Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Blakenzy on February 09, 2016, 05:32:02 PM
-
So California went ahead and issued hundreds of thousands of driver's licenses to illegal immigrants residing in the state.
An estimated 605,000 licenses were issued under the law last year, accounting for nearly half of all new licenses, according to the California DMV. Nearly 400,000 of the licenses were issued during the first six months.
http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-0208-immigrant-drivers-licenses-20160208-story.html
What do you make of that?
-
The guy in the picture looks like Obama.
-
can I just point out that they can't be both undocumented and have documentation at the same time?
That word, I don't think California knows what it means.
-
CA is also the worst offender, of the states that do this, regarding what the licenses look like. They are practically identical to a regular license, and the "not valid federal ID" statement is pretty hard to see. At least some of the other states that went this route made the licenses look significantly different.
-
Does this mean that they can now register to vote for local elections? If so... [popcorn]
-
Does this mean that they can now register to vote for local elections? If so... [popcorn]
Well, they're not supposed to, but I'm betting a majority of poll workers will not be trained on what to look for to differentiate the licenses, so in reality, I expect a lot of voter fraud.
-
They are no longer undocumented.
-
Well, they're not supposed to, but I'm betting a majority of poll workers will not be trained on what to look for to differentiate the licenses, so in reality, I expect a lot of voter fraud.
Does California require ID to vote or just register?
-
Does California require ID to vote or just register?
I actually don't know what's current at polling places as I've been voting by mail for the last 20 years. I know when I moved this year, the voter registration update went through the DMV.
-
Does California require ID to vote or just register?
I'm sure in the right (read that as democratic) voting district, both registering and voting will not require an ID.
-
There is a huge practical benefit to this which is allowing for illegals to get insurance on the roads. It's all well and good to talk principles but reducing the rate of un-insured accidents is a concrete benefit that outweighs whatever complaints about normalising illegal immigrants there might be.
-
Yes, because lack of Driver's Licenses, THAT was what was keeping them from insuring their $500 mid '90's cars. Now, I'm sure they are all rushing to Allstate and Progressive.
-
There is a huge practical benefit to this which is allowing for illegals to get insurance on the roads. It's all well and good to talk principles but reducing the rate of un-insured accidents is a concrete benefit that outweighs whatever complaints about normalising illegal immigrants there might be.
If that's all the state cared about, they could have made the licenses look completely different. The Dems here used "roadway safety" the same way the use "gun safety".
-
There is a huge practical benefit to this which is allowing for illegals to get insurance on the roads. It's all well and good to talk principles but reducing the rate of un-insured accidents is a concrete benefit that outweighs whatever complaints about normalising illegal immigrants there might be.
I can never tell if you really are that delusional or just trolling.
-
CA is also the worst offender, of the states that do this, regarding what the licenses look like. They are practically identical to a regular license, and the "not valid federal ID" statement is pretty hard to see. At least some of the other states that went this route made the licenses look significantly different.
And, if I recall correctly, were sued for "discrimination" for having done so.
-
I can never tell if you really are that delusional or just trolling.
Beat me to my usual comment. No one is that dense.
And I'd love this to all be part of California's master plan to compile a list of illegals, and have ICE round them up for deportation. No such luck, they're as deluded as De Selby. :facepalm:
-
Yes, because lack of Driver's Licenses, THAT was what was keeping them from insuring their $500 mid '90's cars. Now, I'm sure they are all rushing to Allstate and Progressive.
It actually is - CA has one of the harshest confiscation regimes for uninsured cars. Illegals tend to buy them expecting they'll be seized at huge cost. Insurance is cheaper than what they pay to drive period.
I don't see what's delusional about it. No licence means no insurance is possible. Yet they are there and driving. Having a licence means potential revenue and insurance from hundreds of thousands. It's not hard to see the financial sense there.
-
It actually is - CA has one of the harshest confiscation regimes for uninsured cars. Illegals tend to buy them expecting they'll be seized at huge cost. Insurance is cheaper than what they pay to drive period.
The $500 car is seized. What is the huge cost? It's $500.
And no. The VAST majority of uninsured motorists in America are legal and have licenses, they just know their car is a POS, they are judgement proof, and the hospitals will fix them up anyway. So why waste the money on insurance? Licensed illegals will merge into this group pretty seamlessly.
-
The $500 car is seized. What is the huge cost? It's $500.
And no. The VAST majority of uninsured motorists in America are legal and have licenses, they just know their car is a POS, they are judgement proof, and the hospitals will fix them up anyway. So why waste the money on insurance? Licensed illegals will merge into this group pretty seamlessly.
