I had figured Q4 (Driver's licenses for undocumented) would be way more successful than it was. I thought it would end up closer to 60%+ support, but the results are ten points lower than Healey.
As it stands now:
Yes: 54%
No: 47%
Comments
Proof-Variation7005 t1_ivpabva wrote
That can hurt ballot questions. There's also the "i aint readin all that" factor with ballot questions that probably favors no votes or people leaving the question blank
It's also an issue that voters can be just have a weird misconception about, whether it's failing to realize the existing law or thinking this somehow encourages illegal immigration or will lead to more "bad drivers" on the road or whatever. It's one of those issues where people who aren't fully in the "BUILD THE WALL" level of disdain for immigrants can skewer more right wing than you'd expect
blacklassie t1_ivp86d2 wrote
I agree the yes/no was counterintuitive and it’s very plausible that skewed the numbers a little.
chemgeek87 t1_ivpasoz wrote
I think this is a part of it. I worked the election and all of the ballots I spoiled were for people that misfilled their choice for question 4.
boston_homo t1_ivt998l wrote
I voted no on 4 but was happy with the outcome so I definitely misread the question.
[deleted] t1_ivpedcm wrote
[deleted]
jehnnybeth t1_ivqyipc wrote
You want more people driving illegally (rather than studying for and passing a road test to acquire a license), making the roads less safe for other drivers and pedestrians? Why?
[deleted] t1_ivr22xg wrote
[deleted]
jehnnybeth t1_ivr2uv7 wrote
I hate to break it to you, but it sounds like you voted incorrectly because you misunderstood the wording. The yes vote was to keep the law, the no vote was to repeal. Luckily it passed anyway!
Edit: Here's a source
[deleted] t1_ivra711 wrote
[deleted]
Old_Travel8423 t1_ivs2xbk wrote
It was worded poorly, and the choices were labeled confusingly. It was ok for me because I spend most of my work day reading contracts, but they shouldnt expect voters to parse that word salad.
[deleted] t1_ivr9ltc wrote
[deleted]
ns9 t1_ivpzr01 wrote
why no?
defariasdev t1_ivq5zc8 wrote
Because he's a jerk
soupfeminazi t1_ivqhckk wrote
The right-wingers are not sending their best
peteysweetusername t1_ivpe0py wrote
I’m not surprised. What’s surprising to me is question 1 and question 4 are close calls and previously received affirmative votes from the legislature. Question 2 has 3:1 support and the legislature didn’t even vote for it. To me it shows the lobbyists’ power in the state
KayakerMel t1_ivpkhij wrote
Same. Yes on 1 and 4 had much bigger campaign coalitions. I was really worried that Yes on 2 would falter.
marshmallowhug t1_ivpo0p3 wrote
I told all my friends to ask their dentists what they thought. I guess people must like or trust their dentists (who seemed to universally be for 2).
Sheol t1_ivpq1vs wrote
My dentist sent me an email! They have never emailed me anything other than appointment reminders.
gacdeuce t1_ivpw6o2 wrote
I drove around my town: all dentists said yes on 2. I read the disclosures on the “no on 2” fliers: it was insurance company lobbies. Easy choice to vote yes on 2.
WinsingtonIII t1_ivq519z wrote
TBF, question 2 was also much less controversial than 1 or 4, whether someone agrees with all three or not.
Anything to do with taxation or immigration can be a bit of a lightning rod. Some regulation for dental insurance is by comparison not particularly contentious, whether the legislature has discussed it or not.
peteysweetusername t1_ivq6dsu wrote
What I meant was more of a take on the legislature. These ballot votes show where the public at large thinks and they overwhelmingly supported question 2. In my book, with that kind of support, the legislature should have easily passed this legislation rather than having to collect tens of thousands of signatures. They did vote to pass questions that ultimately lot are being decided on a 55/45 margin. The difference to me is obviously lobbyist influence
WinsingtonIII t1_ivq783e wrote
I see, that makes sense.
Though I think you could argue that perhaps question 2 wasn't raised by the legislature as it wasn't viewed as a huge deal by many people until it made the ballot. For instance, I am very in favor of question 2 since I work in health policy and feel strongly about the fact dental insurance is essentially a scam as it stands right now. But I can see how many people might rank questions 1 and 4 as being ultimately more impactful questions from a policy perspective.
In terms of what the legislature takes up, it's not just about margin of support, it's about how strongly people feel about the issue as well.
Markymarcouscous t1_ivqeybj wrote
Question 1 being close demonstrates how someone like Charlie baker can win and be popular as governor in MA
InfiniteState t1_ivq9sbi wrote
Things like question 1 have been proposed a number of times and always lost. People don’t like to vote for raising taxes, even if they’re not affected. It was always going to be an uphill battle and I’m honestly surprised it passed.
