Illegal entrants suing States for driver’s licenses!

[johnwk]

.

See: Immigrants without legal status sue for Georgia driver’s licenses (http://www.ajc.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-politics/immigrants-without-legal-status-sue-for-georgia-dr/nnTyZ/)


”A group of immigrants who are living in Georgia without legal status filed suit against Georgia’s Department of Driver Services in federal court Monday, accusing the state agency of violating their constitutional rights by denying them driver’s licenses."

Now this is very special, “…violating their constitutional rights by denying them driver’s licenses.”

The fact is, each state has exclusive authority to create its own “privileges” which are exclusively for citizens of their own state. And driver’s licenses just happen to be one of those “privileges”.

It should also be noted that the 14th Amendment, by its very language, confirms each State may make distinctions between “citizens” and “persons” when regulating and enforcing its laws!


The 14th Amendment declares that “citizens” of the United States are guaranteed the “privileges or immunities” offered by the state in which they are located. But those who are not “citizens of the united States” and referred to as “persons“ (which would include those who have entered a State or the United States illegally), are not entitled to the “privileges or immunities“ which a state has created for its “citizens“.


The 14th Amendment only requires that “persons” may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without the benefit of the state’s codified due process of law being applied to them equally, as it is applied to all other “persons” within the state in question.

The lawsuit contends that because the federal government has given them work permits and Social Security numbers, they are legal residents. Georgia has decided to rejected this absurdity and will not issue driver’s licenses to illegal entrants living in their State.

This same crap is happening in other States around the country, e.g., see: Illegal immigrants sue Oregon over ballot measure denying licenses (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/11/30/illegal-immigrants-sue-oregon-over-ballot-measure-denying-licenses.html)

November 30, 2015

”A group of illegal immigrants is suing the state of Oregon to overturn a voter-approved initiative that denied them driver’s licenses.”


And one of the mind numbing arguments these illegals entrants from Mexico and Central America are giving is, it makes it harder for them to take jobs away from American citizens without a driver’s license.


While millions and millions of America Citizens have been squeezed out of jobs by illegal entrants who work off the books, below the going wage and do not pay taxes on their earned wages, they have the audacity to now demand driver’s licenses so they can take more good paying jobs away from American citizens in the construction trades.


JWK




The surest way for Obama to accomplish his fundamental transformation of America is to flood America with the poverty stricken and destitute populations of other countries.

[tod evans]

Anyone who pays to file can sue anybody for anything.

But here's more of the same in another state.




Oregon driver cards: Immigrants sue to reverse Measure 88 defeat

http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/11/oregon_driver_cards_immigrants.html

A group of Mexican immigrants is suing to reverse a decision by Oregon voters on a 2014 ballot measure that prevents undocumented immigrants from getting Oregon driver cards.

In a lawsuit filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Eugene, the plaintiffs said the outcome of Measure 88 is unconstitutional because it "arbitrarily" denies driving privileges "to Plaintiffs and others based on their membership in a disfavored minority group."

The plaintiffs also say the referendum was "motivated in substantial part by animus toward persons from Mexico and Central America," and that it amounted to an attempt by the state to regulate federal immigration.

The lawsuit comes nearly a year after Oregon voters resoundingly defeated Measure 88, which would have directed the Oregon Department of Transportation to issue driver cards without asking for proof of U.S. citizenship. The measure failed in the Nov. 4 election with a two-thirds no vote.

"It was an overwhelming rejection of giving drivers' licenses to illegal aliens," said Jim Ludwick, communications director for Oregonians for Immigration Reform. "but somehow that doesn't apply to people who are here illegally and think the law doesn't apply to them."

The measure was a reaction to Senate Bill 833, which passed in the 2013 legislative session with support from Democrats and a few moderate and rural Republicans. Then-Gov. John Kitzhaber signed the bill at a May Day rally on the Capitol steps before a raucous crowd of 2,000 people.

But the law never took effect as opponents quickly organized a campaign to refer it to the ballot.

Since 2008, Oregon has required applicants for a driver's license or permit to provide proof of citizenship. Now, most of those licenses issued to undocumented immigrants have expired.

"It's reached a crisis point for families because they don't have a solution," said Andrea Miller, executive director of Causa Oregon, an immigrant rights group. "We are very excited by this legal strategy, mostly because we continue to see and continue to hear that the driver cards is a top priority and a top need."

The five Mexican immigrants, identified only by their initials in court documents, are joined by two Latino nonprofits, Familias En Acción and Los Niños Cuentan, as plaintiffs in the case. All of the immigrants say they can't apply for or renew their driver cards, according to court documents, hurting their work prospects and family life.

Kristina Edmunson, a spokeswoman for Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum, said the state is reviewing the case but declined to comment further

[William R]

Round em up and ship em out

[tod evans]

Round em up and ship em out

The duely elected government and it's entrenched bureaucrats have already decreed that they're not going to undertake that endeavor.

Now what?

[johnwk]

The duely elected government and it's entrenched bureaucrats have already decreed that they're not going to undertake that endeavor.

Now what?


Perhaps we should consider a wonderful EXAMPLE (http://www.imageenvision.com/illustration/1775-the-bostonians-paying-the-exciseman-or-tarring-and-feathering-by-jvpd) of our Founders.

JWK




Our federal government personifies a living creature, a predator: it grows, it multiplies, it protects itself, it feeds on those it can defeat, and does everything to expand its powers and flourish, even at the expense of enslaving a nation’s entire population.

[phill4paul]

Perhaps we should consider a wonderful EXAMPLE (http://www.imageenvision.com/illustration/1775-the-bostonians-paying-the-exciseman-or-tarring-and-feathering-by-jvpd) of our Founders.

http://imageenvision.com/450/1775-the-bostonians-paying-the-exciseman-or-tarring-and-feathering-by-jvpd.jpg

JWK


You first. Dare ya.

[tod evans]

Perhaps we should consider a wonderful EXAMPLE (http://www.imageenvision.com/illustration/1775-the-bostonians-paying-the-exciseman-or-tarring-and-feathering-by-jvpd) of our Founders.

JWK




Our federal government personifies a living creature, a predator: it grows, it multiplies, it protects itself, it feeds on those it can defeat, and does everything to expand its powers and flourish, even at the expense of enslaving a nation’s entire population.


Which bureaucrat(s) to target?

