On the surface, I suppose, it would be easy to agree with the proponents of giving driving permits to people in the state of Texas that either entered the country illegally or overstayed their visas and are here illegally. After all, we want drivers on our roads to be qualified and insured, right?
But when you get below the surface, it gets a bit murkier and not quite as clear as some of the proponents want to make it. I mean, seriously, if someone is here illegally and making barely enough to survive by mowing lawns or whatever, what are the chances that this person is going to spend a large chunk of his or her paycheck to purchase insurance? Pretty much zero is my guess.
Then you get the argument that people have been here for “decades” and suddenly can’t renew their licenses and it is a security issue, not an immigration issue.
That 2011 measure has left undocumented immigrants who drove legally in Texas for decades unable to renew their licenses or buy insurance, a problem that has caused major headaches for law enforcement officials across the state.
“It’s good for law enforcement. It’s good for security,” said Rep. Roberto Alonzo, who authored the measure, House Bill 3206. “We have already gone past the immigration debate and now we’re into the law enforcement debate.”
What a load of bovine processed hay. If someone has been here illegally for “decades”, that would be two – remember that 1986 amnesty law? Which means these people were part of the flood that started after that “final” amnesty and basically prove the point that the current version of amnesty will only bring more people here illegally. You cannot possibly say that giving driving permits to people here illegally is not an immigration issue with any credibility.
One of the downsides of an emotional issue is the overreaction by either side. In this case, the proponents of the effort to legalize illegal drivers in Texas are way over the top. One of them, Bob Price, who blogs over at TexasGOPVote.com, went so far as to call Rep. Van Taylor’s refusal to allow the effort to legalize illegal drivers to be attached to a bill he is supporting “cowardly“. Yeah, the same Rep. Van Taylor that won a medal for valor:
Born in Dallas, Representative Taylor earned his Eagle Scout at age 13. He graduated from Harvard College in 1995 and joined the Marine Corps. After graduating from intelligence, infantry, sniper, and airborne schools, Taylor led a Marine reconnaissance platoon. Following four years of active duty, he joined the Marine Corps Reserves to continue serving his country while earning a Master of Business Administration from Harvard Business School.
As a Marine Officer and paratrooper, Captain Taylor volunteered for duty as a platoon commander with the Marine Corps’ C Company, 4th Reconnaissance Battalion. He deployed to Iraq where he fought with 2nd Force Reconnaissance Company. Taylor led the first platoon into Iraq for his brigade and led a mission that rescued 31 wounded Marines during the pitched Battle of An Nasiriyah. For his service in Iraq, the Marine Corps awarded Captain Taylor the Combat Action Ribbon, Presidential Unit Citation, and the Navy Commendation Medal with “V” for valor.
Wow. If Bob wants to call Rep. Van Taylor “cowardly” that’s his right. But the fact is that the bill that Rep. Van Taylor was pushing was a pilot program allowing the Texas Department of Public Safety to reduce crowding at their offices by partnering with certain county commissioners. Nothing whatsoever to do with legalizing illegal drivers, immigration, or anything else related to the issue. Thus, Rep. Van Taylor was correct in his decision to call a Point of Order and that is why the chair sustained it. There isn’t anything “cowardly” about using correct parliamentary procedures to get a bill passed.
Are people that are in the USA and driving without insurance a problem? Certainly. You want to fix it? How about requiring proof of citizenship before you are able to purchase a vehicle? Get to the root of the problem. Legalizing illegal driving is not the way to go. Of course, the same people supporting legalizing illegal driving would most certainly oppose requiring proof of citizenship to purchase a vehicle because deep down, they really don’t want the “problem” solved.
Let me ask the supporters of legalizing illegal driving a question: Would your approach have stopped Andres Munos-Munos from killing Sgt. Dwayne Polk last night? Or would giving people here illegally some sort of quasi-legal status encourage even more people to come here illegally? I’m betting that it would be the latter.