Which is why I have a spotless driving record, have never submitted an insurance claim, and pay $1900/yr for two cars. It actually went up $200 when I moved here because there are more illegals and uninsured motorists than in the county where I lived before.
-
Which is why I have a spotless driving record, have never submitted an insurance claim, and pay $1900/yr for two cars. It actually went up $200 when I moved here because there are more illegals and uninsured motorists than in the county where I lived before.
But they're just here looking for better opportunities. The additional cost to you is a small, insignificant thing, you racist.
-
Well one thing is sure, it makes immigration law one big joke. Because a Driver's License is more than a permit to drive, it is a legal, formal declaration and recognition of being a permanent resident.
What I bet is going to happen here is that these folks are going to eventually organize, they are going to vote in local elections and they are going to take over CA. They certainly have the numbers.... half of all new licenses in 2015 went to illegal immigrants, who now are State recognized residents =|
-
I don't see what's delusional about it. No licence means no insurance is possible.
Are you certain about that? Insurance is issued to the owner of the vehicle, for a vehicle by make, model and VIN number. I've been insuring cars for more than fifty years and my insurance company has never asked for a driver's license number.
-
It actually is - CA has one of the harshest confiscation regimes for uninsured cars. Illegals tend to buy them expecting they'll be seized at huge cost. Insurance is cheaper than what they pay to drive period.
I don't see what's delusional about it. No licence means no insurance is possible. Yet they are there and driving. Having a licence means potential revenue and insurance from hundreds of thousands. It's not hard to see the financial sense there.
I've got to go with delusional.
-
There is a huge practical benefit to this which is allowing for illegals to get insurance on the roads. It's all well and good to talk principles but reducing the rate of un-insured accidents is a concrete benefit that outweighs whatever complaints about normalising illegal immigrants there might be.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Oh please stop. You made hot coffee spray out of my nose all over my screen. I didn't know you were a comedian, but that right there is gold.
-
There is a huge practical benefit to this which is allowing for illegals to get insurance on the roads. It's all well and good to talk principles but reducing the rate of un-insured accidents is a concrete benefit that outweighs whatever complaints about normalising illegal immigrants there might be.
Assuming they obtain insurance. Which is not a safe assumption to make.
Don't get me wrong, some percent will likely get insurance. Most however will not. Just like it'd be unlikely if given the chance for legal employment (ie paying taxes), some percent will take it, most will not. Majority of illegals are here for a job and making cash. Anything not making them cash will have a lower level of compliance.
-
There is a huge practical benefit to this which is allowing for illegals to get insurance on the roads. It's all well and good to talk principles but reducing the rate of un-insured accidents is a concrete benefit that outweighs whatever complaints about normalising illegal immigrants there might be.
You didn't take your meds this morning, did you?
-
You didn't take your meds this morning, did you?
That's overly harsh. Statistically, some will indeed get insurance. We can disagree on the number of people that will theoretically get insurance, but guaranteed at least a few will.
-
A few bank robbers probably go to church on Sundays, too.
-
My late father-in-law was one of those guys that didn't bother with insurance.
When asked about it he'd say "What are they gonna do, take my driver's license? I ain't got one of those either. I'm dirt poor so suing me would be a waste of time, *expletive deleted*ck 'em".
No insurance and/or no license should equal forfeiture of vehicle. Prove you had valid insurance and license at the time or tough *expletive deleted*it, you don't get it back, ever.
-
I'm confused. Don't we recognize driver's licenses from Mexico anyhow? (I know I've seen license plates from Mexico on the streets.)
If that's the case, why would Mexicans need US licenses anyhow?
Unless the underlying motivation for it all is simply to legitimize unlawful residents of this country.
??? [popcorn]
Terry
-
I'm confused. Don't we recognize driver's licenses from Mexico anyhow? (I know I've seen license plates from Mexico on the streets.)
For visitors. I think all states require that people who move there get their license within ___ days after becoming a resident. (I can't remember if it's 30 days or 60 days in my state.)
-
So State-licensing them is a tacit recognition that they are not merely visitors?
Hmmmmm.
-
I'm confused. Don't we recognize driver's licenses from Mexico anyhow? (I know I've seen license plates from Mexico on the streets.)
If that's the case, why would Mexicans need US licenses anyhow?
Unless the underlying motivation for it all is simply to legitimize unlawful residents of this country.
??? [popcorn]
Terry
For visitors. I think all states require that people who move there get their license within ___ days after becoming a resident. (I can't remember if it's 30 days or 60 days in my state.)