Even with the huge amount of money spent ($31m!) and support from the teachers union and all of the Dem leaders (Warren, Healey, Wu, …) it was still really close.
theliontamer37 t1_ivp6vmw wrote
I thought it was surprising due to the commercials for it. Having law enforcement commercials endorsing Yes was such a smart idea.
737900ER OP t1_ivp71tj wrote
Yeah, I don't think I saw a single "No on 4" ad.
theliontamer37 t1_ivp7ekl wrote
Because there’s nothing they could say. They’re going to drive either way so why not make it legal.
oneMadRssn t1_ivpcne7 wrote
I hate that argument, and I don't think it's correct. It should be: "They’re going to drive either way so why not [force them to have car insurance so you're not screwed when they crash into you]."
Old_Travel8423 t1_ivs32eh wrote
Can’t get insurance without a license.
[deleted] t1_ivplgc5 wrote
[deleted]
Proof-Variation7005 t1_ivpaxaf wrote
Plus, who's even got the vested interest in the "no" result. There's nobody who really gains from a no vote. You can push for it on nationalism/fear of immigrants, I guess but most people who fund campaign ads are focused more on something that impacts them financially. Even when a politician weaponizes that kind of fear, it's just the attention grabber. The big money conservative donors cared way more about Trump getting that tax law than a wall.
bakingandengineering t1_ivqi0qu wrote
I was surprised to see a "No on 4" sign near my neighborhood. Seemed like a regular working class home. In my experience, a lot of the anti-license individuals are just racist.
itskaiquereis t1_ivtlm02 wrote
My neighbor was telling me that now all the illegals are going to vote cause they have legal identification to show. Clearly brains is something that lacks amongst those people.
pillbinge t1_ivpczvf wrote
That’s a dumb argument. People are going to commit all types of crime, big or small. We don’t legalize literally everything because of that.
Wtf_is_this1234 t1_ivpdpog wrote
To get a driver's license in Mexico, you need to provide proof of legal status. Let that sink in.
jamesland7 t1_ivpq9c7 wrote
and thats bad policy. We should do everything Mexico does?
sweatpantswarrior t1_ivprppa wrote
OK, and... ?
MoreGuitarPlease t1_ivpj3w1 wrote
We obviously need a better immigration and enforcement policy in the macroeconomic sense, but you’re less likely to be screwed in the microeconomic sense with this law in place.
But you’re right this is a bandaid that does nothing to solve the real issue.
bakgwailo t1_ivrp8bt wrote
> To get a driver's license in Mexico, you need to provide proof of legal status. Let that sink in.
Too bad most of our illegals here in Boston aren't from Mexico. Many are from Ireland though - maybe we need to build a wall...
ahecht t1_ivtzhbz wrote
I saw several No on 4 ads that blatantly lied by saying it would allow illegal immigrants to vote.
ebi-san t1_ivq464b wrote
certainly helped get marijuana legalized a few years ago.
iheartconcentrates t1_ivqs4yu wrote
The cops on the street don't want it. Just the unions.
Ms_Cats_Meow t1_ivpaq1o wrote
I'm disappointed it wasn't yes by a wider margin, but I'm not really surprised. Our conservatives, by and large, aren't the far-right kind but there are a good number of right-leaning and centrist voters, and many of our more liberal folks aren't necessarily super progressive.
oneMadRssn t1_ivpd6l3 wrote
This is it exactly. I think people have to keep in mind that it's pretty rare to see 70-30 blowouts in this state on anything. A 55-45 victory is a very solid win in MA. Hell, I think the 52-48 win on Q1 is pretty solid.
I'm actually far far more surprised the dental regulation one was a 70-30 blowout. I mean, I knew we all universally hate Delta Dental, but I didn't think we could get 70% of MA voters to agree on anything.
GreenPylons t1_ivq2ppa wrote
2018's Question 3 (trans protections) won a 70-30 blowout.
bakgwailo t1_ivrprll wrote
> I mean, I knew we all universally hate Delta Dental, but I didn't think we could get 70% of MA voters to agree on anything.
Kind of the brilliant part though - Delta Dental was basically the only entity seemingly running ads for the No vote. It would be like Comcast being the only opposition, and I bet it might even go 80-20 just be cause of that.
ConnorLovesCookies t1_ivpfyyl wrote
Its one of those things where you have to think a little deeper than surface level to understand why its a good idea and a lot of people just don’t. Call it the “Force undocumented peoples to get car insurance amendment” and it does much better.
RelationshipJust9556 t1_ivrec9c wrote
but it doesn't
737900ER OP t1_ivpe9l8 wrote
It seemed to me more like a classic New England pragmatism argument to me: "people are gonna do this anyway so we might as well legalize it and give these people access to the insurance market"
GreenPylons t1_ivq2jy5 wrote
Marijuana legalization in 2016 won on a mere 53.6-46 margin, so not too surprised about Question 4's margins.
dfd02186 t1_ivpkte2 wrote
I would suggest that this shows that our Conservatives are far-right. No on 4 is a xenophobic position. I read these results and see "MA isn't as progressive as we are painted."
rubicon83 t1_ivpq7go wrote
I'm a liberal and voted no on 4. I'm not xenophobic.
