Huckleberries Online

Should Illegals Get Driver’s Licenses?

Posted by DFO

Jan. 17, 2011 1:35 p.m. • 35 comments

Item: Legal Driver, Unlawful Citizen:One Yakima lawmaker wants to keep illegal immigrants from using their state ID cards as green cards/Nicholas Deshais, Inlander

More Info: (Washington state Sen. Jim Honeyford, R-Yakima Valley) is the primary sponsor of a bill in the Washington Legislature that would require immigrants to prove they’re in the country legally before obtaining a driver’s license or identity card from the state. Eleven other senators have lined up behind Honeyford, including two Democrats, both from the Puget Sound area. Other people think Honeyford is trying to write national immigration policy through our state’s Department of Licensing.

Question: Should illegal immigrants be allowed to get a driver's license?

35 comments on this post so far. Add yours!

JamesBond on January 17 at 2:07 p.m.
Of course not. This is the most absurd question I’ve heard all day. What next? Should 18 year olds be allowed to use fake ID’s to buy booze? Should burglars be allowed to take stuff from your house if they get inside? Is the color blue actually red?
hmoffsuite on January 17 at 2:46 p.m.
This is a very complex issue with pros and cons on both sides of the argument. New Mexico had issued drivers licenses to illegals but is now re-thinking their decision to do so. This article discusses some of the issues involved.

http://www.santafenewmexican.com/Local%20News/Debate-likely-on-repeal-of-immigrant-licenses
hhuseland on January 17 at 3:12 p.m.
No. When you offer governmental services of any kind to a fugitive, they have then become ligitimate.
hmoffsuite on January 17 at 3:54 p.m.
It seems to me that many issues such as this one could be more easily dealt with if we actually had a workable immigration policy in the Country. I’d like to ask Sis and Phaedrus, or any of you other democrats, if the Obama administration might ever get around to attempting to arrive at one. Of course, it was such a high priority to Obama while he was campaigning and he promised to address immigration in his first year, if elected, but, of course, he broke that promise. So guys, is immigration to be found anywhere on the agenda? Why is Obama reluctant to do anything about it, other than sue those States compelled to attack it on their own?
InThePines on January 17 at 4:05 p.m.
Illegals have no business with a driver’s license or a stolen SS card or freely accessing our health care system.
Frank
SantaFe on January 17 at 4:14 p.m.
How about this - no one should be in this country illegally and reap the benefits of legal citizens. Maybe this issue should be on the Congress agenda.
grinner on January 17 at 4:25 p.m.
They deserve nothing but our contempt.
Phaedrus on January 17 at 4:26 p.m.
hmoffsuite, I’ll answer, this one time, even though I know you won’t listen:

1- The GOP controls the House, ask Rep. Boehner if he plans on introducing Immigration legislation.

2- President Bush championed comprehensive immigration reform that had widespread bipartisan support, in 2007, and the future Tea Party (the conservative wing of the GOP) defeated it. As a result, nobody will bring anything forward; affordable, sane, legislation that would address the problem will be opposed by the right wing, un-affordable, racial-profiling based legislation will be opposed by the left-wing. Welcome to politics 2011, where ideologues rule through the tyranny of the ballot.
hmoffsuite on January 17 at 4:40 p.m.
Phaedrus >> “The GOP controls the House, ask Rep. Boehner if he plans on introducing Immigration legislation”

Yes, that is the case now. Hadn’t been for the past 2 years, of course. That is when the immigration problem escalated. I do listen, Phaedrus. and had it not been for your desire to give all those currently breaking the law a pass, perhaps something might have been done about it previously. My guess is the republicans don’t care to reward someone for breaking the law.
Sisyphus on January 17 at 4:45 p.m.
“That is when the immigration problem escalated.”—uh, no. Republicans in Arizona made it a media sh!t storm. Maybe your reality revolves around whatever Fox tells you to be mad about, but not the rest of us.
Charlie on January 17 at 4:57 p.m.
No!
hmoffsuite on January 17 at 5:03 p.m.
Sis >>>”Republicans in Arizona made it a media sh!t storm”

