Texas Drivers Must Provide Proof of Legal Status
[Guest post by DRJ]
The Texas Department of Public Safety recently adopted new rules that require immigrants to provide proof of legal status before issuance or renewal of a Texas driver’s license. U.S. citizens will also have to provide proof of citizenship. The policy change was in response to a recent high-profile case and the requirements of the REAL ID Act:
“Public Safety Commission Chairman Allan Polunsky, of San Antonio, said he initiated the policy change after learning of a taxi driver in Dallas who had imported undocumented workers into Texas from other states so they could obtain Texas driver’s licenses.
He said he didn’t know the taxi driver’s motives but found it disconcerting that illegal immigrants could easily obtain driver’s licenses in Texas. He said the new restrictions also bring Texas into closer compliance with the federal REAL ID Act, which requires states to create specially marked licenses for some immigrants.
Perry, who appointed the commission members and announced the policy change, said terrorists who carried out the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks had expired visas but valid driver’s licenses and identification cards issued by other states.”
While I’m on the subject, Texas should also require proof of citizenship to vote. Last year I surveyed the elections officials of all 50 states and learned that very few require proof of citizenship to register or to vote.
– DRJ
DRJ – Do you know Obama’s current position on drivers licenses for illegal immigrants? After Hillary embarrassed herself at one of the debates I thought Baracky came out in favor of them, but I’m having a tough time remembering details. Anybody know?
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 10/8/2008 @ 9:12 pmObama supported licenses for illegal immigrants last January but I don’t know his current position. In this election, talk about immigration is verboten.
DRJ (c953ab) — 10/8/2008 @ 9:21 pmDRJ – That is an aggressively racist policy being pursued by those hilljack hayseed cowboys in Texas.
JD (f7900a) — 10/8/2008 @ 9:23 pmIt’s so telling to read the objections raised in the article. This dishonesty: instead of seeing it as a law to protect, its instead seen something designed to do harm.
And then there’s the they’re going to rob the store anyway so don’t bother to lock the doors mentality,
But Jim Harrington, director of the Texas Civil Rights Project, said the policy change is a bad idea because illegal immigrants are going to drive anyway.
DRJ, I also believe citizenship should be verified but given that here in Cali not even identification is required, I don’t see proof of citizenship becoming a requirement any time soon.
Dana (049cf9) — 10/8/2008 @ 9:28 pmThe fact that this is even an issue speaks volumes about what is wrong in this country. The fact that many Dems, Obama included, are on the wrong side of the issue speaks volumes about what is wrong with them.
Icy Truth (1468e4) — 10/8/2008 @ 9:29 pmU.S. citizens will also have to provide proof of citizenship.
Perfect Sense (9d1b08) — 10/8/2008 @ 9:37 pmDon’t expect Obama to get a Texas driver’s license.
Touche
Icy Truth (1468e4) — 10/8/2008 @ 9:38 pmSomething seems fundamentally wrong with this sentence.
JD (f7900a) — 10/8/2008 @ 9:39 pmWhy probe you are a citizen. In most states you don’t have to prove you are alive. Duing the last election some parts of Ohio had more voters than they had citizens and they’re doing the same thing again. I read that another city already has more registered ‘democrat’ voters than they have residents. All voters aren’t democrats but all criminal voters are. Why they insist on destroying the country is beyond me. They go down when the rest of us go down.
Look at the financial and energy mess after two years of democrat control of congress. I will never vote for another democrat. Some of out local politicians (that I usually vote for) aren’t going to like it when I tell them to go suck rotten eggs.
Scrapiron (963843) — 10/8/2008 @ 9:42 pmI am a precinct Inspector in L.A. The only “ID” requirement at the poll is for a new voter. It is essentially a proof of residency. If the voter presents a utility bill, or some official government mail with the voter’s name and address as it is listed in the Roster of Voters (the thing one signs to receive a ballot), they get a ballot. There are myriad other “proofs” that are acceptable, as well.
Ed (8d1569) — 10/8/2008 @ 10:13 pmDRJ
That will probably pass this next session – it almost passed last session but by one Senate Vote
You need 1/2rdd majority in Texas to pass meaningful legislation in the Senate
Democrats had flef the state on more than one occasion to circumvent votes
EricPWJohnson (ca64bf) — 10/8/2008 @ 10:47 pmThere is no federal requirement of citizenship to vote, as far as I know. That is left up to state constitutions.
Does the Texas state Constitution require US citizenship to vote?
I just did a very quick search of the Texas Constitution searching separately for citizen and vote. I found nothing requiring US citizenship to vote in Texas.
It was a quick search and I may have missed it, though.
For the record, I am strongly for strong voter registration/ID cards.
John Henry
John Henry (b9fbb9) — 10/9/2008 @ 5:35 amThis may not stand up in court. There is no rational relationship between immigration status or citizenship and the ability to drive. Birth certificates are routinely asked of everyone when applying for the first time but so far it has been for proof of age only.