Thing is how can you become a resident if you're not legal. Double edged sword and Terry hit the nail squarely on the head.
-
Prove you had valid insurance and license at the time or tough *expletive deleted*it, you don't get it back, ever.
Why? What is the reason of forcing a person to have auto insurance?
Does that same reason apply to forcing a person to have boat, house, medical, umbrella insurance?
-
Why? What is the reason of forcing a person to have auto insurance?
Does that same reason apply to forcing a person to have boat, house, medical, umbrella insurance?
Not at all, no person is forced to get auto insurance. You don't need insurance to own a vehicle. You don't need insurance to drive it on private property. You merely need insurance if you're driving on public roads. You're not required to drive on public roads.
As I recall, you're not required to have house insurance by the government. Ditto boats on private property. Medical is the only mandatory insurance, errr, tax. ;/
-
Why? What is the reason of forcing a person to have auto insurance?
Does that same reason apply to forcing a person to have boat, house, medical, umbrella insurance?
Driving is a privilege, not a right. If a person wants to to use the roads, they need to make adult choices. I agree that they shouldn't have to buy insurance though- if they have the financial ability to post a bond of significant enough value to cover any injuries/damage they might cause on the road. The whole 'I'm too poor to have insurance' idea doesn't sit well with me. If a person causes damages due to an accident that they are negligent in and don't have insurance, it should be treated as criminal property damage or criminal assault.
-
As I recall, you're not required to have house insurance by the government. Ditto boats on private property. Medical is the only mandatory insurance, errr, tax. ;/
Property insurance is only required per agreement with the lender financing it.
-
Why? What is the reason of forcing a person to have auto insurance?
Does that same reason apply to forcing a person to have boat, house, medical, umbrella insurance?
I should have clarified that it is only a requirement when driving on public roads.
-
I'd be fine with not requiring insurance on public roads as long as we brought back debtor's prisons, or else the uninsured motorist who hit me had to become my butler.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpkpf_BN03A
-
Yes, because lack of Driver's Licenses, THAT was what was keeping them from insuring their $500 mid '90's cars. Now, I'm sure they are all rushing to Allstate and Progressive.
Just another way for California to remove another "clunker" from the streets.
-
Driving is a privilege, not a right. If a person wants to to use the roads, they need to make adult choices. I agree that they shouldn't have to buy insurance though- if they have the financial ability to post a bond of significant enough value to cover any injuries/damage they might cause on the road. The whole 'I'm too poor to have insurance' idea doesn't sit well with me. If a person causes damages due to an accident that they are negligent in and don't have insurance, it should be treated as criminal property damage or criminal assault.
I thought that's how it worked. I think I know people who have enough "liquid assets" that they can get a statement to the effect of that and not carry traditional auto insurance.
-
Do they actually have to pass a driving test, or do they get handed the license like a candy?
My suspicion is this whole deal have nothing to do with automobiles, and everything to do with "motor voter" registration.
-
I thought that's how it worked. I think I know people who have enough "liquid assets" that they can get a statement to the effect of that and not carry traditional auto insurance.
Yes. It's called "Self-Insured."
My suspicion is this whole deal have nothing to do with automobiles, and everything to do with "motor voter" registration.
That's the way I look at it, too. Back door voter enfranchisement.
-
How is jury selection done in California, voter registration or drivers license/state id?
Oklahoma is from drivers license/state id.
-
I'd be fine with not requiring insurance on public roads as long as we brought back debtor's prisons, or else the uninsured motorist who hit me had to become my butler.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpkpf_BN03A
Would you want a surly uninsured person butling for you?
-
Would you want a surly uninsured person butling for you?
As long as I have the controller to his shock collar. =D
-
As long as I have the controller to his shock collar. =D
And knows how to make eggs Woodhouse. >:D
-
My suspicion is this whole deal have nothing to do with automobiles, and everything to do with "motor voter" registration.
That elephant in the room. You just pointed it out.
-
I'd be fine with not requiring insurance on public roads as long as we brought back debtor's prisons,
If an unlicensed, uninsured motorist hits me, totals my car, and puts me out of work for a month while I recuperate ... how does it help me in any way to put him in a debtors' prison? That won't replace my car or pay my bills.
-
If an unlicensed, uninsured motorist hits me, totals my car, and puts me out of work for a month while I recuperate ... how does it help me in any way to put him in a debtors' prison? That won't replace my car or pay my bills.
Well, I reckon I was being facetious. :)