World Net Daily: Schwarzenegger Ready To license Illegal Aliens (Driver's Licenses)

Though he campaigned hard against it, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is negotiating with a Democratic state lawmaker to draft a bill that would grant driver's licenses to illegal aliens.

Schwarzenegger's first act as governor last fall was to repeal SB 60, signed by then-Gov. Gray Davis, which would have opened the road for the estimated 2 million illegal immigrants of driving age in the Golden State.

This week, however, the new governor said he was "absolutely positive we'll come up with a great bill" to replace SB 60, opposed by 70 percent of California voters, according to exit polling during the October recall election.

Schwarzenegger said his office has been working closely to craft a successor to SB 60 with state Sen. Gil Cedillo, D-Los Angeles, a former member of MeCha, the radical Latino student movement demanding annexation of all southwestern states.

"This is the way we move forward," Schwarzenegger said at a Sacramento Press Club lunch Tuesday, according to the Riverside Press-Enterprise.

Despite opposition from many Republicans and a majority of Californians, the governor said he is confident of the outcome.

"It's one of those things that we'll all have to get together and see that this is a good idea and this is the way we move forward," Schwarzenegger said, according to the Riverside paper. "I'm talking with my Republican friends all the time about it and also with my Democratic friends. We will do it."

Cedillo's chief of staff, Dan Savage, said tentative agreement has been reached to grant driver licenses to all illegal immigrants, the Press-Enterprise reported. The licenses would look identical to those of other residents.

Savage said there were two sticking points in the earlier bill -- insurance requirements and verifying applicants' identities.

Republicans have demanded applicants be subject to background checks, but Savage said that has not been a main topic during the negotiations, according to the Press-Enterprise.

A co-author of the legislation repealing SB 60, Assemblyman John J. Benoit, R-Palm Desert, remains firmly opposed to the plan.

"To actually give a legal document to an illegal immigrant, I'm not there," Benoit told the Riverside paper.

But, Jesse Diaz, 39, a graduate student at UC Riverside and a member of the Mexican-American Political Foundation Backers, sees it as a practical move.

"There's definitely a need for it," said. "They're going to drive regardless. It's just now the rules will be safer. They're going to have insurance. There will be driver's training. It will be great."

Davis signed SB 60 in September after blocking a similar bill in 2002, raising charges he was pandering to Latinos before the recall vote.

In a statement after signing the repeal Dec. 3, Schwarzenegger said:"The swift bipartisan passage of this legislation is a perfect example of how the peoples' will can change politics-as-usual in Sacramento.

Benoit said President Bush's proposal to give illegal workers temporary status might change the debate. If the measure passes Congress, Republicans might be more receptive to giving driver licenses to people with temporary work permits, he suggested.

How have we damaged this forum?

The generally abusive tone of what became known as "the posse" while refusing to confront the facts about Arnold's policies (now becoming even more glaring), unsupported assertions that he was a "fiscal conservative" (or even a Republican for that matter), and use of unsupported assertions as if they are evidence, lowered the standard of discourse that attracted conservatives to this forum. There was constant thread jumping and repetition of the same unsupported assertions as if they were facts. It was so ubiquitious and stupid aht a good many long time FReepers quit posting on California politics simply to stop the stupid harassment. Some left, permanently.

That's damage to the forum.

Several polls before the election, especially two weeks out, amply demonstrated that if those who preferred McClintock had voted their preference instead of voting the Party line, McClintock would have won, even over Schwarzenegger. The racist Party campaign of fear of Bustamante was effective, despite the fact that the referendum against SB60 would have been equally effective against alien drivers' licenses AND that Bustamante could not have raised taxes without Republican votes. You keep flouting the final results as if they reflected sentiment, a deliberate misconstrual of fact.

Arnold may in fact be more destructive to conservatives than Bustamante, a possibility you never confronted, preferring to repeat your loutish fear mongering over Bustamante. With Arnold cutting deals with the teachers' union, appointing a majority of radical leftists to State Boards, offering a pittance in budget cuts, dithering with workmans' comp, raking in buckets of cash from the same corrupt donors as funded Davis, failing to "re-negotiate" the illegal power bonds, bringing back electrical power price deregulation without deregulating supply, threatening us with a tax hike unless we buy more debt, and now STABBING HIS SUPPORTERS IN THE BACK with drivers' licenses for illegals, I suggest it is you who are acted foolishly in your support of Arnold, and arrogantly too. So when confronted with reality, what do you do?

I am not now, nor have I ever been an Arnold "supporter".

In your case I would add a charge of "dishonesty" to "generally abusive." You worked long and hard to get Arnold elected and browbeat those who preferred otherwise. That is support. Defining it otherwise to cover your sorry behavior is the same kind of spin as Arnold's "special interests." You never supported a real conservative, and instead chose to berate everything from his appearance to his name as if that were substantive, characteristic of a person with few supporting facts. To try to weasel out of saying that you were backing Arnold now by way of a subjective definition of "support" is worse than disingenuous.

This standards of this forum used to require a poster to back up assertions with facts, of which there were precious few on the part of you and FairOpinion's possie. The standards of this forum prohibited thread jumping, which you practiced with abandon. You proved that browbeating, harassment, spin, and invective were effective on this forum. Unfortunately for this forum, you weren't banned for such behavior as this:

Oh you're a fool alright as you still fail to recognize that voting for Arnold was the only way of defeating the racist Mexican.

Bustamante isn't a Mexican; he is an American citizen. You know that, but that is how you frame arguments. It's unethical. It is racist. It should be unacceptable on the forum and because it wasn't, there was considerable damage from which it has not fully recovered. Unfortunately the standards aren't mine or you would have been hosed long ago.

I don't mind a worthy opponent one bit, one who argues with logic and facts, though perhaps with a set of premises upon which we disagree. I don't mind passion in those arguments as long as there isn't invective. You have not displayed that kind of maturity and have instead relentlessly attacked those who do with little more than crude name calling, just as on this thread when you couldn't stand being ignored, as you richly deserve, for the loutish behavior of which you are so fond:

Post 180:If so, you're a bigger fool than your posts suggest.

Post 125 I look at things logically...which explains fully why your post is meaningless.

That tone is damaging to the forum.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.