Then the question that should be asked is whether or not the DMV has been given authority by the state of Massachusetts to execute state law that would apply to this situation. If they have none and they claim to be executing federal laws then you can question if they have the jurisdiction to execute federal law.

I believe Illinois law does allow the DMV to require a person to present evidence of citizenship before giving you a license. According to this page you need a valid social security number as well as proving you are a resident of Illinois. It is rather hard for Illegal Aliens to legally fulfill the requirements. I assume Massachusetts is similar.

http://www.cyberdriveillinois.com/publications/rules_of_the_road/rr_chap01.html#license_requirements

Jeff, I don’t think I have met any liberal minded person that I would like to have a few drinks with more than you.

I’m hosting a card game this weekend. You’re welcome to join, if you stop calling me liberal just because I take amendments I, V, and X more seriously than you.

You have some friends you could introduce to the site?

No, I don’t discuss contentious issues with people I know. It’s a sad product of our electoral system. If someone shares your perspective, you end up patting each other on the back. If you don’t, the conversation devolves into useless attempts to “win” the “debate”.

So even when the DMV’s actions are backed up by specific authorization

And no, we don’t yet know to what degree the DMV’s actions are backed by the paragraph in question. They have not responded to the lawsuit yet, so we don’t know if this paragraph will be relevant to their defense.

So even when the DMV’s actions are backed up by specific authorization, the man attempts to wheedle his way out of the situation, claiming that there is no legal basis for the document.

Your comprehension skills are rusty, inrussetshadows.

I did not “claim there was no legal basis for the document.” I simply left open the possibility that one single paragraph might not have full legal weight behind it.

Furthermore, if I were trying to “wheedle” anything, I wouldn’t have even posted the paragraph in question. I very easily could have waited to see if you cared enough to find it.

Amazing. I wonder how such folks tie their shoes in the morning. Does my finger have the authority to infringe upon the rights of my shoelaces? How do my eyelets feel about that? Perhaps the workers who created my shoes have an overriding interest in the use of such shoes; perhaps Korean law has something to say about exported shoes, but I do not have the authority to determine the validity of Korean law as applied to my shoes vs. my laces.

Was that fun? Do you feel better? Have a nice weekend.

The Registrar further reserves the right to reject
an application if the Registrar or his/her designee has a good faith reason to believe, based on a review of the documents and the demeanor of the applicant or sponsor, that the applicant is not the individual the documents or the sponsor purports to identify or provide support for, as part of an application for a learner’s permit, driver’s license, or ID card.

NOTE: A “good faith reason” is one that is based on objective facts and observations that are unrelated to the applicant’s race, sex, creed, national origin, or English-speaking ability.

It remains to be seen whether or not there is a legal basis for this paragraph and if the DMV chooses to invoke it.

Jeff, you might want to read the Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles’ Drivers Manual.

Thanks. The manual lists a slew of documents which may be used to authenticate the individual and demonstrate residency. I saw nothing to indicate that workers were authorized to seek additional documentation if they still had doubts. In fact, page 21 goes on to say “No specific type of document on either list is required or preferred.”

Also, what’s this assertion that the DMV has no right to take an interest in whether a person is an illegal immigrant? Should city health inspectors be prevented from taking any notice of other violations of the law that they may notice?

I never asserted that they couldn’t take an interest. It would probably be within their rights to report their suspicions to a proper authority.

My assertion was they didn’t have grounds to deny a license based on suspicions of something outside their jurisdiction.