There are so many that even if concerned citizens could agree on an approach and a desired outcome in one state and actually were able to tar-n-feather every government functionary in that state.......All would be murdered or imprisoned under "terrorism" statutes and different bureaucrats would be enshrined within a week....

What did the "Founders" do when their tar-n-feathering didn't stop the king?

[erowe1]

Why don't they just give them drivers licenses?

And did I read that right, that Oregon had a statewide referendum where the people of Oregon voted not to allow illegal immigrants to get drivers licenses? What were they thinking? Is there some benefit we get by making it harder for a bunch of people to travel? Especially in the case of illegal immigrants where a big part of the reason they're such an economic boon is their mobility.

[angelatc]

The whole reason they're here is because they're pushy. Until someone tells them no, they will take everything they want .

[tod evans]

Why don't they just give them drivers licenses?

And did I read that right, that Oregon had a statewide referendum where the people of Oregon voted not to allow illegal immigrants to get drivers licenses? What were they thinking? Is there some benefit we get by making it harder for a bunch of people to travel? Especially in the case of illegal immigrants where a big part of the reason they're such an economic boon is their mobility.

The people of Or. disagreed en-masse with your position.

Could they be looking to build a wall on their Southern border?

[invisible]

Some states are talking about doing away with marriage licenses, because they don't want to issue them to some people, and a lot of people think that's a great idea. So why don't we do away with drivers' licenses as well, so some states don't have to issue them to people if they don't want to? That's an even better idea. And even better then that, why don't we just do away with all licenses issued by the state?

[tod evans]

Some states are talking about doing away with marriage licenses, because they don't want to issue them to some people, and a lot of people think that's a great idea. So why don't we do away with drivers' licenses as well, so some states don't have to issue them to people if they don't want to? That's an even better idea. And even better then that, why don't we just do away with all licenses issued by the state?

It matters naught what states do in matters of licensure, if they're remiss in cataloguing inhabitants then the fed will step in.

Even the most independant states will fold under threat of the fed withholding funds.

*****, illegals, Christians, Muslims, abortionists none matter in the face of federal lucre.

[puppetmaster]

Anyone who pays to file can sue anybody for anything.

But here's more of the same in another state.




Oregon driver cards: Immigrants sue to reverse Measure 88 defeat

http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/11/oregon_driver_cards_immigrants.html

A group of Mexican immigrants is suing to reverse a decision by Oregon voters on a 2014 ballot measure that prevents undocumented immigrants from getting Oregon driver cards.

In a lawsuit filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Eugene, the plaintiffs said the outcome of Measure 88 is unconstitutional because it "arbitrarily" denies driving privileges "to Plaintiffs and others based on their membership in a disfavored minority group."

The plaintiffs also say the referendum was "motivated in substantial part by animus toward persons from Mexico and Central America," and that it amounted to an attempt by the state to regulate federal immigration.

The lawsuit comes nearly a year after Oregon voters resoundingly defeated Measure 88, which would have directed the Oregon Department of Transportation to issue driver cards without asking for proof of U.S. citizenship. The measure failed in the Nov. 4 election with a two-thirds no vote.

"It was an overwhelming rejection of giving drivers' licenses to illegal aliens," said Jim Ludwick, communications director for Oregonians for Immigration Reform. "but somehow that doesn't apply to people who are here illegally and think the law doesn't apply to them."

The measure was a reaction to Senate Bill 833, which passed in the 2013 legislative session with support from Democrats and a few moderate and rural Republicans. Then-Gov. John Kitzhaber signed the bill at a May Day rally on the Capitol steps before a raucous crowd of 2,000 people.

But the law never took effect as opponents quickly organized a campaign to refer it to the ballot.

Since 2008, Oregon has required applicants for a driver's license or permit to provide proof of citizenship. Now, most of those licenses issued to undocumented immigrants have expired.

"It's reached a crisis point for families because they don't have a solution," said Andrea Miller, executive director of Causa Oregon, an immigrant rights group. "We are very excited by this legal strategy, mostly because we continue to see and continue to hear that the driver cards is a top priority and a top need."

The five Mexican immigrants, identified only by their initials in court documents, are joined by two Latino nonprofits, Familias En Acción and Los Niños Cuentan, as plaintiffs in the case. All of the immigrants say they can't apply for or renew their driver cards, according to court documents, hurting their work prospects and family life.

Kristina Edmunson, a spokeswoman for Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum, said the state is reviewing the case but declined to comment further but they don't cost us money.....BS.

[tod evans]

but they don't cost us money.....BS.

Just more failure of government.

Forced homogenization doesn't work, never has never will....

The people of Or. vote against stuff and the fed undermines them..

[fisharmor]

Round em up and ship em out
Why bother?
This whole thread is about how they are a lesser class of person than citizens are. If we accept that then we shouldn't have any moral qualms about simply killing them off.
They are, after all, enemy combatants taking part in an active invasion of US soil. Give them the due process any invader would get.

[tod evans]

Why bother?
This whole thread is about how they are a lesser class of person than citizens are. If we accept that then we shouldn't have any moral qualms about simply killing them off.
They are, after all, enemy combatants taking part in an active invasion of US soil. Give them the due process any invader would get.

Really?

[fisharmor]

Really?

Did you read the OP?


.The fact is, each state has exclusive authority to create its own “privileges” which are exclusively for citizens of their own state. And driver’s licenses just happen to be one of those “privileges”.

It should also be noted that the 14th Amendment, by its very language, confirms each State may make distinctions between “citizens” and “persons” when regulating and enforcing its laws!


The 14th Amendment declares that “citizens” of the United States are guaranteed the “privileges or immunities” offered by the state in which they are located. But those who are not “citizens of the united States” and referred to as “persons“ (which would include those who have entered a State or the United States illegally), are not entitled to the “privileges or immunities“ which a state has created for its “citizens“.


Two classes of people.

[tod evans]

Did you read the OP?



Two classes of people.

Is your position that non-citizens should be de-facto citizens?

If so by what criteria?

[RandPaul4Prez]

Round em up and ship em out

Yes, after they pay a hefty fine.

[danda]

I'd rather see a lawsuit about why drivers licenses are required to drive in the first place. papers please!

[fisharmor]

Is your position that non-citizens should be de-facto citizens?

If so by what criteria?

It's my position that there is one mankind. Apparently, it's only the position of a few people here.

