hehe. I'm on deadline and don't have time to answer this properly right now.
But actually, while yes, people who have entered the country illegally have broken the law, so have you if you run a red light. Doing so does not make you any more likely to drive without insurance; neither, I would argue, does crossing the border illegally or overstaying a visa. On the other hand, if you can't get s driver's license, you can't get insurance. There are people who will drive without insurance regardless, but why add to the problem by making people who would otherwise not do so unable to buy insurance? As for Canada and the US border... when the US quits putting people on no-fly lists because they have "Islam" in their name, maybe there could be some discussion of equivalent security. Meanwhile, much as I dislike Canada in some ways, I have to point out that it hasn't recently accused any peace activist rock stars of terrorism for disagreeing with it..... On 5/9/05, Jerry Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well, no. > > The states COULD, but they shouldn't have to. (Which is the direct > correlation to NM being allowed to set their own rules.) > > The real problem is that a Driver's license ALREADY IS the state ID > most people use. You can't write a check, buy tobacco or booze, rent a > tile saw, register to vote, rent an apartment or open a bank account > without one. > > Because the rules are pretty much the same from state to state, the > licenses from other states are allowed to be used for a multitude of > purposes. Because it can be trusted that it means the same thing here, > there and everywhere. > > If you want to get out of step with everywhere else, you must realize > there are going to be consequences. > > And from a purely RIGHT standpoint, I don't agree with giving illegal > aliens ANY services or rights or protections. They are criminals, pure > and simple, and should be treated as such. Kick em out the same day > you find them. And charge them for it. > > As for unlicensed, uninsured DUI drivers, how can you possibly argue > that having a driver's license would have changed ANYTHING? My thought > is that the kind of person that is willing to violate immigration laws > and drunk driving laws is unlikely to get a driver's license and > insurance even if available. > > This differing license requirements to me is similar to the border > situation between the US and Canada. Before Sept 11th, our immigration > and visa rules were pretty much the same. We could trust that a person > allowed into Canada had passed much of the same tests that would have > been needed to visit the US, so the border could be pretty porous. > After 9/11, the US tightened up its rules, but the Canadians didn't. > So the US can no longer trust that someone coming across the border > was given the same scrutiny getting into Canada that we would have > given. The US can't trust Canada to have our backs on this anymore,. > > Jerry Johnson > > On 5/9/05, Dana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > not even for proof of compliance with the driving laws? I mean, it > > says the person in question has passed a test and has not committed > > enough egregious infractions such as DUIs to have it yanked. That's > > what a driver's license *is.* Around here we have enough DUI-cause > > horrific accidents caused by unlicensed uninsured drivers that it's an > > issue for us and results in stunning insurance bills. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Find out how CFTicket can increase your company's customer support efficiency by 100% http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=49 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:156763 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
