that BBC Guide:
How to avoid being an illegal alien?

Posted Apr 12, 2006 by Brother Andúril - Guardian
Buy a ticket when you park your spaceship?

Better still, bribe the president...

Better still *become* the president.

Just a thought.
The fact that it's in casual and, apparently, increasingly widespread use does nothing to reassure me. It means that, in the battle for control of the language of the debate, the lizard kings win again.

I agree that "illegal alien" is a generally used and recognized term (even in legal circles), but it does not imply that there has been a crime amongst the people in those circles. "Undocumented" is a term used by people who think "illegal" implies the commission of a crime and so seek some more neutral sounding term.

I appreciate the legal distinctions you've made, but I fail to see how being an illegal "does not imply there has been a crime." The fact a person is here illegally is proof of the crime itself. This seems fairly obvious.

You're free to disagree, and the term isn't universal (nor did I claim it was), but it's not one of those specialized phrases used only by conservatives in an effort to "control the debate" the way "death tax" was used in preference to "estate tax" or "enhanced interrogation techniques" was used as euphemism for "torture and nearly torture."

As you've admitted, it's also a legal term. And while I would agree with you that the conservatives are trying to keep the term around for political reasons, you fail to mention that the term has been around longer than the debate — and that it didn't matter until the debate. It is the Left — and the groups encouraging illegal immigration — who are trying to change this language, which is legally accepted and traditional jargon, and one assumes they are doing so for political reasons.

It is the Left — and the groups encouraging illegal immigration — who are trying to change this language...

Source?

I know of no groups 'encouraging illegal immigration'.

Personally it's the 'alien' part that I object to. No other civilised society in the world is using this terminology. It's dehumanising. It disgusts me more than I can put into words. Language as a blunt instrument to beat people with. Vile. Just vile.

The word "alien" has been in the language since at least 1340 A.D. and has *always* meant "foreign" (or sometimes "not one's own"). It was first used to mean "extra-terrestrial" only in the 1940's by sci-fi writers, but they didn't invent the word, nor did they eclipse its original meaning (espcially in legal contests, where. That's why we we have "unalienable" rights, we can feel "alienated" and why in 1798, Congress passed the "Alien Enemies Act" (part of the Alien and Sedition Acts, though a part that is not much maligned and is still the law of the land today, more than two centuries later). This despite the severe lack of hostile flying saucers hovering over Congress's collected heads at the time.

You seem to be turning your personal preference for one legitimate meaning of the word into some sort of new proposition that the definition of alien as "foreigner" was at some point rescinded. You're certainly allowed to argue for that, but you don't havea leg to stand on in accusing me of trying to dehumanize people by using the dictionary definition, rather than the subjective one you keep in your head.

Particularly when it comes to lawyers, legal writing and statutes, you can't expect that. I just signed an "indenture" this morning the operative part of which began "Know all men by these presents that the undersigned have made such agreements as are set forth herein." The Supreme Court starts their session with "Oyez, oyez, oyez" which is even older than "hear ye, hear ye, hear ye."

If pointing out to someone from a foreign country, that they are from a foreign country is dehumanizing, then it seems to me 'alien' is a bad word. To me "foreigner" has more of an air of contempt to it when spoken than "alien;" "alien" is downright clinical in context. At the same time, we should also continue to press the word 'niggardly' out of existence, for being racist, despite having no etymological connection to the word it sounds like and meaning "stingy."

Personally, I have far more of a problem with "illegal" than with "alien."

If I were to go to Mexico illegally, could I get a license there?

you don't havea leg to stand on in accusing me of trying to dehumanize people by using the dictionary definition, rather than the subjective one you keep in your head.

It doesn't matter what you're trying to do. Nobody cares what you're trying to do. I wasn't talking about what you're trying to do. I'm talking about your government, and the hostile language it employs.