It's my position that all men - that is all of mankind - are created equal, and that they are endowed with their Creator with certain unalienable rights. And that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

It's my position that assigning people into classes with the express purpose of assigning greater freedom to one class and less freedom to another cannot possibly result in a net gain of liberty for EITHER GROUP.

It's my position that intentionally calling one of those groups of people more privileged than the other (seriously, guys, really, why the everfucking fuck do I even need to explain this) based strictly on the conditions of their birth is the most antiAmerican ideal I have ever seen expressed on even as remotely liberty oriented a forum as this one.

[erowe1]

Is your position that non-citizens should be de-facto citizens?

If so by what criteria?

There shouldn't be such a thing as citizenship.

But as it is, just considering the issue of drivers licenses, I don't see how that's a privilege. The state shouldn't have that power to begin with. It's like saying I can take something away from you, and then when I give some of it back, that's supposed to count as some generous gift, and then if I don't give it back to some people, oh well, it was only a privilege anyway, not a right.

[Zippyjuan]

The 14th Amendment declares that “citizens” of the United States are guaranteed the “privileges or immunities” offered by the state in which they are located. But those who are not “citizens of the united States” and referred to as “persons“ (which would include those who have entered a State or the United States illegally), are not entitled to the “privileges or immunities“ which a state has created for its “citizens“.

The second part is not in the 14th Amendment.



The 14th Amendment only requires that “persons” may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without the benefit of the state’s codified due process of law being applied to them equally, as it is applied to all other “persons” within the state in question.



nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

State laws should apply to all residents of the state equally.

[johnwk]

Why don't they just give them drivers licenses?

.


Why do you want to make it easier for illegals to take good paying jobs in the construction trades away from American Citizens?


JWK

[johnwk]

Yes, after they pay a hefty fine.

Or spend a couple of months at hard labor for breaking our laws.


JWK

[erowe1]

Why do you want to make it easier for illegals to take good paying jobs in the construction trades away from American Citizens?


You say that like it's a bad thing.

[erowe1]

Or spend a couple of months at hard labor for breaking our laws.


I thought you were concerned that they were doing too much work already. Now you want them to do even more?

[phill4paul]

Why do you want to make it easier for illegals to take good paying jobs in the construction trades away from American Citizens?


JWK

I enjoyed my Mexican worker. Did a great job. On time, did exactly what I told him to do, never any back talk. Unfortunately I lost him. He had to go back home for family reasons. He was sorry to have to leave and was worried about letting me down but given the circumstance I don't blame him and gave him a parting bonus. Hired on a friends son to help in finishing up the job. Supposedly had 10 years "in the trades." Couldn't follow instructions. Every time I walked around the corner he was on his damn phone. The second day he was over an hour late. Always talking, "what if we do it this way, what if we do it that way." I fired him at lunch break.
Fuck your "American" worker.

[phill4paul]

I thought you were concerned that they were doing too much work already. Now you want them to do even more?

No shit! Whatabout them jobs them convicts are stealing from good honest Amerkan Cityzens?

Outta rep. Lol.

[kcchiefs6465]

It's my position that there is one mankind. Apparently, it's only the position of a few people here.

It's my position that all men - that is all of mankind - are created equal, and that they are endowed with their Creator with certain unalienable rights. And that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

It's my position that assigning people into classes with the express purpose of assigning greater freedom to one class and less freedom to another cannot possibly result in a net gain of liberty for EITHER GROUP.

It's my position that intentionally calling one of those groups of people more privileged than the other (seriously, guys, really, why the everfucking fuck do I even need to explain this) based strictly on the conditions of their birth is the most antiAmerican ideal I have ever seen expressed on even as remotely liberty oriented a forum as this one.
In case some people need to reread this.

I am actually more offended that certain whores who are paid through the robbery of I sit at a computer all day while my feet bleed and my knees creak. Anyone ever notice that there is always a reason why those fucks (DMV/BMV) can't fulfill the simplest of requests? It never fails.

I need what, the collective's permission to travel? A sticker and emissions check? These fucking people are so counterproductive it's unbelievable.

I have a solution. Don't give them licenses. Just disband the counterproductive whores to live a life of manual labor or starvation. Problem solved.

[kcchiefs6465]

Yes, after they pay a hefty fine.
I think slavery is a fine idea. We don't have enough already. After all, who is going to make the license plates for the citizenry?

Gather up ye huddled masses.... and pay this fine. Amen.

[phill4paul]

I think slavery is a fine idea. We don't have enough already. After all, who is going to make the license plates for the citizenry?

Gather up ye huddled masses.... and pay this fine. Amen.

Isn't that an truth? Slaves making collars for other slaves. Lol.

[kcchiefs6465]

I enjoyed my Mexican worker. Did a great job. On time, did exactly what I told him to do, never any back talk. Unfortunately I lost him. He had to go back home for family reasons. He was sorry to have to leave and was worried about letting me down but given the circumstance I don't blame him and gave him a parting bonus. Hired on a friends son to help in finishing up the job. Supposedly had 10 years "in the trades." Couldn't follow instructions. Every time I walked around the corner he was on his damn phone. The second day he was over an hour late. Always talking, "what if we do it this way, what if we do it that way." I fired him at lunch break.
Fuck your "American" worker.
My experience has been the same.

Especially with their alternative plans. Actually most of them spend more time explaining why they can't accomplish a given task then if they simply did the task. Because of bullshit labor laws, it is hard to even fire these people.

[kcchiefs6465]

Isn't that an truth? Slaves making collars for other slaves. Lol.
They get to wave a flag and feel special about shit they had no part in so it's all good I guess.

I'd liken them to the slaves who were allowed in the house. "Thank ya Sir for being so kind as to allow us to touch the sterling..."

[Ronin Truth]

If being a criminal alien is made a felony, the illegals could be prevented from voting.

Nah, just waaay too rational and logical.

Next!

[tod evans]

It's my position that there is one mankind. Apparently, it's only the position of a few people here.

It's my position that all men - that is all of mankind - are created equal, and that they are endowed with their Creator with certain unalienable rights. And that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

It's my position that assigning people into classes with the express purpose of assigning greater freedom to one class and less freedom to another cannot possibly result in a net gain of liberty for EITHER GROUP.

It's my position that intentionally calling one of those groups of people more privileged than the other (seriously, guys, really, why the everfucking fuck do I even need to explain this) based strictly on the conditions of their birth is the most antiAmerican ideal I have ever seen expressed on even as remotely liberty oriented a forum as this one.

