De Facto Amnesty - Driving Illegals
9/11 hijackers, Amnesty, Homeland Security, Illegal Aliens, Immigration, Incentive, Legitimacy, Liberal/Progressive, Sanctuary
By California Yankee Posted in 9/11 hijackers | Amnesty | Homeland Security | Illegal Aliens | Immigration | Legitimacy — Comments (17) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Even Democrats can't understand why their party's national leaders are embracing driver's licenses for illegal aliens, and say their constituents see it as a "de facto amnesty."
Alabama Democrat Representative Artur Davis, said voters in his state "get that a driver's license is a form of legal status" because it can be used to board a plane, enter most government buildings and conduct most financial transactions.
"The American people don't want conferring driver's licenses to become a de facto amnesty," he said.
Kansas Democratic Representative Nancy Boyda, Kansas Democrat, said the stance favoring licenses for illegals taken by Democratic presidential candidates is very unpopular in her district.
"It is ultimately about the rule of law," she said. "We don't give driver's licenses to people who are here illegally. We do something about the fact that they are here illegally."
Texas Democratic Representative Nick Lampson, said "Somebody else might be out of step with the voters of my district, but I'm not."
Driving illegals has exploded as a major issue in the presidential campaign thanks to New York's Liberal/Progressive Democratic Governor Elliot Spitzer's very unpopular proposal to give licenses to illegal aliens and Hillary's inability to say whether she supported Spitzer's proposal at the Drexal University debate.
According to the Washington Times, Hillary isn't the only Democratic presidential candidate to support Driving illegals:
In addition to Mrs. Clinton, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois said he favors licenses for aliens while New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson's state is one of the small number that already allows such licenses.
Read on.
A recent Fox 5-Washington Times-Rasmussen Reports poll found 77 percent, nearly a five-to-one margin, oppose drivers' licenses for illegal aliens, including (88%) of Republicans, 75% of unaffiliated voters and even 68% of Democrats.
The people get it. Unlike the Democratic Presidential candidates, voters understand that an incentive like a driver's license will encourage more illegal aliens.
Tennessee stopped issuing driving certificates to illegal aliens after investigations found illegal aliens were being shuttled to Tennessee from other states, using fake residency papers and sometimes bribing state workers to get the driving certificates. Tennessee's Driving certificates for illegals, like Spitzer's licenses, were meant to improve driving safety by making sure immigrants living in the state knew traffic rules.
New York Democrat Representative John Hall, broke with Spitzer over licenses for illegal aliens because of the security risk:
"I'm concerned that making licenses available to illegal immigrants could present security risks, make New York a magnet state for illegal immigrants by creating an incentive for more undocumented individuals to come to New York, and that the proposal would create a bureaucratic, confusing system," Hall said in a statement after he was criticized on the issue by national Republicans.
Even though some Democratic members of Congress see the silliness of providing incentives that encourage more illegal immigration, it's only the Republicans that are trying to stop driving illegals.
Minnesota Republican Senator Norm Coleman, introduced a resolution that would put the Senate on record condemning states issuing driver's licenses to illegal aliens. Coleman's resolution is co-sponsored by 15 Republican Senators.
A similar resolution has been introduced in the House by Republican Representatives Tom Latham of Iowa and John Randy Kuhl Jr. of New York
New York Republican Representative Peter T. King of Long Island plans to introduce legislation next week that would prohibit states from issuing driver’s licenses to illegal aliens.
Driving illegals is more problematic than just encouraging more illegal immigration. A driver's license is more than a permit to drive. It's a nationally recognized form of identification that implies citizenship. With the license comes an assumed legitimacy. The same legitimacy achieved by the 9/11 hijackers, who had dozens of state IDs, used to rent cars and apartments, open bank accounts, take flying lessons and board planes.
Instead of arresting and sending illegal aliens back to where they come from when they are discovered driving illegally, the liberal/progressive solution is to give them driver's licenses. I just don't get it.
De Facto Amnesty - Driving Illegals 17 Comments (0 topical, 17 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
i'm for tom
From what I've observed most of them change their minds as do the winds. I don't trust that any of the democrats will do much with illegal immigration. Republican candidates such as Rudy, Mitt, and John McCain vasicillate on the issue.
Tancredo, Hunter, and Paul are the only ones who oppose illegal immigration to any degree.
Tom Tancredo by far has the best record. He's been in the House of Rep for at least eight years and has been fighting against illegal immigration the whole time, when no one else in congress would even mention it. He has presented a bill recently to stop funding to sanctuary cities and it passed. Tom says his primary reason to run for president is to bring the illegal immigration issue to the forefront. However, he is far from a one-issue candidate. You can check all congressmen/women votes on all immigration issues by going to numbersusa.com. You will note that Tancredo has an A or A+ rating. I don't know of anyone else so highly rated.
Tancredo testified against the license policy at an Oct. 3 Republican Assembly hearing in Albany, NY.
Tancredo would never vote for a path to citizenship.
