DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Republicans introduce bill to pull funds from states that give driver's licenses to illegal immigrants

Republicans introduce bill to pull funds from states that give driver's licenses to illegal immigrants

Republicans in the House and the Senate are introducing legislation that would block federal funds from states that allow illegal immigrants to obtain driver’s licenses -- the latest move in an escalating fight over “sanctuary” laws.

The Stop Greenlighting Driver Licenses for Illegal Immigrants Act would block funds to sanctuary states -- which limit local cooperation with federal immigration authorities -- and those that give licenses to illegal immigrants. Specifically, it would halt Justice Department (DOJ) grants, in particular those awarded under the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant, which is a top source of federal criminal justice funding for states.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/republicans-bill-drivers-licenses-illegal-immigrants

“Tennesseans know all too well what can happen when illegal immigrants are granted driver licenses,” Blackburn said in a statement. “While Tennessee and many other states prohibit driver licenses for illegal aliens, a growing number of states are moving in the opposite direction and unleashing dangerous open borders policies. Immigrants must follow the proper federal process and obtain citizenship or lawful status before obtaining a state driver license.”

“In America, no one is above the law,” she added.

I think giving illegals driver’s licenses is dumb.

I think giving a person who has 3Plus DUI's is even dumber. I think giving a sexual predator freedom is dumber yet. I think a lot of things are dumb, including picking on a group of people who don't have a voice.

I think the governments duty is to its citizens.

I think it is absurd we have to spend the time and effort to crack down on stuff our government should not be allowing in the first place.

What does the Bible have to say about Nationalism and about how to treat all people?

And now we await this...

I agree, but that problem should’ve been addressed when Reagan did the amnesty bill. That was THE perfect time to set up long term standards on border security and immigration policy.

Instead everything was left open. It would be like if the Democrats discharged everyone’s student loans......and still allow people to take out federally backed student loans afterwards.

When government does a half ass job, things like this happen.

The Bible doesn't say anything, you have to read it!

Your brother Vers knew this stuff.

I know as much as my brother. For example:












Let me know if you would like more examples.

That was a great read.

What a great nation we could have.

Too bad you won't even allow our children to pray in school.
Too bad you won't allow God's Commandments to be displayed in our Courthouses.

Too bad you then use the Bible as a weapon to push your agenda.

You have told us of the nice things you have,
Jesus told him, “If you want to be perfect, go and sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

Let me know when you have done this.

Man you really threw open the gas valve to your lamp there.

Vers-2 40-0

I wish you would stop doing this particular one. I'll leave you alone about the rest of your post because you were engaging with Vers, and I have no money on y'all's cockfight. I'll leave you alone on a lot of things... but this one bugs the mess outta me.

Kids have never been prohibited from praying in public schools. Never. Never ever. What's different between now and backinourday: there is no longer an organized, memorized, ritualized chant coming out the the school's public address system every frikkin morning (think: public loudspeakers in desert towns calling on the faithful to pray, en masse... like a scene from an early episode of 'HOMELAND').

Nowadays, prayer in public school is a personal expression of a young person's faith/devotion, which is as it should be. It's not an institutionalized social mandate. And just as public prayer is not institutionalized, so is it also considered protected speech. Nothing about protected speech status suggests suppression in any way, shape or form.

So please retire this old, worn-out rhetorical fallacy/shortcut/TriggerTrope©.

It's tired, lazy, and disingenuous. And at our stage of Life, you should be operating on a higher plane... if not from a wealth of Life experience, at least because you've had contact with me for more than 5 years now. Even a bar of soap or a dust bunny would have been elevated with that much exposure...



Please stop this one.
It never works, and it makes you look- obvious.


thanks in advance.

Trump to every state in the union: Do it my way or pay a price....

Brilliant...

Jack Arse

Government isn't about solving problems with solid, viable long term solutions. They are about retaining and growing their own power and keeping us pacified enough, and to keep us fighting with each other enough, that we never turn on THEM.

It's not an accident that we are fighting about all the same things people in this country were fighting about 30-40 years ago... and some of it well before that.

Because government has no interest in solving it, their only interest is in using it to their advantage.

Yea, I was wrong about that one. They can still pray.

Yes Clem, private prayer has never gone away in the public schools... but, there have been plenty of stories out there of kids who wanted to form small groups that meet at school (not unlike the dozens of other small groups that get school support) that have been denied. Kids and teachers have been reprimanded for having things like Bibles out in the open. Kids have been sent home for having Christian messages on their t-shirts. Valedictorians have had their speeches censored because it included Christian references..

So let's not act like there isn't fear and hostility toward kids who want to individually express their faith in school.

You act like this is a new tactic.

Just how do you think the federal government got all highway speed limits and drinking ages in line? Let me help you: by telling them that they would lose federal highway dollars if they didn't.

This is a tactic that has been in use my entire lifetime by every single administration that has sat in Washington.




p.s. I don't applaud the measure, but I don't have a problem with it, either. No state can make law that usurps federal law, yet we constantly have states deliberately violating and willfully ignoring federal law.... so, I don't have any problem at all with the federal level asserting itself where it rightfully can.... and this is from a person who strongly supports States' Rights.

So you are saying states don't have any rights?

No, he's saying that states have rights right up until the point the feds don't want them to have those rights any more. Every state has become beholden to the federal government to subsidize their schools, highways, infrastructure, etc.. and since the feds have all that leverage, any time a state gets out of line, the feds threaten to withhold funding..

yea, kinda sounds like how every other country works.

