Illegal Immigrant License Debate Heats Up

(CBS)  This story was written by CBSNews.com political reporter Brian Montopoli.

---

The question of whether or not illegal immigrants should have access to driver's licenses has stayed under the radar for most of the 2008 presidential campaign.

But that changed Tuesday night, when Sen. Hillary Clinton made vague comments at a Democratic presidential debate about whether or not she supports New York Gov. Elliot Spitzer's driver's license proposal. Clinton's rivals quickly criticized her for what they characterized as a refusal to take a position on the issue.

Spitzer's revised plan calls for a system in which three licenses will be available to New York residents. One type of license, which would be available to legal residents, would conform to the Real ID Act of 2005, a controversial federal standard designed to tighten homeland security by making it more difficult for illegal immigrants to get state driver's licenses. This license would be sufficient identification for residents who want to fly domestically. Critics, among them the ACLU, contend that compliance with the Act "would turn state driver's licenses into a national ID card." Fourteen states have refused to comply over potential cost and privacy implications.

A second type of license would allow residents to cross the border between Canada and the United States without a passport. The third, which would be available to illegal immigrants, would be used solely for driving and identification, and would allow those who hold it to get auto insurance.

After the debate, the Clinton campaign issued a statement on the Spitzer plan, which did not put to rest questions about her position on it.

"Senator Clinton supports governors like Governor Spitzer who believe they need such a measure to deal with the crisis caused by this administration's failure to pass comprehensive immigration reform," the statement said. "As President, her goal will be to pass comprehensive immigration reform that would make this unnecessary."

A number of states have implemented plans that allow illegal immigrants to get driver's licenses. Critics charge that such policies create a security risk and encourage illegal immigrants to come to America.

"The public feels illegal aliens should receive no benefits from the government," William Gheen of the Americans for Legal Immigration PAC said in an interview with CBS News. "Licenses, in state tuition, anything short of emergency medical care will only attract more illegal aliens."

But supporters of such legislation say it's a mistake not to document illegal immigrants.

"This is a really bad issue to have a substantive disagreement on," said Muzaffar Chishti of the Migration Policy Institute's office at the New York University law school. "Every expert out there thinks it's a good idea to give driver's licenses to the undocumented."

Chishti said it is important to have data on everyone in the country, undocumented or otherwise, for security reasons. "The pragmatic response is to have them in a database," he said.

Spitzer's compromise plan, worked out in concert with the Department of Homeland Security after an earlier plan to grant a single type of license to both legal residents and illegal immigrants met with opposition, has been criticized from both sides.

The Spitzer plan "is potentially the worst of all possibilities," said Chishti. "He's telling the undocumented 'we're going to give you a driver's license, but it will clearly say this is not for federal purposes. It will indicate to anyone who looks at it that you are not here legally.'" Chishti said illegal immigrants "will be very, very reticent" to apply for such a document.

A debate over this issue arose four years ago in the state of California, when then-Governor Grey Davis signed legislation allowing illegal immigrants to get licenses. Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger campaigned on his opposition to the legislation, and after Davis was recalled, and Schwarzenegger became governor, it was repealed.

Five of Clinton's six opponents at the Democratic debate say they support states issuing driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. After Clinton seemed to back Spitzer's proposal, Connecticut Sen. Christopher Dodd, who does not support the policy, said the "idea that we're going to extend this privilege here of a driver's license, I think, is troublesome."

Clinton responded that "I did not say that it should be done, but I certainly recognize why Gov. Spitzer is trying to do it." The comment prompted John Edwards to charge that "Sen. Clinton said two different things in the course of about two minutes." Sen. Barack Obama said he "was confused on Sen. Clinton's answer" and "can't tell whether she was for it or against it."

The Republican presidential hopefuls, most of whom have taken a hard line on illegal immigration, also criticized Clinton over the comments. A spokesman for former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney characterized the former first lady as being "dismissive of efforts to enforce our nation's immigration laws and entirely unwilling to offer a straight answer to a very direct question."

