Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock


Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict


Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links


Regional News


News Publications

Spitzer retreats, Clinton left hanging
Posted by: McQ on Wednesday, November 14, 2007

New York Governor Eliot Spitzer has bowed to the inevitable:
Gov. Eliot Spitzer is abandoning his plan to issue driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants, saying that opposition is just too overwhelming to move forward with such a policy.
That leaves Ms. Clinton hanging out there having defended the Governor's executive order. But I'd remind readers she wasn't alone. 6 of the 7 (Dodd being the only exception) Democratic presidential candidates at the last debate raised their hands in support of Spitzer's measure. Hopefully Wolf Blitzer, if he hasn't been successfully warned off by the Clinton campaign, will get us some clarification during the next debate.
Return to Main Blog Page

Previous Comments to this Post 

Hopefully Wolf Blitzer, if he hasn’t been successfully warned off by the Clinton campaign, will get us some clarification during the next debate.
The Clinton campaign probably has a 3-ring binder for Wolf with his questions, and Hillary’s answers already scripted. [/sarcasm]

This is the reason that Democrats support drivers licenses for illegals, and I would like to see some more attention given to this issue.
Written By: Aldo
URL: http://
Well, the first thing to do is to reform the immigration laws.
Written By: Syloson of Samos
I can picture a cartoon of Hillary being that second lemming going over the cliff only to see the lead lemming pull the chord to his previously hidden parachute.
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
"opposition is just too overwhelming to move forward with such a policy"

Those da**ed uppity citizens interfering in the proper and efficient running of government! Those undocumented (temporarily) folks would be much more cooperative. We need more of them.

I wonder if citizens who wished to establish a new identity could pretend to be undocumented aliens and get new id. It was kind of tough to do before, what with having to scrounge up an unused birth certificate and all. I may have to start practicing my espanol.
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
The people have spoken ... the bastards.
Written By: Achillea
URL: http://

Sure, the Democrats want the illegal vote.
Written By: Don
URL: http://
So, what is the general neo-libertarian position on immigration law?
Written By: Syloson of Samos
uh, we’d like the current immigration laws to be enforced?
We’d like the border to have meaning again?
Written By: looker
URL: http://

So, what is specifically so great about the current immigration laws? From my POV they seem to be rather protectionist in nature.

We’d like the border to have meaning again?

Well, in the case of Mexico and the U.S. at least it has always been a rather porous border.
Written By: Syloson of Samos
rather protectionist in nature
What’s protectionist about establishing a quota of people to be allowed to settle in?
Why are the rules different now than they were in my Grandparents time?
Three of my 4 came from other countries around 100 years ago.
There are millions of people from all over the world who want to come here.
We can’t take them all, it’s that simple.
Why is it protectionist to establish a yearly limit?
Why would it be protectionist to enforce the rules about entering the country at authorized check points established by the government?

Do the, say, French routinely allow unlimited numbers of people to wander in willy nilly to settle?
The Dutch?
I recall going into Canada a number of times, where their big concern seemed to be that I prove I was employed in the United States and wasn’t trying to find a job in Canada.
That’s okay for them to do, but not for us?

Other than the Statue of Liberty welcoming the unwashed masses, what world spanning rule says the US has to take in unrestricted numbers of people who want to re-locate here in a given year?

If we all decide to move to Germany next year, are they obligated to take us in?
If they don’t, are they being protectionist?
Written By: looker
URL: http://
So, what is the general neo-libertarian position on immigration law?

Libertarianism would incline one to support open borders, and I am sympathetic to that stance, but ultimately I agree with some of the bloggers here who have pointed out that an open borders policy is an impractical one for an entitlement/welfare state. There are of course security issues as well in the current era.
Written By: Aldo
URL: http://

Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Vicious Capitalism


Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks