We haven't even come close to seeing the last mushroom cloud of the healthcare debate, but already the next big fight is shaping upon the horizon... and our own Chuck Schumer is right in the middle of it.
Schumer has announced his intention to introduce a comprehensive immigration reform bill by the coming Labor Day. That means that to have serious public input on the first phase of the bill's shaping, pressure has to start now.
Right now--as in, I'm typing while ignoring the crowd--I'm in the middle of a conference in Pittsburgh ahead of Netroots Nation talking about the intersection of immigration and LGBT issues. Strange bedfellows, right? Not exactly, because there's a very large exception created by the current laws.
An American citizen whose mate is a non-citizen can sponsor that person for citizenship--if they get married. Gay people still can't get married in most states, and even if they live somewhere that they can, the federal government doesn't recognize that fact.
There are already two bills in progress to fix this problem. One is the Uniting American Families Act, which simply extends current sponsorship laws to "permanent partners," which means gay relationships as well as common-law type heterosexual partners. The other is the Reuniting Families Act, which is an LGBT-inclusive comprehensive immigration reform bill.
However, both of these bills are likely to get steamrolled if a major CIR bill is introduced by Schumer and company. That means that in order to help out the estimated 30 to 40 thousand bi-national LGBT couples in the US--as well as the 15 to 18 thousand of them who have children who are under threat of having their families broken up--then we need to start contacting Chuck Schumer right now to get the UAFA integrated into the new bill.
Armed federal immigration agents have illegally pushed and shoved their way into homes in New York and New Jersey in hundreds of predawn raids that violated their own agency rules as well as the Constitution, according to a study to be released on Wednesday by the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law.
The study by the school's Immigration Justice Law Clinic, backed by several law enforcement experts including Nassau County's police commissioner, found a widespread pattern of misconduct by agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement after analyzing 700 arrest reports obtained from the agency through Freedom of Information lawsuits.
The raids were supposed to focus on dangerous criminals, but overwhelmingly netted Latinos with civil immigration violations who happened to be present, the study said. Raiders mistakenly held legal residents and citizens by force in their own homes while agents rummaged through drawers seeking incriminating documents, the report said.
Acting without judicial search warrants, the agents were required to obtain informed consent from a resident before they entered a private residence. But the study found that in 86 percent of the Nassau and Suffolk County arrest reports that it analyzed, and a quarter of the New Jersey cases, no consent was recorded.
Warrants? We don't need no stinking warrants!
The report said a similar "cowboy mentality" emerged in many other raids. In Paterson, N.J., last year, legal residents from Guatemala and their 9-year-old son, a United States citizen, were threatened with guns by immigration agents who had entered their home while the boy's mother was in the shower.
In a Staten Island case, an immigration judge recently ruled that the conduct of agents acting without a warrant was an "egregious violation" of fundamental fairness; they had entered a man's bedroom armed with pistols, "forced him into the hall and required him to stand in his underwear before his brother, sister-in-law and their children."
In an e-mail message obtained under a Freedom of Information request, a federal immigration agent in Connecticut invited a state trooper to join a scheduled set of raids in New Haven, writing: "We have 18 addresses - so it should be a fun time! Let me know if you guys can play!"
The report also found a strong suggestion of racial profiling in the difference between the ethnicity of the named targets - 66 percent Latino - and of the "collateral" arrests - 87 percent Latino in New Jersey and 94 percent on Long Island.
This one is quite a doozy. Here, Caesar Trunzo attempts to share his thoughts on immigration, but what comes out doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I especially love the part where Trunzo speaks about those who "speak hispanic" or about how he has helped many immigrants "become senators."
We, the undersigned organizations and individuals, oppose any efforts to enlist state and local police authorities in the enforcement of federal civil immigration laws. We believe such actions will undermine trust and cooperation between police and the communities they are sworn to protect, divert law enforcement resources away from far-more-important policing activities, lead to costly mistakes and civil rights violations, and make us all less safe.
Here in New York, the idea of deputizing state and local police as immigration agents is being promoted by State Assemblyman Greg Ball (R-Carmel), who is convening a meeting with local law enforcement officials and anti-immigrant groups to sell the idea on April 19th. Mr. Ball is calling on local law enforcement agencies to enter into agreements with the Department of Homeland Security under section 287(g) of immigration law, authorizing police to carry out the functions of federal immigration officers, at local expense.