This is all well and good but it completely fails to address either question that I asked.......


Is your position that non-citizens should be de-facto citizens?

If so by what criteria?

Should people, with their inalienable rights, who are currently citizens of another nation be afforded the "rights" of a US citizen?

[fisharmor]

This is all well and good but it completely fails to address either question that I asked.......



Should people, with their inalienable rights, who are currently citizens of another nation be afforded the "rights" of a US citizen?

To ask that question is to answer it.
If our "rights" are afforded to us, by anyone, they are alienable, and are therefore not rights at all.

[tod evans]

To ask that question is to answer it.
If our "rights" are afforded to us, by anyone, they are alienable, and are therefore not rights at all.

So such thing as "alienable" rights might be driving, voting, collecting government benefits or would those fall in the " inalienable " category?

[Ender]

To ask that question is to answer it.
If our "rights" are afforded to us, by anyone, they are alienable, and are therefore not rights at all.

Correct.

[kcchiefs6465]

So such thing as "alienable" rights might be driving, voting, collecting government benefits or would those fall in the " inalienable " category?
To grant government benefits is to trample upon my right to keep the fruits of my labor. To grant voting privileges is to encourage a system of collectivism which will inevitably lead to my rights being violated.

Only in government can such a notoriously incompetent business not go under. Hopefully I am around to see the soup kitchens. And hopefully they are denied food because their government issued identification is expired.

[fisharmor]

So such thing as "alienable" rights might be driving, voting, collecting government benefits or would those fall in the " inalienable " category?

I also don't believe in a right for 51% of the people to push around the other 49%. Neither did the founders. This is pretty well evidenced by the fact that only a select few citizens actually could vote originally.

So I'm pretty comfortable saying that voting is not a right. It gets decidedly less comfortable when we talk about operating a machine that takes a person from one point to another not being a right. Underneath the vote is implied violence. Travel is not inherently violent.

[phill4paul]

Definitions are sometimes confused. I can only say for me....

"Right." That which is inalienable. Natural. A part of our being from birth. Not contingent on the laws of government/s.

Many things like voting, driving licenses, collecting government benefits are "privileges." Granted by the government through contract. Whether voluntary or through coercion.

[tod evans]

Really doesn't matter whether these things are even rights in the first place.......

There are goons with guns backing the men in suits who say they are.

So moving on......

Better to try and convince the goons to change allegiance or better to "address" the men in suits?

There is a problem, dealing with the problem must come before trying to implement a solution...

Oh.........Another aspect of "the problem" is the propaganda propping up the men in suits and singing allocades about the goons, without "addressing" the entire propaganda machine it really doesn't matter which men are wearing the suits or the goon costume....

[johnwk]

Quote Originally Posted by johnwk View Post

Why do you want to make it easier for illegals to take good paying jobs in the construction trades away from American Citizens?



You say that like it's a bad thing.

You suggest it's a good thing.


JWK

[phill4paul]

Really doesn't matter whether these things are even rights in the first place.......

There are goons with guns backing the men in suits who say they are.

So moving on......

Better to try and convince the goons to change allegiance or better to "address" the men in suits?

There is a problem, dealing with the problem must come before trying to implement a solution...

Oh.........Another aspect of "the problem" is the propaganda propping up the men in suits and singing allocades about the goons, without "addressing" the entire propaganda machine it really doesn't matter which men are wearing the suits or the goon costume....

The chicken or the egg? I dunno. To that add the hundreds of millions dumbfounded dip-shits. Certainly. What's a man to do?

[johnwk]

This crap has already been litigated and these illegals have been kicked out of court!

See: Lawsuit challenging Nebraska's denial of driver's licenses to immigrants thrown out (http://www.omaha.com/news/lawsuit-challenging-nebraska-s-denial-of-driver-s-licenses-to/article_e676672f-3b59-5f7b-90e6-86deb153f0d5.html)

February 12, 2014

”
U.S. District Judge Laurie Smith Camp said she dismissed the case because Saldana’s lawyers didn’t provide sufficient evidence showing that the DMV has not consistently followed its policies when issuing licenses to individuals granted deferred action, as Saldana alleged.


The judge dismissed the case with prejudice, meaning it can’t be brought back to the court.”



Who is paying for these lawsuits?


JWK



The surest way for Obama to accomplish his fundamental transformation of America is to flood America with the poverty stricken and destitute populations of other countries.

[phill4paul]

Who is paying for these lawsuits?


JWK



American citizens? Oh, me Gerds. I done went an said it. Your fellow citizens. Those endowed with the inalienable privilege of voting and chicanery.

[erowe1]

You suggest it's a good thing.


Of course it is.

[PierzStyx]

Perhaps we should consider a wonderful EXAMPLE (http://www.imageenvision.com/illustration/1775-the-bostonians-paying-the-exciseman-or-tarring-and-feathering-by-jvpd) of our Founders.

JWK




Our federal government personifies a living creature, a predator: it grows, it multiplies, it protects itself, it feeds on those it can defeat, and does everything to expand its powers and flourish, even at the expense of enslaving a nation’s entire population.


Considering the Founders never limited immigration- the first immigration regulatory law was the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act- I don't see how deporting anyone for any reason would be an example of how the Founders would've reacted in any manner.

In fact, the Constitution never enumerates any power to Congress or anyone to regulate immigration, just to determine the laws by which you become a citizen. So wanting the government to regulate immigration in unconstitutional.

[PierzStyx]

So? Let them. Driver's licenses are unjust to begin with. This is only an example of Bastiat's observation that when plunder, or really any tyranny, becomes codified in law, everyone is forced to take part in order to ensure their own rights. States are artificially restricting your rights. You shouldn't be criticizing immigrants, you should be joining their legal challenges.

[johnwk]

Considering the Founders never limited immigration- the first immigration regulatory law was the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act- I don't see how deporting anyone for any reason would be an example of how the Founders would've reacted in any manner.
.

History is not your friend!

