Illegals will perceive the driver's license as documentation legitimizing their unlawful residency status. And some may register to vote with their state sanctioned identity.
I never said "to detain and deport all illegals." It's impossible to go around and round them up for deportation, and I don't advocate doing so. It's not necessary.
What I did say: "Instead, illegals must be detained and deported to their country of origin when encountered by the authorities, or encouraged to self-deport through strict worksite enforcement."
The conditional phrase, "when encountered" does not equate to "all."
Gee, I guess illegal employers will have to raise wages to attract the needed labor to fill those jobs that Americans want to do (and do perform) for a fair wage and humane working conditions. Advocating the continued exploitation of illegal cheap labor for corporate profit or selfish savings is not a progressive value I share.
The issue is about granting driver licenses to ILLEGAL aliens; legal immigrants can easily obtain driver licenses.
Defending the indefensible is futile. No state should reward de facto citizenship privileges to non-citizens whose residency in this country is unlawful. Instead, illegals must be detained then deported to their country of origin when encountered by the authorities, or motivated to self-deport over time through strict worksite enforcement.
"Many in the blogosphere community look to the past as much as the future, so I would like to point out that had our government listened to Biden in 2003, the Iraq War never would have happened." - Transplanted Texan
The past is prologue to the future, and listening to Biden was part of the problem during the run-up to the invasion. In 2002, many Democrats in the Senate followed Biden and voted for Bush's AUMF in Iraq. With his supposed foreign policy experience and access to intelligence, he should have shown leadership by voting against the AUMF. But he didn't. And today, this bloviating sack of do-nothing pretends to know what is good for Iraqis?
Biden has done enough damage. He needs to halt his paternalistic talk about the US redrawing Iraq the way a parent directs a child to clean up his or her bedroom. The Iraqis have the smarts, desire and self-esteem to settle their own disputes and rebuild their own future without help from the self-anointed great white father from the Mid-Atlantic.
Biden's path to redemption begins by supporting legislation to end the occupation, and not some meaningless troop draw-down head fake that helps Bush kick-the-casket down the road until January 2009. But he won't do it.
The idea of national service for the national good is laudable, but tepid.
The notion of linking the inherent benefit of living in America (often viewed as an entitlement) with national service is a generational throw-back to a time when citizens perceived a clear national threat, and were willing to sacrifice out of a basic belief that they were all in this together.
This is a different time. The perceived threats are personal rather than national.
Many people who want to attend college don't because they can't afford the cost. Many others who do attend often incur an outrageous debt burden for most of their working lives. A growing number of Americans have no health care or are under insured. The job opportunity magnet that once drew many Americans to pursue careers in technology and science has been turned off by corporations who use government policies to hire low-paid foreign workers over willing and qualified American workers. And so on.
A better idea is to link voluntary national service to a tangible, personal benefit, like tuition-free undergraduate eduction. This is a bold idea that provides a meaningful linkage between benefit and service. Moreover, this initiative would teach a new generation how effective government can play a meaningful role in peoples lives.
And you've done a great disservice by dishonestly framing the issue about "immigrants" when it is about illegals.
Immigrants are enfranchised with many of the rights and benefits enjoyed by native born citizens; illegals are not. People who are here illegally do not have the right to vote, nor the right to remain here.
It's the dishonesty that obstructs the pursuit of meaningful solutions to this problem (unlike this "grand bargain" joke) and angers anti-illegal progressives like me.
Progressives will never reach an accord on this issue as long as agenda advocates continue playing language games.
We have an immigration process in place. Illegals have chosen to ignore them and then claim a right to be here because they've broken our immigration laws.
We have the right and the responsibility to determine the levels and rules of immigration that benefit our national interests, rather than the interests of those who have no right to be here.
We need to strengthen and enforce current immigration laws to turn off the job magnet for illegal workers. No jobs, no health care, no schools, no driver licenses, no amnesty, no illegals. (And, yes, they will go home.) If illegals want to obtain citizenship then they must leave the country and get in line.
Illegals who risk coming here do so at there own peril. Having anchor babies here doesn't legitimize their illegal status nor absolves them of their negligence. Illegals are foremost responsible for their family situations. Many American families are broken regularly when a parent gets busted crimes, and I don't see Democrats, liberals championing reform and justice for them.
So, no, Melissa, we need to redefine so-called "immigration reform" as a fight for fairness and economic justice for American and legal immigrant workers, rather than for open border advocates and the big business cheap labor agenda.
Her piece in WSJ today laments Bush shedding the baggage of the Republican base:
The White House doesn't need its traditional supporters anymore, because its problems are way beyond being solved by the base. And the people in the administration don't even much like the base. Desperate straits have left them liberated, and they are acting out their disdain. Leading Democrats often think their base is slightly mad but at least their heart is in the right place. This White House thinks its base is stupid and that its heart is in the wrong place.
For almost three years, arguably longer, conservative Bush supporters have felt like sufferers of battered wife syndrome. You don't like endless gushing spending, the kind that assumes a high and unstoppable affluence will always exist, and the tax receipts will always flow in? Too bad! You don't like expanding governmental authority and power? Too bad. You think the war was wrong or is wrong? Too bad.
But on immigration it has changed from "Too bad" to "You're bad."
The president has taken to suggesting that opponents of his immigration bill are unpatriotic--they "don't want to do what's right for America."
Illegal and mass immigration is an issue that cuts across class more than party lines. The public spectacle of Republicans fracturing over immigration disguises the growing discord among Democrats, but not to the same degree.
I did not intend to suggest racial profiling; however, I can understand how one might perceive that wrong impression.
"Highly visible occupational categories" was a response to your concern about the cost associated with policing employers to the degree that I describe.
My point was that illegal employers who employ illegal workers typically operate out of brick and mortar facilities, which makes it less costly to locate and investigate them, unlike this illegal employer who had operated out of an apartment in Woodbridge Va.
Yes. Why would someone risk death to sneak into the US without the prospect of employment? Most illegals are employed in highly visible occupational categories (construction, retail, hospitality, etc.).
The question is not so much about whether it will work, but whether the federal government has the political will to go after illegal employers.