IntelligentCicada363 t1_ivpicse wrote
Its because drivers licenses are (incorrectly) assumed to be bona fide citizenship IDs, in large part because the US has no actual national ID.
GreenPylons t1_ivs0aic wrote
If you want a citizenship ID card you can get a passport card for $30. Good for 10-years, and counts as REAL ID.
Liqmadique t1_ivpmckd wrote
I know a lot of No on 4 folks. I'm not that surprised it was close even though I expected it to pass.
General reason always given is: "They're illegal, they shouldn't be here in the first place - don't give them an incentive to stay". I don't agree with that position, but that's the one I'm familiar with.
CerealandTrees t1_ivqcw1b wrote
“It will incentivize more of them to come”
DanieXJ t1_ivrmoxj wrote
And how many will get put on the voting rolls because the RMV is trash and it's now an auto thing for those getting a license. Delightful...
bakgwailo t1_ivrr4x1 wrote
Probably few or none, given that voter fraud is not an issue here in MA, nor is it in the country as a whole and other states have given undocumented immigrants licenses without having them also registered to vote. You realize we already give licenses to immigrants and permanent residents who also aren't eligible to vote, right?
ggtffhhhjhg t1_ivtvjws wrote
Voter fraud doesn’t really happen in the US and the stuns Desantos pulled in Florida after the state had cleared those people to vote doesn’t count. The overwhelming majority of people committing(trying) voter fraud in 2020 were republicans. The governor of VA got caught trying to vote under age and he tried again at a different polling station. A black woman that was told by here state she was free to vote was sentenced to 2-3 years in prison because the state f@cked up.
getjustin t1_ivpndob wrote
More surprised about question 1. Lots of temporarily embarrassed millionaires, I guess.
GreenPylons t1_ivpxrmh wrote
You can look at the rich liberal suburbs' (e.g. Newton, Wellesley) 1/4 splits.
getjustin t1_ivq79oz wrote
Still, only 1% of households make over a million. Either simping for the wealthy or a poor understanding of tax brackets.
hyperside89 t1_ivqmgh4 wrote
The handful of people I know who voted against it were less focused on the income part, and more on the impact on the sale of a small business or home. There are many more people in MA who don't make 1 million annually, but have the potential to have a home or business sale over 1 million in their lifetime.
Still outrageous, if your home or business nets you profit over a million you should rightly pay more tax, but just pointing out where some of the supporters may have come from.
repthe732 t1_ivqt0fr wrote
Just to clarify, it wouldn’t apply to all homes that sell for over $1 million. It would only apply to one’s that have capital gains over $1 million and then it would only apply to every dollar in capital gains after $1 million. I think there was a lot of misleading advertising around this leading up to the election
ahecht t1_ivtzuvy wrote
Gains of $1.5 million thanks to the homestead exemption.
DanieXJ t1_ivrmf5w wrote
So you work and work and work at your small business. You're not rich by any means. All the money goes back into the business. Then you want to retire. So you sell it for 4 million dollars so you can fucking retire. You don't have a cushy union pension, all you have is the blood sweat and money you've put into your restaurant or bed and breakfast or whatever.
Fucks to be you, you're "rich" and deserve to be screwed out of all your hard work and retirement by taxes. And.... it's a double screw because it's now in the fucking constitution you stupid yes on 1 idiots. God almighty the stupidness of this state.
j_allosaurus t1_ivt31at wrote
So let’s say you sell that business for a net $4mil and pay no other taxes except income/have no liabilities reducing your burden. Pre Q1, you’d pay flat 5% income. That’s a 200k burden, leaving you $3,800,000 to fund your retirement.
But now 3million of your 4million are subject to a 4% surtax. 4 percent of 3 million is $120,000. So now you have $3,680,000 for your retirement.
Is that really the margin? “I could retire on 3.8 but I can’t on 3.68?”
I don’t even know why I’m arguing with someone on r/boston about an already-passed question, it’s just funny that there are so many valid questions about the wisdom of doing tax policy by constitutional amendment but the antis seem to have focused their messaging on “I won’t be able to retire because I’ll have to pay slightly more on my millions!!!” when so many people in this state, especially younger people, are struggling to get to a place where they can even think about retirement.
Grig134 t1_ivtnz97 wrote
> you're "rich" and deserve to be screwed out of all your hard work and retirement by taxes
Oh, I didn't realize it was a 100% tax.
getjustin t1_ivtuy9y wrote
> So you sell it for 4 million dollars so you can fucking retire.
Then you pay up an extra $120,000 ONCE to fund the infrastructure and schools that educated your employees and allowed them to get to work, and that allowed you to be successful. Assuming you owned the place for even just 20 years, $6k/year is a fucking steal.