Enlisting state and local police to enforce federal civil immigration laws is bad public policy for many reasons:
• Undermines community policing efforts. Police depend on relationships with and cooperation from the entire community. People will be less likely to go to the police if they fear that they or their family members could end up being deported. Victims of domestic violence will hesitate to report their abusers. If crime victims or witnesses are fearful of approaching the police or reporting suspicious behavior, the entire community is less safe.
• Diverts resources away from fighting crime. Checking immigration documents and holding suspected undocumented immigrants who have committed no crime diverts law enforcement resources away from responding to 911 calls and investigating real crimes. Our police should be focused on the real criminals who prey on communities, not on immigrants who are simply working to support their families.
• Results in serious mistakes and civil rights violations. Determining whether someone has violated immigration laws or regulations is not a simple matter. Enlisting police to enforce complex immigration laws is likely to lead to increased racial profiling and civil rights violations, as well as mistakes, all of which can expose state and local governments to lawsuits and expensive judgments and settlements.
• Shifts federal responsibilities and expenses to local government. The federal government provides no new funds or reimbursement to towns and cities that take on immigration law enforcement. In an era of tight budgets, the last thing we need is to be doing the job of the federal government at our own expense. Congress needs to fix the broken immigration system, not shift responsibility to local municipalities.
The 287(g) agreements do nothing to help us fight crime. State and local police already have the authority to arrest and detain immigrants who are involved in criminal activities and to call federal immigration agents. They do so every day. The 287(g) agreements, however, go far beyond criminal enforcement, authorizing state and local police to go after immigrants who pose no criminal threat. Such efforts would only push immigrant workers and families further underground, making them easy targets of crime.
Like all Americans, we are concerned about public safety and security. We want to protect our families and our communities from crime and terrorism. We also understand that serious and comprehensive immigration reform is needed to resolve our country's immigration problems. But having state and local police act as immigration agents will not solve these problems, and will only create a whole host of new problems. We urge you to join us in opposing any efforts to involve state and local police in the enforcement of federal immigration laws. Anti-immigrant politics must not be allowed to trump common sense.
I wrote earlier about Assemblyman James Tedisco's endorsement of John McCain. It was interesting for several reasons, namely because Tedisco was one of the fierce opponents and critics of Governor Eliot Spitzer's plan to change the DMV policy - or as Tedisco and his followers named it, driver's licenses for illegals.
First, a quote from McCain:
Well, first of all, muchas gracias. We have to stop the illegal immigration, but we've had waves throughout our history. Hispanics is what we're talking about, a different culture, a different language, which has enriched my state where Spanish was spoken before English was. In Washington DC, go to the Vietnam War Memorial and look at the names engraved in black granite. You'll find a whole lot of Hispanic names. They must come into country legally, but they have enriched our culture and our nation as every generation of immigrants before them.
- John McCain at the GOP debate held at St. Anselm College
And now, for a quote from Tedisco on immigration:
"In this post 9/11 world, the last thing the Governor and state DMV should be doing is handing out driver's licenses to potential terrorists," said Tedisco. "The safety of New Yorkers is not something that should fall prey to politics. Governor Spitzer: Follow the law or we will see you in court." - Tedisco, 9/28/07
Then, there was Tedisco's License to Kill op-ed piece in the New York Post. Here's an excerpt from that message of fear:
Gov. Spitzer last month announced a complicated and expensive plan to allow illegal aliens to get New York driver's licenses. It's wrong - and it's dangerous.
It's wrong - and it's dangerous. Like he was writing a sci-fi thriller. And now, this guy is endorsing a guy who is fairly moderate on the issue of immigration.
Rudy Giuliani claims in an interview for a new book, that he really, really wanted to deport every undocumented immigrant in NYC because they were causing him problems. I say 'claims', because I think he's full of it and simply pandering once again to the hardcore nativists that make up much of the GOP primary electorate. Can you imagine what would have happened if 400,000 people had been deported from New York City? I can. You can. So can Rudy.
