Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the Senate on December 6, 2007, to require a person applying for a drivers license to provide documents showing the applicant's full legal name history, date of birth and his or her address and residency, and which demonstrate that the applicant is a U.S. citizen, an alien lawfully admitted for permanent or temporary residence, or has conditional permanent resident status in the U.S. Drivers licenses would contain bar codes with certain personal identification items, and licenses of resident aliens would expire when their visa expires. The bill also requires the Secretary of State to verify that the documents presented are genuine, check applicants against a federal citizenship database, and retain copies of the verification documents. It would also raise drivers license fees by $10, and renewal fees by $12. The bill would bring Michigan drivers licenses into compliance with the federal REAL ID Act

The vote was 28 in favor, 9 opposed and 1 not voting

(Senate Roll Call 28 at Senate Journal 11)

Click here to view bill details.

"It would also raise drivers license fees by $10, and renewal fees by $12." Is there no end to what these mental midgets will do to get our money into their pockets? Quit stealing our money and quit giving licenses to illegal aliens. Simple. If you can't handle this simple task we don't need you. Where do I sign those recall petitions?

have mandated proof of citizenship. they require a birth certificate. that's proof enough.

Senator Basham’s statement is as follows: I will be opposing this bill because of combining two issues: the Real ID Act with the driver’s license debacle that we have ourselves into as a State Legislature trying to fix an Attorney General’s opinion that is denying at least 48 categories of folks who are here legally to be unable to get a driver’s license—all those reasons. There has been a lot of conversation about the driver’s license but very little conversation about the Real ID Act. This would be a bipartisan solution to the driver’s license fix if we would disconnect the Real ID Act from this piece of legislation. Then this would be a bipartisan fix. Because the Real ID Act is connected to the driver’s license fix, I will not be supporting this piece of legislation.

Senator Whitmer’s statement, in which Senator Jacobs concurred, is as follows: I rise in support of the Gleason substitute. I also rise to respond to some comments that were made. If we are going to be demagoguing on 9/11, a national tragedy, we owe it to our constituents and the world to get our facts straight. I applaud the Senator from the 22nd District for making the point that all of the people involved with causing that awful day were here legally. If you read your Attorney General’s opinion, they would have been granted driver’s licenses. This doesn’t change any of that. So lets call it what it is; it’s demagoguing on the issue. The problem that we have is that your Secretary of State is misinterpreting your Attorney General’s opinion to deny driver’s licenses to people who are here legally. This impacts people from executives at Toyota to MSU students, the same students I rose to this microphone and pled, please, let’s fix this. Your Secretary of State has misinterpreted the Attorney General’s opinion to deny them driver’s licenses. Now we are going far beyond actions we need to take to rectify that and attaching this to an issue we don’t need to address at this juncture. We’ve turned it political. We needed a quick fix to do something right for the people of the state of Michigan. You’ve turned it political, turned it upside down on its head, and used 9/11 to justify it. I think that is nauseating. You don’t have a problem with the law. You have a problem with the way your Secretary of State is interpreting it to deny people driver’s licenses. Fix that problem.