You're not screwed out of anything, you're paying back a very small portion of what you earned not just on this sale, but the decades of ongoing revenue you business provide you.
[deleted] t1_iwdo62u wrote
[deleted]
KayakerMel t1_ivpk914 wrote
I volunteered with the Yes campaign, starting back when it was still the "Decline to Sign" action to attempt to prevent it from making it on the ballot. Yes on Question 4 was really hampered by the last minute nature of the ballot initiative put forward by the No campaign. There was less than 2 months between when the question was certified, pushed forward by the No campaign, and when the Yes on 4 campaign could formally start. It's also why it wasn't included in the information booklet sent out by the Secretary of State (which the Yes campaign lawyers were all over, to no avail).
Diazigy t1_ivph40a wrote
I voted Yes. Of course we want everyone driving on MA roads to be licensed, for obvious safety and legal/insurance reasons. But in practice, do I really think illegal immigrants who are terrified of deportation and who probably get paid under the table will all register with the US government because of a new law? Probably not.
[deleted] t1_iwdp8rc wrote
[deleted]
youarelookingatthis t1_ivpdgdz wrote
I think it was a number of issues.
- ) The racism. It's there, and there's so much misinformation that is racist regarding what undocumented people have licenses means.
2.) It was the only question where a "yes" vote kept the law. All the other "yes" votes were for changing the law, so I get the confusion.
3.) It was the last question, so people may have missed it.
KayakerMel t1_ivpl2eh wrote
All of these! Not only was it the last statewide question on the ballot, but the No campaign (who were behind the ballot initiative in the first place) got it in at the very last minute. It wasn't even included in the information booklet sent out statewide by the Secretary of State's office.
I've been involved in the Yes on 4 campaign since it was the "Decline to Sign" movement. The racism behind the signature drive was pretty blatant, often moving beyond dog whistles.
rubicon83 t1_ivpqgzz wrote
I voted no on 4. By that logic I'm racist? Wtf
youarelookingatthis t1_ivpssh1 wrote
Well why didn't you want them to have licenses?
trevy_mcq t1_ivq9p5u wrote
What was your reasoning
GreenPylons t1_ivs0tvx wrote
The undervote on 4 actually wasn't that big, which was also surprising (2,308,961 total votes on Question 1 and 2,289,028 total votes on Question 4 for a difference of 19,933 fewer votes on 4, so less than 1% of people that voted on Question 1 didn't vote on Question 4)
[deleted] t1_iwdpize wrote
[deleted]
Logical-Error-7233 t1_ivpaxy5 wrote
It was probably hurt by being added as supplemental material after the initial mailings went out. I got a red pamphlet with 3 questions and did my research on them ahead of time and knew how I was going to vote weeks ago. I actually didn't even realize there was a question 4 until a few days ago, didn't have time to look into it on my own and I never received supplemental material for it in the mail. So I had to read the question in the booth and try to decide on the fly how to vote. The confusing wording almost caught me off guard too. I could see accidentally voting the opposite way you intended on this one.
KayakerMel t1_ivplku1 wrote
That was part of the No on 4 campaign (who brought the ballot initiative) strategy. They squeaked in under the wire at just about every deadline. By the time the Secretary of State's office certified the question, it was only 7 weeks until Election Day and it was rough getting the Yes on 4 defensive up and running as quickly as we'd have wanted.
sardaukarma t1_ivp9xtn wrote
I think it really comes down to racism and anti-immigrant sentiment, or Boston drivers who think it’ll lead to more traffic :p
Lol
nattarbox t1_ivpbv5a wrote
Pretty disappointing.
All the conspiracy shit about voting irregularity had to have played into this. Saw a bunch of uninformed comments on mass subreddits about people being able to vote because they have a license and other nonsense.
Mattressexual t1_ivpf7a6 wrote
Honestly I wasn't sure I understood the question. Looking into it further I saw the "No" voters apparently said something on the note of "bUt iLLeGalS vOtiNg" and it was like, oh okay so that's an easy "Yes" vote for me.
[deleted] t1_ivpjgmh wrote
[deleted]
tubemaster t1_ivpdxrt wrote
Part of where they're coming from is when you register for a license, the RMV workers make a big deal of "do you want to register to vote today? say yes, it's easy might as well do it when it's convenient, oh and by the way it's technically illegal to vote if you're not a citizen but that's on you...". Similar to the organ donor thing...
Otherwise, yes since we don't have voter ID the license itself is kinda moot. However, it seems logical that someone who could in their conscience break one law that's not enforced too strictly (immigration) would have no problem breaking another that has the appearance of being the same (voting) even if there are other safeguards against it. While they might not go out of their way to do it, if an RMV worker poses the question to them they might think "why not..."
​
Edit: note that a better alternative would be to simply not ask the voter registration question for someone who provides the alternative document set for undocumented immigrants. One simple change like that renders the whole issue moot, and we get the benefits of every driver being properly licensed and insured.
