Oregon, which is one of many states that already has a tight budget, can't afford to pay for these requirements. In fact, Oregon just updated their drivers licenses and began issuing them in the new format for eight years.

Are you serious??? We can afford to have another group of Islamofacist working out of this state with Oregon identification. It was bad enough we had an Islamofacist working for Mayor Katz. How much can it really cost to have motor vehicles ask for additional identification? It will only cost more time in line and it is a price that we should pay. Our Oregon license is already not accepted in Nevada and the last time I was in Arizona, they were making a huge deal about how illegals were traveling up to Oregon to get a driver license. Since Portland has because terrorist tolerant, why do you feel the state has to degrade the value of our identification. I really don't want to have to use my passport within the boundaries of this country.

"Many are calling it a national ID card"?

"Many"? Nice link. The ACLU. Possibly the most extreme out of the mainstream organizations in the country.

Unfunded mandate?

What? You want the feds to pay the states to check legal status before issuing drivers licenses?

The ACLU would rather none of them check at all.

Most states already do this because it makes sense.

The ACLU would prefer they all stop doing this simple check.

There shouldn't be any marked increase in cost from instructing out Oregon DMV staff to require proof of legal status prior to issuing drivers licenses. In fact once the requirement is in place the stream of illegals flocking to states handing out the what many call "fake ID" will subside.

So what is it with you? The money or the requirement? Are you wanting continue to hand out fake ID and costly public services to illegal aliens no matter the numbers? Isn't your approach the real "unfunded mandate"? And enormously so?

If you want to continue the status quo no matter how big the problem grows perhaps you should lobby the legislature to pass a bill to divert our tax dollars directly to programs for illegal aliens.

That way we'll be openly funding what is currently hidden and unfunded and let everyone know which elected officials support this spending.

David, Illegally sneak into Mexico and try and get a Mexican driver's license, apply for Mexican public services benefits, then, come back and report to us how your stay in a Mexican jail was.

Hey yf!

• Enter Mexico illegally. Never mind immigration quotas, visas, international law, or any of that nonsense.

• Once there, demand that the local government provide free medical care for you and your entire family.

• Demand bilingual nurses and doctors.

• Demand free bilingual local government forms, bulletins, etc.

• Procreate abundantly.

• Deflect any criticism of this allegedly irresponsible reproductive behavior with, "It is a cultural United States thing. You would not understand, pal."

• Keep your American identity strong. Fly Old Glory from your rooftop, or proudly display it in your front window or on your car bumper.

• Speak only English at home and in public and insist that your children do likewise.

• Demand classes on American culture in the Mexican school system.

• Demand a local Mexican driver license. This will afford other legal rights and will go far to legitimize your unauthorized, illegal, presence in Mexico.

• Insist that local Mexican law enforcement teach English to all its officers.

Good luck! You'll be demanding for the rest of time or soon dead. Because it will never happen. It will not happen in Mexico or any other country in the world... Except right here... Land of the naive.

See it always starts with beign afraid of terrorists and always ends with hating Mexicans. It's like this amazing bigot script they all work from.

The immigrants are coming! The immigrants are coming!

Thank God Lou Dobbs can stir up the resentment every night to keep the fever high.

While I am opposed to any bilingual requirements, I'm wondering where the Pro-Life people sit with this "procreate abundantly" threat?

Their being Mexican does not make me so.

See it always starts with a liberal pretending to be mainstream and always ends with the rejection of any challenge or critisism.

It's like this amazing crticism deflection script they all work from.

Just call people bigots then pretend you are the tollerant one.

Common sense immigration policy does not need fear of terrorism. There are plenty of reasons to have a strong policy. Just ask Mexico.

Knowing and befriending many Mexicans over many years, legal or otherwise, I'll speak for myself on whether I hate them.

Have you ever been to Mexico? Do you know what it takes to get in?

I am about to return to Cabo and will need rock solid ID to get in and out.

Well, I'm not sure that this bill is a great idea, and I am sure that the bill won't do much if anything to curb terrorism. However, based on the latest text of the bill (as referred to the Senate) there are a couple of corrections to what was posted.

First, the states would have 3 years, not 2 years, to implement the provisions of the act.

Second, the Secretary of Homeland Security is explicitly authorized to make grants to states in order to comply with the minimum standards of the act. In other words, it's not necessarily an "unfunded mandate" (though, to be fair, states are not guaranteed grants either).

