I think we've been over this before, but again, how is this a Homeland Security Nightmare?

Let's review, shall we?

Tim McVeigh - US citizen.
September 11 hijackers - all in the country legally

That wraps it up. Now, how does a Mexican getting a drivers license have anything to do with either of those attacks?

(for those who are eager to know the answer: there's no relationship)

I personally find it a bit freaky to have to show id to get on a plane. What's it for? They don't know me. Why do I have to show ID to board a plane? Why don't I have to do that when I visit the mall? What good will it do?

It's nothing but feel-good-ism. I'd rather see the government instituting real security measures, measures that will work without bothering me.

Several of the September 11 hijackers used weak driver licensing laws in Virginia and Florida similar to the one Tennessee had until this new change, to get valid driver licenses, without which it would have been difficult to board a plane.

And Tennessee's law until recently allowed illegal aliens get DLs without even proving their identity or residence. Now, let's review what an illegal alien is: a criminal, who has violated America's laws.

If that law allowing anyone to get a DL easily remained in place, future terrorists could get DLs under false names, with false addresses, and use them to get on planes. And we have seen what terrorists do with planes.

Bottom line: illegal aliens shouldn't get DLs or driving 'certificates' or any such documentation. They should be sent home.

You're making an incredible leap here, Bill. People board planes in this country all the time without an American driver's license. My mother-in-law just did that a couple of weeks ago.

Showing a piece of identification to a minimum-wage worker at the airport who's going to see another 5,000 or more on that same day does *nothing* - note, I cannot stress this enough: NOTHING- to help security.

Terrorists can board planes by buying a ticket. We have to deal with it. The proper way to deal with that happened over Pennsylvania nearly 3 years ago. Ask Richard Reid how easy it is to do something in an airplane these days.

Let's face it. You have a "problem" with illegal aliens, particularly Mexicans. This has nothing to do with terrorism, just be honest about it.

You may also want to ask who's going to do all the labor if you send all the Mexicans back home. There are more illegal aliens than there are unemployed people - do the math.

I'm also curious as to why we want to make the overworked MWW's at the license branch suddenly have to figure out who's legal and who isn't. Sounds like more harrassment for my wife to go through...

So Michael Chaney plans to vote for Pres. Bush b/c our President has loudly discussed amnesty for illegals? While taking heat from some of his base? Good for you Michael for affirming your vote for our President.

BTW, very classy how you tried to call Bill a racist. When will you lefties figure out that calling someone a racist does not win an argument? It's no different than your penchant for comparing every Republican to Hitler. Keep doing what you're doing, it helps Republicans win elections. Registered voters are smarter than you think.

Getting back to the original thread, Bredesen's bill still allows anyone to get a driver's certificate without verifying who they say they are. Which is why true DL reformer Rep. Donna Rowland (R-Murfreesboro) voted against the bill.

When was the last time anyone heard of a bunch of Canadians coming over and roofing houses where one is paid $10 an hour and has to split it with two or three others?

All of you know what the problem is, and racism is the least of it.

p.s.- Why are they streaming across the border when there are so many good-paying U.S.-outsourced jobs in Mexico?

By the way, I hear that Accenture, a foreign company, is being awarded a contract to perform border security, and that our Border Patrol's uniforms are being made in Mexico.

I'm a "lefty"? LOL! I have three pictures of President Bush sitting on the desk right behind me, trying to decide which one to frame for my office.

But thanks for playing.

Odd how you answered none of my questions. Here's another question that nobody answered last time I asked it. How, exactly, are we going to round up 10 million people without turning this country into a police state? And how many times is my wife going to have to be "carded" during the process? Seriously. For those of you who want to send them all back, tell me the logistics of doing that.

President Bush is just being realistic with the amnesty suggestions. Even if you don't like him or the idea, the bottom line is it's the best idea we have, and it beats the current "look the other way" tactic.

