Lou Dobbs Calls Eliot Spitzer 'Arrogant Abuser of Office'

Photo of Noel Sheppard.

Those that wisely shun CNN for its obvious liberal leanings have been missing an epic on-air battle between anti-illegal immigration anchor Lou Dobbs and New York's Gov. Eliot Spitzer (D).

In case you also eschew news from the Empire State, Spitzer wants to give all illegal immigrants in New York driver's licenses, which so offends Dobbs that he said on "Lou Dobbs Tonight" Monday evening: "I really don't care anymore about what this governor, this arrogant abuser of his office - and the just absolute disdain with which he holds both the truth and the citizens of the state of New York."

On "CNN American Morning" Tuesday, Spitzer fired back (video available here):

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

Look, I'm not going to demean myself by getting into a back and forth with somebody who on TV spews venom, hate and fundamental misinformation. Of course not. He knows it.

This has absolutely nothing to do with voting. This is something seven other states do for security.

The director of Homeland Security has said we improve security by knowing who is there. As I said, it's beneath me, it's beneath my office, to, in any way, involve myself with Lou Dobbs. And I think his knowing spread of venom is beneath CNN as well.

MEOW!

Wonderfully, this isn't over, because Dobbs nicely retorted in a Halloween op-ed:

Spitzer calls his opponents anti-immigrant, yet he had the temerity to criticize me, saying: "I'm not going to demean myself by getting into a back-and-forth with somebody who on TV spews venom, hate and fundamental misinformation. ... It's beneath me, it's beneath my office to in any way involve myself with Lou Dobbs, and I think his knowing spread of venom is beneath CNN as well."

It's obviously not beneath him or his office to spew up race in this contest of ideas and principles. Race is always the last refuge of pandering political figures who have exhausted their arguments and abandoned reason and fact. This is about the security, safety and citizenship of all Americans. Please, governor, serve the people of New York for a change.

[...]

How dare the governor and these groups representing the interests of illegal immigrants demand equal rights to U.S. citizens. I cannot believe we've reached a point in this country that propaganda and nonsense have led to a powerful political impulse to give the same rights to illegal immigrants and American citizens.

It's become clear that Spitzer is treating both the truth and the citizens of the state of New York with absolute disdain. But New Yorkers are making their voices heard as well on this issue, and it's gratifying to see people taking back their government as best they can. They're talking to their state senators and state assemblymen and women, and they're letting this governor know that their prerogatives, their rights as citizens are not something that one arrogant governor is going to give away without a serious fight and lasting consequences.

How delicious. What follows is a partial transcript of Spitzer's Tuesday interview on CNN.

KIRAN CHETRY, CNN ANCHOR: There is some controversy swirling around New York Governor Eliot Spitzer, first for proposing a plan that would let illegal immigrants get driver's licenses. And then he changed the plan over the weekend, so now there's some new criticism from immigrant advocates who say it would unfairly target illegals.

New York Governor Eliot Spitzer joins be now to talk about it.

Thanks for being with us, first of all, Governor.

GOV. ELIOT SPITZER (D), NEW YORK: My pleasure. Good to be here.

CHETRY: So your original plan would have given illegal immigrants the same driver's license as everyone else. And that was highly criticized. In fact, 72 percent of New Yorkers polled said they were opposed to that plan.

Then you announced a new plan over the weekend. The editorial board of "The New York Times" called it caving.

So are you caving or are you just listening to the will of the people?

SPITZER: Well, in a way, neither. What we are trying to do, first of all, is address a problem that the federal government has created, which is that there are one million people here in New York state alone who are not here with proper documentation, but they're here.

We want security. We want our roads to be safe, which is the initial impetus behind letting them get a license so we know who they are, where they are. They can get insurance, everybody is safer.

Security experts agree with that premise. Seven other states do it.

That is the initial objective.

What we've tried to do is do it in a way that does not create a structure that makes them feel targeted, creates security. Now, what we did over the weekend was reach an agreement with the director of Homeland Security on a structure that he said would make the New York license among the most secure in the nation.

That is what we are trying to do, provide security, documentation, know who is here. And what we have accomplished, I believe, is a compromise that does all of those things.

CHETRY: Unfortunately, you're getting criticism from the other side now because the immigration advocates are saying that because this license that only illegals or undocumented would qualify for...

SPITZER: No. Can I interrupt for one second? Because that is a fundamental misconception. This is a license. One would be what we would call a Real ID license...

CHETRY: right.

SPITZER: ... that would satisfy the federal Real ID statute.