I think that Rep. John Smithee has it right:
Some Republicans remain staunchly opposed to the bill. Rep. John Smithee, R-Amarillo, said that, although supporters have made some convincing arguments, he still sees the proposal as “primarily an immigration situation.”
“The whole premise that the state of Texas is going to provide to people who are not even here lawfully a state-issued permit for what is really a privilege is contrary to … how we’ve traditionally done things here in Texas,” he said.
For another view, see mi amiga Karen Townsend’s Texans Deserve Protection Afforded by Cook Amendment.
Thanks for the link, David. We don’t always agree on every issue but I always hold deep respect for our friendship. That respect affords the opportunity for solid conservative minded people to disagree with civility.
David, I think many would find your second paragraph highly offensive. You are implying that not only are all/most undocumented people "lawnmowers or whatever" when that is hardly the case. 40{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986} of the undocumented people are visa overstays. Many of these are people making very good livings and paying taxes and yet, suddenly they are turned into criminals by denying them a legal way to drive and purchase insurance. Secondly you seem to imply that all low income people are irresponsible and would not purchase insurance given an opportunity to do so. That is simply not the truth.
As for your playing the "war hero" card. That is hilarious. Yes, Van Taylor is an honored war hero and is deserving all proper respect for his heroic action in combat. I am a veteran and I understand and respect the sacrifices of all of our veterans and their families. However, being a vet does not exempt one from criticism when their current actions call for it.
The bill being amended is a driver's license related bill. I have seen much less related things used to attach amendments without objection. However he clearly indicated in his conversation after the bill that his objection was more immigration related than procedural. Therefore, the brave thing to do would have been to allowed debate on the bill and go on record as to whether he supported the merits of the bill or not. In fact, when questioned on that aspect, he refused to answer. How brave is that?
You seemed to acknowledge in a facebook discussion that there was a problem with the 2011 law passed by the legislature, but said I was supporting a "bad fix". When I asked you what a "good fix" would be I heard the same silence we got from Taylor on the issue. How brave is that David?
This bill is attempting to fix problems that were created by the 2011 legislature. We deserve to have it debated and voted on. We should know where our lawmakers stand.
Additionally, I see you learned the lessons of President Obama well about never letting a good crisis go to waste.
The death of Sgt. Polk is a tragedy and a great loss to our community. It is sad to bring this into a debate where it is not even slightly related. If this bill were in effect it would have had zero impact. Let me address a couple points here.
First, Munos-Munos is allegedly a non citizen. No facts have been released that I am aware of as to his immigration status or whether he had a license or not. You seem to be assuming that he is undocumented simply because he has an Hispanic surname. Otherwise there would be no connection to the driving bill. A quick database search shows that he may actually be a licensed driver. I am working to confirm that now.
Regardless of his immigration status, if he was a non-citizen he could have been deported after his previous crimes.
So, rather than dealing with these hollow arguments we deal with the merits of the bill and whether it might have some positive input on our roadways and safety.
David,
This was a well written and thought out article, but I have to take issue with a few of your positions:
1. Let me begin by stating that not all of us who were in favor of the HB 3206 are alike. I do not have any hard feelings towards Rep. Van Taylor for opposing the amendment to his bill. While I am disappointed, I do not begrudge his opposition to the amendment. It is his bill and he should have the right to say what should or should not be a part of that bill.
2. We have a real problem with our border right now. President Obama is making very little, if any, effort to seal our border right now. We have in place a “de facto” amnesty. By passing this bill that is applicable to all aliens, we gain numerous advantages in reestablishing our sovereign border. I have a lot more to share on this issue, but I defer for now.
3. David’s solution was to regulate the sale of cars to only US Citizens. My problem with that solution is that you would put a lot of my friends who are the secondary car market out of business. These secondary car market businesses provide a great service to the economy in that they provide jobs to others on their end and they provide an opportunity to buy an affordable vehicle to income strapped segment. Another problem that I have with this solution is that it is short sighted in that not all of the cars purchased from the secondary car market remain in the United States. Many will go to and remain in Mexico. That makes me feel safer that some of these vehicles do not remain on the local roads. But, the biggest problem I have is that limiting sales to only United States’ citizens creates an environment whereby we would create another regulation to both the buyer and the sellers. Who is going to monitor this law? Who is going to arrest a seller for breaking this law? Isn’t regulating the buying and selling of cars almost as bad as regulating the buying and selling of guns? Maybe not. There is no constitutional right to drive, but there may be provisions within the Commerce Clause that we need to look at.
4. I am pleased that we are talking about this issue. I welcome any other proposed solutions that David has to offer.
David, now that there are some facts available we can talk about Mr. Munoz-Munoz. It seems he is indeed an illegal alien however he would not qualify for the proposed program. You see, he has a criminal record (the proposal checks for that) and he was deported in 2012. Hopefully he will face felony unlawful presence charges in addition to the intoxication manslaughter charges he will face. This, once again, illustrates that we need to fix our border security and immigration problems. Just saying no, which seems to be your solution, isn't getting us anywhere.
It's common sense that tells us you don't reward illegal behavior with rewards of legal citizenship. A drunk will drive and kill, with or without a license. Most things like this are based on revenue. Not so much about common sense, or doing what's right.
Wow, must been a slow day in pachyderms in Houston.
“ I mean, seriously, if someone is here illegally and making barely enough to survive by mowing lawns or whatever, what are the chances that this person is going to spend a large chunk of his or her paycheck to purchase insurance? Pretty much zero is my guess.”.
It seems that you have fallowed in the same "old" dialogue presuming that all those in “Illegal” immigrant in Texas are poor. This is not only prejudicial but also illogical. Texas is home to the largest groups document workers in nation only second the California in the nation. Those in Texas with no immigration status more than have been in Texas for more than 10 years. and thus, most likely are already homeowners or businesses. In other words they probably already belong to Middle class, and perhaps drive better cars that you. It seems you’ve reading too much for the Heritage report.
What a load of bovine processed hay. If someone has been here illegally for ”decades”, that would be two – remember that 1986 amnesty law? Which means these people were part of the flood that started after that “final” amnesty and basically prove the point that the current version of amnesty will only bring more people here illegally. You cannot possibly say that giving driving permits to people here illegally is not an immigration issue with any credibility. “
You argued that this is like giving amnesty. Well for the last 10 years New Mexico, Washington state, Utah gave licenses those in the state with no legal status, yet this was never argued by either party-GOP or Democrat- that this is a magnet for “illegal.” Moreover, because of the 3 more states–Ill, CO, and OR-this year also passed similar laws. If fact immigration to UT, WA and NM have declined.
If you read the bill, the actual bill never required citizenship. In it was amended in 2011 requiring people to prove legal status. The Cook bill would only amended the bill back to its original intend. So I don’t know how that citizenship requiring came into place.
You want people to provide people proof of citizenship. Citizenship is must be prerequisite for any political activity–such as voting and collect benefits assigned only to citizens by Congress. Granting licenses is state right that has noting to do with citizenship.
Oh yea, and lets bring the phony argument that if one illegal immigrant got drunk and killed someday, all illegal immigrant therefore must driving drunk too (Andes Munoz). I used the same logic to point out all Canada has red in its flag, and therefore, all Canadians must be socialists.
I do not know what makes Mr. Jennings assume that you can just argue that licenses for citizens is rational argument. The role of legislators in Austin is to created laws to protect the interests of the state–Jobs, the economy, etc…. that is state right issue. And in this case the interest of the state are better server by enact laws to regulate the economic affairs of the state.
Texas is in transition. The state and moving form rural into quasi-suburban state. And we all know that if at least 40{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986} building those roads and new development of these workers are in need of license. Too, the State is the largest state with the most rural counties, and guess who is doing all the work in those rural communities?
As President of Independent Insurance Agency LLC, I can assure you there are many insurance companies who are willing to write insurance for those people who are without a legal driver license. I can even use a Mexican Matricular Consular as identification to write a auto insurance policy. As well, any international drivers license or a license from any other country will work.