N.Y. mayor takes a stand on driver's licenses for illegals

Californians know well the emotions that swirl around any debate over giving legal driver's licenses to illegal aliens. Now, the rest of the country is coming to understand it.

We saw some of the furor during Tuesday's Democratic party debate in Philadelphia where Hillary Clinton seemed to be for giving licenses to illegal immigrants in New York state before she was against giving licenses to illegal immigrants in New York state. Or the other way around. She got nicked over that and keeping her first lady's papers sealed, as the transcript shows, and next morning quickly pulled out a union endorsement to try to change the subject of public discussion.

Now, for what it's worth the mayor of New York has weighed in on the issue. The former Democrat-turned-Republican-turned independent Michael Bloomberg says he opposes the plan to give illegals drivers licenses. "I do not believe they should," Bloomberg said on CNN.

"The bottom line," the billionaire added, "is we should be giving driver's licenses to people knowing who they are and making sure that they have a right to have them."

As long as Bloomberg was there, Blitz Wolfer asked him, yet again, about running for president. "You are asking a person who's not a candidate," the mayor said. "I have 791 days left to go in my job. And I plan to finish that."

"You plan to finish it. But, zero chance you would run for president this time around?"

"This country does not need another candidate and I'm not a candidate. And I told you I'm going to speak out. I have every intention of speaking out and traveling around this country and trying to get people to say, look, you know who are running. Tell us what you will do and how do you stop the constant fighting that has immobilized Congress, both parties and both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue?"

You'll note, of course, that having answered the driver's license question directly, Bloomberg found himself unable to address the "zero chance" one in the same manner.

--Andrew Malcolm

Comments

[Bradley, G]

We are SWAMPED with illegals in Maricopa County, Az! There are construction sites here where English is not
spoken! The good news is the 500,000 illegals in the Phoenix are are leaving at a reported rate of 400 to 500 a
day because "We The People" Voted in a new law that goes into effect Jan 1, 2008 that will take the business
licenses from employers who are caught hiring illegals! Check out some of the action going on here at http://www.deadfacts.com Wonder why Taco Bell gave up that Ad "Run for the Border" ?

[Bl]

There is a grain of truth here. Immigrants, even illegal aliens, are created in the image of God and deserve to be treated with respect and humanity. This points to the vital distinction between immigration policy and immigrant policy. Immigration policy concerns how many we let in, and who, and how we enforce the law. It is in serious need of adjustment. Immigrant policy concerns how we treat those foreigners we lawfully admit to live among us and eventually to join us as Americans. In this respect, Americans remain the least xenophobic people on the planet, far more welcoming of newcomers than any of the countries from which our immigrants arrive.
But Chua's useful note of caution is almost lost in a mountain of nonsense. First, to imply that Huntington, this nation's preeminent social scientist, is capable of "scapegoating vitriol" is absurd. In his book, "Who Are We? The Challenges to America's National Identity" Huntington argues not that only WASPs can be Americans. He simply says that our institutions and culture were permanently shaped by British low-church Protestantism -- and that diluting that inheritance would undermine much of what has made America such a successful multi-ethnic society.
In fact, the "vitriol" is mainly on the other side of the immigration debate. This Post editorial, for example, scoured the thesaurus for terms to hurl at immigration critics: "xenophobes," "vigilantism," "cruel," "toxic," "intensifying nativist zeal," "venomous," "pernicious," "ferocity of the demagogues." This kind of outlandish rhetoric is hardly unusual among supporters of amnesty and high immigration and, to paraphrase Chua, will drive the U.S. mainstream farther from the elites that spew it. This is why the immigration bill failed in the Senate this summer: The public has little confidence that government, business, the media and other elements of the elite feel any sense of solidarity with their fellow citizens or are even remotely interested in preserving American sovereignty.

The other restrictionist "mistake" Chua points to is neglecting "the indispensable role that immigrants have played in building American wealth and power." The present-day examples she cites have nothing to do with "a fierce global competition to attract the world's best high-tech scientists and engineers." Intel confounder Andy Grove, for instance, is a manager, not a technician, and Google confounder Sergey Brin came here as a child as part of a refugee family. The push by high-tech firms to import more talent from abroad is simply a 21st century version of the eternal search for cheap labor.

And Chua's examples from the past are just that. Although today's immigrants are very similar to those of a century ago, we are a completely changed society. As I argue in my forthcoming book, "The New Case Against Immigration," immigration is simply incompatible with modern society. Our economy places a much higher premium than ever before on education. The United States already spends too much on an extensive welfare state. And advances in communications and transportation make immigration, even of the educated, deeply problematic for assimilation and security and sovereignty. In other words, the immigrants are the same, but we are different.
These are hardly quibbles. But it would be churlish to end on them. Our immigration policy is so dysfunctional that any moves in the right direction should be applauded. And Chua's suggestions for change would represent huge moves in the right direction. If her essay represents a shift in the center of gravity of this debate, then it is an encouraging sign indeed.
Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies.

[Bl]

he Elected Politicians that refuse to abide by Article IV section IV of our Constitution against Invasion and fail to enforce our Immigration laws should be tried for treason. When this country is experiencing the greatest invasion in world history and our politicians not only refuse to protect the Nation from this invasion but in fact aid, abet and encourage this invasion they dishonorer their oath of office & rob American Citizens by making them provide for Mexico,s poor and destroying this Nation! . When politician start picking and choosing which parts of our Constitution and Laws they enforce then they are openly encouraging lawless. Illegal Aliens every year kill more American citizens than are killed by terrorist in the last 10 years combined, while raping, and robbing tens of thousands more.

Both parties have contributed to this slaughter of our citizens and the impact of millions of uneducated peons and criminals pouring across our open borders. They are destroying our health care system, our schools, our judicial system, our environment, welfare system. adding to energy use, pollution, water use and driving tax receipts and standard of living down. While driving our taxes, insurance rates, welfare cost up..

Mexican and Latin American citizens have for hundreds of years lived in a society where corruption, crime, poverty, misery, anti-education and hate for American and the rule law of law is normal. Should anyone be surprised they bring those same values across the border with them?

[Frank h, Moore]

LA. HAS BE 'DESTROYED' BY MEXICANS. GET REAL YOU FOOLS. LOOK AROUND YOU, AND QUIT KISSING UP TO THEM. LOS ANGELES IS NOW A PITIYFUL SHAME BECAUSE OF MEXICANS. SCHOOLS ARE FULL OF 'DEAD BEAT' MEXICANS. THEY HAVE RUINED YOUR STATE.NOW DEAL WITH IT.