737900ER OP t1_ivphj4k wrote
> note that a better alternative would be to simply not ask the voter registration question for someone who provides the alternative document set for undocumented immigrants. One simple change like that renders the whole issue moot, and we get the benefits of every driver being properly licensed and insured.
Shouldn't this be the workflow today given that people with Green Cards or long-term visas can get a Mass ID/DL but can't vote?
aray25 t1_ivq6w02 wrote
It is.
nattarbox t1_ivph7a5 wrote
Example of said nonsense.
SamRaB t1_ivqvy0i wrote
Undocumented workers never crossed my mind. I was remembering back to when I was a student and the requirements to prove I actually resided in this state vs the one I had moved from. I think at the time someone explained to me it was to prevent friends visiting friends for a couple of weeks from getting limited street parking permits in the area, which made sense at the time. Now, not really as much. Time is funny.
Reading this thread I'm not even sure I voted the way I finally settled on seeing that it was questioned backwards. At least now I get why it was a question in the first place. More info would definitely have been helpful.
[deleted] t1_ivtgebx wrote
[deleted]
HypeMan_Q t1_ivpdb01 wrote
Not at all. Most people are hypocrites. It shows in polls.
KayakerMel t1_ivpmgb8 wrote
I was involved in the Yes campaign and I had a fun example of this. A woman who was originally from Ireland a few decades ago and had overstayed her visa would not support it because SHE couldn't get a driver's license when she had been undocumented. She shrugged off the argument that the new legislation would mean that others in similar situations wouldn't have to go through the same trouble she had. And then she shouted some weird threats at us as she drove away.
Yak_Rodeo t1_ivpifo0 wrote
whats hypocritical here?
surrender52 t1_ivrrnd1 wrote
Generally these things are "vote no for status quo" but this question was yes to keep the law on the books. My guess is 20% of those who voted no thought they were voting to keep it.
[deleted] t1_ivqauto wrote
[deleted]
stevied05 t1_ivqbx9h wrote
The Reddit hivemind is in full force in this thread. It’s a near 50-50 split overall, yet anyone who provides their rationale for voting no is getting downvoted into oblivion.
UpperLoftUSA t1_ivrbp3y wrote
I voted for Maura like I voted for Warren but I voted no on 3. You Can do both. To equate liberal ideology and bad policy is a mistake.
twoturnoverz t1_ivrgzfo wrote
I am not surprised because I’ve been to places like Danvers recently and whew boy the yard signs there are intense and everywhere
[deleted] t1_ivw34n7 wrote
[deleted]
Malforus t1_ivpk49e wrote
There were actual coworkers who were on the fence and didn't understand the follow-on implications especially around insurance and safety on the roads.
ForwardBound t1_ivpkjot wrote
I'll preface this just in case by saying I'm VERY happy that Q4 passed and there was never any doubt for me that it should pass.
I talked to a friend who put forward two half-baked ideas for why they were voting No, both of which ended up being this person's crazy views on immigration. The first was that he said "I'm ok with immigration, if it's done properly." So, they were thinking that getting a driver's license was a benefit that should be reserved for tax-paying citizens and residents. When I told this person that undocumented people do pay taxes and that as high as 40% of Americans actually don't pay income taxes, they moved onto the next point, which was that this could lead to voter fraud. I explained that there are already groups of people who can hold driver's licenses but can't vote (green card holders), so there isn't much danger here, but then the conspiracy theory of "dead people voting" came up, as well as a more general "with all the weird voting stuff that's come up in the past several years, you can't be too careful." Obviously this is insane.
Long story short, this question of driver's licenses was conflated with myths about immigration, and that generated at least one 'No' vote. Perhaps there were more like this.
Academic_Guava_4190 t1_ivr5gjt wrote
Very interesting since idk any MA polling places that ask for your driver’s license to vote
DanieXJ t1_ivrmxam wrote
It's now automatic when you get a license. You're also registered. And, if you do it on paper/online manually then you need an ID to register. But, hey, whatever could go wrong if the RMV is in charge.........
GreenPylons t1_ivs14zb wrote
So how do the hundreds of thousands of work/student/etc. visa holders and legal permanent residents who currently get drivers licenses avoid registering to vote?
Academic_Guava_4190 t1_ivrr33o wrote
Wow you are angry. God forbid an immigrant might get to vote bc they might vote Democrat. Good Lord.
immoralatheist t1_ivtj8hd wrote
>which was that this could lead to voter fraud
Fuck Baker for pushing this nonsense.
Wtf_is_this1234 t1_ivprbg0 wrote
If undocumented people are paying taxes, it's usually because they stole someone's documents to get through e-verify. I think there's a lot of people who are willing to whitewash the truth about the problems that go along with illegal immigration. Now sure you could certainly take the position that we should just hand out legal status to anyone with a pulse who wants it, but that's not really a fair system either, nor is it one which most countries can reasonably have.
metallzoa t1_ivpu004 wrote
>If undocumented people are paying taxes, it's usually because they stole someone's documents to get through e-verify.