Indeed, since Obama wouldn’t follow through on his campaign promise (lie) and Arizona was forced to take matters in their own hands. It would have been nice to have seen the President do something but, of course, he had more important things to do like hire czars and invent regulations on business.
Phaedrus on January 17 at 5:14 p.m.
Yes, that is the case now. Hadn’t been for the past 2 years, of course—hmoffsuite

Mr. suite, I can recall numerous posts that you wrote over the prior 2 years, beginning January 2009, where you stated that it didn’t matter what former Pres Bush had done during his 8 years in office because it was now Obama’s problem; shouldn’t the same hold true now that the Republicans control the House? Or are you changing your rules of engagement?
Phaedrus on January 17 at 5:17 p.m.
That is when the immigration problem escalated.—hmoffsuite

I think if you did even the least amount of research you would find that “the immigration problem” decreased in conjunction with the economy. Would you like to have an intelligent conversation on this topic, or are you just planning on carrying on like you usually do?
Kootenai_Conservative on January 17 at 5:21 p.m.
Whattup, Dave? The headline is totally misleading. The piece specifies that only legal aliens would be eligible.
moscow_minidoka on January 17 at 5:24 p.m.
@Phaedrus: I believe it’s called “hypocrisy,” and hmoff has got it in spades.
hmoffsuite on January 17 at 5:39 p.m.
Phaedrus >> “I think if you did even the least amount of research you would find that “the immigration problem” decreased in conjunction with the economy. Would you like to have an intelligent conversation on this topic, or are you just planning on carrying on like you usually do?”

To a degree, the problem did seem to improve. It also seemed to improve when Arizona passed their new immigration law.
hmoffsuite on January 17 at 5:39 p.m.
mm >> “@Phaedrus: I believe it’s called “hypocrisy,” and hmoff has got it in spades”

Please defend that comment.
JamesBond on January 17 at 5:48 p.m.
Should crack addicts get free crack?
nic on January 17 at 5:54 p.m.
“To a degree, the problem did seem to improve. It also seemed to improve when Arizona passed their new immigration law.”

Oh… so Obama sending more National Guardsmen to patrol the border had nothing to do with it? http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/dec/29/five-months-national-guard-helps-reduce-gaps-borde/

Did you forget (or ignoring the fact) that Obama sent more soldiers to the state of Arizona than any other state along the Mexican border?
moscow_minidoka on January 17 at 6:06 p.m.
hmoff: “Please defend that comment.”

Please defend the fact that the day Obama took office, you beat us all over the head about how it didn’t matter that Bush had 8 years to make messes, Obama owned it now and needed to fix things immediately, yet you still say things (in reference to the GOP taking the House) like: “Yes, that is the case now. Hadn’t been for the past 2 years, of course. That is when the immigration problem escalated.”

In other words, when Obama won the presidencyit didn’t matter that he had 8 years of Bush policy to clean up, but when Boehner takes over leadership of the House, we need to give him a break, because - gosh, he wasn’t in charge then.”

Sounds like hypocrisy to me. What would YOU call it?
hmoffsuite on January 17 at 6:08 p.m.
nic >>> “Did you forget (or ignoring the fact) that Obama sent more soldiers to the state of Arizona than any other state along the Mexican border?”

No, nic, I did not forget nor am I ignoring the fact. 1200 troops to secure our entire border with Mexico. 24/7/365. Do the math.
JamesBond on January 17 at 6:09 p.m.
Should high school dropouts be given a diploma?
hmoffsuite on January 17 at 6:12 p.m.
mm. Ok, I see your point, and it is a fair one. The house is now republican and has been for almost 2 weeks. I won’t give them a pass on anything, rest assured.
kamm on January 17 at 6:16 p.m.
A different view on the same subject-
I find some comfort in that the driver shows enough knowledge to pass the driving test.
nic on January 17 at 6:50 p.m.
“No, nic, I did not forget nor am I ignoring the fact. 1200 troops to secure our entire border with Mexico.”

In addition to the preexisting border patrol agents all ready in place (that out number the 1200 troops that Obama added).