On immigration: Tancredo says "Secure the borders so illegals do not come. Eliminate benefits and job prospects so they do not stay. Grant no amnesty to those who broke our laws. Prosecute employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens. Require legal status for anyone receiving driver licenses, welfare, Non-emergency healthcare. Encourage assimilation of legal immigrants. Eliminate taxpayer funded crutches for those who do not learn English (e.g., bilingual options currently available in schools, on ballots, and even the White House web page) Reduce legal immigration to 250,000 a year so newcomers can assimilate." From--TANCREDO 08 for Pesident.
Check out Tom Tancredo on www.teamtanctredo.com
(He is not funded by corporations and special interest groups. That is why many have not heard about him.) This man is our best hope for the future!!!
elections when only living citizens vote. Motor Voter gets them more voters, the illegal kind.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
"Instead of arresting and sending illegal aliens back to where they come from when they are discovered driving illegally, the liberal/progressive solution is to give them driver's licenses. I just don't get it."
...The American people do not have to worry about being elected into office, and so they are free of the pressure to make the "right" decision. These elected idiots are vote-whores, and will do whatever it takes to win more votes. In this case they think they are securing the Hispanic vote, and if they can get illegals to vote...even better!
...The joke is that if these knuckleheads stood strong and enforced the laws, and tried not to sneak illegals further into our country's fabric, they would be running MUCH strong in the polls. The country WANTS strong leaders to enforce the friggin' laws! Americans first in America!
...It's so simple to understand, but so hard for these progressives to grasp.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
“It must not be supposed that folly is as powerful as truth,
just because it can, if it likes, shout louder and longer than truth.”
--Augustine
That explains why Tancredo is barely registering in the polls and Mr. Sanctuary City Rudy is the frontrunner. I am not convinced that that immigration issue is as hot as you think it is, even among republicans.
It is monarchical and aristocratical government only that requires ignorance for its support.
Thomas Paine, Rights of Man, 1792
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/11/9/113558/098
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
What's Senator John McCain's view on illegal immigration? Is for earned legalization, a path to citizenship? What about Huckabee, what about Ron Paul?
It's an important issue and we should know the facts before we vote in the primaries.
The Left thinks that the "axis of evil" is Wal-Mart, Haliburton and Enron.
In short, they are both leftwing on immigration.
McCain, despite his claims to have learned from his attempts in 2006 and 2007 to pass Ted Kennedy's immigration reform, simply cannot be trusted. I hope he is sincere, but at the end of the day, he cosponsored a very deceptive (why didn't anyone in the media or any of its Senate sponsors bother to tell us that those bills would have greatly increased legal immigration???) bill which, again, was written by Ted Kennedy. He also used some shameful leftwing rhetoric on the Senate floor when he compared opposition to giving legalized illegals certain public benefits to keeping blacks at the back of the bus!
Huckabee, to put it simply, suffers from a severe case of White Guilt. How else do you explain his absurdly comical, yet deeply disturbing talk about how we can atone for slavery with our treatment of latino immigrants. How else do you explain the way he accused opponents (who by the way were fellow Republicans for the most part) of being anti-Christian and of playing to racism and bigotry. All in all, he is probably less trustworthy than McCain on the issue.
Come on. Get serious.
He's not as conservative a many right-wingers, but he's further right than Guiliani and all the Democratic contenders.
As to his reference to bigotry in the illegal immigration debate, he merely has stated that "some"...not most...are motivated in part by racist viewpoints. This is based on the fact that one of the leading opponents to his immigration measures in Arkansas was discovered to be associated with a white supremacy group.
Mr. Ed
Straight from the Horse's Mouth
Being further right than Giuliani and the Democrats doesn't necessarily mean much. In Huckabee's case, it probably is the difference between being horrible or just very bad.
As to his comments about racism in the immigration debate; you can defend them all you want and try to justify them, but at the end of the day, he used thoroughly leftist language to attack the other side (which in this case was the conservative side). He employed text-book leftwing tactics to marginalize oppoents, which again, in this case were those who didn't share in his White Guilt and didn't feel the need to atone for slavery by pandering to latinos. It is completely meaningless that 'some' are motivated by racism, or that a player here or there has ties to white supremacist groups (though I'd be curious as to what exactly that means...I hope you're not getting your info from some group like the Southern Poverty Law Center). Most on the Right of this issue are not guilty of such sins (I'd bet there are more on the left motivated by racial/ethnic concerns/goals/grievances than there are on the Right, why doesn't Huckabee say anything about that???), so in highlighting the motives of the very few, Huckabee is (again) engaging in standard leftwing tactics of guilt-by-association. In other words, it does no good, nor does it serve anything other than a liberal purpose, to use such language.
I've learned my lesson with President Bush on this issue. While conservative-on-immigration conservatives can be forgiven for not knowing the extent of his liberalism on immigration before he got elected (because it was not a big issue and got little coverage in 2000), it is also true that the signs were there if we had looked a little deeper. With Huckabee, I firmly believe that his undeniably leftwing rhetoric on the issue is a strong indicator of where his heart truly lies, and that is with Ted Kennedy/La Raza types.