Illegal immigration can be a tough issue for presidential candidates from both parties. Many Republican primary voters favor tightening the U.S. borders, and the GOP hopefuls have tried to look tough on the question of giving rights to undocumented residents. Democrats have largely backed giving legal status to undocumented workers, but have sometimes differed on issues of enforcement. Both parties are wary of alienating Latino voters, who represent a sizable and rapidly growing voting bloc.

"All the questions you have seen in the [Democratic] debate are dealing with enforcement," said Chishti. "And that's where you are beginning to see fudging."
By Brian Montopoli

[peopleareracist]

most of you are racist.

lets just stop making the U.S. so great. that'll make them stop coming.

[nhprophet]

What we need is a President who will show us the way. Not the old way. Not the same way, but a NEW WAY. Think about this for a minute. What if we pulled all of our troops out of South Korea? They''ve been there for 50+ years. What if we quit worrying about Iran, but instead, realized that its having a nuclear weapon will not mean the end of the world? What if we pulled all of our troops out of the Middle-East, and brought them all home? What if we realistically addressed the National Debt, and paid attention to REALLY DOING SOMETHING about stopping illegal immigration? These are the ideas of Republican Presidential candidate, Dr. Ron Paul. He''s a ten term Congressman and a physician who has delivered over 4,000 babies. He''s an intellectual who''s published four books, three of which are devoted entirely to sound economics and one to foreign policy. He was raised on a dairy farm in Pennsylvania as a pious Lutheran, but now he attends a Baptist church. Paul is given to mulling things over morally. Whenever he recollects the helicopter pilots he treated as an Air Force Flight Surgeon (Captain) during the Vietnam War, a war which he now says was "totally unnecessary and illegal," he laments, "They were gung-ho. I''ve often thought about how many of those people never came back." Candidates with the high level of personal integrity and proven track record of adherance to The Constitution, Congressman Paul has always demonstrated only come around once in a lifetime, if we''re lucky.

[andor3]

"I think a lot of US citizens are incensed about the wholesale illegal boarder crossing."

Being mad at the people who cross the border illegally makes as much sense as dropping a rock on your foot and then being mad at gravity.

[nottellin1]

When I was 16 I took my birth certificate to the DMV and my baptismal cert as well, need 2 pieces if ID. I wonder how they intend to have illegals prove ID?

[nhprophet]

To those who don''t vote: Voter disenfranchisement and apathy infects the heart of our Republic. Get off your couch, put your remote control down, and become active in your nation''s political process. The pathetically few people that do vote in this country, a.k.a., "the ruling class", who currently get to decide under what kind of conditions (and Laws) you and your family will live, are certainly involved. I can assure you of that. In fact, the ruling class would be much happier if you would just continue to stay home and watch TV in your pleasantly distracted and brainwashed, stupor. That way they can continue to elect their political ****** to office, and continue to maintain their grip on 100% of the political power they currently own in this country. If you voted (God Forbid), it would cancel-out their vote, and they would lose control. They can''t have that. Can they? If you don''t vote, my friends, you''re nothing but an unwashed "Pleb" to those that do, and the ruling class should rightfully consider themselves superior to you in every way. They do, after all, have all the power, while you have none. If you''re too apathetic and powerless to do anything for yourself more time-consuming than driving down to Mickey D''s to buy a milk shake in order to sieze control of your life, and your country''s destiny, then perhaps you deserve to be ruled over like the "Pleb" that you then are. The time to act is now. The time for political revolution has come.

[nhprophet]

My fellow Americans just don''t seem to care that our nation, along with The Constitution upon which it was founded, is being flushed-down the NWO toilet by our nations'' bought and paid for politicians and media. While the Oligarchs warn and insite fear in the sheeple about the prospect of terrorism, they at the same time leave our border wide open, and fund and conduct illegal wars overseas that do nothing but encite the terrorism which their Orwellian Laws like the Patriot Act and The Real ID Act pretend to protect us from. Wake up America! It''s not about protecting you from terrorism, or saving the planet from Global Warming, or any of that other fear-mongering garbage the sold-out, mainstream media feeds you 24/7. It''s about feeding the bankers and the military industrial complex, and facilitating the ruling elite''s ability to ratchet-down control over the American people, placing us into a total control grid where they can surveille, track and control everywhere we go and everything we do. It''s the groundwork for totalitarianism, my friends. It''s the New World Order plan of Bush, Clinton, Giuliani, et.al., being executed quite beautifully. You''re a victim of mass mind control--a frog in a pot. In order to cook a frog, you don''t throw him into a pot of boiling water. If you do, he''ll resist and jump-out. What you do instead is, you turn the heat-up REAL SLOW, and by the time the water is boiling he won''t be able to jump out anymore, because it''s too late--he''s already doomed.

