Most Recent Comments

1) witness [by Anonymous Citizen on November 1, 2008]
Alright, 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

2) Rep. Bogardus' "no vote explanation" [by Admin002 on February 22, 2002]
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

3) Rep. Jamnick's "no vote explanation" [by Admin002 on February 22, 2002]
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