Let us recall what Representative BURKE says during our Nations` first debate on a RULE OF NATURALIZATION, FEB. 3RD, 1790 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=578)



Mr. BURKE thought it of importance to fill the country with useful men, such as farmers, mechanics, and manufacturers, and, therefore, would hold out every encouragement to them to emigrate to America. This class he would receive on liberal terms; and he was satisfied there would be room enough for them, and for their posterity, for five hundred years to come. There was another class of men, whom he did not think useful, and he did not care what impediments were thrown in their way; such as your European merchants, and factors of merchants, who come with a view of remaining so long as will enable them to acquire a fortune, and then they will leave the country, and carry off all their property with them. These people injure us more than they do us good, and, except in this last sentiment, I can compare them to nothing but leeches. They stick to us until they get their fill of our best blood, and then they fall off and leave us. I look upon the privilege of an American citizen to be an honorable one, and it ought not to be thrown away upon such people. There is another class also that I would interdict, that is, the convicts and criminals which they pour out of British jails. I wish sincerely some mode could be adopted to prevent the importation of such; but that, perhaps, is not in our power; the introduction of them ought to be considered as a high misdemeanor.

So, as it turns out, allowing the kind of foreigners who are now invading our borders to stay here should be considered as a "high misdemeanor" which happens to be an impeachable offense!


JWK

[PierzStyx]

History is not your friend!

Let us recall what Representative BURKE says during our Nations` first debate on a [/b]

So, as it turns out, allowing the kind of foreigners who are now invading our borders to stay here should be considered as a "high misdemeanor" which happens to be an impeachable offense!


JWK

You are aware that one person's opinion is not law, right? Notice that no immigration laws were passed by anyone until 1882. So Burke must have been in the minority, and therefore my point stands. The Founding Fathers never supported limiting immigration. Further, while Burke had fought in the Revolution he was not a Founding Father.

Further, naturalization laws are not the same as immigration laws.

[devil21]

They're a bunch of idiots, clamoring for their oppression.


It should also be noted that the 14th Amendment, by its very language, confirms each State may make distinctions between “citizens” and “persons” when regulating and enforcing its laws!

The term "Persons" does not mean human beings. It is legal jargon meaning corporate entities. When reading code/statute/law, ditch Webster's Dictionary and start using Black's Law Dictionary. Black's is where the definitions of words in legislation are found. If you are getting your definitions of words in legislation from Webster's you are getting the wrong definitions.

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

[The Free Hornet]

A job is the property of whomever is offering it, not whomever is consuming it. You're not saying that a worker is entitled to a job, or that an employer shouldn't be able to employ whomever he/she wants to, are you?

That's exactly what these mofos are saying as well as implicit and explicit endorsements of travel as a privilege, not a right.

[The Free Hornet]

The whole reason they're here is because they're pushy. Until someone tells them no, they will take everything they want .

Is there a collective ("they"/"them") to which that doesn't apply? Do I judge you as an individual or via group status?

[johnwk]

You are aware that one person's opinion is not law, right? Notice that no immigration laws were passed by anyone until 1882. So Burke must have been in the minority, and therefore my point stands. The Founding Fathers never supported limiting immigration. Further, while Burke had fought in the Revolution he was not a Founding Father.

Further, naturalization laws are not the same as immigration laws.

Again, history is not your friend. Prior to the adoption of our existing Constitution, each stated created its own laws regarding immigration and naturalization. The very purpose of granting power to Congress over "naturalization" was to prevent one stated from granting citizenship to undesirables who could then move to other states and be entitled to that State's "privileges" created for its own citizens.

In any event, let our forefathers speak to this very issue:


Chief Justice Taney summarized the very object of allowing the federal government to set the rules for naturalization as follows: “Its sole object was to prevent one State from forcing upon all the others and upon the General Government, persons as citizens whom they were unwilling to admit as such.” Passenger Cases (1849). And Justice Taney’s statement is in full harmony with the intentions of our forefathers expressed during our nation’s first Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790!


REPRESENTATIVE SHERMAN, who attended the Constitutional Convention which framed our Constitution points to the intentions for which a power over naturalization was granted to Congress. He says: “that Congress should have the power of naturalization, in order toprevent particular States receiving citizens, and forcing them upon others who would not have received them in any other manner. It was therefore meant to guard against an improper mode of naturalization, rather than foreigners should be received upon easier terms than those adopted by the several States.” see CONGRESSIONAL DEBATES, Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790 PAGE 1148 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=574)


In addition, REPRESENTATIVE WHITE while debating the Rule of Naturalization notes the narrow limits of what “Naturalization” [the power granted to Congress] means, and he ”doubted whether the constitution authorized Congress to say on what terms aliens or citizens should hold lands in the respective States; the power vested by the Constitution in Congress, respecting the subject now before the House, extend to nothing more than making a uniform rule of naturalization. After a person has once become a citizen, the power of congress ceases to operate upon him; the rights and privileges of citizens in the several States belong to those States; but a citizen of one State is entitled to all the privileges and immunities of the citizens in the several States…..all, therefore, that the House have to do on this subject, is to confine themselves to an uniform rule of naturalization and not to a general definition of what constitutes the rights of citizenship in the several States.” see: Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790, page 1152 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=576)


And finally, REPRESENTATIVE STONE … concluded that the laws and constitutions of the States, and the constitution of the United States; would trace out the steps by which they should acquire certain degrees of citizenship [page 1156]. Congress may point out a uniform rule of naturalization; but cannot say what shall be the effect of that naturalization, as it respects the particular States. Congress cannot say that foreigners, naturalized, under a general law, shall be entitled to privileges which the States withhold from native citizens. See: Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790, pages 1156 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=578) and 1157 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=579)


JWK

[erowe1]

Prior to the adoption of our existing Constitution, each stated created its own laws regarding immigration and naturalization.

You keep mixing together immigration and naturalization. All the evidence you provide applies only to naturalization. None of what you cited refers to states restricting people's travel from one state to another.

[johnwk]

You keep mixing together immigration and naturalization. .

Wrong. I have noted the distinction between the two words.

I wrote:

Again, history is not your friend. Prior to the adoption of our existing Constitution, each stated created its own laws regarding immigration and naturalization. The very purpose of granting power to Congress over "naturalization" was to prevent one stated from granting citizenship to undesirables who could then move [migrate/immigrate] to other states and be entitled to that State's "privileges" created for its own citizens.


As to the distinction here is the link to substantiate you are wrong:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?456238-Gov-Perry-calls-out-National-Guard-to-protect-Texas-but-is-this-constitutional&p=5596821&viewfull=1#post5596821

Naturalization vs. immigration and Texas’ reserved power under the 10th Amendment!

