If Edwards wants a boost in his polls, he would flip on the issue of drivers licenses for illegals. I know what all the Democratic candidates are thinking - they're assuming a future comprehensive plan that allows for a path to citizenship. At the very least they are assuming a plan that legalizes the status of illegal aliens who are the biological parents of underage American citizen children, because we aren't going to be tearing families apart, there's a future bipartisan consensus on that. But the problem I have is that Democrats have once again made the mistake of thinking two moves ahead, without realizing that the second move is contingent upon completing the first, which is to win the White House, and they're going to lose it trying to explain their nuanced and complexed (albeit correct) position. Think about it, before you could explain that this is simply the logical anticipation of a future policy that most people agree will eventually happen, you will lose the election because you want to give a drivers license to Osama Bin Laden. Think about it, and for god sakes, avoid it.
Let's first say, something like 70% of American citizens are against the idea of giving drivers licenses to illegal immigrants. We all obviously agree with the idea that legal immigrants should be able to get drivers licenses, just get into a D.C. cab someday! It infuriates me that we can't rely on the media to appropriately cover the complexities of important issues during the course of a campaign, or on our fellow Americans to make rational decisions based on fact, but reality is what it is. If 2004 taught us anything, it was that undisputable fact. Assuming people are going to get it, or be able to know BS from the truth was Kerry's biggest mistake, and the Democratic candidates have just made it again by embracing the idea of licenses for illegals. While technically correct, it's techically going to cost them the White House.
Here's how the Republican attack against Obama and Clinton will look:
Hillary Clinton and the Democrats want to give drivers licenses to illegal immigrants. So and so hijacker on flight 93 on 9/11 was here in the country illegally, but had obtained a legal drivers license from Shittystate USA that he used to board an aircraft, which he flew into the World trade center. Is this who you trust to keep you safe in this scary, scary world? Maybe Senator Obama is too green to understand the realties America faces...
I'm not saying this attack is going to be fair, but it is going to happen. Obama and Clinton's answer to the question will cost them huge in the general election, and Clinton knew it, which is why she was waffling like Aunt Jemima. Obama needed to appear to be the anti-Hillary non-waffler, so he decided to jump right with both feet during the debate and show people how decisive he was, by taking a position that will probably lose him every single red state Bush won in 2004 - decisively. The problem with these candidates is that they fail to realize that positions requiring a bit of nuance fail to connect to people like the vividness of an advertisement that shows how 9/11 terrorists got a legal drivers licenses that they used to board their planes on 9/11. This issue isn't a wedge issue for 2008, it's a losing issue for 2008. A wedge issue needs to closely divide the American people - not make them band together.
For those who don't know, and want to be informed: the American people are for a rock solid and unpenatrable fenceless border with Mexico, with harsh penalties for employers who exploit illegal immigrant labor to avoid paying an American citizen the prevailing wage. At that point, AND ONLY AFTER WE HAVE REACHED THAT POINT, can a discussion begin about the people who are here illegally, and that discussion will go like this:
If you have children or parents who are legal American citizens, or if you were under the age of 18 when you were brought to America illegally, you will be allowed to stay granted to you don't have a criminal record. If you don't meet that criteria (for instance a 40 year old single man with no children), you will be deported. It won't be hard to make the argument that a $150 one way airline ticket to Mexico will be cheaper than taking all these people onto our welfare rolls - especially after they aren't able to get jobs anymore because of restrictions placed on employers. If this seems too far fetched or unlikely to you, just take a look at recent history. During the Great Depression, the government found it much cheaper to put Mexicans back on a train to Mexico for $15 than it was to add them to the rolls of people needing governmental assistance, especially when American citizens made up the rolls. Undoubtedly, the repatriation campaign of the 1930's and 40's was rather effective in achieving its intended consequences of avoiding additional welfare expenses. If the U.S. economy were to take a downturn or begin to slow, the immigration debate would cease to be called a debate, and would become the "immigration mandate" after the "pro-illegal-immigration forces lose handily in 2008. When people say "you can't possibly deport them all," they must literally mean ALL of them. Those who are here illegally, who came when they were old enough to know better, will likely be the future targets of another reptriation campaign.
I know, it's alot to take in, but at least there is an upside to this future policy being made public by me this early. All the single illegal immigrants can start having massive amounts of unprotected sex with each other, or with American citizens if they so choose! If you thought post WWII gave us a baby boom, wait till you see the one produced by the time between now and the implentation of this policy! Anchors away!