Senator Gleason’s first statement is as follows: I rise to offer a common-sense solution for the disagreement between the two statewide officers: between the Attorney General and the Secretary of State. Even in the committee hearing process, we understood there was confusion between these two branches of government. I believe that we should separate these two issues: the Real ID and the Michigan driver’s licenses and IDs should be separated. We heard very, very compelling information from those who do business in our state, both in the manufacturing and in the agricultural industries, how onerous this is to their efforts to produce their products. Now Charles Dickens said, “These are the best of times. These are the worst of times.” We see our state struggling to bring investors and jobs that are created by these investors and then we put up these hurdles. We heard from the Japanese Consulate that they were intimately affected. Tens of thousands of jobs from our visitors to this state who do business every single day in a responsible way cannot get their workers the documents that are required from our state government. It was fully indicated in the committee process that there is no immediate need for the Real ID. It was also pointed out that those who are presently running for President, three of the leading four candidates said that they do not support the Real ID. Now a few weeks ago, there were some folks who were pretty giddy when Governor Granholm said that she wasn’t going to raise taxes anymore. But yet, we are going to raise the individual financial obligation of those who will have to get the Real ID. For a number of years down here at the Capitol, we’ve tried to distinguish between a fee and a tax; that a “fee” was the political-correct terminology to use when indeed we were taking money from our Michigan residents. I agree with many in this room that there is no difference between a fee and a tax. We’re offering a $12.00 fee for the Real ID. Now it was pointed out that we really don’t need to implement this Real ID until 2014, but there are other collateral problems with the Real ID as well. We in this room unanimously supported resolutions—legislation—that said that we would keep all of our Secretary of State offices open across this state. The Secretary of State has closed over 30 and she has indicated that she will close several more. Now when we tell the people in Michigan that they must go get that Real ID, they have to go in person. Even though they will be encumbered by the number of Secretary of State offices that will be closed. So we will not only inconvenience our Michigan residents with a financial obligation, but also the time and the distance they will have to travel to the proposed Secretary of State consolidation as well. They are indicating that nearly $4 million—now you all have been through this process down here some of you longer than I have. When they are projecting that it will cost at least $4 million, my experience here has said that it will probably be a lot more than $4 million that it will take to implement this plan. So we have said that we will not raise taxes and that we’re going to pay for the programs as we go along. So once again we are seeing a potential $4 million or more expenditure with no means or no measures to pay for this $4 million obligation to implement this Real ID. So let’s do the sensible thing and let’s separate these two obligations. How are we going to feel as a state if we expend resources towards a program that in a few short years or possibly sooner, those in Washington will say that we are not going to implement this Real ID program. Our resources are limited and precious. The workers who come to this state for medical purposes, manufacturing purposes, and academic purposes are being implicated every single day when they go for driver’s license renewal. I mentioned to you yesterday, immediately upon the opinion, back home at the University of Kettering—that’s a world-renown institution—three of their students who were here legally could not get a driver’s license. This is real. We are affecting our friends who are coming to this state. We see a tremendous effort reaching across the sea to bring jobs here. Our opportunities for expansion and growth are limited, so we must broaden our efforts. We must bring those in from foreign lands who are willing to come to our state and invest. Let’s do the right thing. Let’s split these two obligations between the Real ID and the Michigan’s driver’s license. We are hurting people every single day. We are hurting our economy at a greater rate than we are hurting our people. I ask that the Senate do the right thing: Take care of the immediate need and we’ll take care of the Real ID when it becomes a more valid effort at a particular time down the road. Senator Gleason’s second statement is as follows: There has been no indication, either written or verbally, saying that I or others support giving government documents to illegals in this state. It has been brought to my attention with the top 10 list that has been discussed by the Senator from the 33rd District that that is just another indication of why the writers’ strike must end in Hollywood. I don’t know if David Letterman himself would take the opportunity to put such real issues before us. Folks, this is vitally important. We are talking about carnage and death of American citizens. It may be politically prudent to point out the issues of 9/11. I have stood here before you and told you that we lost our nephew in Iraq. I am not using this for political purposes, but government decisions that have been made in the past, and I would propose, in the future offer opportunities for death or life. There is a balance. We have a responsibility to provide the honor and dignity of human life and should not be using past experiences. We shouldn’t be using the death of our fellow countrymen as a political tool. In regard to the passports mentioned earlier, the passports were actually derived from an idea that came to us from the nation’s capital. They have promoted and prompted and said that this something that we need. Only a few days ago, we see that it was somewhat relinquished not from our hands, but those who lead our government at the federal level. I am reminded during this debate that we talk about illegal aliens using legal documents to destroy human life. We can look back a few years earlier when we had a Michigan resident who blew up a federal government building in Oklahoma City. He had those who hated him. They were not from the Middle East or Mexico; they were from Michigan. We have seen another gentleman, if that is the appropriate term, the Unabomber, with Michigan ties. We had another Michiganian with legal ties using them to destroy human life as well. My legislation is so simple. It just says that if you are in this state illegally, you do not get government documents giving you the privilege to drive. Anyone who paid attention in the committee meeting knows that there is no immediate concern with the Real ID. To reiterate again, we are impeding those who have come to our state for academic and business purposes. Every single day we are denying people the right to drive to work and the right to go and perform medical procedures on our family members. We should not get lost in this debate. Neither phobias nor frenzies should determine whether or not this is the right thing to do, to split this Real ID and this driver’s license issue. Let’s take care of the immediate need. We are going to have some trouble if those down the road who make a decision to say that we are not going to deal with the Real ID and we have tied up business and spent resources. So I think that we need to support this substitute. Let’s get back to the business of business in this state. Let’s take care of those friends who have come to our state to invest.

