"Give illegal aliens driver's cards and official state ID" says Democrat candidate for Georgia Secretary of State Bee Nguyen & Co. HB 833

Ga state Rep, author of HB 833 (freedom to drive and obtain GA ID for illegal aliens Act) and Democrat candidate for Sec of State, Bee Nguyen. Photo: The Progressive Vietnamese American Association.

I read this crazy bill in March and started an outline which is unfinished. But I am finally posting this now to get it out of my pending file. I will write it up as a column soon. If we still have a country by then.

We regard this legislation as a campaign vehicle for Bee Nguyen who is running to be Sec. of State in Georgia. It is designed to build her support in the immigrant community and with anchor baby voters and not a serious attempt at passage.

So far no Republican cosponsors.

If you want to see what the L.A. Times reporter in the south (now a NY Times reporter here in Atlanta) wrote about Tennessee’s 2004 adventure in “driving cards” for illegal aliens see below.

Tennessee Ends Cards for Immigrant Drivers – Richard Faussett. Here.

_______________

HB 833 the “Freedom to Drive Act.” LC 39 3029

Creates an official Georgia driving/ID credential for illegal aliens outside of the more than 20,000 illegal aliens who already have them from DDS.

Sponsors

Nguyen, Bee , Schofield, Kim 60^th , Lim, Marvin 99^th , Park, Sam 101^st, Marin, Pedro “Pete” 96th6 , Boddie, William 62^nd

“Creates a Driving Card”

Introduced 29 March 2021 (2021 session ended April 1)

Would not be REAL ID Act compliant

Includes commercial driver’s licenses – yes, it is still illegal to employ illegal aliens.

Records and applications for licenses and information on licensees could only be furnished to “ a judge, prosecuting official, or law enforcement agency for use in

Investigations or prosecutions of alleged criminal or unlawful activity, or to the driver’s licensing agency of another state; provided, however, that any documents and information collected in connection with an application for a driving card… or an identification card …including the fact of such application, shall not be furnished by the department (DDS) except upon issuance of a court order issued by a federal court of competent jurisdiction;”

SAVE system verification bypassed for cards

Acceptable documents for use in proving identity in the application process for the illegal alien driving/ID credentials:

The department shall issue a driving card to any person who satisfies the requirements

Submission of valid documentary evidence of an applicant’s identity which may be

demonstrated by any of the following (holy cow!):

An official school or college identification card that includes the applicant’s full name and a photograph of such applicant at the time the identification card was issued;

* An official identification card issued by the applicant’s employer that includes such applicant’s full name and a photograph of such applicant at the time the identification card was issued;

*A current voter identification card issued or authorized for use by any county registrar or the Department of Driver Services;

* A valid, unexpired consular identification document issued by a consulate from the applicant’s country of citizenship or a valid, unexpired passport from such applicant’s country of citizenship;

*An original birth certificate or other proof of age;

*A United States Department of Homeland Security Form I-220B, Order of Supervision or similar form;

*Receipt of a United States Department of Homeland Security Form I-589,

*Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal or similar form;

*An official transcript from a United States educational institution that includes the applicant’s date of birth or a foreign school record, provided that such record is sealed and includes a photograph of such applicant at the age the record was issued;

*Receipt of a United States Department of Homeland Security Form I-20 or similar form;

*A United States Citizenship and Immigration Services Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) Approval Letter;

*A United States Citizenship and Immigration Services Form I-797C, Notice of Action;

*A valid identification card for health benefits;

*A valid identification card for an assistance or social services program;

*A wage stub issued in the United States within the previous six months;

*A federal income tax return filed in the previous two years;

*A Social Security card;

*Social Security administration letters or Social Security benefits documents containing the applicant’s Social Security number;

*A Native American tribal document;

* A driver’s license issued by another state that includes the applicant’s full name and a photograph of such applicant at the time the driver’s license was issued;

* A license issued by any state or federal government branch or agency for privileges other than driving, such as a concealed firearm permit, a fishing license, or hunting license;

* Prison or parole discharge papers that include the applicant’s full name, date of birth, and a photograph of such applicant at the time such papers were issued;

*Selective Service papers;

*Medical records that are signed and stamped; or

*Any other documentation deemed appropriate by the commissioner;

