@Ian Michael Gumby
"Or have Dan please tell us the differences in the IDs."
Sure - no problem. Given I can't post images directly and people may not believe an assertion made by me, please excuse the response being in the form of several links:
And here is a link showing the identifying marks on several States' licenses (as California isn't alone):
http://commdiginews.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/sample-dl-cards.jpg
Do you know why they have these identifying marks that distinguish that these licenses are not to be used as 'real ID'. As hinted in one of the links above, it's because it's part of Federal law that they must:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/6/37.71
Will a doorman at a club know the difference? Maybe not, but will airline staff? Will the Secretary of State? You bloody bet. And you can be sure that the DHS will because they are the ones who must authorise the design of these licenses and ensure that they meet the requirements. If you didn't read the text of the above link then the summary is that the restricted licenses must state "clearly" that they are restricted both on "the face" of the card and also in a "machine readable zone".
The point is not, however, whether the license card outwardly shows clear and obvious signs that it is a restricted license (and it most certainly does show it), it's the nature of the license itself and the procedure for its issuance.
The assertion from BillG, several posts ago, was that the Motor Voter law means that undocumented immigrants can register to vote just by getting their license under AB-60. That is the assertion that I am disputing - not because I am a liberal or lefty or because I want to pull the wool over anyone's eyes. I am disputing it because it's just not true.
The simple fact is that the license requirements are different, as is the application process. The forms and the processes used when applying for a 'full' license include the portions related to registration under the Motor Voter law; the forms and processes used when applying for a restricted, AB-60 license do not.
"There is no difference from the outward appearance of the DL because they didn't want the ID to be used as a way to identify the illegals"
You are partially correct. They don't want the license used to discriminate against or infer the immigration status of any individuals but, as you can see from the links above, they clearly didn't make the license outwardly identical because to do so would be a violation of Federal law. Instead, it is part of the AB-60 Act that it is illegal to discriminate against or infer immigration status of someone holding an AB-60 license. See S2 in the text of the Act, below:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140AB60
The truth is not "on BillG's side" and it is not on yours. Please read the above links.
Oh, and your claim about licenses in Chicago? Given the very clear text of the Federal Act linked above, its should be obvious that the licenses must be "clearly" identifiable as not being a 'real ID' because if they weren't, Illinois would be in violation of the Act. So let's see what an Illinois TVDL (Temporary Visitor Driver’s License) looks like compared to a 'normal' license:
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2013/10/29/undocumented-in-illinois-can-apply-for-drivers-license
I see what you're saying - yep, no difference there . . . I hope it is clear that claiming there is NO difference in these restricted licenses is just plain false.
Police not being able to use a restricted license to discriminate against the holder is not the same thing being able to use it to enroll to vote.
It doesn't take much to check your facts if you actually want to have an accurate understanding.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