Senator Basham’s first statement is as follows: It’s interesting. I’m starting to get conflicting information on these bills. I don’t see why they should be moving forward, particularly when we’re getting information back from the Attorney General that actually conflicts with the Secretary of State in this state. I would like to explain my reasons for opposing these bills. The sponsor of this bill said it’s necessary because people who are in this country legally can get driver’s licenses in Michigan. That is untrue. The recent opinion issued by Attorney General Mike Cox and the subsequent implementation by the Secretary of State has assured that no one in this country illegally can get a driver’s license in Michigan. In her testimony before the Transportation Committee, Secretary Land made it clear that her office is not issuing licenses to illegals. So we don’t even have a need for this bill. I don’t think that I’ve heard any opponent of the bill say that they are supportive of giving driver’s licenses to those who are in this state illegally. In fact, my colleague Senator John Gleason, his substitute which we supported clearly states that. In testimony before the committee, a representative from the Attorney General’s office testified that the Attorney General did not believe that the opinion he issued prohibited the Secretary of State from issuing temporary licenses to people who were here legally even if they weren’t permanent citizens. That is the Secretary of State’s interpretation and her basis for refusing to issue licenses to people who have permission to be in this country and, in fact, in this state. It appears that the disagreement between the Attorney General’s office and the Secretary of State’s office is the reason that jobs in Michigan are being threatened. In an effort to settle that disagreement, we’re being asked to impose new burdens and new costs on all the citizens of Michigan to enact the Real ID Act—their provisions—before it is even necessary to do so. I would ask that my colleagues not support this legislation.

