Towards the end of last night's debate there was a bit of a kerfuffle over New York Governor Eliot Spitzer's decision to create a class of driver's licenses that cannot be used for identification purposes for airports and the like and, as such, would be available to those in the United States illegally. For those who weren't able to see the debate or experience the televised post-debate spin room antics, Hillary Clinton was put on the spot on the issue, and while not fully embracing the Spitzer plan she seemed to support the idea behind it as well as decry the situation that precipitated it -- namely the failure of the federal government to effectively deal with the immigration issue. Similarly, according to the debate transcript, Barack Obama called it "the right idea" citing "a public safety concern."
Following the debate the chattering class seemed intent on considering this a strong blow against Clinton, if not in the primary then in a potential general election. Indeed, a Sienna College poll of New Yorkers evidences a high level of opposition to Spitzer's plan -- "nearly three-quarters of voters," in fact -- and just 22 percent support for the measure. One could imagine the general reaction around the country not being too dissimilar.
Yet I'd like to do something I don't do too often on this site: Defend a policy position undertaken by the Democrats -- and a not terribly popular one, at that. I don't know a terribly large amount about the Spitzer plan, so I'm not going to address the specifics of it. I do know that Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski floated a similar, though less complicated plan that would create two classes of licenses (as opposed to Spitzer's three), one that would require proof of "legal presence" that could be used as an official identification card for banks, airports and other such places, and one that would be stamped "not for identification" that would be used only for driver's licensing purposes.
As Obama suggested during the debate, there is a real security issue that could be addressed by this tiering of licenses. Specifically, at least some of the 12 million or so people in the United States unlawfully at this juncture drive cars, and when they do so they may be doing so without a full knowledge of driving rules and regulations and without insurance. On the first point, testing these ddrivers before they get on the road could do quite a bit to mitigate this problem, particularly if the tiered licensing system is done in such a way that immigrants don't feel that by applying for a license they are increasing their likelihood of being deported or otherwise penalized. Of nearly equal importance to this issue of safety, getting these drivers licensed would enable them to get car insurance, which could actually decrease the cost for other drivers who do have insurance. (When someone without insurance hits someone with insurance the cost must be borne somewhere.)
No doubt this isn't the most popular move at this juncture. But with a bit of explanation and political capital (and real capital) invested in making the argument, I think there are a lot of people -- particularly the large proportion of Americans in favor of a path to legalization or citizenship for illegal immigrants -- who could be swayed. And even for those whose positions are particularly hardened at this point so that they would not be swayed, it's not clear to me that the issue is salient enough to make them change their mind about a presidential election when other issues like Iraq, Iran, the economy and healthcare continue to loom large.
Update [2007-10-31 14:45:24 by Jonathan Singer]: It looks like CNN polled this question nationally earlier this month and found 23 percent support and 76 percent opposition to this type of plan, so the national numbers do look fairly similar to the New York numbers.
|
|
|
Permalink :: 58 Comments :: Post a Comment
|
In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.
If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.