Who cares if this term has been on the statute books since fifteen hundred and yada yada yada. These days it's inappropriate. It's insensitive. It's dehumanising. It's widely misconstrued, certainly by people without your country and possibly by many within (it certainly isn't just a matter of my subjective definitions - as, eg, the comment to that BBC article shows). Hostile in inception it may not be - perhaps, like many Americanisms, it's just incredibly dumb - but hostile in application it certainly is. And it doesn't matter whether that's the intention. Because that's the effect. The fact that you can't see that is your problem, and your country's problem - not mine.
If pointing out to someone from a foreign country, that they are from a foreign country is dehumanizing, then it seems to me 'alien' is a bad word. To me "foreigner" has more of an air of contempt to it when spoken than "alien;" "alien" is downright clinical in context.
And it's that 'clinical' nature that's part of the problem. Fine to be clinical when you're dealing with mice in a laboratory. Or updating your accounts. Not so good, though, when every mark in the plus column represents a person. Not unless your name is Adolf Eichmann.
At the same time, we should also continue to press the word 'niggardly' out of existence, for being racist, despite having no etymological connection to the word it sounds like and meaning "stingy."
Don't be silly.

If I were to go to Mexico illegally, could I get a license there?

Nope!

"MEXICO CITY - The question of whether to give driver's licenses to illegal immigrants ignited a national debate in the United States. But in Mexico, the largest source of U.S. immigrants, there's no question: Here, you must be a legal resident to get a driver's license."

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/1115driverslicenses1115.html?&wired

LOL, well I guess that should take care of the question as to whether or not they get them here then doesn't it.

I suppose now it's all over as it's not even on the table anymore, but let's be honest, I don't think there ever really was a possibility of this happening anywhere. As we saw on this thread, there are way too many people that would raise hell.

Of course now that the question is moot Hillary has suddenly decided she is against driver's licenses for illegals. It took her this long to figure out the answer to a simple yes or no question. No wonder she prefers answering planted questions.

They asked the question tonight during the debate and the majority of the candidates couldn't say yes or no. They had to obfuscate and ramble, etc...

It doesn't matter what you're trying to do. Nobody cares what you're trying to do. I wasn't talking about what you're trying to do. I'm talking about your government, and the hostile language it employs.

Who cares if this term has been on the statute books since fifteen hundred and yada yada yada. These days it's inappropriate. It's insensitive. It's dehumanising.

By your own argumentation, it doesn't matter that you have a personal entirely non-objective sense that the word is an insult. Nobody cares what your subjective opinion is about what this word "ought to mean" (but clearly, according to reference sources, does not). At least I think I've shown, like Inigo Montoya to the crafty Vizzini, that though you keep using that word, it does not mean what you think it means.

Anyone who is insulted by the word 'alien' simply needs to buy a dictionary. If I praised your dogged counterarguments in defense of your point, would you claim that was an attack? Isn't 'dogged' is a dehumanizing insult, because it likens you to a dog? Who cares that dictionaries define it as "tenacious" what matters is how you personally feel in your heart of hearts, not what some old stupid book says.

To me, both arguments, against 'dogged' and 'alien,' sound equally like pointless semantics about personal definitions ungrounded in the typical refernce material, rather than anything substantive. "Dogged," "niggardly" and even "alien," are all fine words in my subjective opinion. My opinion, in this case, happens to match up with all the dictionaries I checked online, none of which labeled "alien" ad being derogatory. (In fact, the definition of alien meaning "extra-terrestrial" was usually third or fourth on the list, *after* foreigner, so alien qua "E.T." isn't even the primary meaning of that word, so far as I can tell.)

(Subjective, by the way, doesn't mean "unique" it is entirely possible that others share your subjective sense of the word--just as many subjectively believe that words like 'niggardly' and the old 1930's slang 'mook' are racial epithets, I once read a message board on which many people were convinced that calling someone a "Jew" rather than a "Jewish person" was an insult...they're wrong, imo, but it's a belief that is held by some people. In the end all understandings of words are mostly subjective. The only difference is whether the "authorities" tend to agree or disagree with you--and whether those authorities are changing their position on that issue over time. In the case of "alien" I see no authorities that support you and am not sure you'll win the day on the issue in the upcoming decades).