Now, not a correction but a comment -- the act establishes that non-compliant driver licenses will not be accepted for federal purposes. The act itself (as far as I can tell) does not say that non-compliance will directly result in the loss of other federal transportation funds. I'm not sure if that's what the author meant to say, or if the implication was rather that if Oregon refuses to comply the political price would be trouble with the USDOT (which might be true).

Is this an erosion of states' rights? I dunno. It seems to me that the federal government setting a standard for what it considers to be an acceptable form of ID for federal purposes is reasonable. If Oregon doesn't comply, that doesn't mean that Oregonians can't get on airplanes or enter federal buildings, and it certainly doesn't mean that Oregonians can't drive. It simply means that you can't use your ODL as identification for federal purposes. I'm sure that a passport (for example) would be accepted as an alternate form of ID in any situation where the ODL would normally suffice.

Now, as I said I don't think this would be at all valuable in stopping terrorism (which, after all, is supposed to be the primary goal of Homeland Security, right?) However, as the popular title of the bill denotes ("Immigrant Security Standards bill") this is really more about setting federal standards in the debate over requiring legal residency status to obtain driver licenses that is currently playing out in the South and West. Thus, how you feel about undocumented aliens getting driver licenses will likely have a big impact on how you feel about this bill.

I for one believe it is possible to be opposed to those who enter and remain in the country illegally receiving benefits from the state, while not being "anti-immigrant" (or, for that matter, a bigot). I happen to think that it's reasonable to not give a driver license to an illegal alien, whether that person happens to hail from Mexico or Canada or Timbuktu. The point is not to fear or hate the Mexicans (though some certainly do, unfortunately), the point is to not reward illegal behavior.

David, I liked your post. However when you said

"The point is not to fear or hate the Mexicans (though some certainly do, unfortunately)",

I believe it is important to recognize that the "some" are few and far between, are not making policy, posting on this blog, or numbering in any significant or mentionable amounts. The bigot catch basin some choose to throw all who object to the rampant and costly illegal immigration serves only as an avoidance of reality tool this short thread has so far demonstrated.

My biggest concern about this bill is the development of a nationalized database filled with identity information. Given the rise of identity theft and the potential for misuse of such a database I can't see supporting such a move. In fact - I believe any such database would constitute and infringement on my 4th amendment rights (The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures)...Mexicans and immigranta aside.

As Benjamin Franklin said - those who sacrifice freedom for security end up with neither (or something like that)

Hey annoyedatbigots!

See it always starts with beign afraid of terrorists and always ends with hating Mexicans. It's like this amazing bigot script they all work from.
Oh, we aren't supposed to be afraid of terrorist? That's a new one. Where do any of the previous comments direct you think they force an outcome of hating Mexicans? Please show me. I don't hate Mexicans or any South Americans. I hate law breakers. Am I to love the law breakers who are stealing taxes that should be going to help all legal residents of this country??? Please show me the bigot script you are writing about. Is it the same as your stupidity script???

yf writes:

It will not happen in Mexico or any other country in the world... Except right here... Land of the naive.

I just have to know: yf, why do you hate America?

Hey yf!

Common sense immigration policy does not need fear of terrorism.
Thank's, I needed a good laugh. I guess those 50,000 guest from the middle East within a year after 9/11/2001 is nothing to fear about.

Bert, That was Andy who wrote that and you appear to have deliberatly missed his point.

Andy, I am all with you on terrorism. I was only noting that the need for sound immigration policy is based upon many objectives in ADDITION to fighting terrorism.

yf:

You're right; it was Andy. I owe you an oppolgy. Your posts are coherent, even if I disagree. His posts are rambling vitriol against America.

I don't think I missed his point. His point seems to be that America is stupid and naive. I'm all for constructive criticism of our government -- it's necessary for democracy to work -- but name calling offends me.

If you think my country, the U.S.A, is doing something wrong, talk about it like an adult. Referring to the U.S. as "the Land of the Naive" is juvenile and insults, not just to me, but all Americans.

I'm sorry that I fired off a response without thinking. Andy's post got my hackles up.

Anne, You say "So I'm missing the connection between requiring a federal ID and stemming terrorism -"

What federal ID? This is about DMV checking legal status prior to issuing drivers licenses like many states already do.

Are those states "papers please" states?

The only "paper's please" aspect is the widespread current system of showing drivers licenses to board airlines etc.

Because of the widesrpread use of drivers licenses as ID in this country it is imperative that they be legitimate and not serve as fake ID for any purposes.

