Illegal immigrant status needs to be discussed

EDITORIAL

Tensions surrounding the already unstable issue of illegal immigrants became additionally rickety after the attacks of September 11; people instantly started to question who is with us and who is our enemy? Considerations about how 35 known IDs were forged by the hijackers became a central motive for expanding identification requirements within state governments.

One example of these expanded requirements is The Real ID Act, which Congress passed in 2005. This act created national standards for state-issued documents including driver's licenses - to obtain these licenses and other forms of identification, applicants had to prove citizenship or legal residency. When New York Governor Eliot Spitzer mandated a plan to provide three kinds of driver's licenses, two that would meet the new federal security regulations and a third that would be available to illegal immigrants, memories of the past set off intense criticism.

Many who are opposed to Spitzer's plan look to the hijackers on September 11, arguing that these licenses will make it easier for enemies to transfer explosive material or other hostile objects.

In addition, the costs that this program would place on tax-paying citizens would increase. The Department of Homeland Security estimates that the program would cost $23 billion nationally over a 10-year time frame. The National Governors Association estimates that in the first five years, the cost to states will be over $11 billion. Still, only $40 million was given to start-up the program.

Those favoring Spitzer's plan believe that these legal licenses will bring illegal immigrants out of the shadows and into the government's database. Because illegal immigrants would be able to apply with their real names and place of residency, the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants currently living in America would be kept under strict watch by the government. This is especially true for Chautauqua County, which flourishes on agriculture. Many farmers pay seasonal illegal immigrants to perform these agricultural jobs.

Also, several people trust that the roads would be safer by making illegal immigrants take a road and written driving test.

No matter which side one argues on this sensitive debate, Spitzer is at fault for his executive fiat that alienated Congress and 75 percent of New York residents. Sen. John Flanagan (R-East Northport) stated his disappointment in Spitzer for not involving the legislature when drafting this plan. "These are things that should be discussed, not mandated," he said in the Newsday.com article, "State senators renew attack on Spitzer ID plan."

The Leader feels that the process in which Spitzer wrote and mandated this immigration act is the reason for such heated resistance in the polls and Congress. Even though his intentions for comprehensive immigration reform were in the right place, the way in which those views were carried out were unprofessional, especially because this is a federal issue.

There are many loose ends that still need to be cleaned up when coming up with an accommodating immigration reform plan that will make citizens and illegal immigrants happy. The question whether illegal immigrants should have access to federally funded and acknowledged identification has, and will persist until people agree. However, that agreement will never occur if lawmakers, like Spitzer, continue to authorize laws without the opinion of the people.

By making decisions for the entire country without the input of those who will be effected, the debate on what should be done with cataloging illegal immigrants will continue down a dead end.