And consider that Roy Beck of Numbers USA gives Huckabee a solid B on the issue of immigration.
The point I'm making is that conservatives should be wary of someone who speaks about immigration with such leftwing language. I think it says something about how he truly feels, and what it says is troubling.
I mean, what kind of conservative would say we can atone for slavery with our treatment of latino immigrants? What kind of conservative plays into the hands of the Left by recklessly throwing around charges of racism and bigotry in explaining the motives of those who are not liberal on immigration? To me it paints a portrait of a man who (as even one of his supporters says) seeks the approval of elites and who has a guilt-ridden mindset. And I just can't imagine such a person being much of an improvement over Bush on immigration, even though that would be extraordinarily easy to do.
National polls are irrelevant. Romney (blasting illegals) is ahead in NH and IA, in most polls. Thompson (blasting illegals) is ahead in SC.
It's a shame when our leadign Republican candidates are closer to La Raza on immigration issues than their own base.
His pro-amnesty position is the one thing keeping me from supporting Huckabee. And the fact that he called people racist for opposing amnesty.
I'm sorry, but the whole 'blating illegals' bit is the type of nonsense you hear and see from the Kos crowd, and insufferable media personalities like Mort Kondracke.
I realize you probably didn't mean anything by it, but it begs the question of what does it mean to 'blast illegals?' Because if we surrender to the Left/WSJ-wing of the Right's standard, then any position short of 'comprehensive' (i.e. amnesty plus an enormous increase in legal immigration), and any rhetoric critical of such reform makes one guilty of immigrant bashing.
Seriously, is there ANY way from someone to advance conservative immigration reform (i.e. no path to citizenship for illegals and a reduction in legal immigration) w/o being subjected to whole litany of ridiculous name calling? I think the answer is clearly in the negative, but that only shows that we have to fight the Left's bastardization of debate and discourse as much as we have to fight their leftwing agenda.
i'm for tom
Received this letter from Tom a couple of days ago--
On immigration "To start with, we must stop the scourge on this country caused by illegal immigration. To combat this, I have devised a 4-part plan to restore our American borders, culture, and sovereignty. First, our border must be tightly secured by a redundancy of fences, electronic monitoring technology, and active border patrol officers. Next, we need to enforce existing laws by prosecuting employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens. Third, as President, I would ask the Justice Department to throw the book at mayors and city councilmen who violate federal law by providing sanctuaries for illegal aliens--it's called aiding and abetting. Fouthly, I would deport those here illegally, who after their jobs and sanctuaries have been eliminated, refuse to leave voluntarily--because that is the law."
I can tell you that these were Tom's views for many years prior to running for the Presidency and they have not changed. Check out his record while a congressman from CO.
As Tom so passionately says and believes: "Remember, this is our culture, fight for it. This is our flag, Pick it up. This is our country. Let's take it back"
Check him out and join!! www.teamtancredo.org
The same elites are pulling the strings of both parties. They have concentrated their money, power, and influence in the Council on Foreign Relations, CFR. The first tier candidates of both parties are all long term, trusted members. Otherwise they would not get the money or the media attention to be first tier as this organization controls this aspect of American politics down through the US Senate races.
The elites have decided that they need unfettered access to all of the resources of North America, be they natural resources or human labor.The CFR's Independent Task Force Report, "Building a North American Community" has provided the road map/ blueprint to what they want. And this document spells out much of what they want. This task force proposed the Security and Prosperity Partnership, (SPP) between the US, Mexico, and Canada. They proposed an annual summit between the leaders of the three countries.
The report was, in its final draft, published in 2005 and proposed a North American Community for 20010. There have been three such meetings between President Bush and th the president(s) of Mexico and the prime minister(s) of Canada.The last being the meeting in Quebec in August cut sort by a day because of a hurricane in Mexico.
The report calls for the unfettered flow of capital, goods, and labor between the three countries. It also proposes that we do not secure our southern border with Mexico, but rather have just a common security perimeter around North America.
Tom Tancredo demanded a full accounting from President Bush on the people serving in working groups, memoranda of understanding, and agreements reached between the three countries on this. There has been no congressional oversight or involvement. It appears to concerned observers that we are in danger of losing our sovereignty and much of our liberty as Americans to treaties entered into by our president to be then ratified only by the senate. This is treason.
Presidential candidate, Republican Tom Tancredo of Colorado has pedged to put a stop to all of this if he is elected. Go to www.teamtancredo.org and findd out why we support him at www.tancredofancampaign.com. And Duncan Hunter is the only othe acceptable candidate for the conservative, Christian voter.
What are the views of the presidential candidates on providing a "path to citizenship" to illegal aliens? For example, have any of the candidates who are running, either the Democrats or the Republicans, voted for amnesty for illegal immigrants or cast a vote similar to this?
Among the candidates for president, many are members of Congress. Did any of them support an "enforcement only" immigration bill or did they support Ted Kennedy's immigration bill?
Just wondering.
The Left thinks that the "axis of evil" is Wal-Mart, Haliburton and Enron.