The 911 terrorists, and countless illegal alien felons used drivers licenses for all sorts of things.

Let's face it. When someone shows a drivers license it is accepted by most as proof of legality.

That's the way it is. So why not make sure that it really means that.

I just translated the a book from Spanish that fell out of a car driven by an illegal immigrant. It's titled "To Serve Gringos" and it's a cookbook!!!

"do you hate Mexicans, or Middle Easterners, or just all brown-skinned people? Quit your screaming, it's not helping your cause."

But insinuations of racism or bigotry help yours?

As far as "illegal aliens (a.k.a the people who get your food out of the field, clean up after you in the office, and take the jobs that you think you're too good for)" that's the usual Republican line, isn't it?

Though clearly, the most honest and most efficacious way to stop illegal immigration would be at the level and through the gates of employment. Were there a political will to do so, in line with vast majority public opinion it should be done.

Public will is thwarted, it seems, by Republicans who insinuate the labor is not otherwise available and needn't be fully paid, and Democrats who insinuate those in opposition are bigots or racists.

Hey Anne!

So Andy, do you hate Mexicans, or Middle Easterners, or just all brown-skinned people? Quit your screaming, it's not helping your cause.
Wow Anne, you must have incredible powers that allow you to read just a few sentences from someone and make such incredible judgements. I'm willing to bet I have just as many 'brown-skinned' friends as you do, unless you happen to be a white racist, in which case I would have more. If you want to make an argument of my statements, attack them directly, not me personally. It only belittles you.

Anne:

[N]obody is talking about reducing the demand for cheap illegal labor.

I think you're on to something there. Depending on whether the concern is the "cheap" or the "illegal" part, there are a couple of ways to do this. We could make the cost of that illegal labor go up dramatically to the point where it's not worth using in the first place.

That means increased enforcement of existing labor laws, and (possibly) increased penalties for those who break those laws.

Or, alternatively, lower the cost of legal labor to reduce the economic incentive to use illegal laborers. To whatever extent we have a problem with illegal, sub-minimum-wage workers in this country (I'm not sure what that extent is), it's an obvious symptom of a minimum wage set too high. But we've had that argument in several places here already, so let's put that aside for now.   ;-)

The demand for cheaper labor (for a given level of productivity) will always be with us, it's how the system works. Lower costs = more profits. The question is one of supply. We have an artificial limit on the labor market (minimum wage) which makes the legal supply of cheaper labor non-existent; illegal (cheaper) labor is therefore more attractive to use, and there is an adequate supply of that cheaper labor. However, if the penalties for using illegal labor were more costly than just paying the minimum wage in the first place, and (very important point) there was a credible threat that offenders would be caught, then that "cheaper labor" suddenly isn't so cheap, and the supply of truly "cheaper" illegal labor dries up. This would be a far more effective way to influence supply than any doomed efforts to physically prevent illegal aliens from entering the country.

I don't know what the penalties are like right now, but I'd suggest, just for starters, that any employer who pays an employee (documented or otherwise) less than the legal requirement, when caught, must first of course pay the employee the difference, and second pay the government triple the difference in punitive damages (to go towards funding for future enforcement). The point being, an employer who was caught trying to save money this way would end up actually losing three times the amount they were trying to save. Any business person on the planet would realize very quickly that it's better to just pay the minimum requirement in the first place -- if there was a good chance they'd be caught otherwise. In fact, mathematically speaking, you'd only have to perceive a better than 25% chance of being caught (under the above proposal) to make it worth following the law in the first place.

Of course, it all comes back to money and priorities, since greater enforcement efforts would cost more to provide, presumably at the expense of some other government program. No easy answers there...

I know a person who works in a nursery. INS shows up and they find out almost all of their workers are illegal. Next day they all returned to work with new names and social security numbers. The nursery was advised by their attorney to accept the documents and give them back their jobs. For their part, the nursery pays everyone minimum wage.

So, realistically, what kind of game is being played here? Removing this particular nursery from the equation and considering only those low-balling US workers, is the INS ineffectual because of the courts, activist judges, or slippery attorneys weedling ways to prevent their client from penalties? I say it's none of the above.

The employers reap these rewards consciously paying reduced wages and being lauded for making a bigger profit. Anyone who challenges their right to hire at whatever wage a worker will accept insults the free market and their RIGHT to make a profit. For the greatest exploiters of illegal migrant worker's with the most sytematic practices and history of abuse, consult the stock market?