Sci-fi is great, but put it down every once in a while. Eventually you'll see that "alien" has other meanings, that "ships" are things that move across water, not through outer space, and that "warp" means to bend out of shape, not 'travel really fast.' :D

Pandaemoni, while I see your point, you cannot argue that connotations play a huge role in the wording we use. Humans don't completely separate their emotions from their thoughts, so it would be stupid to use words other people don't like just because their literal meaning means nothing, ie. I'm guessing that you wouldn't use "niggardly" in conversation to describe someone.

Pandaemoni: all definitions are subjective. That's what makes them definitions. In creating a definition we define things in and we define things out. Would you like the official definition of definition?

This is my problem. The fact that a definition is official doesn't make it 'right', and doesn't make it acceptable. And 'alien', when applied to people in controversial highly-charged, highly-politicised contexts, isn't acceptable. It's heinous - in my opinion.

the real id act takes a effect sometime mid of next year
it is federal law. comply or be refused access to federal services
it is unfunded

states decide whether to issue for illegals
federal law does not mention the matter
cali will probably issue dl with identifying mark if id requirements are not complete.

all of cali (21mil) will have to show up in person

cedillo, for the last 7 years has been presenting arnold with a bill, to license illegals
arnold refuses

the bill's original intent was to prevent usage of dl used as id to board plane and blow the fuck out of it

Pandaemoni, while I see your point, you cannot argue that connotations play a huge role in the wording we use. Humans don't completely separate their emotions from their thoughts, so it would be stupid to use words other people don't like just because their literal meaning means nothing, ie. I'm guessing that you wouldn't use "niggardly" in conversation to describe someone.

I have in fact used the word niggardly to describe certain people (not often obviously, but the word is in the set of those the I use naturally under the right cirmcumstances).

IMO, the confustion of alien with "extra-terrestrial alien" is basically the same issue as people who think (incorrectly) that "chauvinist" means the same thing as "male chauvinist."

I can understand that some people might be using a personal, subjective definition, what I don't get is why they berate others who do not share that psubjective opinion.

The uU.S. uses alien, because it's a word that has been used for hundreds of years and has (in context) no ill-will or bad-motive behind it. Despite knnowing that non-insulting definitions of it exist, I perceived redarmy as imputing his own subjective definition to others.

Having an opinion is fine, imputing it to others when you know fuull well that the opinion is not universally shared, is a bit odd.

There is a big debate in New York State.


No.

I think throwing hissy-fits about an ill-considered proposal looks past the real issue. There are millions of undocumented people in this country, and most seem to agree this is a problem. What shall we do, then, to document them?

Ah, right. Round 'em all up and kick 'em out.

Just don't blame the Democrats when your fake Gucci and swap meet Louis gets more expensive.

Posters are complaining about the term illegal aliens because they feel it carries a certain connotation. Yes the term does. It carries the connotation of someone who is alien to a particular country and has entered that country illegally. Those who object to the term seem to prefer the term undocumented worker or some form of that term. They also are trying to present a particular view a view of someone who is not here illegally but who has simply failed for some reason to get the proper documentation. They are trying to lessen the severity of the problem by changing the terms used. They are not simply people who have failed to get the proper documentation. They are people who are in the country illegally.

They also are trying to present a particular view a view of someone who is not here illegally but who has simply failed for some reason to get the proper documentation. They are trying to lessen the severity of the problem by changing the terms used.

severity of the problem
wanna crunch some numbers?
pit your experts against mine?
net loss vs net gain?

you man enough, boy?

their efforts are against people of your ilk who seek to criminalize what is now and has been a civil offense.
an expected counter reaction to your bullshit.

we make money out of these fuckers. what you suggest is treasonous. maximum penalty please

Source?

I know of no groups 'encouraging illegal immigration'.

Well, the Mexican government is. We can start there if you like. Their economy is propped up by Yankee dollars so they want people to head for the states and wire that money home.

I take it you've never heard of MEChA or La Raza either? They're advocating what's been called reconquista of the territory "taken" by the US between 1835 and 1848.