Senator Sanborn’s first statement is as follows: I concur with my colleague who is the chairman of the Transportation Committee that we should defeat the substitute and support the bill. I’ve been the sponsor of this bill and this issue since coming to the Senate some six years ago or seven years ago. I’ve seen people drag their feet on this issue, and I say that now is the time that we get going and move these bills. I’ve heard about the cost to Michigan, but I want to talk to you again about the cost if we don’t move this package of bills. Again, I’ll remind you of the terrorists threat. I’ll ask you to think back to 9/11 and recall the 19 terrorists who flew on those planes had as many as 30 illegal driver’s licenses. I reiterate the point of the threat to schools. You know, we talk about the per-pupil funding and that money is being siphoned off because there are illegals who are in our schools, and there is a cost to our schools. So for those of you like myself who fight for quality education for each one of our students who are here legally and entitled to quality education, that money is being siphoned away by our per-pupil funding. The costs to health care, and again, as I said yesterday, a couple of my colleagues that are here who are doctors have seen it firsthand the illegals who are coming to our emergency rooms. That is a cost to our health care system and to our taxpayers. The overcrowding in jails; I know that in Macomb and Oakland counties our jails are constantly being overcrowded. Again, go home and talk to your sheriffs. I hope you did last night. Talk to your sheriff about the illegal aliens who are in our jails. The previous speaker got up and talked about the cost of transportation. Again, if we don’t pass this, you are going to need a passport just to board a plane to go from Detroit to Chicago. Wait to see how angry that your constituents are then. I just paid for passports for my family. Just be prepared to travel on a plane. It’s a lot more costly than the cost we’re talking about here. Again, I reiterate—the people who have migrated here for generations in a legal capacity. My good colleague, the Senator from the 13th District who is of Greek extraction, very sensitive to this issue for people who have migrated here legally. If this doesn’t pass, the people who are here on legal student visas, on legal work visas, and because of the Attorney General’s opinion, perhaps an unintended consequence, they are unable to get licenses through the Secretary of State right now. Let’s quit the partisan bantering and let’s help those folks out who, like the legal immigrants who have migrated here for generations, but have done so legally. Again, my wife, a second-generation Italian American—I talked to her “mamuch”—I talked to her mother about this issue and she is insulted by it. Her family migrated here legally. They came through Ellis Island, migrated legally, and they had to go through all the proper channels, yet people are just able to walk across the borders, drive across the Canadian border and illegally get licenses here. That is very unfortunate. Legal immigration is part of what has made this nation great for many generations. For those of you who want to muddy up the waters and drag your feet even more and put it off and put it off, at what cost? Are you waiting for the next 9/11? What cost? What will you say then? Let’s keep it simple. Let’s not muddy up the waters. Let’s keep it simple and just say to the people who ask you about this issue, say to them, “What don’t you understand about illegal?” What don’t you understand about illegal? If you fail to support the legislation, then you are sanctioning this illegal behavior and you have betrayed your oath of office, in my estimation.

Senator Basham’s second statement is as follows: I can appreciate the comments of the Senator from the 11th District, but, in fact, he keeps talking about illegal and my conversation was that Senator Gleason’s bill talks about illegals. Certainly, no one from either side of the aisle wants to give driver’s licenses to folks who are illegal. That’s just like comparing that to saying there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. There is no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq regardless of how you feel about the war in Iraq. Another reason that I’m opposing this legislation is a conservative think tank. The Cato Institute said, “If you think going to the Secretary of the State’s office is a pain now, wait until the REAL ID Act takes effect in May of next year. If Michigan complies, it will be required to overhaul drivers’ licenses to meet strict federal guidelines creating a de facto national ID card. Data on every American driver would be entered into a national database. Understandably, many people have privacy concerns about REAL ID. But this is just one reason for Michigan to join the three other states that have already refused to comply with the act. For starters, there are significant cost concerns. Originally estimated by the National Conference of State Legislatures to cost $11 billion nationwide, the Department of Homeland Security now says implementing the law will cost $17 billion. This burden would fall disproportionately on Michigan because of its large population. The reason the feds are imposing these costs is because they think it will increase national security. Many people are fixated on the Sept. 11 attack, and it was a significant event, to be sure. But we must build our security systems to address future attacks coming from any number of threats. REAL ID would be, at best, a modest inconvenience to foreigners plotting an attack, and no inconvenience at all to domestic attackers—well, no more inconvenience than every American would have to suffer in line at the secretary of state’s office.” When the Secretary of State is closing offices—and she’s closed four or five in my district alone and she’s closed offices in Senator Brown’s area—everyone around here is getting their Secretary of State’s offices closed. This is going to be a significant burden on people who have to personally have to go to a Secretary of State’s office to get their driver’s licenses at a new increased fee. If anyone would like to read what the conservative think tank Cato Institute says about Real ID, they are certainly opposed to it. Again, you know, no one wants illegal immigrants getting driver’s licenses in the state of Michigan. The Senator from the 11th District is talking about illegal immigrants. That’s not what we are talking about when we are denying, at least under 48 categories of legal-documented foreign folks, whether they are here for higher education or here to work. For example, there are 10,000 Japanese here in the state of Michigan with significant investments who are going to be denied a driver’s license under this legislation. I would encourage members to continue to oppose these bills.