Rudy Giuliani says he wanted to deport all 400,000 illegal immigrants from New York City when he was mayor, but ended up welcoming most of those who were "causing me no trouble."
In an interview for the new book "Meet the Next President," Giuliani lamented that the Immigration and Naturalization Service deported only 700 to 1,500 of the city's 400,000 aliens each year during his mayoralty. Giuliani said it was obvious the INS was not about to increase deportation "from 700 or 1,500 to 400,000."
"If they could, I would have turned all the people over. It would have helped me. I would have had a smaller population. I would have had fewer problems," the Republican presidential candidate told The Examiner in an interview. "But the practical reality was, they were going to make an infinitesimal, statistically insignificant contribution to the problem. I was stuck with it. And no matter what their promises, they weren't going to do anything about it."
FROM: Elana Levin
The Drum Major Institute for Public Policy
DATE: December 4, 2007
RE: Immigration and the blogosphere
The problem:
America's current immigration policy is clearly unacceptable to the general public, immigrant rights activists, immigration opponents and organized labor. Even corporations are dissatisfied with the status quo, even if for their own profit-driven reasons. There is a consensus that reform is needed but there is no consensus on what that reform should look like. At the same time, the status quo of maximum noise with minimum action is a political strategy for a certain segment of the organized right wing. The netroots can play a critical role on this issue by facilitating a conversation that will lead to increased political will for a progressive immigration policy that will benefit America's squeezed middle class and all those struggling to become middle class.
Many progressive and centrist politicians and political influencers have, until recently, chosen to either remain silent on the need for comprehensive immigration reform or confine their speech to statements supporting an increase in border control only. Local elections across the nation have shown that anti-immigrant demagogy does not win elections despite the public's concerns about the issue. Yet political leaders continue to advise progressives running for office to regard immigration policy as a "third rail" that should not be touched.
The current state of the debate on immigration policy is entirely unproductive and the relative silence of progressive movement voices has, and will continue, to contribute greatly to the lack of vision and unity on this issue. Treating immigration as a cause to support or attack for the sake of political expediency will not lead to an immigration policy that will strengthen and expand the middle class.
The Fiscal Policy Institute has a new report out this morning that challenges many commonly held assumptions about immigrants in the Empire State. Among the reports key findings are that immigrants significantly bolster the ranks of the middle class in NYC, the majority of immigrants to New York speak English, immigrants create a quarter of all economic growth in the state, immigrants are responsible for a great deal of small business entrepreneurship and that migrant agricultural workers upstate come from all over the world, not just Mexico.
Over time, the report shows, immigrants become fully participating members of New York's communities.
* The majority of immigrants living in New York State speak English, and their English gets significantly better over time. * Immigrants are entrepreneurs. The number of Hispanic- and Asian-owned businesses is growing rapidly, one rough indication of immigrant entrepreneurship. * About two thirds of immigrants in the upstate and downstate suburbs own their own homes. * Fully 34 percent of New York's children are growing up in families with at least one foreign-born adult-8 percent in upstate New York, 31 percent in the downstate suburbs, and 57 percent in New York City.
Here are some extended excerpts:
Immigrants Create Almost a Quarter of
New York State Economic Output Report shows foreign-born New Yorkers in jobs
all across the economic spectrum
Immigrants added $229 billion to the New York State economy in 2006, according to a new report by the Fiscal Policy Institute. That represents 22.4 percent of the state's Gross Domestic Product, according to the report, Working for a Better Life: A Profile of Immigrants in the New York Economy.
"These figures should wipe away any impression that immigrants are holding the New York economy back," said David Dyssegaard Kallick, senior fellow of the Fiscal Policy Institute and principal author of the report. "In fact, immigrants are a central component of New York's economic growth."
Immigrants make up 21 percent of people living in New York State-37 percent in New York City, 18 percent in the downstate suburbs, and 5 percent in upstate in 2005, according to the report. Immigrants also make up 31 percent of people who commute into New York State to work.
"Immigrants' contribution to economic output in New York State is about the same as their share of the population," notes James Parrott, chief economist of the Fiscal Policy Institute. "That's because immigrants start businesses, invest in New York, and work in jobs all across the economic spectrum-the same as other New Yorkers."