CHETRY: Which they can't qualify for if they're undocumented.

SPITZER: That's right, because they - but another license that I would get that would be a New York state license that everybody would qualify for with documentation, but it would not be limited to illegal immigrants at all. It would...

CHETRY: Wait, hold on. You're saying you would get the one...

SPITZER: Absolutely.

CHETRY: ... that says right clearly on it, not for U.S. government use? That would be...

(CROSSTALK)

SPITZER: No, no, no, no, no. It would say not valid for federal ID.

And the reason is I have a passport, I have all sorts of other documentation.

The other one might cost more. It will be different, more difficult to get.

There will be two separate licenses. One that satisfies a federal Real ID statute, the other that doesn't. It would not be one license just for illegal immigrants.

CHETRY: So you disagree with the assertion that, hey, if you can get a license that clears you to go to Canada, that clears you to travel with ease, why wouldn't you get that one, as opposed to the one where only illegals would qualify for?

SPITZER: Many reasons. And that has been the record that has been established so far.

A Real ID license that people will get if they want to have perhaps an easier time at an airport. Another one if you already have a passport.

You will not need to pay the extra fees, et cetera. So, two separate licenses. Both valid, both legitimate.

CHETRY: Now, critics are calling the plan confusing and a bureaucratic nightmare. Is it practical to try to implement...

SPITZER: Sure it is.

CHETRY: ... three different licenses?

SPITZER: Sure it is.

CHETRY: And do you know how much it will cost?

SPITZER: It's really two. The third is for the Canadian border contact, something we call an enhanced driver license pursuant to the Western Hemisphere travel initiative, a very separate issue that is a very important step forward for the economy in Buffalo and along the Canadian border.

Really two. One, if you want to satisfy Real ID, another if you don't.

It is easy. DMV would have an easy time implementing this. The cost would be no greater than the cost of implementing Real ID anyway. And so that is going to be a federally imposed obligation on us, despite what we choose to do.

CHETRY: One of your most vocal opponents has of course been right here in the walls of CNN, Lou Dobbs. He actually went as far last week as to call you an idiot before apologizing for saying that on the air.

Let's hear what he said last night.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LOU DOBBS, CNN ANCHOR: I really don't care anymore about what this governor, this arrogant abuser of his office - and the just absolute disdain with which he holds both the truth and the citizens of the state of New York. This man is sitting here putting together a three-tier system in which he is going to give voter registration privileges to people he knows are illegal?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CHETRY: Do illegal immigrants get voter registration privileges?

SPITZER: Look, I'm not going to demean myself by getting into a back and forth with somebody who on TV spews venom, hate and fundamental misinformation. Of course not. He knows it.

This has absolutely nothing to do with voting. This is something seven other states do for security.

The director of Homeland Security has said we improve security by knowing who is there. As I said, it's beneath me, it's beneath my office, to, in any way, involve myself with Lou Dobbs. And I think his knowing spread of venom is beneath CNN as well.

CHETRY: Now, so just that we're clear, though, if you're undocumented you will not be able to vote even if you do get this ID?

SPITZER: Of course not. Voting is limited to citizenship. This is getting a driver's license so we know who is driving so that fewer accidents and more security.

Security is what we are about. Understand, we got into 9/11 because people wanted to ignore the problem. We're not ignoring the problem of the million people here in New York. We're confronting it.

Confronting it by saying they're here, let's know who they are, give them licenses, let us forge a system that permits us to improve security, which is precisely what the federal government has said we would do. Seven other states have done it.

The sort of racist venom that has underlined much of the criticism I think is shameful because what we are really talking about here is security and how we run our society.

CHETRY: Governor Spitzer, I'm glad you came on our show and had a chance to share your side. We appreciate it.

Thanks for being with us.

SPITZER: Thanks. Thank you very much.

—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

It's obviously not beneath

It's obviously not beneath him or his office to spew up
race in this contest of ideas and principles. Race is always the last
refuge of pandering political figures who have exhausted their
arguments and abandoned reason and fact. This is about the security,
safety and citizenship of all Americans. Please, governor, serve the
people of New York for a change.

[...]


How dare the governor and these groups representing the interests of
illegal immigrants demand equal rights to U.S. citizens. I cannot
believe we've reached a point in this country that propaganda and
nonsense have led to a powerful political impulse to give the same
rights to illegal immigrants and American citizens.

Good for Dobbs.

JDW

Sen Clinton: Founder of Media Matters

 

CHETRY: So are you caving

CHETRY: So are you caving or are you just listening to the will of the people?