Wrong. You don't need to steal anybody to pay taxes, you clearly know nothing about what you're saying. IRS issues a tax number for whoever is not eligible for a SSN. Opening an LLC and getting an EIN # is also allowed for them, which is what most do.
Wtf_is_this1234 t1_ivqnbuo wrote
Yeah I'm sure someone handed a wad of cash every day is applying for an EIN and opening an LLC.
c106mc t1_ivpkluv wrote
nah, when I heard my aunt in Danvers was against it. she's that in-the-closet conservative type
trimtab28 t1_ivrlv9o wrote
Admittedly, as someone voting "no" on 4 I was shocked it was so close- thought it was going to be 65/35 "yes." Personally know a bunch of people voting "no" on it, but figured it was because I'm surrounded by people in construction daily and that I was in a bubble.
Question 1 being as close as it was struck me as even crazier- even Trump type populists seem happy to tax millionaires into oblivion (even as their guy did anything but)
Cost_Additional t1_ivve6ug wrote
A lot of people don't like the idea of someone that isn't supposed to be here being allowed privileges.
[deleted] t1_ivth543 wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_ivpu7uh wrote
[deleted]
Wtf_is_this1234 t1_ivq4pf1 wrote
Without more information on your "reason" no one can answer that.
pillbinge t1_ivq1y9b wrote
I'm not. You can check my recent history where I've said that I'm voting no myself, why I'm voting no, and why I think the question contributes to a dividing malaise that makes us feel detached. This question was never a slam dunk and the bigger implications behind a vote weren't considered. I always assumed it would pass but we still share a state with those people, like myself, who voted no.
BonesIIX t1_ivqb8fm wrote
The deceptive wording for Q4 made it so a bunch of people I know didn't realize voting no was the correct answer of you want to keep giving licenses to undocumented people.
TouchDownBurrito t1_ivqo8im wrote
> bunch of people I know didn’t realize voting no was the correct answer of you want to keep giving licenses to undocumented people.
It’s the opposite, voting Yes left the law to allow them to get licenses in place.
[deleted] t1_ivpkivk wrote
[deleted]
repthe732 t1_ivqt732 wrote
Because it means less unlicensed, uninsured drivers and more licensed, insured drivers. Do you know what happens when you get hit by an uninsured driver? You get screwed by insurance
DanieXJ t1_ivrn4n1 wrote
The two are in no way connected. You do not have to have insurance on your car to get a license. Two totally different parts of the system.
TouchDownBurrito t1_ivtzcwq wrote
> The two are in no way connected.
Go try to get a car insurance policy without a license and let me know how it goes.
[deleted] t1_ivqxuzx wrote
[removed]
waffle-princess t1_ivq59kq wrote
It’s not a good idea, but our opinions will be downvoted into oblivion on this sub 🙄
TouchDownBurrito t1_ivqny2c wrote
It’s a great idea and that’s why you’re being downvotes, for having an ignorant opinion based on feels and not reality.
sm4269a t1_ivq65lr wrote
They should be revoking licenses, not giving more out.
repthe732 t1_ivqsi5z wrote
Why? That just means more unlicensed, uninsured drivers on the road that will run from an accident
sm4269a t1_ivtk2bm wrote
Have you seen the way people drive?
​
No it doesn't. That's fallacious logic.
repthe732 t1_ivtyzbl wrote
I didn’t say it will make people better drivers. I said they’d be less likely to run from an accident which is true
sm4269a t1_ivu0rso wrote
It will enable more cars on the road, the opposite of what our city needs. Cars leave the scene of accidents all the time for the simple fact they think they can avoid liability. Giving out more licenses won't change that.
repthe732 t1_ivu5c5c wrote
Many of those people are already driving just without licenses.
But if those people that flee have insurance they’ll still end up being held financially liable and if they have insurance it will cover the damages to the other persons car. This is exactly why it’s better to have everyone licensed and insured
sm4269a t1_ivusb22 wrote
Many people are not driving because of the deterrent effect.
They'll only be liable if they're caught and from my experience there is a good chance they never are.
repthe732 t1_ivuwc6d wrote
It’s not much of a deterrent when in many parts of the state you need a car to get anywhere
And it’s better if they are caught for them to have insurance. It’s also easier to catch them if their car is registered. If the car is registered then they’re required to have insurance
DanieXJ t1_ivrlpfc wrote
Just because you get a driver's license doesn't mean you will get insurance. They are 2 totally different (insurance goes with the car).
But, now we'll have illegal non-citizens on the voting rolls too... I mean where could that go wrong. Fuck us all.
repthe732 t1_ivrwcqg wrote
They’re different but not unrelated.