"This report clearly proves that immigrants fuel growth and vitality in every economic sector and every geographic area in New York," said Chung-Wha Hong, executive director of The New York Immigration Coalition. "For us to maximize immigrant contributions to the economy, we must stop treating immigrants like criminals and terrorists. Instead, we need to change our immigration laws so that undocumented immigrants can come out of the shadows of the underground economy and future immigrant workers can immigrate legally to fill jobs that our economy requires."
The report also finds that immigrants are subject to the same economic forces as everyone else in New York's highly polarized economy. "We can see that low-wage workers-both immigrants and U.S.-born-are not sharing in the economy's growth," said David R. Jones, president and CEO of the Community Service Society of NY. "The right answer is to enforce basic standards that are good for all low-wage workers, not to pit one group of workers against another."
Here is Eliot Spitzer's full statement, delivered moments ago in Washington, DC>
Remarks by Governor Eliot Spitzer
Washington, DC
November 14, 2007
As Prepared for Delivery
Over the last two months, I have been advancing a proposal that I believe would improve the safety and security of the people of my state by addressing the fact that New York is home to one million undocumented immigrants, many of whom are driving on our roads unlicensed. After serious deliberation and consultation with people I respect on all sides of this issue, I have concluded that New York State cannot successfully address this problem on its own. I am announcing today that I am withdrawing my proposal.
Here in our nation's capital, I wanted to talk briefly about the failed federal immigration policy and what that has meant for states like New York.
I suggest to you what everyone already knows. The federal government has lost control of its borders, has allowed millions of undocumented immigrants to enter our country, and now has no solution to deal with it.
When the federal government abdicates its responsibility, states, cities, towns and villages still have to deal with the practical reality of that failure. And we face that reality every day in our schools, in our hospitals, and on our roads. In New York, that means one million undocumented immigrants, many of whom are driving without a license and without insurance, and all of whom are living in the shadows with no real identity.
While states lack the ability to fix our immigration laws, we do have the obligation to try to address some of their negative consequences. And so, many of us have tried.
In New York, we announced a comprehensive proposal to allow New Yorkers to choose from three secure licenses. This was a practical response to both the new federal travel requirements and the old federal inaction. It would have enabled us to keep our Upstate economy viable; meet the demands of federal travel requirements; make our roads safer; and bring more New Yorkers into the system, helping law enforcement officials fight crime and terrorism.
It would have restored the practice of licensing immigrants who do not have social security numbers, something New York had done for years, something eight other states -- both "red" and "blue" states -- do right now and something I continue to believe is principally the right thing to do to make our roads safer and our state more secure.
I continue to believe that my proposal would have improved an unsatisfactory situation. But I have listened to the legitimate concerns of the public and those who would be affected by my proposal, and have concluded that pushing forward unilaterally in the face of such strong opposition would be counterproductive.
The governor, who is to announce the move formally on Wednesday, said in an interview Tuesday night that he did not reach the decision easily. "You have perhaps seen me struggle with it because I thought we had a principled decision, and it's not necessarily easy to back away from trying to move a debate forward," he said.
But he came to believe the proposal would ultimately be blocked, he said, either by legal challenges, a vote by the Legislature to deny funding for the Department of Motor Vehicles or a refusal by upstate county clerks to carry it out.
What a shame. The plan was solid. Did they make mistakes in announcing the plan? Maybe, maybe not. I hoped that the endorsements from Richard Clarke and others would help the plan gain some supporters, but obviously that wasn't the case.
And then, of course, how could we forget the politics involved. The Republicans played the fear card over and over again and some Democrats didn't help. In fact, just as the Republicans tried to use this issue for political gain, I fear the only reason some Democrats didn't support the issue was to protect their own backside in the elections.
Just what we need... politicians who just hope to get reelected and not represent the people.
I wouldn't doubt that, down the road, Spitzer reintroduces a similar plan. Let's face it, the plan is a good one. But with people like Bruno and Tedisco roaming our state, I don't see a compromise. Anything Spitzer does will be under a microscope.