They scream about how they stand for states rights as long as those states are standing up for something they agree with or like. Then when it's something they don't agree with or like suddenly they blackmail them.

I find it hard to believe that anyone would support a foreigner that entered and stayed in this country illegally, much less reward them with a drivers license...this is ludicrous

My wife is Asian and a permanent resident for 15 years. We did everything legally. Was it easy? Hell no it wasn’t! Point is, there’s a legal path to immigration.She has a drivers license as well...Scary sometimes even after 15 years lol. She also has a social security card and works and pays taxes.

Not directed to you 40

I applaud you for doing it the right way and welcome your wife as a citizen of our great Nation.

We are a Nation of Immigrants, it is our strength.
Those who support flooding our Nation with illegals from all over the world risk that strength. Chaos ensues.

My daughter in law is Asian and a permanent resident as well. She enrolled in English classes in South Korea and continued that education once she got to this country. She also has a driver's license, social security card, works, pays taxes and proudly boasts of being a U.S. citizen.

I don't agree with this bill in regards to the DACA and DAPA illegals or for those waiting for a hearing that can take up to two years. But I would agree with 'fresh off the boat' illegals not being able to get a license. The others that have been here a long time DAPA and parents with American kids or the kids in DACA need the license to be productive while we resolve these issues.

So in principle I'm not against illegals not getting a license, but this bill will punish those that tried to do the right thing and were lured out and into the system with a promise from our government that Trump is breaking.

I'm simply saying either you believe in states having rights or you don't. You believe in states having the ability in making their own laws or you don't.

Let's look at legal weed. According to federal law any weed is illegal. Be it medicinal or recreational. Why do the feds not stop these laws?

Let's look at vehicle emission laws. Including California, a total of 13 states states had higher standards than the federal government required. Can you explain to me why Trump overturned that? Why would he overrule the law of 13 states who wanted to make the environment even cleaner?

This is my point. The federal government decides to step in when it suits their politics. Republicans claiming they're for state's rights only counts when it's something Republicans want to permit. Same goes for Democrats.

Interesting interview of the Doctor in charge of infectious diseases of the National Institute for Health on CNBC.

He was asked if the United States could have a larger outbreak of Coronavirus and can we contain it because we know so much from what is happening in the rest of the world, his answer was enlightening.

He stated, so far when people turn up sick in America, it is spread from husband to wife or by a traveler. We can jump on it immediately and have.

The big problem arises when you have carriers traveling into the United States, under the radar. We don't know where they are or who they may have infected.

The states have plenty of Rights. In fact, they have far more than they take advantage of.

Their Rights, however, do not extend to demanding federal money, and the federal government has every right in the world to attach stipulations to the money it doles out to the individual states. It is the choice of the state whether or not to accept those stipulations as a condition of receiving that money. If the state does not wish to be beholden to those stipulations, then they should not put themselves in a position to be NEEDING those dollars.

Furthermore, since the issue in question is regarding infrastructure and privileges such as driving, it in no way conflicts with ANY Rights of the states.



Again... like I said, I do not applaud the measure, but I definitely do not have a problem with it being employed in this manner, especially since it is a matter of record that this is exactly how we got nationwide speed laws and drinking ages (though, I stand on record that both are FAR too restrictive).

They can get guns much easier. Then they don’t need a job or a license. And for the employer who hired them illegally gets off the hook completely, and hires another illegal. Rinse and repeat.

That has to do with the top of driver licenses for illegals how?

We were discussing how federal law is selectively implemented.

Purp knows the score!

Federal appeals court says Trump administration can withhold funds from uncooperative cities, states

A federal appeals court on Wednesday handed a major win to the Trump administration in its fight against “sanctuary” jurisdictions, ruling that it can deny grant money to states that refuse to cooperate with federal immigration authorities.

The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in New York overturned a lower court ruling that stopped the administration’s 2017 move to withhold grant money from the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program, which dispenses over $250 million a year to state and local criminal justice efforts.

“Today’s decision rightfully recognizes the lawful authority of the Attorney General to ensure that Department of Justice grant recipients are not at the same time thwarting federal law enforcement priorities,” a DOJ spokesman said in a statement. “The grant conditions here require states and cities that receive DOJ grants to share information about criminals in custody. The federal government uses this information to enforce national immigration laws--policies supported by successive Democrat and Republican administrations.”

“All Americans will benefit from increased public safety as this Administration is able to implement its lawful immigration and public safety policies,” the statement said.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/court-hands-trump-win-in-sanctuary-city-grant

Step by Step by Step, we take our Country back.

In Florida, last time I got my license renewed I needed the following.

1) Proof of Identity (DL, Passport, ID Card, birth certificate)
2) Proof of SS Number
3) Proof of residential address (Must match ID). (IE: utility bills)

I can't applaud this move enough. Getting common sense things done one step at a time is the way to do it.

I think taking away their right to drive so they can't get to work is a great idea. It creates a situation where people who want to pay taxes and contribute to our society will be more dependent on the social safety net. Bravo!

Driving is not a right, its a privilege.

I worked before I had a car. I walked, rode a bike, hitched a ride with a coworker/friend. Its 2020, there are certainly many more options then before for them to still get to work.

So instead of having them pay taxes, contribute legally by becoming citizens, you would rather them pay taxes and not receive benefits at all?

And I am pretty certain you and others have stated before that illegals do not participate in welfare or any of our safety nets - so this statement cant be true.

I don't think I have ever agreed with a post more so than I do this.