T.A. -- it's not up to you to comply, and there's not going to be a new "National ID Card". Your state issues a form of ID that either does or does not meet the federal standard.

By the way, the bill that I referenced earlier (HR 418) was the proposal sponsored by Representative Sensenbrenner (and cosponsored by 140 others, including our own Greg Walden); however, the most recent appropriations bill for Iraq (and about a thousand other things -- HR 1268) seems to have had this portion "struck out" as near as I can tell. Reviewing a history of the bill summaries, it appears that the provisions of HR 418 were incorporated into HR 1268 upon leaving the House, but were not in the bill when reported to the Senate.

So what's the actual status of this deal, anyhow? Looks to me like it may still be stuck in committee in the Senate as HR 418?

I was a poor kid dropping out of the foster system into the real world trying to get a foothold; I didn't understand yet how things worked but even to a seasoned cultured pro I would say getting a Drivers License (or ID which is what I started out with) is NOT EASY. Very very hard. And I was forced to do underground nontaxed work until I got it, just to feed myself.

Mind you, this was 10 years ago, but I still don't know where you came up with the idea that getting an Identification Card in the state is easy; it's not at all.

I know a person who works in a nursery. INS shows up and they find out almost all of their workers are illegal. Next day they all returned to work with new names and social security numbers. The nursery was advised by their attorney to accept the documents and give them back their jobs. For their part, the nursery pays everyone minimum wage.

Gregor's right. The current immigration system is a joke. Immigration, wouldn't it be better if we as a people, removed our immigration quotas, relaxed the bureaucratic immigration laws and made legal immigration more accessible. Wouldn't that allow these immigrants to enter the country legally, hereby allowing them to participate more fully. They would not only be afforded the protections under the law, but also provide the means(pay taxes) to participate. They could get adequate medical care, driver's licenses, buy a house or send their children to schools. That is how immigration should be working.

Instead, we have a system which preys upon the weak and ensures they live in fear. As noted above in italics.

Once immigration reform is in place, we can secure our borders to keep the real bad guys out. Because of illegal immigration, there is a market for social security cards and driver's licenses which can be used by the bad guys commit acts of terrorism. Allowing illegal aliens sanctuary, under the current immigration system, has an unintended consequence of harboring fugitives and possible terrorists.

Now, a national ID card won't fix this. That is the wrong answer. Immigration reform is the answer. But, if we don't follow the rule of law, what good is reform.

Additionally, we should not fear immigration. It wasn't long ago that my grandparents spoke German everywhere. The local paper in Cedar Country, NE was written in German until the mid-fifties. The later generations, like the current situation, always learns that getting ahead requires a good education and that requires knowledge of the English Language. It is a self-repeating cycle and we should learn the lessons of the past.

A perfect solution to illegal immigration from Mexico. How about we invade Mexico and make it the 51st state? No more illegals, problem solved!!!

Welcome to the PSA, folks. The Police State of America has been born and you are part of it. These tactics are identical to the ones Hitler used to gain control of most of the world and slaughter millions of sheep who allowed themselves to be herded. Are you going to allow yourself to be herded?

Peaceful opposition should be used first. Rallies must be held outside every state senator, representative and governor’s house, demanding day and night that they obey the oath they swore to when they took office. But if they refuse to listen to reason, we will have to do what we, as citizens have to do.

This is one of those issues that are worth starting a war over. When this act goes into place, pick up your guns and do the right thing. We have done it before and we can do it again. We are stronger now. There are more of us. We are better equipped.

We will win. Because we are right. Because we are true. Because we are Americans and we love our country and we will defend it from our rouge regime of a government.

First of all I didn't add the link to the story. That was added by Kari. The site that I found information on is http://www.downsizedc.org/index.shtml

Second, I don't think this is really about illegal aliens from Mexico as much as it is about terrorism.

Third, yes there would be grants from Homeland Security, but no guarentee on what money would be available. Oregon would have to jockey for money with every other state. You figure the odds we'd actually get the money to cover the costs.

I believe this is a form of national ID (or moving very close to it). Yes, call me parnoid, but someone has to point out where we are sitting on the field in terms of these issues. If not, then we become a bunch of braindead twits doing whatever the government wants us to do. Trust me, it won't happen while I'm alive.

Thanks for correcting me on those two issues David. I was aware of the grants, but as I said above nothing is guarnteed. I'm glad to hear it might be stuck in committee.