This morning's new Siena Poll should give serious pause to the Spitzer administration. Eliot Spitzer's job approval rating is downright Bush-like with twice as many disapproving of the Governor's performance as approving. The biggest factor in this "historic" drop is his plan, noble as it may have been, to issue drivers licenses to undocumented workers. The battle over this proposal is over and the good guys lost.
2/3 of NYers Oppose Gov's License Proposals - New & Old Spitzer Job Performance Is 2:1 Negative; Plurality View Him Unfavorably
Nearly Half of Voters Prefer "Someone Else" Over Spitzer for 2010
Seven in ten New York voters who have read or heard about the Governor's proposal to allow undocumented aliens to obtain New York driver's licenses continue to oppose his original plan, and nearly two-thirds oppose his revised three-tiered license plan, according to a new Siena (College) Research Institute poll of registered voters released today. The Siena New York poll shows that Spitzer's job performance rating is now virtually two-to-one negative and, for the first time ever, more voters now view him unfavorably than view him favorably. If the 2010 gubernatorial election were today, only 25 percent of voters are prepared to re-elect Eliot Spitzer, while 49 percent prefer "someone else."
"He changed the plan, but he hasn't changed the minds of the voters. New plan, old plan, it just doesn't matter - New Yorkers continue to overwhelmingly oppose the Governor on his plan to give driver's licenses to undocumented aliens," said Steven Greenberg, Siena New York Poll spokesman. "The Governor has America's Homeland Security Secretary agreeing with him that the state will have one of the most secure licensing systems in the nation, but by a three-to-two margin, New Yorkers don't buy it."
Nine in ten voters have read or heard about the Governor's plan. By a margin of 70 to 25 percent they oppose it (down slightly from 72-22 percent last month). More than half of every demographic group - including Democrats (55-36 percent) - oppose the Governor's plan. When questioned on the revised three-tiered license plan, voters oppose it by a 65-28 percent margin.
...
For the first time ever in a Siena New York poll, Spitzer has a negative favorability rating, 41-46 percent. Last month it was 54-36 percent. The Governor's job performance rating is 33 percent positive (four percent excellent, 29 percent good) to 64 percent negative (37 percent fair, 27 percent poor), down from last month's 41-55 percent.
"One year ago, Eliot Spitzer won 69 percent of the votes for Governor. In January, 75 percent of voters gave him a favorable rating. Only five months ago, 64 percent viewed him favorably and 55 percent gave him a positive job performance rating," Greenberg said. "All that's changed in a New York minute.
"Eliot Spitzer's standing with voters has fallen faster and further than any politician in recent New York history," Greenberg said. "Everything may not have changed on day one but from the voters' perspective, everything about Governor Spitzer changed in year one."
...
"Currently, only one in four voters is prepared to re-elect Eliot Spitzer. Only 37 percent of Democrats are prepared to re-elect him," Greenberg said. "Three years is a long time - virtually an eternity - in politics, however, this kind of erosion in support for the Governor is certain to bring smiles to the faces of his political opponents. The Governor clearly has his work cut out for him in trying to win back the support of New Yorkers.
"The Governor's fall is directly tied to his license proposal. When asked whether his handling of the license issue increased or decreased their approval of his job performance, 52 percent of voters said it decreased their approval, compared to only 11 percent who said it increased their approval," Greenberg said. "Sixty percent or more of Republicans, independent voters, upstaters, and Catholics said this issue decreased their support of the Governor's job performance."
It should be noted that the Governor still hasn't completed the first year of a four year term. Much can and certainly will happen in the next three years. But, for Spitzer to remain a viable vehicle of change, he absolutely must drop the drivers license plan. Appoint a commission to study the proposal and slowly back away. I agree with Bill Hammond on this one.
Gov. Spitzer should pull the plug on driver's licenses for illegal immigrants - right now. Immediately.
Keeping his well-intentioned but disastrously mishandled proposal alive even one more day does no one any good - except maybe his Republican enemies, who would love to milk the controversy right through next year's elections.
The harm he's done to his own political career - and his mandate to fix Albany - has been bad enough. But now the damage is spreading, weakening every Democrat it touches, up to and including Hillary Clinton.
Worst of all is the backlash he triggered against illegal immigrants - the people he'd hoped to bring out of the shadows.
