If they're 31 years old they have had plenty of time to apply for legal status- aspenstreet1717

No they didn't actually.

If you are here illegally you can NOT apply to be here legally until you have left the country for 10 years.

So they'd have to have packed up at 18, moved back to a nation they know nothing about, don't know anyone in, and possibly don't even speak the language of.

Then spend 10 years there.

And first THEN be able to apply to go back to the only home they had ever known, with no guarantee they'd get back in.

That's insane to suggest that's a reasonable option for anybody.

ILLEGAL!!!!! What the heck about that is misunderstood here??? everything obviously.

If they're 31 years old they have had plenty of time to apply for legal status. They chose not to. Waiting for an amnesty. adios.

Some of these "children" are 31 years old. Yes, I do think they've had a choice at this point.- Morrigan

What choice, exactly?

You wanted them, when they turned 18, to self-deport themselves to a country they have no memory of, know nobody in, and might not even speak the language of?

that's not really choice. Not a sane one anyway.

The N&O web site and below the fold on the print paper has a pix of the vertical license for those who think that they will look like citizens' DLs. There were some folks yesterday that did not believe Tata apparently.

"But, do you think these children had a choice in the matter of becoming illegal immigrants?"

Some of these "children" are 31 years old. Yes, I do think they've had a choice at this point.

Which reminds me. What does 0bama have planned for the infant-to-14 age range that he's not telling us till he's ready to force it? Surely he doesn't plan to split families? That's what I thought, everybody gets to stay after all.

Well stated, kbrianf.

For myself, I have no issue with thoughtful arguments but the tone of hatred spewed by so many is disheartening.

admyank,they have work permits and docs that their deportation has been suspended for 2 years from INS or a successor agency.

"These licenses will be vertical, not horizontal, and clearly state that the holder is an illegal alien and that they convey nothing but driving privileges."

You seem to miss one very important thing. A drivers license, when conveyed to another state that does not have that restriction - will be convered to a regular drivers license.

What does a drivers license convey? It conveys that they have shown evidence that they are a Citizen. Here is the list of documents required:

1. Proof of Age and Identity. 2. Proof of Social Security. 3. Proof of Residency. 4. Proof of Liability Insurance.

#1-4 are often forged instruments, that being said on #3:

If you are a U.S. citizen and a first-time customer in North Carolina, you must show proof of your residence address in this state.

If you are not a U.S. citizen, you must provide documentation issued by the U.S. government indicating legal presence.

Now, I don't know about you, but the law would give them the same rights as a legal.

not under current law set to go into effect on march 25. illegals would get a license that looked just like anybody else's. the proposed law discussed in this article delays the enactment of that law by two months so that time would be allowed to consider various alternatives, including the vertical license alternative that you mentioned. Click to view my profile golorealist

Tata said that is what they would be like and that is why not issued right away, so that the changes could be made. Also, why he revoked the 13 already out. Are u saying he isn't telling the truth?

page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5
<prev	next>

sort order: oldest first | newest first