JWK




The surest way for Obama to accomplish his fundamental transformation of America is to flood America with the poverty stricken and destitute populations of other countries.

[Ronin Truth]

Illegal entrants GO HOME!

[PierzStyx]

Again, history is not your friend. Prior to the adoption of our existing Constitution, each stated created its own laws regarding immigration and naturalization. The very purpose of granting power to Congress over "naturalization" was to prevent one stated from granting citizenship to undesirables who could then move to other states and be entitled to that State's "privileges" created for its own citizens.

At this point you're a joke. First, I notice that you have no proof for your claim. Secondly, it doesn't matter. What states did before the Constitution is irrelevant to the Constitution and its laws. Third, naturalization, once again, is not the same as immigration. Denying citizenship is not the same as denying entry. You keep claiming historical precedent, but every argument you made thus far has been either without historical precedent, or made incorrectly in ignorance, with your evidence actually arguing against your point. For someone claiming the Constitution is so wonderful, you sure don't mind violating it.

In any event, let our forefathers speak to this very issue:


Chief Justice Taney summarized the very object of allowing the federal government to set the rules for naturalization as follows: “Its sole object was to prevent one State from forcing upon all the others and upon the General Government, persons as citizens whom they were unwilling to admit as such.” Passenger Cases (1849). And Justice Taney’s statement is in full harmony with the intentions of our forefathers expressed during our nation’s first Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790!

Are you seriously arguing that the guy who said that black people aren't human and have no human rights in the Dred Scott Case understood the Constitution and basic human liberties? That said, "It is difficult at this day to realize the state of public opinion in regard to that unfortunate race which prevailed in the civilized and enlightened portions of the world at the time of the Declaration of Independence, and when the Constitution of the United States was framed and adopted; but the public history of every European nation displays it in a manner too plain to be mistaken. They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations, and so far unfit that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect."

You must be out of your mind. That you resort to such a person proves the point I think.


And finally, REPRESENTATIVE STONE … concluded that the laws and constitutions of the States, and the constitution of the United States; would trace out the steps by which they should acquire certain degrees of citizenship [page 1156]. Congress may point out a uniform rule of naturalization; but cannot say what shall be the effect of that naturalization, as it respects the particular States. Congress cannot say that foreigners, naturalized, under a general law, shall be entitled to privileges which the States withhold from native citizens. See: Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790, pages 1156 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=578) and 1157 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=579)


JWK

Responses in italics. As for your quotes, they bare entirely pointless. You know why? Because THEY DON'T ARGUE YOUR POINT! No one is denying that Congress could set rules by which foreigners became naturalized citizens. But that says nothing about regulating immigration. Perhaps I've said it too intellectually in the past, so I'll be real simple for you now:

Immigration and naturalization are not the same thing. Naturalization laws do not limit immigration in any way.

The Constitution did not, and does not, give the Federal government power to limit immigration in any way whatsoever. For you to argue for the Fedgov to limit immigration makes you a violator of the Constitution and an epic level hypocrite. Like most "conservatives" you apparently only mouth loyalty to the Constitution when it suits your biases, and discard it entirely when it does not.

[johnwk]

Immigration and naturalization are not the same thing. Naturalization laws do not limit immigration in any way.

So, you do agree with what I have been saying, that naturalization and immigration have two entirely different meanings. I am glad you agree with me.




The Constitution did not, and does not, give the Federal government power to limit immigration in any way whatsoever. For you to argue for the Fedgov to limit immigration makes you a violator of the Constitution and an epic level hypocrite. Like most "conservatives" you apparently only mouth loyalty to the Constitution when it suits your biases, and discard it entirely when it does not.


I see you have decided to engage in name calling and have posted unsubstantiated assertions. What I have indicated, and is factually correct is,


I contend that the power to regulate immigration is a power exercised by the original 13 States and preexisted our existing Constitution. I further contend that if this power has not been expressly delegated to Congress, then it is a power reserved by the States under our Constitution’s Tenth Amendment.


NOTE: The most fundamental rule of constitutional law is stated as follows:


“The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.” numerous citations omitted).___ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19, Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling

In addition, and with reference to the meaning of words in our Constitution see:

16 Am Jur 2d Constitutional law
Meaning of Language
Ordinary meaning, generally

”Words or terms used in a constitution, being dependent on ratification by the people voting upon it, must be understood in the sense most obvious to the common understanding at the time of its adoption…” (my emphasis)


Now, let us examine the distinction between “immigration” and “naturalization”.

The ordinary meaning of the word immigration is the movement of people from one place to another. Our Constitution does in fact use the word Migration in the following context:

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person. see: Article 1, Section 9

As to the ordinary meaning of “naturalization”, its meaning is nothing more than the act by which an alien becomes a citizen. Congress, under our Constitution, is granted exclusive power to establish an uniform rule by which an alien may become a citizen, regardless of what State the alien migrates to. But the power over “naturalization” does not, nor was it intended to, interfere with a particular state’s original power over aliens wishing to immigrate into their State. This is verified by the following documentation taken from the debates dealing with our nation’s first Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790

REPRESENTATIVE SHERMAN, who attended the Constitutional Convention which framed our Constitution points to the intentions for which a power over naturalization was granted to Congress. He says: “that Congress should have the power of naturalization, in order toprevent particular States receiving citizens, and forcing them upon others who would not have received them in any other manner. It was therefore meant to guard against an improper mode of naturalization, rather than foreigners should be received upon easier terms than those adopted by the several States.” see CONGRESSIONAL DEBATES, Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790 PAGE 1148 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=574)

In addition, REPRESENTATIVE WHITE while debating the Rule of Naturalization notes the narrow limits of what “Naturalization” [the power granted to Congress] means, and he ”doubted whether the constitution authorized Congress to say on what terms aliens or citizens should hold lands in the respective States; the power vested by the Constitution in Congress, respecting the subject now before the House, extend to nothing more than making a uniform rule of naturalization. After a person has once become a citizen, the power of congress ceases to operate upon him; the rights and privileges of citizens in the several States belong to those States; but a citizen of one State is entitled to all the privileges and immunities of the citizens in the several States…..all, therefore, that the House have to do on this subject, is to confine themselves to an uniform rule of naturalization and not to a general definition of what constitutes the rights of citizenship in the several States.” see: Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790, page 1152 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=576)

And finally, REPRESENTATIVE STONE … concluded that the laws and constitutions of the States, and the constitution of the United States; would trace out the steps by which they should acquire certain degrees of citizenship [page 1156]. Congress may point out a uniform rule of naturalization; but cannot say what shall be the effect of that naturalization, as it respects the particular States. Congress cannot say that foreigners, naturalized, under a general law, shall be entitled to privileges which the States withhold from native citizens. See: Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790, pages 1156 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=578) and 1157 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=579)

CONCLUSION:

The current big lie begins with the false notion the federal government has been granted exclusive power over “immigration” when the actual power granted to the federal government is that which allows Congress to create the requirements which an alien, regardless of what state that alien has immigrated to, must meet in order to become a “citizen of the United States”.