SPITZER: Well, in a way, neither.

So, he even has the brazen chutzpah to admit he isn't listening to the will of the people.

And to think, Mrs Clinton is even MORE arrogant than this buffoon.

Check out my latest YouTube...but only if you support the troops and their mission: Better Men Than Me/The Battle For Fallujah

Right, Jack, and last night Mrs. Clinton endorsed Spitzer's

plan to provide documentation to illegal aliens. 

But Spitzer also said:  "there are one million people here in New York state alone who are not here with proper documentation, but they're here."

How can his subsequent actions (approved by Mrs. Clinton) NOT be seen as an attempt to provide that documentation...and a pathway to not only all kinds of abuse, such as voter fraud, but to amnesty?

Finally, Governor and Senator, how many of these illegals will use the opportunity to register under false names? 

-

And to think, Mrs Clinton is even MORE arrogant than this buffoon.

Yet evasive and flip-floppy at the same time, Jack!  During the debate last night, Russert tried twice but couldn't get a simple yes or no answer out of her as to whether she supports Spitzer's plan to give illegal aliens their own class of drivers license. 

All candidates for the presidency of the United States must address many complicated, difficult issues.  This was not one of them. 

Won't Work

This won't work even if implemented. What is going to stop a local law enforcement official who stops someone with a license showing that they are here illegally from arresting that person for violating immigration laws? So why would an illegal immigrant expose themselves to registering unless some amnesty law came with it?

Because spitter will issue

Because spitter will issue an executive order to the state police not to inform ICE or uphold federal law, who needs stinking legislators?  This is how the sanctuary city nonsense is perpetrated by the mayor and councils.

 

Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. dscott's corollary: The line between malice and stupidity is called depraved indifference.

He doesn't control local

He doesn't control local law enforcement and given the overwhelming negative response statewide (Dems and GOP) it will not happen. Among those opposed to this include the union of NYS Department of Motor Vehicles workers and the NY Civil Liberties Union. His own party leaders like Sheldon Silver have backed off their initial support. The "Steamroller" is going to be a one term governor.

 

Dobbs v

Dobbs v Spitzer? 

 

Ignorance (Dobbs) vs Arogance(Spitzer). 

Can they each knock the other out? 

 

Hope so.

Actually, buddy, Dobbs is the only major MSM voice

who, night after night, speaks about all aspects of the illegal immigration issue.  

His topics include the problems caused by illegal immigration, what is not being done, what needs to be done, who is trying to prevent solutions to the problem, and promoting those who are doing it right.   

-

Yup, on this issue, Dobbs rules.

And he is absolutely right about the baseless name-calling that goes on.  Much as advocates for illegal aliens try to make it so, this is in no way about race.

Yup

Doesnt matter which party he will tell it like it is.I like Lou dont agree with everything but he does call the anti worker Dems and Chamber of Commerce Reps on their lies.Spitzer was trying to pull a fast one and he got nailed.The msm needs to get in their head that people of this country are against "ILLEGAL" immigration not immigration.Them and the politicians need to get the racist rhetoric out of the debate.Maybe it is the politicians and Msm that need to do a self evaluation.They are the ones who see racism.Maybe that is the way they look at illegals.

I commented yesterday on OT

I commented yesterday on OT about Dobbs vs Balbony(sp) it was something to watch with admiration for Dobbs when it comes to illegal immigration, the fireworks flew....Dobb said it all in that back and forth, wished someone would of had a blog post about it...anyway glad to see this continuing....I heard Dobbs on Morning Joe early today here also...he says it all when it comes to this issue, for the repubs it's capitol for businesses, for dems it is VOTER FRAUD...either way the American people are past fed up with it.

I also stated somewhere that I doubted if illegal immigration would come up in the debate the dems were going to have last night...well it sure enough did, at the very end of the debate and it could not have been better...the self-anointed Hillary had better plan on taking her crown off completely, if her opposition doesn't we will finish the job.

Talk about speaking out of both sides of her mouth which she does constantly....but she stuck her foot in it all the way last night...it was a beautiful site to behold.

As an aside, Balbony works under Sptizer...who has basically helped bury himself and Hillary...we have a two fer' here...doncha' just love it!

Ahhh....arrogance can be a great thing at times. I know critters like Hillary and Spitzer just can't see it they are so full of themselves.

There will be two separate

There will be two separate licenses. One that satisfies a federal Real ID statute, the other that doesn't. It would not be one license just for illegal immigrants.