Having your license doesn’t mean you’re automatically on the voter rolls
waffle-princess t1_ivpezf2 wrote
I don't understand why people are ok with this. I get the argument for insurance purposes, but that's not the big picture. While I sympathize with these folks, they are in the country ILLEGALLY. WHY should we be granting them DRIVERS LICENSES when they should really be DEPORTED. This is UNFAIR FOR LEGAL IMMIGRANTS and defies logic.
metallzoa t1_ivpjqb5 wrote
you don't understand it because you also only understand the immigration problem in the US at a surface level. There are way bigger problems to address instead of spending billions of taxpayer money on an effort to deport people who have no crime history and are living their lives, working, paying taxes and driving their kids to school.
Pocketpine t1_ivpjk8q wrote
If they’re going to drive anyway, would you rather them be licensed and insured, or neither licensed nor insured?
hyperside89 t1_ivpgkp6 wrote
Listen - as long as we have geopolitical instability and the opportunity for a better life in the US what there will be illegal immigration. It would be naive to pretend otherwise, so we need policies to address that.
So the question really should be:
- Will this law incentives more people to participate in illegal immigration
- Does the greater good of this law outweigh any of the possible downsides
On point 1 above - I really don't think making illegal immigrants get licenses and pay for insurance is somehow going to incentivize more people to immigrant illegally.
And for point 2 above - resoundingly yes. Primarily through the general public safety benefit which will improve quality life for legal MA residents.
[deleted] t1_ivqbdl9 wrote
[deleted]
Academic_Guava_4190 t1_ivr6cgl wrote
Being an “illegal” immigrant takes nothing away from “legal” immigrants. What is unfair for people attempting to immigrate through proper channels and not seek asylum is that the process takes so damn long. If you lived in a dangerous area where your life was being threatened by the govt and more and you felt so strongly that you had to flee to Canada, would you want them to say “sorry you can’t come in. You have to go back and do it the right way.” Or would you want them to have compassion and work with you to help you obtain legal status
NotCleverNamesTaken t1_ivpva99 wrote
I'm a legal immigrant and I don't see how this is unfair
what_comes_after_q t1_ivq2q6f wrote
Legal immigrants can get drivers licenses as well.
TheTravinator t1_ivq3flq wrote
Your use of caps lock doesn't really help your case here.
waffle-princess t1_ivq4yey wrote
My hangup is this - why are we extending licenses to people who are in the United States in violation of our immigration laws instead of deporting them? This makes no sense. This ends up creating unfair competition for jobs with our least prepared workers and puts a strain on public funds.
hyperside89 t1_ivqn8cg wrote
"Unfair competition for jobs" Listen, I work in HR, and we are desperate for hourly employees willing to work for $16 - $22 / hr. Unemployment is at a record low. We NEED more people to perform work.
Not to mention the jobs many undocumented immigrants do are jobs Americans do not want to do. Look into what happened during COVID when vegetable and fruit farmers in the south were unable to utilize LEGAL temporary immigrants during the harvest due to border closures.
We might not like it, but we rely on both legal and illegal immigration to keep the economy going.
petal_in_the_corner t1_ivs17ah wrote
I really hate this argument coming from the left. $16 an hour in MA in 2022 is not a good wage. I imagine Americans would be more willing to do this job if it paid the rent.
hyperside89 t1_ivt12c8 wrote
Just pointing out we hire nationally and $16 is our starting wage in other states, no MA. In some locations $16 - $17 is a living wage (https://livingwage.mit.edu/) for a single person.
StarbeamII t1_ivs2vv8 wrote
So how much more do you want to pay for groceries?
Also with record low unemployment at some point there just aren't enough workers out there, and crops are going to just rot in the field unless you find more people to do the work. If you just pay people higher wages to try to get people to do the job, then that one extra farm worker is one less cashier, one less cook, or one less cleaner, and now you just moved your labor shortage problems elsewhere.
[deleted] t1_ivqbquc wrote
[deleted]
GreenPylons t1_ivs1wbh wrote
Because immigration is the federal government's responsibility, not the states. State and local governments aren't the people that are in charge of the immigration system and aren't responsible for enforcing it.
It's similar to how marijuana is illegal federally but it's legal at the state level. Your local or state police isn't going to arrest you for possessing or selling weed despite it being a federal crime, because it's not Massachusett's responsibility to enforce federal drug laws. That's the fed's job.
hatersbelearners t1_ivpnfgo wrote
Americans are dumb, racist, and classist. Not at all surprised.
Wtf_is_this1234 t1_ivprg9x wrote
Please name a first world country that let's people without legal status get a driver's license.
wsdog t1_ivp9dox wrote
Because you are living in your own echo-chamber?
Wtf_is_this1234 t1_ivp77le wrote
No one can really present a compelling reason why people here illegally should be allowed to get a driver's license. Most countries do not allow such silliness.
