Seeking the Middle Ground

By Michael Oliva
October 25th, 2007

In Monday’s Daily News (p29) Bill Hammond suggests a “two-tiered” licensing system as a compromise solution to Governor Eliot Spitzer’s proposal to allow illegal aliens to obtain New York State driver’s licenses.

Hammond proposes we “stamp ‘undocumented alien’ in bold red type across the front” of a license modified for illegal residents. He rightly argues that this would be similar to what is done for those under the drinking age, the words "Under 21" being posted in red ink across their driver's licenses. If it is acceptable for our young American citizens, why not for people who on their own volition live here illegally?

Driver's licenses are documents granted to individuals by their respective states yet they stand practically, and in most cases legally, as our national form of identification. It is fully understandable that on the surface the average New York resident would find granting licenses to people living here illegally to be counterintuitive.

It is when we look at the issue more closely through the lenses of safety and security that it becomes less cut and dried. As Hammond points out, “thousands of police queries to DMV databases find no matches because immigrants live off the radar.” If we are truly fearful of crimes committed by aliens, whether in terms of national security or on the local level, being able to track them down as people documented and entered into a police database would prove very helpful to law enforcement agencies in doing their jobs.

Think about it. Would we have rather have illegal residents running around with no way to track them down and no knowledge of their existence, or would it be better to learn more about their identities? With a two-tiered system we can know who they are with greater certainty, their ages and places of residence. It is arguably far more beneficial to national and local security to grant illegals modified, identifiable licenses than it is to simply let them roam our communities without any idea of their names or where they come from.

In Monday’s Newsday (A7), Joie Tyrell suggests that “While Spitzer has said the plan would make roads safer and cut car insurance premiums for everyone, critics have said it would compromise security by eliminating the Department of Motor Vehicles' requirement that applicants prove their immigration status.” The contradiction here is that as things stand there is no way for the DMV to document who illegal aliens are without granting them licenses. In 2003, in the interest of security, Governor George Pataki made it next to impossible to receive a license from the State without a Social Security number. Cases arising where an illegal alien would voluntarily offer his or her identity to a state agency without any personal benefit are highly unlikely.

This problem could be remedied by a two-tiered system, where we grant modified licenses to illegal aliens which enable us, if need be, to track their whereabouts. When a similarly restricted license was offered recently in Utah tens of thousands of people applied for it. That’s a lot of people that went from unknown ghosts to tangible, documented human beings. In the age of terrorism this would make the entire issue more understandable and much more palatable to the practical mind of the average New Yorker. It is up to Spitzer to make it so.

On the safety front most citizens would feel better if they knew every possible person who drives on our roads is educated on how to drive a car. As the law stands now we are forcing illegal residents to drive cars without knowing whether or not they have received any instruction commensurate to New York’s legal driving requirements, or whether they even have the ability to so much as read a road sign.

There are several additional benefits to an alternative plan for granting labeled licenses indicating one’s illegal status. It would potentially contribute to lowering insurance rates for New Yorkers, and as happened in states like New Mexico, substantially lower the number of uninsured in our state. By being required to take a driver’s test it would also enable illegal residents to learn our language, making it easier for them to assimilate into our society on their path to citizenry.

The public are right in their caution. There could be a thousand and one benefits to Spitzer’s plan, but as things stand now it doesn't wash with the collective, practical sentiment of most New Yorkers no matter where they exist on the political spectrum. Considering all of these potential benefits the important undertaking for Spitzer in making this modified plan successful would be to do his job by effectively communicating to the public that he is on the right side of the safety and security issues. His biggest road block has not been Senate Republicans, but more importantly his inability to do so.

Instead of calling those not yet sympathetic to the idea of granting illegal aliens licenses, "wrong at every level -- dead wrong, factually wrong, legally wrong, morally wrong and ethically wrong," as was reported in the New York Times (9/28/07), Spitzer needs to more practically explain why this new proposal would be about protecting New Yorkers, not about giving illegals a free ride.

It is up to the Governor and the legislative leaders to arrive at this eminently reasonable compromise. Not to do so would be to leave each side to grandstand on its own political base, with nothing achieved. This is an opportunity for both sides to be reasonable. Perhaps Speaker Sheldon Silver, who appears to be emerging as the voice of reason in Albany, can be helpful.

Only with a two-tiered system can people make sense of and accept something they are understandably wary of in such unpredictable times.