There has been some debate in the comments from my recent post on whether Michigan really meant it when they decided to only allow US citizens and permanent residents to get a driver's license in the state. Here's the proof. There is nothing allowing those with a valid I-94 to work, proof of asylum or refugee status, an employment authorization card, an I-20, a receipt for a pending adjustment of status application, a DS-2019 or any other of the usual documents that prove legal status in the US to get a drivers license.
If you think possessing an out of state drivers license, international drivers license or the drivers license of a foreign country will be enough to drive, think again. Michigan law states the following:
New Michigan residents who wish to drive must obtain a Michigan driver license immediately upon establishing a permanent domicile (home) within the state and/or obtaining employment with the intent of remaining in this state.
What is going to be fun is watching Michigan back down on this. I would LOVE to be a fly on the wall and hear some of the conversations that are no doubt taking place between state leaders and leaders of industry, academia and the ethnic communities across the state on why LEGAL visa holders are being told to leave Michigan. And this says nothing of the affect on legal refugees and asylees in the state. Michigan could very well be violating resettlement funding agreements with the State Department by implementing a proposal of this sort.
Plus there may be some really interesting constitutional questions raised by this whole debacle. I'll leave that the to the Con Law gurus.
new law will increase driving restrictions
Posted by: | April 09, 2009 at 02:27 PM
Its great to hear you have read those works. Excellent stuff there. They're worth studying closely and rereading carefully. The Austrian school, Objectivism and big "L" Libertarianism are not one and the same thing though. There are differences. When it comes to non initiation of force however, they hold similar views (as I understand matters). / p Nevertheless, there are several possibilities in a free market that can lead to reduction of CO2. First, there has to be a demonstrable damage or a proveable...
Posted by: | April 07, 2009 at 09:01 AM
"I hate to be partisan and I don't belong to either party but this should be enough evidence as to which party the pros should support. I find comments such as "Kennedy is anti legal immigrants" ludicrous."
Right. Someone once said "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity". Not sure why we should support the stupid party.
Posted by: Hanlon | January 26, 2008 at 09:04 AM
"both Republicans"
I hate to be partisan and I don't belong to either party but this should be enough evidence as to which party the pros should support. I find comments such as "Kennedy is anti legal immigrants" ludicrous.
Posted by: USC | January 24, 2008 at 06:30 AM
"I expect the next move to be a law that requires all foreigners to wear yellow arm bands."
This issue was discussed on this board. I believe the majority opinion was that antis are expected to settle on a bar-code tattoo on the back of the neck.
Posted by: Legal and no longer waiting | January 24, 2008 at 06:25 AM
Thanks Dan. If so, I have no doubt there would be a lawsuit. Michigan has too many foreign companies, too many world class universities, too many refugee and asylee resettlement organizations and too many good immigration lawyers to roll over on this. When the plaintiffs get lawyers fees in the seven figures, that should help their election prospects.
Posted by: Greg Siskind | January 24, 2008 at 05:42 AM
Greg, All:
My sources in Michigan tell me Cox did this intentionally, not negligently, because he and Sec. State Land, both Republicans, will run for Governor, and they are positioning themselves to "out-Tancredo" each other. If true, I doubt they'll back down unless forced to by lawsuit.
Posted by: Dan Kowalski, Austin, Texas | January 24, 2008 at 04:14 AM
I don't know why the former immigrants and their descendants of this part of USA behaved this way. May be most of them don't know the pain of immigrants ( their grand dads might have faced arrows from the locals and not them ).
Posted by: Kalifornian | January 23, 2008 at 11:35 PM
Why this hatred towards immigrants? I expect the next move to be a law that requires all foreigners to wear yellow arm bands.
Posted by: Nitin | January 23, 2008 at 05:29 PM
Any con law experts here who can speak with me about the federal preemption issues? I am drafting an article about this. Thanks.
Posted by: MW | January 23, 2008 at 05:09 PM
As far as I'm concerned, the U.S. has 49 states as of today. I'm not even going to drive through Michigan during east coast trips.
Posted by: Sid | January 23, 2008 at 04:13 PM
http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?id=13859
Legal non-permanent residents in the US, such as students, are also prohibited from getting licenses under the new rule. Students in Michigan's prestigious universities would, for now, have to have driver's licenses from their home countries.
Pending in the Michigan legislature is legislation intended to provide a loophole for these non-permanent residents.
Attorney General Mike Cox, a Republican, issued an opinion in December 2007 concluding that granting licenses to illegal immigrants is inconsistent with federal law.
State agencies, such as the Department of Motor Vehicles - the licensing agency - are bound to comply with the attorney general's findings.
http://www.mlive.com/newsflash/michigan/index.ssf?/base/news-50/120094346067710.xml&storylist=newsmichigan
Some who legally are in Michigan but not permanent residents also will be denied licenses unless state law is changed. Legislation to allow those on temporary work or student visas to get licenses is pending in the state Legislature.
Posted by: D. Jackson Chaney | January 23, 2008 at 03:08 PM