Since postmodern English is a living language, even "undocumented workers" has come to seem too negative, mostly because of that troublesome "un." So some people have started to use the term "immigrants" to cover both legals and illegals, the point being that there is no important distinction to be made between them. One person who talks this way is Cruz Bustamante, one of the many disappointing candidates for governor in California's recall election. He said that "anyone who works and pays taxes ought to have a right for citizenship." As Mickey Kaus pointed out, this means that anyone who can make it across the border and find a job would qualify for prospective amnesty and full citizenship. There would be no downside to unlawful immigration.
Bustamante was asked by a reporter whether he sees any difference between legals and illegals. He replied: "Have you been out to the fields? I have. I grew up out there." Good point. If I'm ever asked whether breaking into a house is different from walking in the front door as a guest, I intend to say: "Have you ever been out to the Jersey suburbs? I grew up out there."
Compassionate incoherence on this issue is politically mandatory because the Latino vote is in play. Few pols in either party are willing to risk anything by referring positively to any relevant immigration standard or law. In California, the target of the recall election, Gov. Gray Davis, has signed a bill that would grant driver's licenses to illegal aliens. Only a year ago, when his future looked brighter, he vetoed a similar bill. The Democrats are trying to paint Arnold Schwarzenegger, an immigrant himself, as anti-immigrant because he opposes policies that blur the distinction between legal and illegal immigration. He thinks they undermine the legal immigration process. And they do.
Driver's licenses are given to illegal immigrants in several states. At least 39 states are considering bills on the issue, some in favor of licenses, some opposed. The argument in favor is that the illegals are a fact of life in America, they often need to drive to work, and licensing them will help make sure they get auto insurance. Maybe, but it looks like an attempt to deflect an immigration issue by converting it into a matter of auto safety.
The argument against is that issuing driver's licenses to illegals opens the door to more and more privileges rightly reserved for citizens. One is voting. The Motor-Voter law of 1993, by tying voter registration to the issuing of driver's licenses, allows illegals to vote. Many illegals vote now. With driver's licenses, they may do so in very large numbers.
More broadly, the driver's license is nearly fatal to the fading distinction between legals and illegals. It is the closest thing we have to a national ID card, and it opens a great many doors closed to illegals. It establishes identity for benefit eligibility, employment and credit. Since many people who enter this country illegally have no way to prove who they are, giving them driver's licenses magnifies security problems. An undercover officer and fraud expert told Fox News, "In California, you can now obtain a gun, explosives, jobs in secure areas -- even at the nuclear power plant -- with a driver's license."
Another gain for illegals is the campaign to allow them to attend state universities at the in-state resident rate. Allies of the illegals have drummed up a lot of sympathy for students who are illegals and even more sympathy for the children of illegals who were no part of their parents' decision to come here. But these steeply discounted rates were clearly intended for legal residents. It's wrong to give the cheap rate to someone who has no right to be here, while an out-of-state U.S. citizen may have to pay four to 10 times as much.
Compassion-driven policies have a cost. While the United States is spending millions to control illegal immigration, many states and localities are working, in effect, to undermine immigration law and to make illegal immigration more attractive and therefore more common. It makes no sense.