...
Sorry, but "wait and see" only prolongs the agony. He's got to pull his plan off the table completely, so no one can pretend it's a live proposal. If he wants to save face, he can appoint a commission to study the issue and build consensus on a solution - which is what he should have done in the first place.
...
Instead of continuing a fight he cannot win, Spitzer should conserve his energy - and what's left of his political capital - for more important battles. The Troopergate scandal is getting a second wind from reports that his former communications director, Darren Dopp, is under investigation for allegedly misleading investigators. Meanwhile, the governor faces the daunting task of closing a $4.3 billion gap in next year's state budget.
New York needs Eliot Spitzer. He was elected on a platform of reform, something this state desperately needs. That's a huge task and he's going to need all the political capital and allies he can muster. Continuing to push a laudable proposal that is nonetheless loathed by 70% of the public is no longer viable and only serves to strengthen the corrupt status quo. Stop it.
As Bouldin said a few weeks ago, something's not working, folks.
They huffed and they puffed and, well, not much happened. Though they tried and tried and tried, to make this election about the Governor's plan to allow undocumented workers to obtain drivers licenses, an issue they believed (and they were hardly alone) was a sure fire winner for them, in the end, the issue turned out to be largely a sheep in wolf's clothing. It's more complicated than that, of course. Dems in some key races campaigned actively against the policy, but the fact remains that, in what most observers judged to be an environment highly favorable to what remains of the NY GOP, they rather seriously underperformed. If I were a partisan of the NY GOP, I'd be awfully concerned this morning. This was obviously one of their last best chances to remain relevant statewide and their "scary brown people" gambit largely failed.
You can actually read the disappointment in the statement of state GOP chair Joe Mondello as quoted in this morning's Times:
While the results are still coming in, it is clear that New York's Republican Party has come a long way in the past 12 months.
Whatever, Joe.
More from the Times:
Democrats declared yesterday that Gov. Eliot Spitzer's plan to give driver's licenses to illegal immigrants had not proved to be the electoral boon Republicans had hoped for in local elections, despite the Republicans' aggressive efforts to exploit overwhelming public opposition to the proposal.
Though Democrats appeared to expand their majority in the Legislature in Suffolk County, Republicans were not ready to concede a pivotal Nassau County legislative race, and pointed to significant victories in several county races upstate as evidence of a Republican resurgence in the state.
...
In many parts of the state, turnout appeared to be even lower than usual for an off-year election, despite Republican hopes that the licensing issue would drive Republican voters to the polls.
Though anger clearly existed over Mr. Spitzer's proposal - as well as his bout with scandal and his battles with Albany Republicans - many local races appeared to hinge, as they traditionally do, on local issues like property taxes and municipal services, or on the specific strengths and weaknesses of the candidates themselves.
...
In Monroe County, Democrats won one hard-fought legislative seat despite a late effort to blanket the area with mailers that charged local Democrats with aiding terrorists because of their support for Mr. Spitzer's licensing plan.
Though the seat will not by itself swing control of the County Legislature, Democrats hope it will presage a strong effort next year against two Rochester-area Republicans in the State Senate.
Like I said, it's certainly more complex than appears at first glance, and there are plenty of local races upstate to analyze, but the fact remains that the GOP was looking for much more than they got.
So now we know that state Senators Hugh Farley and Vinnie Liebell are both sending identical mailers to their districts bashing the governor and trying their best to scare the crap out of their own constituents for cheap political gain. Given those nifty cards to mail back, they are also building their lists with public money. But, now we learn that Farley has gone one step further. He's produced his very own fake news show called "First Look."
Oh, and guess who paid for it? If you guessed "you and I", please move to the head of the class.
A few folks have emailed over the past few days about over the top mailers they are getting about the governor's drivers license plan, but none of them can top this from our friends at Rochester Turning.
Yikes. Note the keffiyeh on the dude on the license. Nice.
Have you gotten anything like this in the mail? If so, please get clear digital pictures and send them to me or post them yourself. Maybe we'll have a contest for the most insanely over the top piece of scary, scary mail.