As for the semantics, immigrant rights advocates (for immigrant see illegal) have long railed against the illegal alien term, and in doing, have lobbied and largely convinced left-leaning politicians and news organizations to adopt the kinder, gentler "undocumented" phraseology. Now, according to them, the only people using what was previously an accepted legal term are "right-wingers" and "racists" or ethnocentrists," which is exactly the sort of mis characterization they wanted to create by changing the term in the first place (In other words, they needed to be able to call certain people these names, so they changed the connotation of the term so they could point to their use of it as justification for calling them those names).

Personally, I received a memorandum last year from Knight-Ridder corporate that strongly suggested that all papers use the undocumented terminology. The suggestion came straight from a group of Latin American journalists who were lobbying their peers to change the language (to change the debate, one can only assume).

Till Eulenspiegel

dont get me wrong
i like scapegoating and persecution as much the next guy
my targets however tend to be selective and rather specific

pardon
i have an unfinished thesis eagerly awaiting completion...."passing the torch - racist attitudes in scots-irish culture
indulge, heritage? one drop of the above mentioned ethnicity would do.

much obliged. you re the best!

i must hasten to add, in case you get the wrong idea, some of my best friends are from this ethnic group

oh dear
you should have kept on reading (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Till_Eulenspiegel), boy

The literal translation of the High German name gives "owl mirror". However, the original Low German is believed to be ul'n Spegel, meaning "wipe the arse

maybe someone's tricked you?

severity of the problem
wanna crunch some numbers?
pit your experts against mine?
net loss vs net gain?

you man enough, boy?

their efforts are against people of your ilk who seek to criminalize what is now and has been a civil offense.
an expected counter reaction to your bullshit.

we make money out of these fuckers. what you suggest is treasonous. maximum penalty please

People of my ilk.............just what do you mean by that statement?

I am not trying to criminalize what is now and has been a criminal offense. Nor am I trying to turn what has been a legal offense into simply a matter of choice, ie. people choose to enter this country illegally and live here and we should do nothing about it.

You asked what I suggest as the maximum penalty. For a first offense, deportation back to the country from which you illegally came. If you commit a criminal act while here illegally, jail time and then deportation back to the country from which you came.

I also would like those who knowingly employ illegal aliens to be subject to civil penalties and if the employment is egrigious enough criminal penalties. I would like to see benefits meant for citizens denied to illegal aliens unless those benefits are necessary to save their lives, ie. medical treatment or food if they are starving. Those who receive such emergency treatment should subsequent to such treatment be deported to the countries from which they came.

These strictures should apply not only to Mexicans who are the most apt to illegally enter the country but to illegal aliens from any country, Irish, Germans, Nigerians, Canadians, all illegal aliens.

There are structures in place that allow for legal entry into the country. Those who wish to come here shoule use those structures. A nation must be able to control its borders and decide on ingress and egress into and from the country.

I also would like those who knowingly employ illegal aliens to be subject to civil penalties and if the employment is egrigious enough criminal penalties.
Haha, "egregious enough"?

"Well Mr. Smith, when we found out you'd let an illegal cut your lawn we were mad, but when we found out you paid him to rake the leaves we knew you'd gone to far."

I would like to see benefits meant for citizens denied to illegal aliens
What benefits are they getting now that we can deny them to with a change of policy?

Also, please note that I'm not trying to be a champion of illegal immigrant's rights, I just object to the intimation that they are single-handedly ruining America.

A nation must be able to control its borders and decide on ingress and egress into and from the country.
Agreed.

Just give them an "Identity card". That way you know who they are without

authorizing them to drive.

Just give them an "Identity card". That way you know who they are without

authorizing them to drive.

I don't think the issue people have with this is that illegal immigrants will be able to drive, I think it's more the fact that they are going to a government department admitting they are here illegally...

Gustav, I know all about Till Eulenspiegel including the alternate definition of his name.


jlocke,

Perhaps I was not clear enough and for that I apologize. I am not talking about the homeowner who has someone mow his lawn or rake his leaves. An individual cannot be expected to document the legality of that person. I am talking about Tyson Chicken, large construction firms, etc., businesses that hire illegal aliens because they will work for less than legal citizens.

Examples of benefits illegal aliens presently receive that I would cut out; free, public education, food stamps, housing payments, health care for non-emergencies. These benefits are meant for citizens not for those who are here illegally.

