To the extent this happens, absolutely agree.

If the states cannot clear out dead people from their voter rolls, then fat chance something like this will be implemented.
.

The fact that voter rolls (in the hands of the state and local governments) are in such poor shape is the first thing to address.

And, citizenship verification ought to be a key part of that cleanup process. The time for just taking someone’s “word” for it (on the day of voting) has long passed.
.

Wasn’t it in Texas someone was recently convicted of unlawfully voting in more than one election cycle?

Texas!!

A state that has been in GOP hands for some time.

So either they believe voter fraud is not a big deal, or they don’t really care (because the fraud goes both ways?).

I presume you have never travelled.

A British citizen in LA has his passport and money stolen and he has to go to DC for help? How, without money?

Countries exist to HELP their citizens. Mexico has lots of consulates indicates a good thing — they are helping their citizens. After all Mexico’s first duty is to Mexicans, no matter how much that irks you. (Quite a few Americans have this idea that Mexico should solve the US’s problems.)

If the US closes consulates, then others will respond. And Americans abroad would be badly affected.

Trump wants people travelling to to the US to get visas. How are they to do that with no US consulates?

Typically, a country with only one diplomatic facility would staff it at the top level with an ambassador and call it an embassy.

Consulates are staffed at the top by a Consul-general or Consul (depends on the rank of the facility) and they offer only consular services: issuing passports and visas, taking care of citizens who need help, repatriating dead citizens — things like that.

This is not to disagree with your suggestion. Just to point out if we maintain only one facility in a country (and this is common) it would probably be an embassy. Not always, but usually.

Yes, I know adherence to our 2nd Amendment is off putting to many nations who might join a new international organization. But that simply means they do not adhere to the concept of life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and the right to defend the preceding foundations of a government that is founded upon the premise that we the people are sovereign.

My daughter, who is a resident in Mexico, tells me she has to have a locally-issued driver’s license to drive there. Perhaps because she is resident — I don’t know. I do know that tourists do not need a locally-issued license to drive in Mexico, but perhaps that is for a limited time or for rental cars or something. She tells me an international DL is only valid in Mexico for a limited time.

My point, though, is that driver’s licenses in the US are typically used for a variety of purposes that require an ID — renting something (apartment, tools, cars, etc.) Which means someone wanting to engage in economic activity in the US frequently applies for and uses a DL to do that. And, of course, to drive a vehicle. And a number of states now issue driver’s licenses so people can drive and engage in economic activity, and that issuance frequently triggers a motor voter registration to vote.

What I propose is that states issuing licenses to immigrants who do not have a green card issue a license that says it is only valid when accompanied by an ID card. That is not a difficult thing to do: my FAA-issued pilot’s certificate is only valid when accompanied with some form of photo ID — usually a driver’s license.

Issuing a DL that does not trigger a motor voter registration strikes me as a desirable outcome. In fact issuing a DL that is flagged as belonging to someone who is neither a citizen nor a green card holder would have a variety of desirable outcomes, I think. CA would likely resist, and perhaps even AZ and my own state of NV. But it would be a state-by-state matter anyway.

As it is right now, a DL is frequently interpreted as meaning the holder is legal to work, engage in economic activity that they might not be entitled to, and (obviously) to drive. Why not make it clear on the DL that the holder is not a citizen or permanent resident? Most states already flag holders who are under 21 so they have a harder time buying alcohol. I’m suggesting this be expanded. And I have no doubt I will be criticized for discriminating against foreigners.

Jenk:
I understand Mexican consular ID cards, issued in the US, are, how shall I say, less than reliable. These cards convey an air of legitimacy which is often false and thus fraudulent. An illegal walks into a Mexican consulate, states his name and current address, and walks out with an “official” card with his face on it. Snap! Nothing to it. Now he is legal?
Are you in the business of helping create anchor babies to suckle at the welfare teat? More “clients”?

We could also tell the Mexican government we want them to issue ID cards to Mexican nationals, (all Mexican nationals already have a state issued ID card anyway) and recommend states (particular border states recognize those ID cards as necessary for issuance of a driver’s license, which would clearly be marked “valid only when accompanied by a Mexican ID card.” That way the Mexican national would have to carry his ID card and use it in conjunction with his state driver’s license, and it should tip off the Arizona/Texas/California authorities they should NOT offer motor voter documents with the issuance of the DL.

That is not an ideal situation, of course, but that is a start on changing a broken status quo.

I might also consider issuing a special Social Security card that is only valid when accompanied by a Mexican ID card, and up the standards of e-verify so employers would be a little more assiduous about scrutinizing SSNs.

Again, a start on fixing a broken system. There are other fixes out there too.