Senator Kahn’s statement is as follows: For me, this issue cuts to the chase of what government is about. A government has the responsibility of protecting its citizens, its borders, and the lack of the ability to do such is no government at all. This is a function of government back to our Founding Fathers and still today. The substitute weakens that function of government, and I oppose it.

Senator Sanborn’s second statement is as follows: This debate is really great for me because it allows my constituents to see firsthand how in the world this process has gotten bogged down for all of these years and we haven’t fixed the problem. First, the problem being that illegal immigrants were using Michigan as a mecca to come here and get driver’s licenses. Now a far-reaching Attorney General’s opinion has created a little difficulty, an unintended consequence that people who want to come here legally on student visas, work visas are being shut out from getting driver’s licenses. So we’re going to keep this simple. There are people who want to bog this process down. The foot-draggers, let’s not fix the problem. They’d like to delay this issue. I say again, let’s keep this simple. If you vote the substitute down and you pass the legislation, then we address both problems. The first being that people who are here—let me reiterate this because there are those out there who want to cloud the issue—there are people who are here illegally who want to get driver’s licenses. We have to put a stop to that. But again, there are people here through legal channels—work visas, student visas—and they are being denied the right to get a license. If you support the bill and vote down the substitute, you are fixing both of those problems. It’s unfortunate that I’m being denied my right to freedom of speech today and being called a demagogue because I address 9/11. I’m not afraid to talk about 9/11 and the terrorists who used illegal driver’s licenses to set up this terrorist attacks. I appreciate the junior Senator deciding that she will be the self-imposed conscience of the Senate and determine who is going to be a demagogue and who will not be allowed to give free speech. To reiterate the point, if you pass the bill and vote down the substitute, you are addressing both problems of illegal aliens getting driver’s licenses and people who are here under legal channels, as the many great immigrants who have come to this country have, could be getting driver’s licenses are being shut out now; those who are here on student visas and work visas. We need to address that problem as the good Senator from the 13th District has brought to this Legislature’s attention.

Senator Switalski’s statement is as follows: I support these bills with some reservations. There are certainly flaws in the Real ID law, but I think the rhetoric on both sides has been somewhat inflated today. I believe the House is going to take a different view of this bill, so we ought to just lower the volume, move this forward, let it proceed, and reach some compromise. But there’s really three reasons why I’m going to support this bill today. We must move quickly to fix the driver’s license problem for legal aliens. No. 2, at some point we must deal with and comply with the federal Real ID law. Third, this is just the first step in the legislative process and we need to get movement immediately. So I supporting the bill for those reasons.

Senator Hardiman’s statement is as follows: I rise today to speak in favor of this legislation. I want to give my appreciation to its sponsor and the sponsors of this package. I have a daughter and son-in-law who are at the University of Michigan. They’ve stayed on campus. They know a wide variety of people, people from different countries, backgrounds, and walks of life. My daughter was quite upset when she heard that some of her friends who were here legally—were not citizens but were here legally—went to the Secretary of State’s office and couldn’t get their driver’s license. I share that very deep concern and I think that has been reflected by folks on both sides of the aisle here today. So I won’t go over all of the reasons; that’s just an awful position for Michigan to be in. It doesn’t send the right kind of message for a state that wants to move strongly into the future with contributions from people from various countries. So we know that we need to change that and this bill does that. I also want to mention my son-in-law. My son-in-law, who is from Nairobi, Kenya, came here as a student and met my daughter, and obviously, fell in love with her. Who could blame him. But he went on to get his green card and went through a long and very difficult process working with the INS. While my daughter is an attorney and deals in immigration—that’s her area—it was still difficult, long, and tedious. Then he went beyond that to gain his citizenship—again, a long difficult process. But we stood there proudly as he became a United States citizen. If we are going to have laws regarding immigration, then there ought to be a difference. So the driver’s license, the Real ID, I think, makes that difference that is found in this legislation, and that is why I support it. I ask my colleagues to do the same.