What kind of illogic is this?  It is my understanding that any new driver's licenses issued by the States must conform to the Real ID act, or am I mistaken?   If they must conform then how can they legally issue a driver's license that is not valid Federal ID. Any document that conforms to the REAL ID Act is a valid Federal ID.

Sounds like liberal doublespeak on hair splitting to me since once this is issued, it can be presented before and must be accepted by elections officials.  What this really is, is a back door to voting based on "residency" and not "citizenship".  That is patently illegal!

Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. dscott's corollary: The line between malice and stupidity is called depraved indifference.

-

Good question, Dscott.  Spitzer reached a compromise with the Dept of Homeland Security.  Two out of three of the proposed NY licenses, including the illegal alien drivers license, would not conform to REAL ID standards. 

From the NYTimes:

Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s retreat from his plan to permit illegal immigrants to obtain the same kind of driver’s licenses as other New Yorkers drew angry reactions yesterday from civil liberties advocates and immigrant groups, some of whom described the shift as a stunning betrayal.

The governor has been under fierce assault from conservative groups and others since proposing last month to allow illegal immigrants to get New York driver’s licenses. But joined by the federal secretary of homeland security, Michael Chertoff, in Washington yesterday, the governor announced a starkly different version of his plan.

It calls for separate tiers of licenses. New Yorkers who could provide stringent proof of legal residency could get the new federally recognized license known as Real ID. The licenses available to illegal residents would not serve as federal identification.  ...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/28/nyregion/28react.html?_r=1&em&ex=1193716800&en=e1c1bc2b00dbbb3e&ei=5087%0A&oref=slogin

I think this "undocumented

I think this "undocumented immigrant" drivers license is a classic example of "the camel's nose under the tent"...

After the release of the

After the release of the recent poll data showing the near total rejection of the concepts of the Dream Act, the left is still spinning with all their gusto that the situation is exactly the reverse as to comprhensive immigration. The left wing blogs have been doing this well before the NY license issue, in fact mainly in the runup to the comprehensive immigration fiasco. Despite the massive grassroots rejection of that legislation the left is still "creativly interpreting" every poll on the issue since then. I see them trying to claim that every person who a poll sample except those who are totally opposed to any form of bill are thus gathered together to be touted as supporters of such a bill. So even people who say well I kinda hate hate and think its a bad way to go should be counted as supporters. Now that's really having to reach.

Today the left is doing

Today the left is doing damage control over Hillary's missteps on this at the debate last night.

One blog is saying it shouldn't be an issue since other governors had already done the same thing.

Which has all the validity of your mom asking "if the other kids jump off a bridge does that mean you should too".

 

Good for a laugh...

I always find it amusing when people go on, and on, ... and on... and on...  about how they're not going to respond to an "attack" because responding is beneath them, because the other person isn't worth it... and on, and on....

Makes me wonder how long an actual response would be.

I am not a huge Dobbs fan, but...

I will give him credit for being the only person in the lib MSM who is spotlighting the hideous problems that the criminal invaders are causing, and will cause, this country.

As for Spitzer and the rest of the democrat horde, I think it is obvious why these people are trying stunts like Spitzer's here.

They are working to clear the path that leads to their ultimate goal with respect to our uninvited guests from south of the border:

Citizenship and, more importantly (in their minds), the right to vote.

Instant Government Stamp of Approval - Absolution

Look... what no one here seems to get, or talk about in any meaningful way IS that IF government, state or federal, extends a license allowing a criminal alien to drive in this country, that government puts its stamp of approval on that alien being here - and automatically extends that governments approval of the aliens illegal act of crossing our border and automatically absolves them of the crime.

Those states that have given drivers licenses have extended in-fact sanctuary to criminals, and acted in-fact, to forbid police involvement in arrest and deportation proceedings - and thereby are in-fact assisting and fomenting mass invasion by foreign hostiles.

Such government is criminal government, that blithers of 'immigrants' to hide their criminality and that of the criminal alien. True immigrants have legal papers giving them permission to enter, obtained prior to entry. Criminal government (like that of NY) acts to avoid it's legal obligation to prosecute the crime and deport the criminal.

It is high time people understand what is going on here, and call it what it is.

 

 

Spitzer's done

Governor Steamroller in New York went about this without an ounce of support from state or local officials. Leaders that were on the fence initially have backed away. The union of NYS Department of Motor Vehicle workers has said that their employees will refuse to issue those licenses. Even the NY Civil Liberties Union has come out in opposition.

Even if they agree to go with a three tier license local counties and towns are almost unanimous in refusing to approve these licenses.