I'll admit that I'm a bit predisposed to giving these people a break. First, they do work that Americans don't want to. Let's face it, they work hard and do a good job. They also are just trying to make a better life. My own ancestors came here under similar circumstances 150 years ago. While I'm not for open immigration, it seems a bit unfair to shut the door behind you.

While I understand Bill's point, I just don't see Mexicans as ruthless criminals, mainly because they aren't. They came here at great cost, they work hard, I guess I'm missing the downside here.

"How, exactly, are we going to round up 10 million people without turning this country into a police state?"

Well, for starters, we'll let the IRS tell the INS how many of the tax returns they get each year have fraudulent SSN's, and arrest the filers. Let's see, step #2: every time someone is arrested, we run a similar check on any ID they have on them and deport the ones who have fake ones. Oh, and encourage cooperation by noting that if local law enforcement won't help enforce federal law, then obviously that jurisdiction needs NO FEDERAL MONEY, of any kind. As in: military base? congratulations, you just volunteered to be first in line for the next round of base closings. Local university? must not need the federal research grants (Pell grants, Ulysses Grants, etc.). Of course, that would take a little willpower as opposed to standing around whining, so it probably won't happen....

At any rate, there's three steps that could be taken without your wife getting carded even once.

Um, you missed the part about "without turning the US into a police state."

Anybody else want to take a stab at it? I have quite a few other relevant questions up there that are being ignored by the wing nuts, anybody care to take a go at any of them?

And how, pray tell, will enforcing the EXISTING law turn the US into a police state? None of the steps I outlined requires anything more than the will to implement them. And if my proposed witholding of federal funds is the problem, then obviously we've been living in a police state since the 55 mph speed limit was imposed by witholding highway money.

Nonsense.

SDN, thanks for playing, but, well, I don't know how to put it nicely so I'll just let it go.

Suffice it to say that you don't understand the roles of various governments in this country. Read up on it and get back with us when you have a better understanding.

How does the IRS handle the withholding and data from those who employ the illegals?

Good wages and working conditions on both sides of the border would go a long way toward dealing with the problem.

Again, look at the relationship between the U.S. and Canada.

That's your opinion, Michael. My opinion is that the roles of our various governments have been confused to our detriment for years; we might as well make them work for us.

When a commenter suggested we enforce existing laws, Michael Chaney replied "Suffice it to say that you don't understand the roles of various governments in this country. Read up on it and get back with us when you have a better understanding."

Michael, while I agree with you that the overwhelming majority of Mexican immigrants are hard-working, often work at a bargain rate, and are willing to do jobs few locals will take, I think you might want to reconsider your response.

While I'm no fan of government, it seems to me that laws are passed after semi-diligent consideration for the effects on all parties. Certainly not all laws are good, but I get the impression you're in favor of "selective enforcement", in which local DA's and cops choose which laws they'll enforce and which they'll ignore. While that may seem like a good idea to you *now*, what happens if (when) the shoe is on the other foot, and some DA decides not to enforce a law that you very much need to have enforced?

Why should governments even bother to pass laws if adherence to them is ultimately to be optional?

Your charge that the commenter doesn't understand the proper role of "various" governments--though it makes a great put-down--seems to be unsubstantiated. Would you be good enough to tell us what you feel the proper role of government is?

But again, I agree with you that immigrant Mexicans are a good and even necessary input to our economy and nation.

HOW TO SOLVE THE ILLEGAL ALIEN PROBLEM.

It is simple. We don't need more laws.

Make every legal American a deputy and place a bounty on illegals.

If an American catches an illegal alien pay them anywhere from 1/4 to 1/2 of what it costs the Border Patrol to apprehend an illegal.

The closer to the border you catch the illegal alien the more money you make. Catching an illegal within 10 miles of the border should net a bonus! This would benefit the property owners near the border who have had their property destroyed by illegals.

Of course, police would be eligible too! So a routine traffic stop just might earn them some extra spending money.

I would wager the problem with illegal crossings just about ceases the minute the policy is put into place.