Shock poll: 58% of New Yorkers oppose driver’s licenses for illegals
posted at 7:52 pm on October 5, 2007 by Allahpundit
If you can’t get the bluest of blue states behind the idea of documenting the Undocumented then you can’t get it done anywhere. Bonus awesomeness: in New York City, the split was 52-45 against.
That’s the good news. The bad news? The poll was taken by … Zogby. Which means it’s probably off by 20%.
The Church, predictably, not only feels compelled to take a position on the measure but is all in favor of it. Thirty of the state’s county clerks disagree, though, and 13 of them are threatening to ignore it if it becomes law by refusing to issue licenses to illegals. Exit question for the Jim Brossard fans: Should they be allowed to defy duly enacted state law or not?
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
As a New Yorker (Long Island to be specific), I can assure you that only the most elite, idealistic liberals support this plan around here. And as for your exit question: It’s perfectly acceptable to defy a law if it is patently unconstitutional.
Damian G. on October 5, 2007 at 7:56 PM
We have voting and legislation processes to answer whether something should be or not.
Once it is made law, that’s it, it MUST be followed. We are not a nation of men. We are a nation of laws.
There is a stark difference between civil disobedience and failing to execute a law as an agent of the government. Without enforcing law, there is no need for most of the government.
unamused on October 5, 2007 at 7:58 PM
Of course. sigh ~
Albany diocese.
Count immigration among issues for Respect Life Month BY BISHOP HOWARD J. HUBBARD
Connie on October 5, 2007 at 8:00 PM
Oh yeah, and my previous post doesn’t mean that I believe bad law must stand. We have a court system to challenge bad law.
But until such a law is struck down by the courts, it MUST be followed. To do otherwise would go against the very foundations of our civilization.
unamused on October 5, 2007 at 8:00 PM
Why not? Most of the time the law is being defied for the wrong reasons. What’s wrong with defying the law for a right reason?
Tennessee Dave on October 5, 2007 at 8:00 PM
My thoughts exactly. By defying a bad law, it would help to counteract the myriad laws broken by illegal aliens in the first place.
Damian G. on October 5, 2007 at 8:03 PM
What do you mean defy the law? It was just a coincident all those forms ended up in the shredder by accident ….whoops.
and if the poll was off by 20% would that means it was closer to 78%-22%. That would be kind of interesting as thats pretty close to the same numbers it was out on the left coast in California when Grey Davis was pushing the same retarded idea.
Mojack420 on October 5, 2007 at 8:07 PM
Ok, this is O/T, but yall have to check out gnarly bug action at the Indians-Yankees game from the Jake in Cleveland.
Every mosquito in the known universe that could be found and dumped outside the stadium is there.
Yankee pitcher Joba Chamberlain in taking a mouthful of West Nile virus with every pitch.
Mike D. on October 5, 2007 at 8:08 PM
Geez..how can they play in that!?!?!?? Watching in HD, can see em crawling on them.
lsutiger on October 5, 2007 at 8:16 PM
Yep. It is pretty sweet.
nailinmyeye on October 5, 2007 at 8:17 PM
you think the ants are just trying to get a free ride back to NY for the DL?
Mojack420 on October 5, 2007 at 8:18 PM
This is no surprise. The Church is a fifth column against Western Civ. It’s under the loving influence of the Pope that the EU lets in the muslim savages who will destroy Western Civ there and the Church itself. Even if I weren’t an atheist, I would still have complete contempt for any organization that refuses to consider how its actions threaten its own survival and sadly my own survival also.
thuja on October 5, 2007 at 8:19 PM
just away to get more money into their coffers.
Its not about defending these poor victims criminals , its about getting more butts in the Pews and that translates into more money in the offering plates.
I don’t say its all churches. I do think its about money and power for a few .
Mojack420 on October 5, 2007 at 8:23 PM
sorry forgot to
poor victimsMojack420 on October 5, 2007 at 8:24 PM
No, but there’s nothing to stop ICE from parking a well-marked deportation bus in from of the license branches. Or putting up signs reading ” Illegal Aliens Will Be Arrested And Deported” in all appropriate languages.
jaime on October 5, 2007 at 8:26 PM
I wouldn’t say fifth column at all, but I think the Pope does less than he could and should in regard to Islam in Europe.
As an atheist, have you considered what you lose by not being part of an “army?” I know the Pope has no divisions, but the faithful can be roused, as you are hoping he will do.
Seems to me that Christianity is a weapon, and it seems you agree. Atheism doesn’t provide you with that.
JiangxiDad on October 5, 2007 at 8:27 PM
from = front. I should use the handy preview button.
jaime on October 5, 2007 at 8:27 PM
Even worse, you don’t know which way it is off either…
Maybe somebody with a little credibility could try polling this one. Is Rasmussen too busy right now?
major john on October 5, 2007 at 8:27 PM
I have to hold out hope for something better about the church – I think that it is on the wrong side of this…but I’ll give it the benefit of the doubt on motives.
nailinmyeye on October 5, 2007 at 8:30 PM
Extra innings. Bug spray time!!!
JiangxiDad on October 5, 2007 at 8:30 PM
Okay,all I want to know is who dumped the smartenup
koolaid into New Yorks water supply.hehe
canopfor on October 5, 2007 at 8:30 PM
Oddo inspired us!
JiangxiDad on October 5, 2007 at 8:32 PM
Honestly, I think that most of the Democrats in New York are your typical blue-collar, workaday types who only belong to the Democrat-ick Party because of their families’ membership, especially due to labour unions. And remember, the one thing unions have been right on is illegal immigration.
Damian G. on October 5, 2007 at 8:33 PM
Only a few, the big ones like thaw service workers is dead set in the camp of open borders pro illegal. because they want more members which means more due money for them.
Trade unions are a different story.
Mojack420 on October 5, 2007 at 8:37 PM
But doesn’t the hiring of illegals depress wages, thus hurting unions?
Damian G. on October 5, 2007 at 8:38 PM
Yep. We’ve got every type of Dhimmicrap here. We got the whole effin tent here. That’s why we have Spitzer, and Hillary, and Schmuckie, and Bloomberg, and Steve Israel, and Sheldon Silver, etc. etc.
Blue collar Dems can’t be excused. NO WAY.
JiangxiDad on October 5, 2007 at 8:40 PM
I’m not excusing them, just describing them. They’re the worst kind, actually, since they’re Democrat by blood. Your typical effete liberal can be converted with the right amount of in-your-face terrorism facts, barring his being a Kos kid, of course.
Damian G. on October 5, 2007 at 8:43 PM
I think that most of the Democrats in New York are your typical blue-collar, workaday types who only belong to the Democrat-ick Party because of their families’ membership…
That’s true for NY State but not for NY city which is where their strength in numbers actually exists.
And the bugs are wildly disgusting. How can my Yankee be expected to play in those conditions?
Karol on October 5, 2007 at 8:45 PM
Maybe “The Church” will give Rudy communion for allowing amnesty for illegals. Or is abortion > illegal criminal aliens?
SouthernGent on October 5, 2007 at 8:46 PM
IF we lose, we lodge a protest!
JiangxiDad on October 5, 2007 at 8:47 PM
New York’s Catholic Council says it’s simple “economic justice” to grant illegals licenses to drive to work, and desires that immigration laws be ignored. Yet, they want all of society to bear the burden! That’s a complete cop out.
If the Council desires to disobey the law, it should get proactive and start a “drive an illegal to work” campaign in the local parishes. As James 1:22 (NAS Bible) says, But prove yourselves doers of the word, and not merely hearers who delude themselves.
Then again, we goofy Protestants believe laws should be obeyed – because that’s what Jesus called for!
T J Green on October 5, 2007 at 8:49 PM
Be very careful. There is a left/right split in the Church just as there is in society. People loved Pope John Paul II for many of the same reasons Bill Clinton is popular. He was a “feel good” pope. Pope Benedict is conservative; very much right of center. The leftist American clergy was less than happy with the choice of Ratzinger, whereas I prayed fervently that he would be the choice. As far as Islam goes, he started a very important debate when he issued his challenge to the Muslim world. The official Vatican take on immigration is that all immigrants must respect all of the laws of the countries they enter. That means do not enter illegally.
Connie on October 5, 2007 at 8:49 PM
Wish he had followed it up more. Such as taking Ms. Hirsi Ali in.
JiangxiDad on October 5, 2007 at 8:52 PM
Of course, we can’t forget that moron cardinal who compared our border fence with the Berlin wall.
Jackasses.
Damian G. on October 5, 2007 at 8:55 PM
We don’t enforce our immigration/customs laws either.
JiangxiDad on October 5, 2007 at 8:58 PM
AP, I understand your point, but it’s a little misleading to call an Executive Order a duly enacted state law. I’m no Constitutional or NYS law expert, but I have to wonder if the Executive Order is really duly enacted when it arbitrarily revokes duly enacted Legislative Law, requiring the Comissioner to require the applicant provide a social security number (Vehicle and Traffic Law S502, Requirements for Licensing)
“… In addition, the commissioner also shall require that the applicant provide his or her social security number and provide space on the application so that the applicant may register in the New York state organ and tissue donor registry under section forty-three hundred ten of the public health law. ….”
If Eliot Spitzer decides and changes the law at his whim, then this be tyranny and not a nation (nor state) of laws.
Go here to find the cite and search “driver license”.
Dusty on October 5, 2007 at 9:01 PM
Its not state law there Allah its a administrative function coming from the NY governors office. He is using executive power to create the situation.
William Amos on October 5, 2007 at 9:04 PM
Yes, but that could be a technicality in NY because our legislature is always Dem. controlled. On the other hand, in our one-party state, Dem’s battle each other for King. NY State Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver is the power behind the throne in NY, and has been forever. I don’t think there is any love lost between him and Spitzer.
JiangxiDad on October 5, 2007 at 9:09 PM
Oddo for governor!
MamaAJ on October 5, 2007 at 9:16 PM
Then the NY legislature could pass a law to allow Illegals to get DLs. But dont think they would they are using Spitzer to take the heat they wont.
William Amos on October 5, 2007 at 9:18 PM
If Spitzer gets this law enacted, the New York statedID will be worthless outside of New York. I’d love to see the Federal Government make it illegal to use a New York drivers license to open a bank account, or board a plane.
Theworldisnotenough on October 5, 2007 at 9:21 PM
In the back of my mind, I wonder if Spitzer and Atty General Cuomo are not doing this at the behest of Hillary in order to add to the vote in NY come ’08. No proof. Just a fear.
JiangxiDad on October 5, 2007 at 9:24 PM
[JiangxiDad on October 5, 2007 at 9:09 PM]
The Assembly is Dem controlled but the Senate is Republican controlled. He couldn’t get the law changed without Bruno’s approval.
I have little doubt Spitzer is playing the Executive Order card, clearly violating the law I might add, and not caring about it for anything other than in the run up to 2008.
Dusty on October 5, 2007 at 9:25 PM
You are correct. I forgot about Bruno.
JiangxiDad on October 5, 2007 at 9:30 PM
Damian G. on October 5, 2007 at 7:56 PM
And echoed by others…
I have a feeling that most of you were singing a different tune back in 2004 when NY mayors started marrying gay couples, in defiance of state law, while arguing that it was “patently unconstitutional”.
DaveS on October 5, 2007 at 9:46 PM
Wholly irrelevant.
The marriage issue would fall under the Tenth Amendment, since it is not explicitly defined in the Constitution and thus should be left to the people.
The illegal alien issue refers to those who are being afforded rights given solely to American citizens and not to foreigners.
Damian G. on October 5, 2007 at 9:52 PM
[DaveS on October 5, 2007 at 9:46 PM]
Dave, I’d agree with you if the “patently unconstitutional” argument was left as it stands unsupported. However, if there was substantial basis for making the argument and the basis was provided and it was persuasive then the tune I’d sing would be the same.
So, your statement appears to be nothing more than a drive-by with a Mexican driver’s license. Pull over, please and let’s see your SSN!
Dusty on October 5, 2007 at 9:57 PM
Dusty on October 5, 2007 at 9:57 PM
You don’t remember this discussion occurring for pretty much the entirety of 2004? The NY mayors, and later Gavin Newsom (sp?) in SF, defied state law, arguing that it was patently unconstitutional. They were pretty much making the same argument that you guys are now, while advocating that county clerks should defy state law, arguing that it is patently unconstitutional.
How is this confusing?
DaveS on October 5, 2007 at 10:10 PM
Damian G. on October 5, 2007 at 9:52 PM
A few of points…
1) The Constitution has nothing to say about NY drivers licesnses.
2) The Constitution has nothing to say about illegal aliens.
3) Driving is not a right
4) Driving is not a privilege that is exclusively afforded to US citizens.
Discuss!
DaveS on October 5, 2007 at 10:13 PM
As another New Yorker (Long Islander as well), I almost spit out my lunch today when I heard that “If they refuse to carry out the laws that are enacted, they will be arrested”.
OK, so let me get this straight…If the clerks refuse to hand out drivers licenses to ILLEGAL ALIENS, THEY will be thrown in jail????
Please tell me what I’m missing?
HarryStar on October 5, 2007 at 10:15 PM
The next plane to the Carolinas, like the rest of us.
JiangxiDad on October 5, 2007 at 10:26 PM
yes but if they are unionized they become due payers and the is the real bottom line.
You would think they would want to keep their members making good money.
But thats not what it is really about , its about rebuilding the ranks and collecting more dues .
Nancy Pelosi has a family owned hotel and winary {non union shop}
so why would any union support a scab shop owner?
Because it is not about the union members and there wages but about whats best for BA and the leadership .
Mojack420 on October 5, 2007 at 10:43 PM
[DaveS on October 5, 2007 at 10:10 PM]
In rereading your comment, I’ll suppose you are correct that many are singing a different tune because on the gay marriage issue our opposition said “patently unconstitutional” and now we are.
But we are also singing the same tune, in the sense that we are saying the facts and the law say these positions are incorrect.
This apparent incongruity is only caused by your desire to make the phrase the basis of your argument and nothing else, which was my point. What you overlook is that we were right that time and will be this time.
Skip over the buzz words and assess basis for using them, Dave.
Dusty on October 5, 2007 at 10:55 PM
[DaveS on October 5, 2007 at 10:13 PM]
Here’s one for you Dave:
Where in the NYS Constitution does the Governor’s authority rest for changing duly legislated and enacted state law by Executive Order?
Dusty on October 5, 2007 at 11:01 PM
D’oh: more licenses issued by New York, the more revenue New York receives and thus, the Governor here wants that revenue.
He also doesn’t want any more lawsuits filed against New York public works and public employees when illegal aliens do what they do best: wreck the property of others and never pay for it when they do.
So he wants the NEW YORK TAXPAYERS to pay for the costs and the state to keep all the revenues. Nothing new about that especially because the Governor is a Liberal, a Democrat (and this methodology is theirs).
I think it’s a ridiculous, unethical decision and I agree with the people of N.Y. who are protesting the idea. I’m aghast that some Catholics are for this measure but it’s not realistic to say that “The Church” is because I haven’t heard the Vatican issue any proclamation about that/this.
Catholics have their share of Socialists among Bishops and a few Cardinals, nothing new there, and surely that’s who is motivating this method, which is nothing more than those involved reasoning/rationalizing licenses as a means to “better integrate” the “stranger” (legitimize the illegal aliens) (but I disagree with these analogies, too — just pointing out what I believe is the mentality behind certain supports of this licensing, um, misguidance).
S on October 5, 2007 at 11:20 PM
That, Harry, is more evidence that the eventual behavior of Liberals always turns into fascism. They eventually demand that everyone else who doesn’t submit to whatever their demands are be: (1.) threatened; (2.) ridiculed and defamed; (3.) deprived or otherwise harmed; and eventually (4.) thrown into prison or sent before a firing squad or various other forms of loss of life.
It’s happened time and time again in human history that Liberals will when given enough time and political power eventually overtake by force everyone else in their vicinity, who they can and do control (“control” is a significant word to Liberals).
They don’t handle power or authority well so they have to resort to threats and when those don’t work, to actual harmful actions (threats grown more forceful). So they become fascists and then you never hear about or from your neighbors again, and you wonder if you’ll be next.
Has our human race never learned from past history?
S on October 5, 2007 at 11:26 PM
O.K., I now read a few more comments here and it is not “THE CHURCH” who is behind any action in this regard (licenses for illegal aliens in New York), it is SOME CATHOLICS who are.
The term, “The Church” references the Catholic Church, as in, official theology and other statements declared by the Church, via the Vatican.
Some Catholics saying this or that and asking for this and that is not “THE CHURCH,” it is some Catholics advocating for issues they want.
And, Bishops and Cardinals in the U.S. are notoriously more Liberal than elsewhere, and it’s a problem for The Church itself. As are those they influence, like Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry and even Giuliani to some.
The term is “cafeteria Catholics” who pick and chose like a cafeteria meal what they “want” and “don’t want” and then behave like they’re “good Catholics” while refusing to acknowledge or in rejecting certain aspects of the faith.
But understand that regional groups of people who are Catholics doing and saying one thing does not represent “THE CHURCH” unless you see a proclamation issued by the Vatican declaring something thus. The Pope speaks as “The Church” and on it’s behalf, while individual Catholics in regional political issues do not.
S on October 5, 2007 at 11:33 PM
In other words, people who may or may not be Catholics (or Jews or Protestants or atheists) have opinions and often organize through those opinions and then make formal declarations as one about those opinions.
That they’re Catholic when they do, doesn’t mean that “The Church” has those opinions, or is proclaiming those opinions, it means that individuals who are Catholics are.
It’s inaccurate to say that “The Church is supporting this” or is “advocating this” or whatnot, because from what I read, to the contrary, a group of individuals, some of whom work for the Catholic Church, have organized in support of this. But “The Church” has not.
I suppose it’d be like Hollywood Jews (or, Jews anywhere as individuals who were Jewish), so to speak, getting together and supporting some political issue. And then trying to say that “Israel advocates for this.” Something like that, generally as inaccurate as that, is my point.
S on October 5, 2007 at 11:39 PM
Dusty on October 5, 2007 at 11:01 PM
I didn’t say that it does or that he had any legal standing to do this. I just enjoy pointing out the mindless, reflexive partisanship sometimes. Damian G said it was “patently unconstitutional”, and, unfortunately, I don’t think it is. That does NOT, however, mean that it isn’t in violation of NY statues.
I think its a bit ironic that some people here, now, are using the very arguments that the gay marriage people used before, and with roughly the same legal justification.
DaveS on October 5, 2007 at 11:59 PM
It is very sad that the Church adopts yet another position contrary to Scripture.
It is antithetical to Scripture for any religious body to condone or encourage the government to stop enforcing laws.
ColtsFan on October 6, 2007 at 1:47 AM
Boy, it hasn’t taken Elliot Spitzer long to go from Democrat Golden Boy to Corrupt, Socialist Putz.
I mean, ALL elected democrats eventually go through this phase in New York (and most other Blue states as well), it just took Spitzer a lot less time than most. It took him less time even than our Idiot Mayor Mike.
Always Right on October 6, 2007 at 8:14 AM
Ummm….
Federal Immigration and Nationality Act
Section 8 USC 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv)(b)(iii)
“Any person who . . . encourages or induces an alien to . . . reside . . . knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such . . . residence is . . . in violation of law, shall be punished as provided . . . for each alien in respect to whom such a violation occurs . . . fined under title 18 . . . imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both”
So… if they knowingly give aide to illegals, they could go to jail under FEDERAL law for 5 years for each License they give out.
Now, seems to me that the Govenor is in a CONSPIRICY to aid and abet those illegals. Isn’t Conspiricy to bypass a Federal law against the law itself?
Add in that the conspiricy is against the sovereignity of the US, and its control of the border, and this rises to sedition….
These Clerks would not be following a clearly illegal and seditious order from their Govenor… while continuing to follow Federal Immigration Law… you know, the Feds, who HAVE jurisdiction over Immigration…
Romeo13 on October 6, 2007 at 10:36 AM
Shock poll: 58% of New Yorkers oppose illegals.
Fixed it.
leanright on October 6, 2007 at 11:30 AM
Thanks for the citation, Romeo13. It will be useful when I write my reps.
Dusty on October 6, 2007 at 11:32 AM
The Catholic Church is pro illegals? Another reason I’m not a practicing Catholic anymore.
ic1redeye on October 6, 2007 at 12:42 PM
No there isn’t
Unless you consider civil servants to not be citizens first
entagor on October 7, 2007 at 1:56 AM