Submission of valid documentary evidence that such applicant is a state resident, which may be demonstrated by any of the following:

*A copy of a lease or rental agreement for property located in this state;

*Records evidencing enrollment of an applicant or his or her child in a public or private educational institution located in this state;

*A copy of a current utility bill in the applicant’s name for a property located in this state;

*A copy of a tax filing with the Department of Revenue;

*A current homeowner’s insurance or renter’s insurance policy for a property located in this state or a motor vehicle insurance card or policy for a vehicle registered in this state;

*A Medicaid or Medicare benefit statement;

*A change of address confirmation from the United States Postal Service indicating such applicant’s current address;

*A letter from such applicant’s counselor or other documentation showing the applicant’s enrollment in transitional or reentry housing located in this state;

*A recent cell phone bill containing the applicant’s name and current address;
Any utility documentation containing the applicant’s name and current billing address;

*A copy of an Internal Revenue Service Form W-2 or Form1099;

*A monthly bank or credit card statement containing the applicant’s name and current address;

*A billing statement or other official documentation from a recognizable business or government agency containing the applicant’s name and current address; or
Any other documentation deemed appropriate by the commissioner;

Payment of the issuance fee as prescribed by Code Section 40-5-25; and

Satisfactory completion of the examination prescribed in Code Section 40-5-27.

*A driving card issued pursuant to this Code section shall be valid for eight years from the date of issuance and may be renewed upon submission of an application, documentary evidence of state residency required by this Code section, and payment of the renewal fee

Such driving card shall indicate the type or general class of vehicles the

cardholder may drive, bear thereon a distinguishing number assigned to the cardholder, include a recent photograph of the cardholder, and include the following information:

(A) Full legal name;

(B) Address of residence;

(D) Date driving and identification card was issued;

(E) Gender identity;

(F) Height;

(G) Weight;

(H) Eye color; and

(I) Signature of person identified or facsimile thereof.

* The department shall allow all persons to designate ‘male’ or ‘female’ as their

gender identity, or ‘X’ in lieu of ‘male’ or ‘female,’ on an application for a driving card, even if such designation is different from the applicant’s gender identity listed on any identity documents submitted by the applicant. No documentation shall be required for such gender designation permitted under this paragraph.

It shall be a violation of law to discriminate against a person based upon application

for or denial, issuance, or possession of a driving card issued pursuant to this Code section.

A driving card issued pursuant to this Code section shall not be used as evidence of the holder’s citizenship or immigration status and shall not be used as a basis for a criminal investigation, arrest, or detention in any instance when a person with a driver’s license not issued under this Code section would not be criminally investigated, arrested, or detained.

(f) Any portion of any record retained by the department relating to an application for a driving card that contains a photographic image or identifies the social security number, telephone number, place of birth, country of origin, place of employment, address, school or educational institution attended, source of income, status as a recipient of public benefits, customer identification number associated with a public utilities account, or medical or disability related information shall not be a public record, shall be exempt from disclosure under the provisions of Article 4 of Chapter 18 of Title 50, and shall not be disclosed except to the person who is the subject of the record, where otherwise expressly required under 49 U.S.C.S. Section 30305, or where necessary to comply with a lawful court order or judicial warrant by a federal court of competent jurisdiction.

Any person whose driving card has been suspended or revoked or who has been

refused a driving card by the department may make a request in writing for a hearing to be provided by the department. Such hearing shall be provided by the department within 30 days after the receipt of such request and shall follow the procedures required by Such driving card shall be identical in appearance to a driver’s license, permit, or identification card issued by the department in compliance with the federal Real ID Act, H.R. 1268, P.L. 109-13, with the exception that:

A) The front of the driving card shall bear the words ‘Federal Limits Apply’ in the place of a gold star; and

(B) The image of the State of Georgia on the front of the driving card shall be red instead of green.

____-

Notes:

Lum Law Group http://www.lumlawgroup.com/what-is-a-form-220b-order-of-supervision/ – The form 220b is an “Order of Supervision.”

To be “under an order of supervision” is similar to being “on parole” in that the alien who receives it is “charged” with something (usually a crime, such as “unlawful presence”) and “ordered” to obey certain orders.

Form 220b is for aliens who are in custody or have been ordered removed by an immigration judge during their removal proceedings.