And what is preventing any local law enforcement officer from stopping someone with such a license and arresting them for breaking our immigration laws? I really do not think these will be a mad dash by there illegal aliens to "out" themselves just to get a drivers license.

The REPUBLICANS are done, sadly

Whatever chance the GOP had for next year and beyond is all but gone.

 

George W. Bush is not a full-fledged conservative, but I still support his presidency. (Although I am rethinking this position daily!) Still, I'd rather have him as president than ANY of the Democrats. Merry Christmas 2007.

Oh, gosh. Another sky is falling castrated rooster

Here you go, Chicken Little.

Touche!

I am not a fan of Spitzer by any means, but on this issue, he is dead on. If, heaven forbid, I am in an accident, I would rather it be with an undocumented immigrant with a drivers license than with one without one. Wouldn't you? Of course!

George W. Bush is not a full-fledged conservative, but I still support his presidency. (Although I am rethinking this position daily!) Still, I'd rather have him as president than ANY of the Democrats. Merry Christmas 2007.

Would you really, Texas Optimist?

In the first place, what makes you think illegals are going to be willing to give their real names for these licenses?

In the second place, the requirements for providing identification to receive their licenses are very loose.

In the third place, this scam is being created specifically as a pathway to amnesty.

Still like it?

Do I support amnesty? Hell

Do I support amnesty? Hell yeah I do!

Why, you ask?

We need the workers!

George W. Bush is not a full-fledged conservative, but I still support his presidency. (Although I am rethinking this position daily!) Still, I'd rather have him as president than ANY of the Democrats. Merry Christmas 2007.

Well, Texal Librul

You like the corporations bringing in illegals to artificially keep wages down?   You're in favor of the virtual slave labor that creates?   

The corporations know that even amnesty won't change that, and it's why they want it to happen.

Worker shortage

I have family members who are having trouble finding employees. The labor pool is too small, and they have raised wages as high as they can they go. Still, no workers. This is what opened my eyes. The business may go under... because there aren't any workers applying for the jobs! This is a common situation, I have discovered. A local homebuilder, thoroughly conservative in his economic and political outlook, has become one of the leading area spokesmen on behalf of comprehensively reforming our national immigration policy. He pays his workers fair wages, GOOD wages. Yet he is having trouble finding new workers. So, is it our patriotic duty to shut down our business? Our patriotic responsibility to raise wages so high that we eliminate all profit? According to the "enforce-and-deport" crowd, I guess it is.

 

George W. Bush is not a full-fledged conservative, but I still support his presidency. (Although I am rethinking this position daily!) Still, I'd rather have him as president than ANY of the Democrats. Merry Christmas 2007.

These undocumented workers

These undocumented workers are not going to "out" themselves to law enforcement just to have a drivers license. And if you are in an accident with one of their trucks (which they don't own) what is more important: (1) the registration of the vehicle or (2) who si driving it?

 

 

Why can't they own their

Why can't they own their own vehicle? And why shouldn't they?

 

George W. Bush is not a full-fledged conservative, but I still support his presidency. (Although I am rethinking this position daily!) Still, I'd rather have him as president than ANY of the Democrats. Merry Christmas 2007.

Because they're Illegal Aliens, Texas Librul

...they're here ILLEGALLY and they don't have the right to legally own anything in this country.  Duh.

Also to own a vehicle means

Also to own a vehicle means registering it which means you are mandated to have automobile insurance which you do not get (at least in NY) without a credit history which  .  .  .  .  .

 .  .  .  . which means

 .  .  .  . which means you have to have a social security number which means they can't own a vehicle. 

Unfortunatly the IRS will

Unfortunatly the IRS will issue a taxpayer ID in lieu of SS# just to make sure they can collect from illegals and others.

I am in an accident, I

I am in an accident, I would rather it be with an undocumented immigrant with a drivers license than with one without one. Wouldn't you? Of course!

What?  if the person has an accident with you, regardless if they have a license or not, one or both of you is at fault for causing it.  The license only guarantees a person passed the state approved written and drivers test, nothing more.  

However, you have missed the bigger point, you would not have had the accident with the illegal if that person wasn't here in the first place.  Do you now see how illogical your assertion is?

Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. dscott's corollary: The line between malice and stupidity is called depraved indifference.

Undocumented immigrants are

Undocumented immigrants are here. Get used to it.

 

George W. Bush is not a full-fledged conservative, but I still support his presidency. (Although I am rethinking this position daily!) Still, I'd rather have him as president than ANY of the Democrats. Merry Christmas 2007.