[nhprophet]

Clinton voted for the oxymoronically-named Patriot Act and for the war in Iraq, but so many Democrats are blinded by her cult of personality that they will overwhelmingly vote to put her crime family back in office. While I have made some progress in educating liberals as to the phony staged consensus of the left-right paradigm, the fact remains that a majority still see the White House as some kind of political Super Bowl, where the success of their "team" is the be all and end all - to the expense of America as a whole. The Punch and Judy show theatre of the troop surge debate characterizes Hillary''s role in hoodwinking Americans perfectly. The debate is framed as not whether the U.S. should get out of the Middle-East altogether, but the relative minutia of whether to feed thousands of more troops into the meat grinder or not. Clinton''s campaign manager compared Hillary to Margaret Thatcher. This translates as more war, more dead Americans, and a further desecration of the tattered shreds of what''s left of our Constitution. Clinton is the ultimate elitist and represents the Democrats supposed base, the poor and downtrodden, about as much as Lindsay Lohan represents grace and dignity. She was sure to inform the likes of David Rockefeller and Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands as to her presidential aspirations during her last visit to the Bilderberg Group conference in 2006. They have a proven history of acting as kingmakers.

[nhprophet]

Section 1076 of the massive John Warner Defense Authorization Act, which grants the Pentagon another $500-plus-billion for its ill-advised adventures, is entitled, "Use of the Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies." Section 333, "Major public emergencies; interference with State and Federal law" states that "the President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines that domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of ("refuse" or "fail" in) maintaining public order, "in order to suppress, in any State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy." For the current President, "enforcement of the laws to restore public order" means to commandeer guardsmen from any state, over the objections of local governmental, military and local police entities; ship them off to another state; conscript them in a law enforcement mode; and set them loose against "disorderly" citizenry - protesters, possibly, or those who object to forced vaccinations and quarantines in the event of a bio-terror event.

[nhprophet]

The John Warner Defense Authorization Act, supported by Clinton, Obama and McCain, also facilitates militarized police round-ups and detention of protesters, so called "illegal aliens, potential terrorists" and other "undesirables" (dissenting Americans) for detention in facilities already contracted for and under construction by Halliburton. That''s right. Under the cover of a trumped-up "immigration emergency" (Bush doesn''t do anything about illegal immigration), detention camps are being constructed right under our noses, camps designed for anyone who resists the foreign and domestic agenda of the President. The Journal of Counterterrorism & Homeland Security International recently reported that "global engineering and technical services powerhouse, Kellog, Brown & Root announced in January 2006 that its Government and Infrastructure division was awarded an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity contract to support U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities in the event of an emergency." "With a maximum total value of $385 million over a five year term," the report notes, "the contract is to be executed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers," "for establishing temporary detention and processing capabilities to augment existing ICE Detention and Removal Operations - in the event of an emergency influx of immigrants into the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new programs."

[nhprophet]

In addition to authorizing another $532.8 billion for the Pentagon, including a $70-billion "supplemental provision" which covers the cost of the ongoing, mad military maneuvers in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other places, the John Warner Defense Authorization Act, signed by the president in a private White House ceremony, further collapses the historic divide between the police and the military: a tell-tale sign of a rapidly consolidating police state in America, all accomplished amidst ongoing U.S. imperial pretensions of global domination, sold to an "emergency managed" and seemingly willfully gullible public as a "global war on terrorism." Make no mistake about it: the de-facto repeal of the Posse Comitatus Act (PCA) is an ominous assault on American democratic tradition and jurisprudence. The 1878 Act, which reads, "Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both," is the only U.S. criminal statute that outlaws military operations directed against the American people under the cover of "law enforcement." As such, it has been the best protection we''ve had against the power-hungry intentions of an unscrupulous and reckless President intent on using force to enforce his will.