The debate over Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s proposal to allow illegal immigrants to obtain drivers’ licenses sparked local response this week, with the Dutchess County Legislature passing a resolution condemning Spitzer’s policy by a 22-2 vote on Monday. Spitzer’s controversial plan, touted as a chance to lower auto insurance costs and improve driver safety and homeland security efforts, was denounced by legislators, who followed in the footsteps of county clerks and other politicians statewide in asking Spitzer to reconsider.
The uproar over Spitzer’s proposal is unusual in that the governor’s order does nothing more than reverse an administrative policy instituted by former governor George Pataki in 1995 that required a social security number to get a New York State driver’s license. But Spitzer says he is looking to change that policy, pointing out that licensed drivers are statistically less likely to be involved in a fatal crash and adding that under his plan, illegal immigrants would be added to a reliable database that could track them accurately, should a law enforcement need arise.
Spitzer is clearly pushing against the tide of public opinion with his plan – a recent poll from the Siena Research Institute shows that 72 percent of New Yorkers are opposed to the policy. And despite protestations by some that opposition to Spitzer’s plan is “anti-Latino” and racist, the fact remains that granting illegal immigrants a valid form of identification is a slippery slope, and in Spitzer’s rush to remedy what he sees as the federal government’s failure to properly police our border, as he said in a release on Oct. 15, he is taking on a thorny issue himself – without going through the proper legislative channels in letting the state Assembly and Senate consider an appropriate change of law. In a situation as multi-faceted as the national immigration debate, that’s the wrong approach.
There is no question that we need immigration reform in this country. But Spitzer’s proposal, practical as he feels it is, is the wrong way to go about it. As difficult as it is in the current political climate to build consensus among lawmakers, leaders must work together to come up with a solution that recognizes those who are already inside our country without making them eligible for one of the highest forms of ID in the country. In crafting this proposal, the only consensus Spitzer has managed to create is one in staunch opposition to his plan. For an issue with as many far-reaching implications as immigration, that’s simply not good enough. Spitzer should withdraw his proposal, and lawmakers must work harder to find a real solution to the problem.