Illegal Aliens is the proper name, Texas Librul

and your pitch for slave labor is noted.

"Undocumented Immigrants"

Thank you, Mrs. Clinton.

They're illegal aliens.

Back to your socialist roots, now, TO?

David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

 

Not on your life. I want

Not on your life. I want them all deported. They have no right to depress the wages of the poor by flooding into our country.  They have no more right to walk into our country univited, than I have walking into your home without your permission.  

Car accidents are just one aspect of the problems they cause.  There is crime, there is disease and there is sticking us with their hospital bills when they don't pay.  This is no different than I should walk into your house, sit on your couch, watch your TV, eat the food out of your refrigerator and sleep in your bed and then flip you the bird saying I'm entitled because you have what I don't have.  If you are a Socialist, then you have no right to say anything otherwise to me for walking into your house, because the guiding philosophy is:  From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs. Karl Marx  You have the ability and I have a need, therefore shame on you if you say anything to me about entering your house.  Never mind that I can work, the point is I have a need and you must give, so shut up and give.

Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. dscott's corollary: The line between malice and stupidity is called depraved indifference.

Shallow - Spitzer was right, or are you in favor of big govt?

Now he's folded, to the detriment of New Yorkers and for the benefit of federal big brother.

Cato has it right, here:

"This a flat out reversal of the position Spitzer took just over a month ago. The justification he gave - correctly - for de-linking licensing and immigration status was New Yorkers’ safety. With driver licensing treated as an immigration enforcement tool, illegals don’t get licensed, don’t learn the rules of the road or basic driving skills, and don’t carry insurance. When they cause accidents, they flee the scene, leaving injured and dead New Yorkers and causing higher auto insurance rates. As I noted a few weeks ago during his brief flirtation with principle and fortitude, “Spitzer is not willing to shed the blood of New Yorkers to ‘take a stand’ on immigration, which is not a problem state governments are supposed to solve anyway.”

"He may try, but Spitzer can’t honestly claim that he’s been consistent. New York’s compliance with REAL ID, were it actually to materialize, would put REAL ID compliant cards in the hands of citizens and make New York driver data available to the federal government. Thus, possession of a non-REAL-ID-compliant license would be tantamount to a confession of illegal status. Thanks to Spitzer’s flip-flop, illegal aliens will now recognize that getting a license merely provides federal authorities the address at which to later round them up for deportation.

"Needless to say, they’re not going to get licenses, and the safety benefits Spitzer correctly sought for New Yorkers just 36 days ago will not materialize. The result is what’s known in regulatory circles as risk transfer. There will be more injuries on New York’s roadways so that the U.S. can have a national ID system. Alas, the security benefits of that system, as I showed in testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee, are negative.

"I was impressed and surprised by how right Spitzer had gotten it when he de-linked driver licensing and immigration status in New York. I’m once again impressed, but in a much different way, by how quickly he went scampering away from this good policy. The reactionary critics of his policy obviously really got to him."

http://www.cato-at-l...

Pres. Bush: "Our guiding principle is clear. We must lead the world to produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions and we must do it in a way that does not undermine economic growth or prevent nations from delivering greater prosperity for their people."

With driver licensing

With driver licensing treated as an immigration enforcement tool, illegals don’t get licensed, don’t learn the rules of the road or basic driving skills, and don’t carry insurance. When they cause accidents, they flee the scene, leaving injured and dead New Yorkers and causing higher auto insurance rates.

Expecting people who don't follow the rules to learn the rules much less follow them is nonsense.  Expecting an illegal to stick around after the accident is just naive. The most effective means of dealing with any problem is to eliminate it's source.  Deport the illegal and you cease to have an accident problem, hence car insurance rates wouldn't be going up. How many more people would be alive today across the country if they hadn't been here in the first place (remember the shouting match between BOR and Heraldo) Appeasing trouble makers by papering over the failure to secure the border and deport those that get over in the first place only sets the stage for further trouble their presence brings: accidents, crime, theft, expendature of tax payer funds to educate their children and pay the hospital bills they can't, etc, etc, etc.

BTW-thanks for admitting that illegals are behind the rise in car insurance due to accidents committed by them.  Just one more item on the list of why only those who follow the rules should be permitted to immigrate to this country.

Additionally, any idea that State officials are not obligated to uphold Federal Law (including Immigration Law) is a gross misunderstanding of the Rule of Law in this country.  All State officials swear an oath to uphold the US Constitiution, which includes all Laws passed by the constitutionally elected representatives to the US Congress.  Next you will be saying one state does not have an obligation to arrest and hold a criminal fleeing over state lines for crimes not commited in their state.  You betcha they do and no differently than enforcing the law on illegals.  It is a crime for a State or Local official to not uphold the Law, it's called malfeasance and Obstruction of justice. 