Senator Anderson’s statement is as follows: I am really troubled by the tone of the conversation and the discussion on the floor. I had hoped for a higher level of debate and discussion once coming to the Senate. But it’s unfortunate that issues like this tend to sometimes bring out the worst in some folks. It’s very troubling to see this for the young schoolchildren who are visiting the chamber day to day. Real ID and this issue that was created by the Attorney General’s opinion are two separate issues. It’s unfortunate that they have chosen to roll these two together in this legislation. I did want to say that I applaud the comments of the good Senator from Livingston County, very reasoned and thoughtful statement. I like and I believe he—he said it in a different way—but, I’m very troubled by one Senator on the other side who would rather fan the flames of bigotry than to come up with a solution to a problem that was created by the Attorney General’s opinion. While I am troubled by the legislation and rolling these two issues together and the political tone that this has taken, I recognize that nonrenewal of licenses of those who are here legally is a serious problem for just average citizens across this state—average people who are here visiting, who are attending our universities, who work for the Big Three, who work in all different areas of employment in this state, and who actually contribute to this state who are here legally. We’re talking about legal residents and legal visitors within this state. There is no one here, I believe, who represents any Senate district in this state who is in favor of giving licenses to illegal aliens, but some of those who are supporting this legislation, unfortunately, are trying to politicize this in such a degree. My concern is what these bills will do that goes beyond what needs addressing at this time. I will support the bills in order to move these bills forward, with the hope that the problems and the flaws in these bills will be corrected before they come back to the Senate because I’m sure they will come back and we will be addressing them once again. I would ask that other members would not attempt to demagogue this issue.

Senator Brown’s statement is as follows: The purpose of the legislation before us is to secure the integrity of this most important piece of personal identification, like the birth certificate. It is a gateway document allowing access to services, buildings, and transportation. Our government has done precious little for the people in this regard. The people expect us to address this issue and now. Protecting this document protects our security and even our borders. The 19 hijackers, as it has been noted, had upwards of 17 driver’s licenses including Arizona, California, Florida, and Virginia—could have been Michigan. They also had 14 state ID cards including Florida, Maryland, and again, Virginia—could have been Michigan. Now I sit here in seat No. 6 and I see the seal of Virginia up there. The good Senator from the 8th District hails from the same state I hail from, Virginia. I am glad Michigan wasn’t in that very bad legacy of driver’s licenses that these 19 hijackers had. They also had 364 aliases, so they may have had more than driver’s licenses. This legislation is reasonable and responsible. We must act now. I urge members to support Senate Bill No. 962.