Forgetful? Ignorant? Or conveniently leaving that fact out?
hmoffsuite on January 17 at 7:08 p.m.
nic >>> “Forgetful? Ignorant? Or conveniently leaving that fact out?”

Actually, I was commenting with regard to your previous post saying that Obama added troops. My comment addressed that. No, not forgetful or ignorant. If you think that the number of patrol/soldiers on our borders is adequate, you are among a vast minority. When is Obama going to do someting to actually address our immigration problem rather than making his token gestures?
Didn’t Obama say he would make immigration a priority and deal with it in his first year of being in office? Forgetful or ignorant, nic?
Phaedrus on January 17 at 7:24 p.m.
To a degree, the problem did seem to improve. It also seemed to improve when Arizona passed their new immigration law. —suite

No, no, no, no it has nothing to do with “seemed to improve” It is a matter of facts, not your feelings. If you did the least bit of research, if you showed the slightest bit of intellectual curiosity, then these inane discussions would be entirely unnecessary. Even your comments on the mining issue are based on a quick headline and no substance.

There are valid reason for people to disagree on policy issues, but ignorance of facts and knee-jerk opinions shouldn’t be the driving force behind your arguments. Put some effort into it, man!
Phaedrus on January 17 at 7:27 p.m.
Please defend that comment.—suite

Pick any comment from here:

http://www.spokesman.com/profiles/hmoffsuite/
hmoffsuite on January 17 at 7:37 p.m.
Phaedrus >>”No, no, no, no it has nothing to do with “seemed to improve” It is a matter of facts, not your feelings”

Was it the economy that caused the flood of immigrants to slow down? Was it the new immigration laws that Arizona passed? Was it Sheriff Joe’s stronger approach to the problem and increased enforcement? Was it a change in leadership with regard to the drug cartels? Was it the weather? Was it anything else we may not know about? Which facts, Phaedrus. That is why I qualified my statement by saying “it seems”. Folks that assign absolute values to anything are often wrong as their conclusions are only as good as their assumptions. Perhaps with a little more ‘intellectual curiosity’ you might see things differently yourself.
kamm on January 17 at 8:54 p.m.
@ Phaedrus
I freeking love facts, they just give me the warm fuzzies.

hmo is so consistent in his replies, he really doesn’t have to write anything other than his name. We’ll know what he’s thinking.
riggs on January 17 at 10:18 p.m.
Yadda yadda. As long as business needs cheap labor nothing will change. Don’t ask us about illegals getting a kiss from the DMV, ask us about revoking the licences of those who hire illegals.
nic on January 18 at 8:05 a.m.
About that immigration law… how can it be responsible for reducing immigration problems when a federal judge blocked a majority of its provisions?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/28/federal-judge-rules-arizona-immigration-law-dispute/
hmoffsuite on January 18 at 8:20 a.m.
nic. It had a big impact. As soon as the law was passed, many illegals saw the writing on the wall and went back to Mexico.
immigrants2bfree on January 19 at 6:57 a.m.
The question might better be stated, “do you want every driver on the road to be insured?” Getting a license allows undocumented workers to obtain insurance. Most undocumented workers want to stay out of trouble so they would buy insurance.

Licensing does one other important function: Law enforcement knows who they are dealing during road side stops because the license process is difficult and positive proof of identification is required. Why not give patrol officers the same benefit in being able to run identity with a license for undocumented workers they have with citizens?

The ultimate solution is to pass comprehenisve immigration reform (CIR) which will close the border while providing a soultion for undocumented workers in America. Until legislators have the wisdom to pass CIR, driver’s licenses are a tiny part of the short term solution.

« Back to Huckleberries Online

You must be logged in to post comments.
Please create a profile or log in here.

About this blog

D.F. Oliveria is a columnist and blogger for The Spokesman-Review. Huckleberries Online was judged the best 2008 Idaho newspaper blog by the Idaho Press Club. And the best 2007 news blog in the Pacific Northwest by the Society for Professional Journalist. Print Huckleberries is a past winner of the Herb Caen Memorial Column contest by the National Association of Newspaper Columnists. The Readership Institute of Northwestern University cited this blog as a good example of online community journalism.