In a major shift, Gov. Eliot Spitzer is backing off his plan to allow illegal immigrants to obtain the same kind of driver's licenses as other New Yorkers, after weeks of furor over the proposal.
Instead, the governor said on Saturday, illegal immigrants in the state would be able to obtain a license that would permit them to drive but would not be accepted as identification to board planes or cross borders.
...
The move followed a wave of criticism over the governor's proposal, with many Democrats warning that Mr. Spitzer had put the state party in political peril. The new plan also reflects the increasingly complicated security requirements that have been developed by the federal government since the Sept. 11 attacks.
The plan will probably do little if anything to quell the controversy over the issue, as people on both sides of the debate in New York expressed concern about it on Saturday.
And the State Legislature, which has expressed concern about any extension of licenses to illegal immigrants, would probably be required to provide the funds for the new system, which is expected to be costly.
I have my doubts that this move will please that many folks, though it might take some of the sting out of an issue that has been something of a disaster over the past month. As I have said since the beginning, I think the original policy is sound. It would indeed make us safer. Suggesting otherwise, which has become a full contact sport recently, seems counterintuitive. That said, the administration's handling of this issue has been atrocious and their actions have just fed the 'Spitzer as out of touch autocrat' meme. Last week, when the Times quoted the Governor as saying, "things are moving ahead in a spectacular manner. We couldn't be happier.", anyone paying any attention was most likely scratching their head. Today's story includes this puzzler:
In an interview, the governor called the new plan "the perfect resolution" and said it was "not at all a shift" from what he had previously laid out.
Um, OK. I certainly hope this may calm the waters somewhat, though I have my doubts that it will. The status quo, the real enemies of actually reforming this state, are making too much hay out of this to let it go. A party that looked near death just a few months ago has gotten a much needed boost from this fiasco. They are raising money on this and they are already gaming those state Senate races in Long Island around this one. And why shouldn't they? This was a gift to them and, hey, it's a hell of a lot easier than, ya know, actually governing or defending the indefensible cesspit that is our state government. More profitable, too.
Look for the GOP to lose some of the "Driver's Licenses for Osama!" rhetoric, as this move will hopefully ameliorate some of those concerns. But, don't think for a second that the governor's foes are going to drop this one any time soon. This one has been just too good for business.
Illegal immigrants who try to apply for driver's licenses in Erie and Niagara counties will be subject to arrest - and deportation - under a plan being developed by the two county clerks and law enforcement officials.
The move is the latest - and potentially most serious - challenge to Gov. Eliot L. Spitzer's new policy to permit illegal immigrants to obtain driver's licenses if they possess a valid foreign passport and other identification.
...
"We didn't ask to be put in this situation, but this is the proper recourse," said Hochul, a Democrat who was appointed to her post earlier this year by Spitzer after her predecessor, David Swarts, was named commissioner of motor vehicles.
(From our friends at the Drum Major Institute. I'll have more on this later. Short version is that I think the Governor's plan is solid policy. I really do. However, I think the ineptitude with which it was introduced has likely killed it. In this piece Andrea describes a "conversation" about an important issue. I'm all for that, but the Governor ceded the progressive half of that immediately by saying, well, by saying nothing. My take on this is very close to Bouldin's. Regardless, I am awfully tired of watching a blowdried blowhard like Dobbs spout Bruno's "spoiled, rich kid brat" schtick. - promoted by phillip anderson)
post by Drum Major Institute's Andrea Batista Schlesinger Lou Dobbs is at it again. His target this time? Governor Eliot Spitzer and his plan to provide drivers licenses to New Yorkers regardless of their citizenship.
In developing your own opinion on the Governor's proposal consider this: If, like Lou Dobbs, you believe political pandering that exploits fear should be used to stall a much-needed conversation about immigration policy, you should join his knee-jerk opposition to Governor Spitzer's plan. But if you want a common-sense approach that follows the lead of eight other states and would make New York's people and streets safer, go with the Governor.
Here's some video of the Governor addressing the meeting of the New York State Democratic Committee yesterday out on Long island. In this clip he explains his support for the practice of granting drivers licenses to the undocumented and calls out those who have invoked the terrorist-9/11-Iranian president boogeyman in discussing it. More video later today.