Senator Cropsey, under his constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against the adoption of the substitute offered by Senator Gleason to Senate Bill No. 962 and moved that the statement he made during the discussion of the substitute be printed as his reasons for voting “no.” The motion prevailed. Senator Cropsey’s statement is as follows: As I’ve listened to this debate, it just seems like there’s a total lack of focus by the proponents of this substitute as to what this substitute actually does. We were just told that this substitute is a common-sense solution. Really now? Here are 10 reasons why I think we ought to be opposing this substitute: Reason No. 10 - It hurts seniors. Your driver’s license will no longer qualify you to fly. Seniors, you’re going to need a passport. If you vote for this substitute, you’re telling every single snowbird in this state that they now need a passport to fly to Florida or Arizona. You might as well declare Michigan to be a foreign country. Reason No. 9 - It’s very hostile to business. If your company has conventions, trainings, or headquarters outside of Michigan, and you live and work in Michigan, you’ll need a passport to fly to your annual company convention. What a great sales pitch. And here we are talking about encouraging the film industry to come to Michigan, but the only way the Film Office or the MEDC can fly to California is if they have a passport. We’ll end up having to pay for our state employees to get passports to fly to national meetings or fly to go to other states. And what a great closing line we’ll have: “And if you really like Michigan and end up staying here, you’ll need a passport to leave.” That sounds good doesn’t it? Reason No. 8 - It’s hostile to our budget. If we do this now, the federal government will give us funding to help implement it. If we adopt this sub, we are shifting all of the costs onto the private citizens who will be required to obtain passports, as well as encumbering the state budget to have to fully fund this issue, as we will eventually have to do to join the 21st century economy. Reason No. 7 - This is a slap in the face to every citizen in this state. Thirty-five percent of all identity theft in this country is perpetrated with the help of fraudulent driver’s licenses. This substitute will no longer require the Secretary of State to use the most up-to-date practices to verify that you are really who you claim to be. Every single victim of identity theft and every single person concerned with identity theft ought to be highly concerned that this substitute makes Michigan one of the more promising places to steal somebody’s identity. Reason No. 6 - This substitute is dangerous. The 9/11 hijackers used 30 licenses and state ID cards obtained fraudulently, many of them obtained fraudulently, including Michigan licenses and 364 aliases to set up their terrorist attacks. Under this sub, Michigan will be one of the best places in the nation to continue such fraud. Terrorists will be one step away from getting a hazmat license, allowing them to drive propane trucks and gasoline tankers. This sub basically establishes a new state motto: “We’re the weak link.” Reason No. 5 - This substitute is negative advertising. Imagine being a national business looking to locate a new headquarters or a plant in Michigan. Other states? Just get a driver’s license. Michigan? You need a passport to fly anywhere else in the country. Why on earth would any company want to locate in Michigan? We’ve already heard the international outcry about needing licenses for noncitizens, and this sub, rather than solving the problem, puts a Band-Aid on it while sacrificing the true needs of rebuilding our economy. Reason No. 4 - This substitute is harmful to higher education. How on earth do you expect our institutions of higher education to attract national or international talent when their Michigan license will not be good for identification purposes all over the country? I can see the University of Michigan disclaimer now: “Come live and teach in Michigan - some restrictions apply.” Do you really think the University of Michigan, Michigan State University, Wayne State University, and any other research university want to have to get passports for its athletic teams so they can play other schools around the country? Reason No. 3 - This substitute disenfranchises every Michigan adult. If you can go anywhere else in the country, for any reason, business or vacation, and they require ID, your license will not qualify. Go to any federal building? Need a passport. Going to Washington, D.C., to see the sights? Forget the Capitol or the Smithsonian, unless, of course, you have your passport. But maybe they’re trying to discourage out-of-state vacations because that’s what this sub would really do. Reason No. 2 - It is a huge disfavor to any legal alien who has a Michigan license and who drives outside of Michigan. Heaven forbid if they’re pulled over. Their license may not be good enough to prove that they are who they say they are. Unless they have a passport, they may spend an awful lot of time trying to prove that they are who they really claim to be. The whole point of this legislation was to help legal aliens, but this substitute is doing just the opposite. And, finally, my last reason is really all of the above. How on earth can anyone stand up here and defend this substitute, knowing that it ties Michigan to the 1900s while the rest of the country moves on? Folks, this is 2008. No matter how much we may want to think otherwise, times have changed. This substitute is dangerous and it’s deadly to the 21st century economy. The bill in front of us is the result of 2,973 people who died on September 11, 2001, but this substitute attempts to turn back the clock. No amount of wishful thinking can change the fact that Michigan residents need better protection than this substitute can offer. It deserves only to be thrown into the trash heap of history, and the sooner the better. I urge a “no” vote on this substitute.

In other words...leave things as they are and to heck with the fact that illegal aliens are eating up tax dollars at a voracious rate while putting little back into the State's economy. Hey! It might garner a few more votes. Typical Democrat thinking.