Legislation watch
- Home
- Create an account
- Advanced searches
- Scorecards
- Links
- About
2001 House Bill 5497
Comments on this legislation Post new comment Text and Analysis Add to Watch List
Previous Next
- Introduced by Rep. Lauren Hager (R) on December 12, 2001, to require a person to be a citizen or a legal resident alien in order to apply for a Michigan driver’s license, and to authorize the Department of State to report to an appropriate federal agency if it has reasonable cause to believe that a driver’s license application contains information that an applicant is an illegal alien. The bill is part of a legislative terrorism response package comprised of House Bills 5495 to 5520, and Senate Bills 930 to 960.
- Referred to the House Transportation Committee on December 12, 2001.
- Substitute offered in the House on February 7, 2002, to replace the previous version of the bill with a version recommended by the committee which reported it. The substitute adds a provision requiring the Department of State to recognize driver’s licenses from Mexican states in the same manner as is done with other nations, and a provision allowing drivers' licenses to be issued to non-U.S. citizens who show documentation of legal immigration status. The substitute passed by voice vote in the House on February 7, 2002.
- Amendment offered by Rep. Jud Gilbert (R) on February 7, 2002, to remove a provision added in committee requiring the Department of State to recognize driver’s licenses from Mexican states in the same manner as is done with other nations. The amendment passed by voice vote in the House on February 7, 2002.
- Amendment offered by Rep. Glenn Anderson (D) on February 7, 2002, to place a two-year sunset on the provision which authorizes the Department of State to report to an appropriate federal agency if it has reasonable cause to believe that a driver’s license application contains information that an applicant is an illegal alien. The amendment failed 52 to 47 in the House on February 7, 2002.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
- Amendment offered by Rep. Judith Scranton (R) on February 7, 2002, to reconsider an amendment defeated earlier to remove a provision requiring the Department of State to recognize driver’s licenses from Mexican states in the same manner as is done with other nationsdefeated. The amendment failed 50 to 49 in the House on February 7, 2002.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
- Amendment offered by Rep. Michael Murphy (D) on February 7, 2002, to remove the provision which authorizes the Department of State to report to an appropriate federal agency if it has reasonable cause to believe that a driver’s license application contains information that an applicant is an illegal alien. The amendment failed 42 to 59 in the House on February 7, 2002.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
- Amendment offered by Rep. Ruth Johnson (R) on February 7, 2002, to insert a more precise definition of what “in the United States unlawfully” means. The amendment passed by voice vote in the House on February 7, 2002.
- Amendment offered by Rep. Judith Scranton (R) on February 7, 2002, to require the Department of State to recognize driver licenses from other nations only if they meet American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators standards. Driver’s licenses from Mexican states may not meet this standard. The amendment passed by voice vote in the House on February 7, 2002.
- Passed 74 to 30 in the House on February 7, 2002.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No" - Received in the House on February 7, 2002.
- Failed 41 to 58 in the House on February 12, 2002, to reconsider the vote by which the House passed House Bill 5497.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
Most Recent Comments
1) witness by Anonymous Citizen on November 1, 2008Alright, I have been in the sec. of state's office while a person did not speak any english I had to translate. The person told me the information they were giving was false because they were not here legall, I asked them if they were sure what they were telling me they said yes. I told the employee and they said it doesn't matter. I take great offense to illegal immigrants having the same priveleges as I do. I come from a family of immigrants. My grandfather took the time to do it right and it is people that vote against things like this that spit on law abiding immigrants and all their efforts. Don't reward liars. Don't reward people who have managed to stay under the radar. Make laws that encourage and support people that follow the law.
Finally, why is a religious organization dictating what our state reps approve or not. They are entitled to their opinion, but they should not meddle in goverment affairs. Nor should our politicians be bias to it.
Reply
I voted no on this bill because it will not stop terrorists, those who participated in the Sept. 11 bombing were actually here legally or had been under visa's when they applied for their license. It will increase the number of unlicensed drivers on our roads. If these drivers are involved in an accident they will be uninsured so the cost of our no fault insurance will go up.This bill will place a function of the INS in the Secretary of State's office where employees are not trained for this function and will encourage racial profiling. We do need to protect our citizens with any means possible but this bill is not one of those means.
Reply
I voted no on this bill today and the following are my comments. It is most difficult to ever sanction any person here in our Country and State as illegal or unlawful, but a person's status here is an immigration enforcement issue. My experience in government has been that we are generally reactive rather than proactive, which is not necessarily wrong, but the reaction must always be well thought through, which unfortunately is were I believe we are with this bill, however well intended it might be. In testimony before our Transportation Committee earlier this week, we are told the existing secretary of state administrative process deals with the question of a question of a person's documentation. If one of her employees questions what information is presented to them, it is referred to her enforcement division to investigate and handle. Since coming to the House, we have continually spoke about the importance of the agriculture industry to our State and have many times had legislation before us to be sure agriculture remains the 2nd or 3rd largest industry in Michigan. This bill in my opinion doesn't reflect supporting the agriculture industry in our State. We may solve one problem, but we clearly are going to be exacerbating problems relating to migrant workers not only in this industry, but Michigan's construction industry as well. Some would say this is a problem within the Latino community, but it deals with peoples of all nationalities coming to our Country and State. We are currently experiencing new populations of immigrants into some f our urban centers making them viable communities once again. At the conclusion of our committee meeting this week, the Chair requested some of us to work with interested parties to see if we could meet to find a workable solution. Please vote no today and give this work group a chance to accomplish that goal.
Reply
View Full Conversation