TouchDownBurrito t1_ivp7mks wrote
Because then they’re tested and licensed to drive and can get insurance. After passing a similar law to allow them licenses Utah saw an 80% drop in uninsured driver and New Mexico saw a 60% drop.
Wtf_is_this1234 t1_ivp8be6 wrote
That's only the case if they bother to go through the effort of getting a license. There is no real incentive to do so if they've been managing this long without bothering.
TouchDownBurrito t1_ivp9666 wrote
> That’s only the case if they bother to go through the effort of getting a license.
And the data shows they do, again:
> After passing a similar law to allow them licenses Utah saw an 80% drop in uninsured driver and New Mexico saw a 60% drop.
You don’t think having 60-80% less uninsured drivers on the road is a positive?
> There is no real incentive to do so if they’ve been managing this long without bothering.
The incentive is being able to have insurance, no one wants to be out of pocket when their new car is totaled.
metallzoa t1_ivpl7ln wrote
the insurance incentive is not even the main reason. As sketchy as this can sound, the majority of these people want to do everything they can to follow the rules because the ultimate goal is acquiring lawful residence. I have a lot of friends & relatives who are in this situation and I assure you that being able to get a license now is literally life-changing. Nobody wants to be stopped by the police and have no ID or an out-of-state license.
ik1nky t1_ivp9f65 wrote
If there is no incentive to do so, then nothing will change. So why not pass this?
kimfair t1_ivp82ko wrote
In every state where this has been instituted they have seen a big drop off in hit and run accidents. If undocumented people are allowed licenses they are more likely to hold insurance and more likely to not run after getting into an accident. These people are here and are driving around. Giving them licenses makes everyone safer, which is why law enforcement is for it.
Wtf_is_this1234 t1_ivp8i5d wrote
Insurance in MA is ridiculously expensive even for legal residents. I cannot see any reason why someone here illegally would go through the hassle and expense of doing things "the right way" when they already failed to do that to move here.
ik1nky t1_ivp9ycz wrote
Car insurance in Mass is on the lower side of average when compared to other states. My insurance was cut in half when I moved here from Michigan.
737900ER OP t1_ivpbwvr wrote
Auto insurance in Mass really isn't that expensive because the are so few deaths and injuries. Paying to fix some twisted metal is way cheaper than injury or death claims.
ooolooi t1_ivpim61 wrote
Buying insurance takes like 30 minutes with a license and a website that guides you through it step by step, whereas becoming a legal resident of the US takes months or years and involves complex bureaucratic hoops, lengthy scheduled meetings, and at the end a high likelihood of rejection. Hope this helps
jtet93 t1_ivp8hh9 wrote
I mean what is your goal? Punish undocumented immigrants? Or have safer roads?
Absurd_nate t1_ivp8fx2 wrote
What is your reason for them to not have a license?
We know that some people are here illegally, whatever the reason, would you prefer:
A) they drive without car insurance, so if you get rear ended you have to pay
B) they drive with car insurance so if you get rear ended you don’t have to pay.
Either way we already established they are here illegally. The license doesn’t give them the ability to vote, and this law doesn’t give a pathway to citizenship, so I don’t really see the issue with it.
josh_bourne t1_ivpar69 wrote
These people can and they have car insurance, they can register a car and have insurance, it makes even more ridiculous not giving them a dl
Absurd_nate t1_ivpr815 wrote
I was under the impression it was required to have a DL to have insurance, how do you insure without a DL, I had to provide mine to insure?
josh_bourne t1_ivr4sbb wrote
With their country's issued dl.
RhaenyrasUncle t1_ivpa5an wrote
> The license doesn’t give them the ability to vote, and this law doesn’t give a pathway to citizenship, so I don’t really see the issue with it.
The goal is not to give noncitizens citizenship, but rather to give noncitizens the right to vote in our elections. With drivers licenses, they would now have official, state-recognized identification, which can be used as the basis for voter registration.
Noncitizen voting rights was on the ballot in Oregon this election, and just barely failed. I wouldnt be surprised if it comes up in a few other states in 2024, and possibly passes somewhere in 2026. Might even be in our own state.
737900ER OP t1_ivpdgsv wrote
That doesn't make any sense. Anyone with a Massachusetts address and a visa allowing them to stay in the US for over 1 year can get a Mass ID/DL today. Lots of foreign students have Mass Liquor IDs because of our archaic alcohol laws even though they don't have permanent residency, not to mention green card holders.
RhaenyrasUncle t1_ivphe1i wrote
Correct. But all of those people are documented, aka here legally.
We're discussing undocumented individuals.
metallzoa t1_ivpm1ed wrote
Oh so if someone bypasses the system and votes illegally it's fine because they have a valid visa? Yeah makes sense /s
coastAL_- t1_ivp7j69 wrote
*shouldn't
jtet93 t1_ivp7077 wrote
I wonder how much of this can be attributed to the yes/no being kind of confusing.