As for the enormity of the problem, any time you have up to twenty million people living in your country illegally you have a problem. The problem lies in the fact that they take jobs that poorer American citizens would take (when illegal aliens were removed from the work force in a meat processing plant there were ten American citizens lined up for each newly available job), they send their money out of the country rather than spending it in the country, they overburden and already overburdened education system. they do the same with the health care system, they often receive welfare benefits to which they are not entitled, they artificially depress wages for entry level and low skill jobs, they bring their gangs with them, (MS13, Netas, Latin Kings, SalvadoransWithPride).

It is not a question of people from different countries coming to the United States. It is a question of people bypassing the laws and rules set up in order to monitor who enters the country.

I am talking about Tyson Chicken, large construction firms, etc., businesses that hire illegal aliens because they will work for less than legal citizens.
Ahh, I see your point, well with this I do agree.

Examples of benefits illegal aliens presently receive that I would cut out; free, public education, food stamps, housing payments, health care for non-emergencies. These benefits are meant for citizens not for those who are here illegally.
I'm just not so sure they can get these 'benefits'. I don't have kids so I don't know about public eduction, but I had thought you would have to prove your identity and as previously established, they can only get an drivers license or other form with citizenship. Housing payments and food stamps I would also think you would have to have ID. Also, since there's no public health care, they would have to pay like everyone else.

jlocke,

I spent more than three decades as an educator in a primarily Hispanic school district. The policy for schools is, don't ask, don't tell and if you do inadvertantly find out someone is an illegal alien under no circumstances inform the government.

In some states illegal aliens CAN get driver's licenses. I know Hawaii and Utah are two of them. I think there are six others. Illegal aliens often get welfare benefits, at least in the State of New York. They also avail themselves of hospital emergency rooms and health clinics, not for emergency treatment but for everyday health care treatment.

When I go to hospital I pay a premium over and above the cost of my care. The purpose of this premium is to raise money to pay for treatment of those who cannot afford it. While not all these people getting free health care are illegal aliens a good percentage of them are.

In some states illegal aliens CAN get driver's licenses. I know Hawaii and Utah are two of them. I think there are six others.

Well I know in those states you can get a license without having to prove you are a legal citizen, but once you have it those drivers licenses cannot become proof that you are in the country legally.

By giving an official government document you are in effect condoning the fact that they entered the country illegally. You are sending a message to other potential illegal aliens that it is okay to illegally enter the United States. Is that really the message you want to send?

By giving an official government document you are in effect condoning the fact that they entered the country illegally. You are sending a message to other potential illegal aliens that it is okay to illegally enter the United States. Is that really the message you want to send?

How about these, then?

Alternate Proposition 1: By giving an official government document [to wife-beaters] you are in effect condoning the fact that they beat their wives. You are sending a message to other potential wife beaters that it is okay to smack women around. Is that really the message you want to send?

or

Alternate Proposition 2: By legally requiring that hospitals render emergency medical care [to illegal aliens] you are in effect condoning the fact that they entered the country illegally. You are sending a message to other potential illegal aliens that it is okay to illegally enter the United States, because they are protected by our laws. Is that really the message you want to send? [This argument, of course could be extended to cover every law that has some benefit to illegals, including the laws against assaulting them (particularly since illegals might stop coming if they could be assaulted with impugnity).]

Giving someone a document that says, in effect "You have demonstrated that you have the skills necessary to drive safely" does not imply "and we therefore condone the illegal acts you may have otherwise committed." The two things are entirely, logically separate.

Most people who take your side seem to be confused because they think of their driver's license as evidence of citizenship (or legal status) since heretofore it's been accepted as such. That use of a license though stems from the fact that states confirm citizenship/legal status prior to issuing license as a matter of course, but that's not the primary purpose of a license. It's there to show that you meet certain minimum standards of skill to the satisfaction of the state, to keep the unsafe drivers off the road.

There are structures in place that allow for legal entry into the country. Those who wish to come here shoule use those structures. A nation must be able to control its borders and decide on ingress and egress into and from the country.

sounds good to me
what is the proposed course of action? implications/methodology/execution

concise please
or link