This entire issue over illegal aliens is about the Rule of Law.  If we are going to allow various government officials to arbitrarily pick and choose what Laws they feel like enforcing, then we have lost everything our fathers have fought and died for over the past 200+ years.  What your demanding is privledge of a group over the rights of individuals, and that is not what this country is about.  We as individuals have a right not to be burdened (higher taxes, higher insurance, crime, etc.) by the Lawlessness of a group proclaiming their victimhood at our expense.  Don't give us the nonsense about paying less for stuff because of their cheap labor, that's just crap, we are paying more precisely because they are here.

Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. dscott's corollary: The line between malice and stupidity is called depraved indifference.

dscott, try arguing with what I've said, which is libertarian

I'm a FEDERALIST, and believe that one of our biggest threats to our pocketbooks and liberty is the giant sucking sound that our national government in Washington has become.

"REAL ID" is a bad idea that's guaranteed to go wrong, and it's a shame that Republicans have pushed it. States should be left to their own responses to questions of ID; there is simply no overwhelming federal interest at state and the national government shouldn't be meddling.

The states certainly do have discretion to determine where they are going to spend their prosecution and enforcement dollars. They are not departments of a national government. You and others here have poisoned yourselves by drinking from the well of big-government, big-brother liberals. Don't you realize how you sound?

Pres. Bush: "Our guiding principle is clear. We must lead the world to produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions and we must do it in a way that does not undermine economic growth or prevent nations from delivering greater prosperity for their people."

I disagree with your

I disagree with your interpretation.  We all believe that local officials should know better what works best on running government, however, illegal entry into the country should not be confused with one aspect fundamental to the issue of "Federalism", since the basic idea of Federalism is also a "collective" defense against outsiders, foreign adversaries and their agents.  While every State and local official is directly responsible to the "citizens" who elected them, we collectively hold a shared set of laws and values binding the Repubic together.  If we did not share those commonalities, there would be no need of a Federal Republic but instead 50 independent nations.  There are two sides to the coin of Federalism, is it not all about mayors doing the bidding of the citizenry with no oversight of the feds.

The enforcement of federal immigration law is no different than having a national military, the FBI, CIA, DEA, etc.  The Real ID act requires all states to issue an ID that everyone from the FBI to sheriff Arpaio of Maricopa Co. can trust to confirm who you say you are if they have to do business with you otherwise you can wrongfully claim your some other person. And it's not only Law Enforcement, it's land dealings, credit, medical information, etc having to deal with protecting your identity from being used by person's other than yourself.  And btw- the REAL ID act also made it illegal for any agency to insist that the SS# be used as an identification number.

Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. dscott's corollary: The line between malice and stupidity is called depraved indifference.

dscott: Real ID = Really bad idea, but great for big government

The feds simply have no business telling the states how to interact with their own citizens, nor in surplanting private efforts to deal with identity theft. This is all about turning the states into branches of our increasingly all-powerful central government, and will probably actually make identity theft easier for insiders.

Again, while states have an obligation to uphold the Constitution, the federal government should be enforcing its own laws and not telling the states what to do. The federal government has no right to force state governments to use state revenues to enforce a federal purpose. The federal government should be controlling borders better. Also, if we pare back the state we will be troubled less about illegals drawing benefits that they haven't paid for.

On federalism, it sounds like you were in favor of the great expansion of federal government by Lincoln, who was responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths and massive destruction.

Who needs Dems when we have Republicans selling gown the river?

"Our guiding principle is clear. We must lead the world to produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions and we must do it in a way that does not undermine economic growth or prevent nations from delivering greater prosperity for their people."