Illinois’s law which required citizenship for attorney licensure was struck down thirty years ago, FWIW.
nk (f2ee58) — 10/9/2008 @ 6:39 amMissouri already has this law and it is beginning to have an effect on the illegal population. I had to provide my passport when renewing my driver’s license last year. In this state you must provide proof of insurance when you license your vehicle. You need a driver’s license to obtain insurance, therefore if you cannot renew your license, your insurance runs out, you can’t license your auto…so suddenly MO is not a very hospitable place for illegals.
It is definitely having an effect on the illegal population and will continue to do so.
rls (e465df) — 10/9/2008 @ 8:25 amThe issue is a lot more complicated than that. There is an international treaty, of which the United States is a signatory, that non-residents can drive with their countries’ drivers licences or AAA-issued international drivers licenses.
Now, whether the insurance requirement can sabotage that …? I guess it depends, in part, on the insurance companies licensed to do business in any particular state and their policies.
I drove in Europe on an Illinois license (the first time I got an international drivers license but after that I never bothered) and I was confident that Alstate was insuring me. I have had U.S. citizen clients who had to travel to Mexico and I got certified copies of their U.S. insurance for them, as another example.
I think the real problem is drivers licenses becoming ID, instead of just a certificate that you know how to drive.
nk (f2ee58) — 10/9/2008 @ 8:50 amP.S. In other words, if a non-resident, legal or illegal, came and asked me, “Can I drive here”, I would ask:
Do you have a valid drivers license in your home country?
Is your country a signatory to the intrnational drivers license treaty? (Actually that’s my job, I would investigate that.)
Can we get a certified copy of your minimal insurance requirements for this state?
If the the answer to all three is “Yes”, I will say: “Drive.”
nk (f2ee58) — 10/9/2008 @ 9:07 amIn California, I knew a Korean guy who imported kids to go to school here, and I suspect he was up to no good when one day I asked where a bunch of the kids were.
“You don’t have to know about that!” he said. They were getting their driver’s licenses. Step 1 in the false ID chain for them and their families.
Patricia (b54e0e) — 10/9/2008 @ 10:18 amComment by Scrapiron — 10/8/2008 @ 9:42 pm
The problem is the Patriot Act, and the Real ID Act, and the Motor Voter Act.
By just having a Drivers’ License, one is assumed to be eligible to register to vote; one is assumed to be a valid resident of the state that issued the license, and one is assumed to be a citizen of the United States.
That is why ALL applicants for a Drivers’ License should be required to submit verifiable proof of citizenship.
Another Drew (930ac9) — 10/9/2008 @ 10:48 amAnother Drew: so what happens to the person who was born in the US, but has never had a passport, and the county records were destroyed in a disaster decades ago so they can’t get a copy of their birth certificate?
What options do they have to prove citizenship? And, absent those options, how do they drive?
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 10/9/2008 @ 11:02 amI can’t address the Constitutional issues and I agree that the real problem is that drivers licenses have become IDs for too many things. But this particular rule doesn’t apply to drivers temporarily residing in or traveling through Texas. They don’t need a Texas license.
The issue is drivers residing in Texas for more than 30 days, whether they arrived from another state or another nation. Texas requires that new residents obtain a Texas drivers license within 30 days after moving into the state. It’s this requirement that starts the proof of identity/citizenship process.
DRJ (c953ab) — 10/9/2008 @ 11:17 amAphrael,
Texas accepts a broad range of primary, secondary and supporting information for identification purposes. I don’t know for sure what citizenship proof will be required (I hope it’s more than a voter registration card) but I think a citizen would be able to meet the secondary and supporting requirements. I know my Mother could have, even though she did not have a passport and her birth records really were destroyed by a fire in the Courthouse in the Kansas County where she was born.
DRJ (c953ab) — 10/9/2008 @ 11:20 amComment by aphrael — 10/9/2008 @ 11:02 am
You might want to check the Dept of State website on what their requirements are for proof of citizenship in the scenario that you have described. I feel confident that this type of event has occured and that they are prepared to deal with it – particularly now that anyone leaving the country, or entering it, has to be prepared to show a passport (or were you asleep during the controversy in 2007 over how far behind State was in issueing new passports to citizens wishing to visit the Carribean, Mexico, or Canada?).
But, your question is not unexpected, it is the usual response of someone who lets the perfect be the enemy of the good.
And, if no accomodation can be made for an individual as you describe:
Another Drew (930ac9) — 10/9/2008 @ 11:45 amTough shit!
Life ain’t fair, and never will be.
Deal with it!
DRJ, thank you for the link.
Many of the secondary supporting information sources aren’t helpful for proving citizenship (marriage license or divorce decree, for an example), and that’s where my real concern is.
There’s a tension here between wanting to be as restrictive as possible to make sure that everyone is a citizen and wanting to be looser to make sure that every citizen can qualify … and at the end of the day, I’m more concerned with the citizens who can’t prove citizenship (as opposed to identity or residence) than I am with people faking citizenship.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 10/9/2008 @ 12:06 pmaphrael, you are more concerned with the small handful of citizens inconvenienced that the veritable flood of tens of millions of illegals.
Well, that sums it up I guess.
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/9/2008 @ 7:33 pm