protecting your passport and certificate

sarrebal said:
It's interesting. I think the States can decide for themselves, as long as they follow the Constitution (and therefore without discriminating among US citizens).
Click to expand...
Presumably, if they decided not to accept US passports as proof of citizenship at all then they would require either a US birth certificate or the like or a naturalization certificate. This would mean that people who naturalized as minors through their parents and don't have naturalization certificates would need to spend $460 getting one. I'm sure any decent court would view this financial discrimination against a subset of citizens as unconstitutional too.
 
sarrebal said:
The wealthy ALREADY pay more, they pay for most of it. And remember, you should know if you ever opened any history book, governments (left, right, center, any government) are inefficient. The least things they manage, the better it is.
Click to expand...

And I suggest you open any news website and see what those "rich and wealthy" who "pay for everything" did with the financial industry. They did such a bang-up job that we are having the worst recession since 1929. Scale down the neoconservative rhetoric please.
 
Vorpal said:
That'd be interesting to see. The Federal government declares the passport to be the "ultimate" proof of citizenship, but can they force various agencies to accept it as proof?
Click to expand...

A court can, but not the federal government unless we're talking about one of its own agencies.
 
dms1 said:
Presumably, if they decided not to accept US passports as proof of citizenship at all then they would require either a US birth certificate or the like or a naturalization certificate. This would mean that people who naturalized as minors through their parents and don't have naturalization certificates would need to spend $460 getting one. I'm sure any decent court would view this financial discrimination against a subset of citizens as unconstitutional too.
Click to expand...
But they are already financially discriminating against those who are eligible for the certificate of citizenship but did not file N-600 yet.

By the way, on the DPS website, they omitted the N-550 altogether, so according to the DPS office, people like us - who naturalised in the USA - would not be eligible for the Texas DL at all :D This is one of the many reasons I would never accept to move to TX.
 
Mr Vertigo said:
And I suggest you open any news website and see what those "rich and wealthy" who "pay for everything" did with the financial industry. They did such a bang-up job that we are having the worst recession since 1929. Scale down the neoconservative rhetoric please.
Click to expand...

I'm very much NOT a neocon. It's funny to see how anybody who doesn't agree with the current fiscal policy is a neocon...
By the way, try to find out who pushed Freddie and Fannie to guarantee mortgages to pretty much everybody in the early 90s...
By the way "rich and wealthy" doesn't mean Wall Street people.
It means pretty much half of the country. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
König said:
By the way, on the DPS website, they omitted the N-550 altogether, so according to the DPS office, people like us - who naturalised in the USA - would not be eligible for the Texas DL at all :D This is one of the many reasons I would never accept to move to TX.
Click to expand...

The DPS site does list it as primary evidence on its site:

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/driver_licensing_control/identificationrequirements.htm

But the rule omits the N-550..It appears to be a typo rather than a deliberate attempt to stop naturalized citizens from obtaining a DL in Texas.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/driver_licensing_control/LawfulStatusDLID.htm
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top