New York Governor Eliot Spitzer has managed to drive the Albany Statehouse right into the toilet with his proposal to give illegal aliens undocumented workers a valid driver's license. But not before forcing the Clinton for President bus clean off the road.
Elected a year ago with 69 percent of the vote (and the widest victory margin in state history), Spitzer can now claim support from just 25 percent of voters. Almost twice that, 49 percent, say they'd back "someone else," were the next gubernatorial election held today. Also, Spitzer's job-performance rating is now 2-1 negative. And nearly half of all voters (45 percent) think the state is headed in the wrong direction.
"Eliot Spitzer's standing with voters has fallen faster and further than any politician in recent New York history," Siena spokesman Steven Greenberg said.
As my SDP colleague Mr. Heppler points out, Hillary was all over the Ouija board on this one. During the infamous debate she took several positions. A day later, she explicitly endorsed Spitzer's proposal. Now, after weeks of indecision, she has come out squarely against it. The Whitewater Ouija finally came to rest on "No." Another incident like this, and the pointer will move to "Good Bye."
Oddly enough, I find myself agreeing with Madam Hillary, at least in part:
"As president, I will not support driver's licenses for undocumented people and will press for comprehensive immigration reform that deals with all of the issues around illegal immigration including border security and fixing our broken system."
The real problem is the underlying immigration regime. But it isn't broken. It is functioning in exactly the way it is intended to function: it brings in a load of cheap workers and potential Democrats every day, thus pleasing powerful interests in both political parties.
Everyone knows what good policy would look like. We need first to gain effective control of the borders through increased security, employer sanctions, and serious penalties for those activist who work to subvert American laws. We should use this not to close the borders, but to ensure a steady but manageable supply of new workers for the American economy. Only after both are achieved should we turn to the task of documenting the country's undocumented workers.
It is quite true that a vast majority of Americans oppose "amnesty" for illegals. That would appear to be true even in blue state New York. But that is so primarily because no one trusts the government to act honestly on the subject. After all, until recently we clearly weren't enforcing existing immigration laws. To the degree that Bush has recently done some real border tightening, the results have been impressive. But is this more than show? Most Americans oppose "comprehensive" reform for two reasons. They don't want to reward people who break the laws, and they think, with good reason, that comprehensive reform would turn out to be all amnesty and no real border enforcement.
Immigration is clearly a good thing. It has been one of America's historical strengths. It supplies industries that otherwise can't get labor. It promotes population growth, which is vital to America's future. Immigrants always assimilate sooner or later; it is only the large number of immigrants flowing over the southern border daily that disguises this process among Latinos. But our citizens have a right to know that the laws will be faithfully executed. The party that recognizes these facts first stands to gain a great advantage.
Recent Comments