Center for Immigration Studies

DREAMers’ are just the bait; “citizenship for all 11 million, or however many” illegal aliens there are here is the hoo

By Andrew R. Arthur on November 17, 2022

On November 16, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) held a press conference in front of the Capitol in which he called for amnesty for “DREAMers”, aliens brought illegally to the United States as children. As he did so, however, he pulled back the curtain on his end game – to “get a path to citizenship for all 11 million, or however many undocumented, there are here”. The DREAMers are the bait, while a full and total amnesty is the hook.

DREAMers, In Brief. Amnesty legislation for aliens who arrived in their youth has a long, but not particularly successful pedigree. Here’s a brief recap.

In August 2001, then-Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) introduced a bipartisan “DREAM Act”, which included 18 cosponsors. That bill would have granted amnesty to aliens unlawfully present for five years who entered under the age of 21, and who met certain work and educational requirements.

The timing of that bill could not have been worse, because less than six weeks later, the September 11 attacks showed how foolhardy such blanket amnesties were. Nonetheless, similar “DREAM Acts” were subsequently introduced in later Congresses.

One bears special note. In March 2009, Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) offered up the “DREAM Act of 2009” during the 111th Congress.

At that time, Barack Obama was president, Democrats held an overwhelming majority in the House, and from September 24, 2009 (when Democrat Paul Kirk was appointed to fill the seat of the late Democratic Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy) through February 4, 2010 (when Republican Scott Brown was elected to fill Kennedy’s seat), Democrats held a filibuster-proof majority of 60 seats in the Senate.

Obama’s fellow Democrats could have passed any bill they wanted – including and in particular the DREAM Act of 2009 – without any Republican votes at all. But that bill went nowhere. Cosponsor and then-Senate Judiciary Chairman Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) did not even bring it up for a vote in committee.

That said, two Republican senators – Mel Martinez (R-Fla.) and Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) – were cosponsors of the DREAM Act of 2009, so they probably would have blocked a filibuster even during the months Democrats only controlled a measly 59 seats in the upper chamber.

Obama blamed Republicans for the failure to pass a DREAM Act, but the fault really lies with him and congressional Democrats alone – DREAM Act legislation simply was not a priority for a party that held a hammerlock on the legislative process.

The popularity of legislation to “protect” the DACA population has been a key talking point for years (I was the punching boy for Democrats at a House hearing on the issue in March 2019), but let’s face it – if it really were all that popular, it would have been a shoo-in in the 111th Congress.

DACA. The failure of DREAM Act legislation led to a program called “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals” or DACA. It grants quasi-legal status to aliens who entered the United States while under the age of 16 before June 15, 2007, who are currently under the age of 41, who meet certain educational standards, and have not been convicted of certain crimes.

DACA was not created by Congress, or even by executive order or executive action (for what that is worth). It’s the product of a memo issued by then-DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano on June 15, 2012. In my considered legal opinion, Napolitano lacked the authority to create DACA (the Fifth Circuit ruled in October that the program is unlawful, but the Supreme Court has yet to weigh in), but in any event, it sets a bad precedent.

Want proof? Here’s what the editorial board of the Washington Post had to say when President Obama was considering expanding DACA to include parents of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents in 2014:

The president should think twice. Some of the same Democrats and pro-immigrant advocates urging him to protect millions of undocumented immigrants from deportation would be outraged if a Republican president took a similarly selective approach to enforcing the laws — say, those that guarantee voting rights or prohibit employment discrimination.

Obama ignored the Post editorial board and created something called Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA). DAPA proved to be a bridge too far for Texas and several other states, who successfully sued to block its implementation.

Despite all of this, DACA continues, and the Biden administration recently issued a new rule, effective October 31, “to preserve and fortify” the decade-old program.

A Sympathetic Population. The DACA population is admittedly sympathetic. The vast majority of the approximately 650,000 current DACA beneficiaries were removable a decade ago, but in the intervening years they have been living in a quasi-legal status thanks to some questionable administrative actions.

Even President Trump, in his 2018 State of the Union address, offered up a plan to legalize not just DACA recipients but also a total of 1.8 million “DACA-eligible” aliens – more or less the same individuals covered by the DREAM Act…. please read the rest here at the CIS website.