It should also be noted that the 14th Amendment, by its very language obligates each State to make a distinction between “citizens” and “persons” when regulating and enforcing its laws!

Please note that a review of our Constitution’s 14th Amendment declares that “citizens” of the united States are guaranteed the “privileges or immunities” offered by the state in which they are located. But those who are not “citizens of the united States” and referred to as “persons“ (which would include aliens and those who have entered a State or the United States illegally), are not entitled to the “privileges or immunities“ which a state has created for its “citizens“.


The 14th Amendment only requires that “persons” may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without the benefit of the state’s codified due process of law being applied to them equally, as it is applied to all other “persons” within the state in question.

And thus, a State in enforcing laws designed to promote the State’s general welfare, which would include the original power to protect its borders from invasions, is doing nothing more than exercising its legitimate policing powers with the obligation that in doing so it makes distinctions between “citizens” and “persons” as required under the 14th Amendment.

JWK



If the America People do not rise up and defend their existing Constitution and the intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, who is left to do so but the very people it was designed to control and regulate?




Now stop with the insults and false innuendoes! The truth cannot be changed to what it is not!


JWK





When will the America People realize we have an Islamic cell operating out of our nation's White House? Will they come to this conclusion when Islamic terrorist activities begin in our southern Border States or cities like New York City?

[euphemia]

This has nothing to do with freedom to travel. The people got all the way to Georgia without a license. Take a train, taxi, or bus.

A driver's license is more than permission to drive a car. It is also considered an official, government-issued ID. If someone comes over here illegally, without papers or passport, how are we to know who this person is? A person can take a driver's license and do a lot of things.

[johnwk]

This has nothing to do with freedom to travel. The people got all the way to Georgia without a license. Take a train, taxi, or bus.

A driver's license is more than permission to drive a car. It is also considered an official, government-issued ID. If someone comes over here illegally, without papers or passport, how are we to know who this person is? A person can take a driver's license and do a lot of things.


Thank you for returning to the subject of the thread!


JWK

[Ender]

This has nothing to do with freedom to travel. The people got all the way to Georgia without a license. Take a train, taxi, or bus.

A driver's license is more than permission to drive a car. It is also considered an official, government-issued ID. If someone comes over here illegally, without papers or passport, how are we to know who this person is? A person can take a driver's license and do a lot of things.

if you REALLY believed in the Constitution you would know that a driver's license is unconstitutional- as well as a state ID.

[Zippyjuan]

if you REALLY believed in the Constitution you would know that a driver's license is unconstitutional- as well as a state ID.

Link to where that is in the Constitution?

[Ender]

Link to where that is in the Constitution?

The right to travel is- the RIGHT to travel, Zip.

Licenses were only for something that would otherwise be illegal. A driver's license, as well as a marriage license both take away from our right to privacy and self determination.

[Zippyjuan]

Having or not having a driver's license does not give or remove your right to travel. It is not illegal to travel without one.

[Ender]

Having or not having a driver's license does not give or remove your right to travel. It is not illegal to travel without one.

Wait until you're stopped by a cop, whether you're walking or on a train. ;)

[Zippyjuan]

So they are stopping pedestrians and train travelers to be sure they aren't travelling without a driver's license? What if you are walking and don't have a driver's license? Do they send you to jail for not having one? And again- where is this in the Constitution that a driver's license can't be issued?

[Ender]

So they are stopping pedestrians and train travelers to be sure they aren't travelling without a driver's license? What if you are walking and don't have a driver's license? Do they send you to jail for not having one? And again- where is this in the Constitution that a driver's license can't be issued?

Try getting on a plane w/o one.

And yes, there have been arrests for people not having the "proper" ID while walking down the street.

And where in the Constitution does it say that it is legal for driver's licenses to be mandatory? It does not. THEREFORE it is unconstitutional for the FEDERAL government to demand any kind of license not under it's jurisdiction. The individual was never supposed to be under Federal jurisdiction unless they were part of the Fed or were engaged in trade across borders.

[phill4paul]

Having or not having a driver's license does not give or remove your right to travel. It is not illegal to travel without one.

Planes, trains and automobiles. I suppose you could go another route.....oops guess not.

https://tse3.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.M94ba7333cb3c8bbef4e162aea42907efo0&pid=15.1

[Zippyjuan]

Try getting on a plane w/o one.

And yes, there have been arrests for people not having the "proper" ID while walking down the street.

And where in the Constitution does it say that it is legal for driver's licenses to be mandatory? It does not. THEREFORE it is unconstitutional for the FEDERAL government to demand any kind of license not under it's jurisdiction. The individual was never supposed to be under Federal jurisdiction unless they were part of the Fed or were engaged in trade across borders.

You can use other forms of IDs. Such as passport or State ID (basically a "non- driver's license). You have still not shown where in the Constitution they are illegal.


THEREFORE it is unconstitutional for the FEDERAL government to demand any kind of license not under it's jurisdiction. The individual was never supposed to be under Federal jurisdiction unless they were part of the Fed or were engaged in trade across borders.

The Federal Government does not issue or mandate driver's licenses. States do.

[euphemia]

if you REALLY believed in the Constitution you would know that a driver's license is unconstitutional- as well as a state ID.

That's not the point I was addressing. Someone suggested that denying drivers licenses to illegals (who are suing in Georgia) was making it more difficult for them to travel. No it isn't. They got all the way to Georgia without a license. That's the point I'm making.

I'm also making the point that this is not just about travel. It is about government issuing an official ID to someone who is here illegally and who comes here without papers or proof that they are who they say they are. I understand this somewhat because even though I am a natural-born American citizen, I was not born in the actual United States, and do not have requisite paperwork, either. I have a SS# and a driver's license, but not a passport, or concealed carry permit because I don't have a certified copy of a birth certificate.

