Dec. 14, 2007---"Why can’t we permit illegal immigrants to obtain drivers licenses so we can have safe roads and lower car insurance premiums?!” That was a common response to my last column, ‘Spitzer and the Backlash Heard Around the World’(1). I don’t normally follow-up on a previous column I wrote, merely to respond to reader comments.  But when an LA Times columnist makes that comment, and sitting right next to him was Mark Krikorian of the Center For Immigration Studies---who didn’t respond to him---then maybe it’s worth my time to address the question.

Adrian Wooldridge, Washington Bureau Chief of The Economist Magazine, hosted a 3-member panel today in Washington, D.C. on the effect of the immigration issue on the presidential campaign.  CSPAN covered it.  LA Times columnist Gregory Rodriguez was the final speaker.

Mr. Rodriguez spoke extemporaneously, without notes, and thus may be forgiven for stating the above complaint in a manner that made even less sense than the way it should be posed.  After mentioning that he resided in an Korean immigrant community, in a mildly angry tone, he said, "If I’m driving and I hit an illegal immigrant, and he doesn’t have insurance, I will be penalized for it because my legislator doesn’t realize this is a public safety issue."

First, I think he was partly responding to Mark Krikorian, who had earlier said that polls indicate that the immigration issue is an elitist vs. public issue, and not a Republican vs. Democrat issue.  Thus, Rodriguez was conveying the message that he wasn’t an elitist, and that he lived among the masses who are hardshipped by massive immigration.

An ironic claim, given that Rodriguez had earlier said that, "this debate has gotten out of hand", referring to the increasing prevalence of racial comments about Mexicans, whenever people complain about immigration.  Followed later by his rhetorical question, "the Amish don’t assimilate into mainstream American culture, yet who would say they are not Americans?

WIth respect to racial references, that’s merely a function of the frustration among the public who are faced with crowded schools, higher taxes and auto insurance premiums (because of uninsured immigrant drivers), and entire neighborhoods becoming closed off to English-only Americans who don’t speak the immigrant’s native tongue. In California, that immigrant language happens to be Spanish, and the nationality happens to be Mexican.  To the extent that there may be antagonism exhibited against Mexicans, it is not because they’re Mexicans.  Nationality and race are incidental factors.  If a million Frenchmen were flooding into our cities illegally each year---depressing blue collar wages, increasing crime and burdening municipal infrastructure---you can bet there would be animosity against the French.  Especially against the French.

In other words, despite Mr. Rodriguez’s claim to be living among the masses, he doesn’t appreciate that whatever racial animosity is emerging over immigration, it is springing from genuine hardships felt by the public, and not from pangs of racism. He also wasn’t listening to Mark Krikorian, who had previously said that never in our history has the U.S. experienced immigration predominantly from one country (Mexico), speaking the same language (Spanish), and in such huge numbers (illegally)---thus posing the assimilation disincentives that Mr. Rodriguez appears not to appreciate.  For the Amish are comparatively minuscule in size, and contain themselves in a separate enclave to lead their lives in their own way. They don’t cause hardships or burdens to outsiders. They don’t demand that others learn a foreign language to interact with them.  Only when violent Amish youth gangs infiltrate major American cities, and Amish men comprise over half of the federal prisons for felony crimes, will it be wise for Mr. Rodriguez to suggest such an analogy.

But aside from getting the context issues wrong, Mr. Rodriguez got the predicate argument wrong: It is not citizens who have auto insurance that are hitting uninsured illegal immigrants.  It’s the reverse that is occurring, and that is the cause for higher insurance premiums and unsafe roads.

But more importantly, Gregory Rodriguez seems to believe what Gov. Spitzer and many liberals believe:  That illegal immigrants if permitted, will obtain drivers licenses and purchase auto insurance.  If this is truly their belief---and not just a pretext to fill voter rolls with illegal immigrants---then it’s among a long list of liberal self-delusions.

I stated in my previous article that illegal immigrants, by and large, will not obtain licenses and purchase auto insurance.  To the extent that some may obtain drivers licenses, it would be to use the license as an ID to qualify for other benefits and services in our society, or to gain employment that requires having a drivers license.  We know this from states that had permitted illegal immigrants drivers licenses. But illegal immigrants will not buy insurance. If there were any convincing studies to the contrary, you can bet they would have been showcased by Gov. Elliot Spitzer and his defenders. This is one instance in which an absence of evidence is the evidence of absence. 

You will not see illegal immigrants pay $200 for a drivers license, and $2,000 per year for car insurance, for a couple of reasons.  First, most can’t afford it.  Second, they don’t have to pay those costs in order to drive a car in NYS.  Who voluntarily pays for HBO or a WiFi broadband signal when they get it free?  There are no consequences for not paying for it. But then why do citizens pay for auto insurance?  Because unlike illegal immigrants, citizens are stakeholders. They have a stake in their residency and citizenship.

A citizen or legal resident has a mortgage or a lease; children enrolled in school; health and home insurance; credit and bank accounts. Violations of law have consequences for such a person.  He can be held financial liable for something, and if found guilty or in default, a lien can be imposed, or he can receive adverse credit ratings.  Whatever it is, he cannot run from civil or criminal penalties.  He cannot leave the place where he resides, without paying a price.

Thus, a legal resident---and especially a citizen---will pay for car insurance and a license, or risk prohibitive consequences. By contrast, if an illegal alien is caught without a license and insurance, he will NOT be subject those consequences, nor even criminal sanctions. Instead, he’ll receive a notice to report to a deportation hearing.  But instead of reporting, he’ll just drive to a neighboring county or state and live there. He’s free to do that, because states don’t enforce federal immigration laws.  States enable illegal immigrants to function in this country.  Spitzer’s plan would have furthered that process; failed in its purported purpose of making roads safe and reducing auto insurance (that portion that covers uninsured motorists); and it would have given away the franchise of citizenship---the right to vote.  The latter being the reason most Democrats favored Spitzer’s plan.

Americans don’t want their votes neutralized by non-citizens who have no civic stake in our society. If one wishes to influence the civil affairs of this nation, then promising one’s allegiance to this nation, and fluency in English, is a small price to pay to obtain that franchise. Paying taxes merely pays for the roads one drives on, or the police, education, and other services one receives while residing here. It doesn’t entitle you to vote. Yet most Democrats cannot cite ONE privilege that they would deny illegal aliens, including the right to vote.

Even to the extent of violating immigration laws.  Many open-border ideologues are proud that their local governments flaunt federal law.  Yet when Governors in southern states did that with respect to civil rights laws, we correctly deemed them racists.

Gary Krasner

1) Spitzer and the Backlash Heard Around the World