Republicans Implement an Discriminatory Drivers License Policy

The decision to refuse non-residents and non-citizens a driver’s license seems un-American. Americans have enjoyed a long history of vehicular travel. The ability to move around the country and live anywhere we want seems important. In other countries with states, identification is required in order to move from state to state. We take the opposite of this totalitarian policy for granted in the United States. Now, the country seems to be reverting back to the Articles of Confederation when every state was on its own and statehood could be compared to nationality.

This policy can be used for some rather devious purposes such as the direct discrimination of foreign students who are here legally. The license has become a means of identification that police often use even when they have no right under the Fourth Amendment. Most people just hand their licenses over because they do not think they have anything to hide or they believe they have an obligation. I can imagine a situation where a foreign student or a visitor may feel threatened by handing over their foreign license. It seems like a clear way to separate individuals for discrimination and considering these “imperatives of national security” I am afraid of the behavior police officers can engage in with this new policy.

Additionally, there are other uses for a license that could unfairly restrain visitors to Michigan or individuals who have no desire to apply for a license. Airlines are making it more difficult to travel within the country without a license. Voters in Michigan are now required to present a license. Simple business transactions such as the use of credit cards, banking, or cashing a check require a license. This policy makes all of these activities unfairly burdensome.

Also, business has gone global. Global businesses depend on temporary international employees and this policy will not only burden the employees, but the businesses as well. If Michigan wants to compete in a global economy, this fetish for security is going to be hard to reconcile. Businesses want as little regulation as possible in many instances. This policy only makes their jobs more difficult in merging their international employees together with domestics and American life. The Republicans have just found another way to lose jobs in the name of security. Yet, who honestly believes they are secure in an economy this troubled?

If security is the only concern justifying these intrusions, then it is important to remind ourselves that some of the hijackers on 9/11 were in this country as legal residents. For those who were not legal residents, passports and licenses were forged. Terri Lynn Land and Mike Cox are only punishing law abiding citizens for the terrorist actions that they have already been victim to. Maybe they should change their priorities. The State of Michigan should be more worried about forgeries than preventing people from attaining legitimate licenses and harassing visitors. There should be excitement over visitors, tourists, and international diversity because right now this state is suffering from a huge population decline. Michigan needs to be practical and not rhetorical. Michigan needs to discard this policy and discourage harassment.

-Keith

Michigan Primary Change

Unfortunately, an amendment has come up this week to change Michigan's caucus system to a primary system. Michigan has always utilized a caucus system, which allow political parties to stage elections to determine state Presidential candidate endorsements. Only Dems can vote in a Democratic caucus election and only Republicans could vote in a Republican Caucus election. All the funding came from the parties' pockets. A primary system would be subsidized by the state for parties. What this means is that Michigan tax payers will have to fund elections to determine Democrat and Republican endorsements for President of the United States. Elections can cost states up to $10 million to finance. With an unsteady economy and a broken budget, the state of Michigan has a lot of nerve picking up the cost for purely political reasons.

Proponents argue that a primary would open up the system to allow more people to vote. They argue that the party-run caucus system turns people away at the polls by staging polling sites in churches and union locals (oh no). However, these are determinations which should be left to political parties since these are the endorsements the parties' will be stuck with. The winning candidates in the caucus/primary would win the votes alloted for Michigan at the party conventions. This is a separate determination than one that elects a candidate to office. Parties have a right to exclude members of the other party and a right to set polling locations, which tend to be at union locals for Democrats and churches for Republicans. This is about figuring out who the party faithful believe should be the best candidate so Michigan can endorse a candidate that Democratic party members will be proud of.

Once again, everyone will have to pay for these decisions which should be made by the party infrastructure. An example of how this can be unfair is the 2004 Presidential race. In 2004, the Republican party did not have a primary. George W. Bush was their candidate. In the primary system the Michigan legislature is recommending, everyone would have to pay for the Democratic primary even if the Republicans decided not to have one. The same could happen if the Democratic Party decided to avoid a primary (which can and has happened). Then all Michigan Democrats would be forced to pay for a Republican primary. Some Democratic Presidential candidates are supporting this change including Hillary Clinton. The Edwards camp, however, is against it. At a time when we are struggling to survive here in Michigan, primary elections are not worth the price and the unfair consequences. Michigan, don't raise our taxes for political favors.

-Keith