Anti‐Immigrant Opinions are Weakly Held
I didn’t watch Tuesday’s Democratic debate — watching politicians from either party outbid each other on faux outrage and how much of my money they would spend is too annoying — but I did get the after‐action report on the Newshour. And it seems Senator Clinton was drawn into the vortex New York Governor Eliot Spitzer (D) created with his recent flip‐flop on driver licensing and public safety.
His original decision to de‐link driver licensing and immigration status for public safety reasons was right, but it was pounced on and demagogued by anti‐immigrant groups. Spitzer backed down, and pledged his state to implement the REAL ID Act, pleasing nobody. (When the costs of this national ID law to New York are discovered, he’ll flip‐flop again, earning quiet, broad‐based appreciation.)
Watching the excerpts of the candidates bumbling around this issue, it appeared to me that they knew giving licenses to illegal immigrants is the right and practical thing to do, but also that they would get demagogued if they said so.
Well, here’s my advice: Go ahead and say it.
Having watched this issue, and having heard from lots of angry people, I know that anti‐immigrant views are a classic weakly held opinion. Angry as people are about the rule of law and “coming to this country the right way,” that anger melts when they learn more. Stuff like this:
“We haven’t permitted anywhere near enough legal immigration for decades. You can sit back and talk about legal channels, but the law has only allowed a smidgen of workers into the country compared to our huge demand. Getting people through legal channels at the INS has been hell.
“America, you’re going to have to get over what amounts to paperwork violations by otherwise law‐abiding, honest, hard‐working people. And that’s what we’re talking about — 98% honest, hard‐working people who want to follow the same path our forefathers did, and who would be a credit to this country if we made it legal for them to come. Our current immigration policies are a greater threat to the rule of law than any of the people crossing the border to come here and work.”
This kind of argumentation will be met with vicious demagoguery, which will weaken, and weaken, and fade and fade and fade. The people I hear from — and I regularly do because of the educating I’ve been doing nationwide on the REAL ID Act — immediately soften when I pull them from their echo chambers. The “rule of law” hand is a low pair compared to this full house: “honest, hard‐worker from impoverished circumstances, denied legal channels other than a narrow chance of navigating an incompetent bureaucracy.”
There’s one Democratic candidate who is well suited to make this kind of argument. It’s a way to draw attention, look principled, do the right thing, and vanquish a loud but weak pressure group. New Mexico’s uninsured driver rate dropped by two‐thirds — from 33% to 11% — when that state delinked immigration status and driving in 2003.