One of my worries was, since it was stuck to the funding in Iraq, that Republicans would belittle anyone who choose to vote no possibly becuase of this amendment. Thus, instead of getting talked about in detail, it gets a free pass through Congress and on to the Presidents desk.

I believe this is a vaild concern. We are seeing all kinds of legislation being stuck to other bills as amendments to get them through quietly. How long will it be before we wake up and realize this is happening?

As to the unfunded mandate, I have a BIG problem with that. Our budget in Oregon is already strapped. We can't raise taxes, because Republican's would have a cow. Anyone who says this won't cost money to the state is naive.

It is very possible that the DMV could have to upgrade their computer systems or other technology used to print the licences to make them comply with the new law.

Also, if you have all the people of Oregon getting new licenses, it is possible that DMV will have to increase staffing at times to accomodate the extra work. Who is going to pay for that? I very much doubt there is money in the next budget cycle that our legislature is working on right now.

I wanted to mention this in a seperate post. Yet another concern would be those who are living outside the US.

Currently, I am living in South Korea and teaching English. When I went home in December and Janurary, I renewed my license as it was going to expire in April.

There are many people that live overseas for legitimate reasons (ie: working, miliary, NGO or other US government business). How would this bill affect those people?

If I wasn't able to get home to renew my license before it took effect would I be able to board a plane?

Most likely I'd get to SF (which is where I usually fly to). But if I had to board a plane inside the US, I would probably be turned away.

This is just one of those related things people don't even think about.

David,

First off, you don't need a valid drivers license to board an airplane. You never have. You need a valid form of picture ID. If you're in Korea now I presume you have your passport with you? In that case, you'd just use your passport instead of the driver license. I think it's fair to assume that people outside the country for extended periods of time have passports in their possession while traveling. Also, foreign nationals traveling within the US obviously don't have valid state driver licenses, so they must use their passports as picture ID.

I did a bit more research on the inclusion in the appropriations bill. There were a few amendments in the Senate that addressed this issue.

SA 372 (passed 61-38) expressed the "Sense of the Senate" that immigration reform should be addressed but not within the context of the appropriations bill. In particular:

Congress should not delay the enactment of critical appropriations necessary to ensure the well-being of the men and women of the United States Armed Forces fighting in Iraq and elsewhere around the world, by attempting to conduct a debate about immigration reform while the supplemental appropriations bill is pending on the floor of the United States Senate.

SA 358 expressed the Sense of the Senate that the relevant portions should not be included by the Senate conferees, and that the appropriate venue for consideration was the Judiciary committee. This amendment was tabled.

SA 395 expressed the Sense of the Senate that the text of the Real ID Act of 2005 (to which I earlier referred) should not be included in the conference report. The amendment was ruled non-germane.

Those last two were offered by Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, and she was a cosponsor of SA 372; which leads me to believe that the dispute anyhow is more about immigration than terrorism.

I did find the Senate press release about the results of the joint conference, which indicates that most of the Real ID Act of 2005 was included (as it had been in the House version). So at any rate, it looks like these ID provisions are part of the bill after all.

Now the bill has to be passed in both the House and the Senate. And you're right, anybody who votes against the bill because of these measures will get beaten up soundly in 2006 for "failing to support the troops". It sucks, big time.

One interesting point on the state grants -- the bill states: "There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary for each of the fiscal years 2005 through 2009 such sums as may be necessary to carry out this title."

Sounds like carte blanche to me, but I wonder how that fits into the overall budget for Homeland Security? You're right to be concerned about funding overall, I think, but it also sounds like the bill at least intends for the feds to pick up a substantial portion of the cost. Actual mileage may vary...

David,

That's interesting information. I guess at this point it is a wait and see kind of a thing.

As I said previously, I'd be much more open to this, if it was debated openly, rather then done in the secrative way (putting into an approprations bill) then is happening. Things like this should be openly debated.

Glasnost is for Russians, nor Republicans. They hide this because the gun nuts would be livid if they had ten minutes to talk about this. What is the sense of registering your person but not your guns. Well, I guess it goes with the argument, guns don't kill people, people kill people...register the people.

The idea that these terrorists are not going to find away around a National ID is ridiculous. Why don't we just outlaw terrorism and that would stop it. This is one more step down the road of fascism. Trying to make excuses for it and generate trust and understanding of it is like putting lipstick on a pig. It amazes me how far some people will go to apologize for their party. This is not the land of the free if we're finding new ways to track our own people.

Mr. English,

The fact that you "didn't add the (ACLU) link to the story. That was added by Kari" is a little bothersome.

You do seem to just make things up.

"I believe this is a form of national ID (or moving very close to it)."

13 States do not require proof of legal status for drivers licenses.

That means all the rest do. If you can't demonstrate how having the 13 join the rest is this scary "National ID" then you have no point.

You have more than paranoia at work here.

You are not "pointing out where we are sitting on the field in terms of these issues" and the majority of States who are responsibly checking legal status are not filled with "a bunch of brain dead twits doing whatever the government wants us to do".

Exactly what are you pointing out?

You say "Trust me, it won't happen while I'm alive"???????

Trust you for what? What won't happen and what will you do?

You said, " We are seeing all kinds of legislation being stuck to other bills as amendments to get them through quietly. How long will it be before we wake up and realize this is happening?"

Were you just born yesterday? That has been standard operating procedure forever. Including the whole time the democrats controlled the house and the senate and is being done every day by Oregon legislators.

Then you proceed fabricating support for your "unfunded mandate" problem with suggestions every drivers license Oregon will need replacing, a new computer system upgrade will be needed and "anyone who says this won't cost money to the state is naive".

That is pure nonsense. The DMV requires documents for drivers licenses. They would simply be requiring better documentation. Once word got out either people would bring it in or not get a license, period. Just like all the other states where illegals flock from to get our drivers licenses then return.

It's just amazing how easily you make things up.

Then you claim "we can't raise taxes, because Republican's would have a cow". Republicans? How about voters? Like the 60% of voters who clobbered the Republican/Democrat M30. And the topic of illegal aliens getting drivers licences has been openly debated all over the place.

National ID is not the issue, money is not the issue, openly debating drivers licenses for illegal aliens is not issue and Republicans aren't the issue.

Can you find something real to point out?

Frankly I am a little stunned Kari has facilitated and not corrected your wholesale distortions.

The INS is ineffective because that's the way the federal and state governments [representing the interests of business] want it. The courts work with the laws as they exist.

While I won't accuse individuals of racism, there certainly is much racism at work in a system that desires the low wage, low benefit work of immigrants, but denies them rights because they are "illegal." Of course, this system is also anti-worker. It is a domestic version of the class warfare waged internationally by the WTO and current trade agreements. Wealth has often used racism to divide and throttle workers. Ending this will take both democracy and education in large doses.

Gregor writes:

Glasnost is for Russians, nor Republicans. They hide this because the gun nuts would be livid if they had ten minutes to talk about this. What is the sense of registering your person but not your guns.

the "Gun Nuts" have jumped on this as well. Rightly so.

The HighRoad BBS The FiringLine BBS

of course, calling these folks "Nuts" isn't the most productive example of the Democratic Party's open and accepting attitude, but whatever.

Important disclaimer: This info provided for informational purposes only. Do yourselves a favor and DON'T go trolling in their universe. You won't be happy with the results--they will start trolling here. non-stop. Take my advice: Read and digest.

apparently, I am slow...

it has passed the senate 100-0.

Congrats! We are safe now!

er...

yeah.

yf,

It's pretty easy to hide behind your initials and not stand up for something isn't it.

First of all, when I said "I believe this is a form of national ID (or moving very close to it)" it was a stated opinion and nothing more. I am entitled to my opinion whether you like it or not.

If thirteen other state don't require proof of status for a drivers license, that's their problem not Oregon's. Imposing new regulations COULD (before you jump on me again, go look the definition of that word up) require anything from up grades in systems to more staffing in motor vehicle departments.

I think you are very naive to think this won't cost Oregon a dime. If you want to let the federal government dictate how states do business, fine. As I said, "trust me it won't happen while I'm alive." I will stand up and fight against the government passing such legislation. If you have a problem with it, tough!

If you want to go whine and snivle about my post because you disagree, be my guest.

Mr. English, your say to me "If you want to go whine and snivle about my post because you disagree, be my guest."

That's cute but absurd as your points. Points which resemble whining ans niveling far more than mine.

Your opinion is of course your opinion. Have at it. Express it all you want. But forget about not getting any flack for it when it is baseless fabrication, false speculation and worthy of the treatment I gave it.

I notice you didn't have anything to say about your more absurd notion that we are only now "seeing all kinds of legislation being stuck to other bills".

Talk about naive.

You must be very young not to know such tactics are old news.