Not at all, I am against

Not at all, I am against Libertarian extremism that seems to push anarchy.  Your railing against the Federal Government ensuring uniform identification is not an issue you should be wasting your time with.  Example, the fact that every state in the union is legally obligated to accept the ID issued by other states by long established tradition just like drivers license, gun license, marriage certificates, birth certificates, death certificates and the like means potentially there are 50 different standards of issuance and nearly as many different prerequisits to get those licenses and certificates.  The proper view of Federalism is the State and Local government's right and responsiblity to adminster and fund is strictly a non Federal issue unless the Federal Government wishes to issue their own license in tandem such as the military does to certify certain individuals are trained to drive a tank, a HumVee, self propelled artillery piece, etc.  The Federal Government has a right under such circumstances to set a "minimum" level of standards when so many different standards exist for the proper functioning of commerce.  Otherwise we get into a situation where one State could rightly object to another State's issuance by the claim of public safety.  Also, the fact that the States accepted Federal money for building the highways (not maintaining them) automatically gives the Federal Government a say so on who uses those roads.  This is no different than in school systems accepting Federal money, it's the strings attached.  If I give you money, I have the right to set conditions for you to receive it.  If the States don't want the Federal Government setting a minimum standard on issuance of a drivers license, then they shouldn't be accepting Federal money to build highways, after all, there is no such thing as something for nothing, there is always a hitch.

Now pay attention Blindsight, if National Security is a federal responsibility, i.e. securing the borders, defense against foreign and "domestic" enemies (part of the military oath), then either they use the existing ID system issued by the States with basic minimum standards or they issue a brand new one at the birth or at naturalization of each citizen.  You tell me, is it more expedient to get the States to meet minimum standards, or start a whole new program to duplicate what the States pretty much do already???  You be the judge and that should be a good debate.  

In today's terrorism environment, the ways to defend against terrorists is to keep them out and verify they are kept out by an ID card the police can confirm who you are and who you say you are.  Now, they did a crappy job of securing the borders, they are working on that but the fact they failed to do that does not cancel out the need to verify who people are, in fact it makes it all the more imperitive that we can do this.  As far as unfunded mandates are concerned, the States have the legal process to get funds from the DHS to pay for whatever changes they need to make.  Once those changes are made, we are not talking about significant on going expenses to maintain it.

Actually, I am surprised you are against this since the whole issue of non citizens voting in our elections would be offensive to Libertarians.  How else do you prevent non citizens voting in our elections other than having an ID card?  That fact that some states are lackadaisical in maintaining the integrity of the voting process does not obviate the need to verify a person's citizenship.  Libertarians are against illegal immigration to my knowledge.  Again, the failure or success to secure the border does not negate the need of an ID card at the voter booth and since every two years either a president or congressperson is voted into office (a federal election) concurrent with State and local officials.  The election process in and of itself should merit a photo ID to verify only citizens are voting since we are talking about selecting government officials.  Shall the Federal Government issue an ID just for voting?  Or is it more expedient/efficient to use the same ID (drivers license) to verify who you are so you can vote?  So again, a minimum standard is necessary if you are going to accept a drivers license ID for voting.  Unless you think "residency" not citizenship is all that is needed to entitle someone to have say in our government?  Because if you think residency not citizenship for voting, then you set the stage for millions of Mexicans via LaRaza to literaly to take over a State.

Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. dscott's corollary: The line between malice and stupidity is called depraved indifference.

Real ID = really bad idea

dscott, I appreciate your efforts, but I'm not buying.

These and other programs are not worth their purported benefits and will actually make things worse by intruding in state prerogatives while making the federal government more powerful. Once there's a Dem in the white house, perhaps you'll start to sing a different tune.

Yes, I'm quite familiar with the various ways that the feds and weak COngresscritters have been using to erode state responsibility. That doesn't make it right OR good policy.

You haven't provided a basis for the feds to push immigration control onto the states. If the feds want to start checking everyone's IDs, they should go ahead and deal with it themselves - if they think it is "imperative". It's not the job of the states to police immigrants, and they can give them whatever privileges they wish - including voting for state and federal offices (this is determined under state laws).

I am fully in support of immigration control, but I am not in favor of a big, costly and intrusive central government. We need our states and our checks and balances. I just don't see that Real ID merits its costs or risks.

See more here:

http://www.cato.org/...
http://www.cato-at-l...
http://www.schneier....
http://www.schneier....

Pres. George Bush: "Our guiding principle is clear. We must lead the world to produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions and we must do it in a way that does not undermine economic growth or prevent nations from delivering greater prosperity for their people."

}}---> Senator Lou Dobbs (R) Tx.

Texas is about to be shy one Senator.

I think maybe it's time we dragged Lou Dobbs back home long enough for a Senate run.

Sorry about that Cool

Idaho was his home also and that is where he should run.Unless Robert Vasquez runs.

http://www.npr.org/t...

}}---> Well99

That's open for debate.

But you're right, Idaho needs to replace somebody really quick too.

Yes he was born in Texas

Still went thru school in Rupert,Idaho.No matter where it would be a nice change for someone to represent people of this country for a change.Too few of them in congress.