We can either talk about the subject addressed in the OP, which I am, or we can go down yet another bunny trail to talk about driver's licenses being unconstitutional. I don't necessarily think they are, because some people should not be driving. Someone has to do a somewhat objective evaluation of that, and since we pay taxes for roads and are required to carry insurance because of dangerous people, I'm not sure who should be authorized to say a person who has Alzheimer's or who is losing their vision to glaucoma should not be driving, but someone has to make that determination.

[johnwk]

The right to travel is- the RIGHT to travel, Zip.

Licenses were only for something that would otherwise be illegal. A driver's license, as well as a marriage license both take away from our right to privacy and self determination.

Travel onto property you don't own and you may taste a 44 slug.


JWK

[Ender]

Travel onto property you don't own and you may taste a 44 slug.


JWK

Never said anything about property I don't own- and BTW- the US gov owns NOTHING.

[erowe1]

Travel onto property you don't own and you may taste a 44 slug.


Hopefully only if someone else does own it.

And the other side of that coin is that you have no right to stop me from welcoming onto my property whomever I want, including the people you consider illegal immigrants.

[Ender]

That's not the point I was addressing. Someone suggested that denying drivers licenses to illegals (who are suing in Georgia) was making it more difficult for them to travel. No it isn't. They got all the way to Georgia without a license. That's the point I'm making.

I'm also making the point that this is not just about travel. It is about government issuing an official ID to someone who is here illegally and who comes here without papers or proof that they are who they say they are. I understand this somewhat because even though I am a natural-born American citizen, I was not born in the actual United States, and do not have requisite paperwork, either. I have a SS# and a driver's license, but not a passport, or concealed carry permit because I don't have a certified copy of a birth certificate.

We can either talk about the subject addressed in the OP, which I am, or we can go down yet another bunny trail to talk about driver's licenses being unconstitutional. I don't necessarily think they are, because some people should not be driving. Someone has to do a somewhat objective evaluation of that, and since we pay taxes for roads and are required to carry insurance because of dangerous people, I'm not sure who should be authorized to say a person who has Alzheimer's or who is losing their vision to glaucoma should not be driving, but someone has to make that determination.

It's NOT traveling down another bunny hole- it is the crux of the problem.

The reason we are in such a mess is because no one wants to get to the meat of problems- they just want to mess with the side dishes.

[Ender]

Zippyjuan You can use other forms of IDs. Such as passport or State ID (basically a "non- driver's license). You have still not shown where in the Constitution they are illegal.


Show me where it is mandated.

[erowe1]

Planes, trains and automobiles. I suppose you could go another route.....oops guess not.


You can still travel by car on the highway, as long as someone else who does have a license is driving.

[euphemia]

It's NOT traveling down another bunny hole- it is the crux of the problem.

Then start a thread about it. We are talking about whether illegals should be able to sue the state of Georgia for the right to obtain driver's licenses. I think neighborhood associations are uconstitutional, but it doesn't belong in this thread. There are half a dozen threads about whether a driver's license is constitutional or not. Add to one of those. For once, I would like to have a conversation about states' rights without some Statist coming in to say the several states don't have the right to defend themselves from lawsuits by illegals. A state has every right to say a driver should have a license to drive.

[Ender]

Then start a thread about it. We are talking about whether illegals should be able to sue the state of Georgia for the right to obtain driver's licenses. I think neighborhood associations are uconstitutional, but it doesn't belong in this thread. There are half a dozen threads about whether a driver's license is constitutional or not. Add to one of those. For once, I would like to have a conversation about states' rights without some federalist coming in to say states don't have the right to defend themselves from lawsuits by illegals.

I'm not writing about driver's licenses; I'm writing about FREEDOM.

Everyone gets caught up in the little BS details that keeps their eyes off the mark.

Drivers licenses are NOT the problem; illegals are NOT the problem. The PROBLEM is that no one understands what real freedom is, how we lost it and how to regain it.

[euphemia]

We do understand the problem. The big problem is that you want everyone to be as free as you decide. There is supposed to be a tension between federal and state government. The federal government has no power over the state of Georgia to tell them they have to issue driver's licenses to illegals. If only one state decides people should have a driver's license, then the state can deal with the consequences. That's the tension between federal and state government.

Saying Georgia doesn't have the power to issue or deny anything is giving power to the federal government. Don't you see that?

[Ender]

We do understand the problem. The big problem is that you want everyone to be as free as you decide. There is supposed to be a tension between federal and state government. The federal government has no power over the state of Georgia to tell them they have to issue driver's licenses to illegals. If only one state decides people should have a driver's license, then the state can deal with the consequences. That's the tension between federal and state government.

Saying Georgia doesn't have the power to issue or deny anything is giving power to the federal government. Don't you see that?

Really.

Just wait a bit- the fed has no power over state marriage licenses either right?

[devil21]

You can still travel by car on the highway, as long as someone else who does have a license is driving.

Not true. The act of obtaining a driver's license means agreeing to the legal definition of being a "driver", instead of being a "traveler". A "traveler" has Constitutional freedom of movement. A "driver" does not. Like I stated earlier in this thread, consult Black's Law Dictionary for the definitions of words in legislation. A "driver" is a commercial entity. A "traveler" is not. When you obtain a driver's license you are agreeing to follow the motor vehicle code (it's not law, it's administrative code, there is a difference) as a commercial entity, engaged in for-profit commercial "driving". The lack of a license does not restrict your freedom of movement, even if you are traveling in an automobile that you are controlling. That is why you must sign your license when you apply for it and your license name is in all capital letters. You are voluntarily agreeing to be a commercial entity, bound to the administrative motor vehicle code. Whenever you see your name in capital letters, you are actually being addressed as a fictitious commercial entity, not a living human. Your signature is your consent to be a "driver" under commercial administrative code instead of a constitutional traveler with creator-given rights. The definition of words matter, particularly in law issues.

eta: Most aspects of modern western life are based on this same principle. Many movies are allegory for it, as well. Once you understand the principles behind what I explained, movies like The Matrix and Star Wars will never look the same again. It's actually explained in the KJ Bible....

[JustinTime]

Why don't they just give them drivers licenses?


Okay, the DMV is south. Keep going, keep going... just keep going.