Driver's Licenses for Illegal Immigrants?


New York governor Eliot Spitzer has announced plans to allow illegal immigrants to obtain drivers licenses, following the lead of eight other states including Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah and Washington, which also do not require drivers to prove legal status in order to obtain a license.  And, as with gay marriage, we find a state by state capitulation to a new order that threatens to engulf the nation by stealth so to speak, despite the opposition of the vast majority of Americans.

On the one hand, with gay marriage, it is the actions of unelected, tenured activist judges who impose elitist notions on the rest of us, tampering with the single most important civic institution in the country, marriage, upon which the whole of our society and, in fact, civilization, is based, all in the name of some distorted notion of equality and fairness.

On the other hand, with our out of control immigration policy, both legal and illegal, it is cowardly politicians, pandering to big business and Hispanics, who do not enforce existing laws and try to shove guest worker and amnesty down our throats (also by stealth) despite the unpopularity of these positions.  Although it is liberal Democrats who pursue these programs and who have the most to gain from them, there are way too many confused Republicans (not to mention Bush) who join in on it as well. 

But the Spitzer move attained national prominence as a major point of conflict at the recent Democratic Presidential debate in which Hillary appeared to both endorse the policy and to back away from it.  Her inability to state and hold a single position for more than two minutes was quickly pounced on by her opponents including Dodd, Edwards, and Obama.  Dodd, out of all of them, seemed to have his eye on the ball as to the threat such a policy represented to the country, which actually surprised me.  The other two, tweedle dee, tweedle dum, simply attacked Hillary for flip flopping, yet neither actually expressed what they themselves would do - and for good reason.  They were afraid to. 

And here we have the phenomenon common to liberals, which is an allergy to actually stating one's position.  Liberals, for that matter, avoid even calling themselves liberal, and rightfully so.  "Liberal" and "liberalism" in general, as constituted since the sixties, have become pejorative terms because liberal policies have inflicted much damage to society and are widely discredited.  To avoid having to use that loaded term, liberals have now all morphed into "progressives," which basically means a liberal, but, libs note, the rest of the country has not caught up with that yet.  And, besides, the word "progressive" has a certain ring to it.

But the reality is that liberals or progressives are afraid to state their positions on many things because they realize how unpopular their positions are.  And with immigration, liberal positions are out of touch with the wishes and desires of most Americans.   

Liberals, for example, most assuredly want illegals to enter the country and be given driver's licenses and ultimately granted amnesty and put on a path to citizenship (again, admittedly, joined by a fair number of confused Republicans), to become part of the Democrat base.  But they will never admit it.  Because they know that Americans overwhelmingly oppose this.  And this is why Hillary stumbled and became defensive.  She couldn't lie about it on prime time, and so she flip flopped instead and looked bad doing it. 

Rather than come right out and state their often unpopular positions, Liberals will approach them by stealth or incrementally, waiting to spring them on us when it is too late to reverse them.  Or use clever expressions that sound wonderful like "comprehensive" immigration reform when most Americans want "comprehensive" border security.  Or they will try to niche target a typical villian figure in the liberal imagination that they can go after without negative consequences, like "the rich," or Big Oil, the tobacco companies, Wal Mart, or "corporate America."  But in general, they simply cannot be honest about what they stand for because their policies are out of touch with the average voter.

For example:

They will raise taxes and increase spending.  But will not admit it. 

They will attempt to bring us single payer socialized health care but do it incrementally (SCHIP). 

They will talk about global warming and their desire to save the planet, to lower the temperature of our feverish little baby, the planet earth, but will not admit to the cost of what they propose: carbon taxes, cap and trade, arbitrary mandates, greater regulations, carbon sequestration, none of which will work anyway, but all of which will significantly raise the cost of energy, diminish lifestyles, and hurt the economy.  But don't expect an honest discussion of the cost of any of this. 

They also have no intention of withdrawing from Iraq should they take the White House in 08, but dare not admit this for fear of alienating their anti war base. 

They also want amnesty but will not admit it (along with Bush and, to repeat, many confused Republicans), because they  know how unpopular it is, so will attempt it incrementally, delivering finally a fatal blow, when America becomes Amexico with a massive, permanent, non-English speaking underclass and blue states as far as the eye can see. 

They will raise taxes and increase spending, swell regulations, create more dependency and expand government, but will state none of it.  They will never discuss their policies openly because they cannot afford to. 

And when it comes to immigration, liberals most definitely favor giving illegals drivers licenses. 

Their positions are unpopular but they will implement them anyway because as enlightened liberal elites they know better than the rest of us.   

Liberals cannot be honest about what they stand for, just as Hillary could not be honest at the debate.  Because they and she can't.  That would expose their true intentions to the American people and they would be rejected. 

But watch out when their hands are on the levers of power.


  • Jason Elmore

    November 7, 2007

    To us conservatives liberalism is obvious even as it seeks to act covertly. But what lies behind as the real motive for their "hidden" agenda?? Is it simple political?? I don't beleive it is. Underlying all political discourse is a moral component. Always always we must ask what is right and wrong and Who gets to decide?? If the state then there is not inherent right or wrong. Ask victims of Stalin, Moa, Hitler, etc. When will our political discourse again address the moral and unmistakably religious aspect of all of this???

    On the subject: have you ever heard of the Frankfort School of the 1930's and its verious members??

  • Oscar Hoffman

    November 11, 2007

    Well written, Dr. Moss. I have not seen or heard of anyone else saying it better than you.

  • drmoss

    November 12, 2007

    i appreciate the above comments. thanks, oscar, for the words of support.

Add Comment