Posted on 12/16/2003 9:06:03 AM PST by go_tom
DOBBS: That is the nature of things. All right, thank you very much, Lisa Sylvester.
The nation's poorest borders have given rise to a host of problems for border states and beyond.
Joining me now, the author of the California law that would have given driver's license to illegal aliens. which was overturned in California this month. We're joined now by Democratic State Senator Gil Cedillo. Also joined by Republican State Senator Tom McClintock, who says licenses for illegals would dangerously undermine law enforcement. Joining us tonight appropriately enough from the state capital, Sacramento.
Gentlemen, good to have you with us.
STATE SEN. TOM MCCLINTOCK (R), CALIFORNIA: Thanks for having us.
DOBBS: Senator Cedillo, this law has been overturned. What is the next step? Is there a deal in the works between you and your supporters and Governor Schwarzenegger?
STATE SEN. GIL CEDILLO (D), CALIFORNIA: Yes. We're working very constructively with the governor, looking forward to craft a bill that will ensure that we have safe highways for all of California.
We want to make sure that the 22 million motorists who take to the highways every day know that we've done all that we can to make sure that every motorist is licensed, inspected and insured.
And so we're working in a very constructive manner with the governor, and we hope to have a bipartisan bill for the next session.
DOBBS: Senator McClintock, your thoughts?
MCCLINTOCK: Well, with all due respect, that's a specious argument. California already accepts a valid foreign driver's license as proof of competence to operate a motor vehicle in California. So this is not a safety issue.
It's not an insurance issue either. A foreign national can obtain insurance in their own country with extend coverage into the United States.
There's one purpose of this measure and only one purpose. It's to place valid state identification documents in the hands of illegal immigrants. And the only reason for doing that is to undermine the enforcement of our immigration laws.
DOBBS: Senator Cedillo, your thoughts?
CEDILLO: Well, I'm the author of the bill, and I'm telling you what the purpose is, why we introduced the bill. We've been working on this for five years. We're very clear.
Every Californian has a right to know, in a state where you are 22 million motorists taking to the highways every day, that we, the elected officials are doing everything we can to make sure that the highways are safe, that all motorists are licensed, tested and insured.
And one of the ways to do that is to make sure that a population of 22 million people who, for 65 years were able to meet the responsibilities of driving with a license, are able to meet those responsibilities again.
MCCLINTOCK: They didn't meet those responsibilities right now.
CEDILLO: That's not accurate.
MCCLINTOCK: It is. They're entitled...
CEDILLO: And we need to make sure that people have a responsibility and an opportunity to fulfill that responsibility. And so that's what we and the governor and I intend do in the upcoming session.
MCCLINTOCK: Gil if you're a foreign national, you can obtain a driver's license in your own country that entitles you to drive on California's roads. This is not a safety issue.
DOBBS: Let me ask you both...
CEDILLO: No, this is a safety issue. This is -- As I said, we have 22 million motorists, and they need know that every day we make sure their highways are safe.
DOBBS: Senator...
CEDILLO: Driving a vehicle is essential to living in California. And they have a right to know that we're doing all that we can.
And that's why, for 65 years this legislation served us well. And it served us well until 1994. Then we tried to play immigration politics with this bill in 1994, and we found out that it had zero effect on immigration. In fact, it was -- the opposite occurred. In fact, after 1994, we had increases in immigration in '94 and '95 and '96.
DOBBS: Senator Cedillo...
CEDILLO: Zero impact on that area.
DOBBS: Senator Cedillo, Senator McClintock, we're going to come right back you to. We're going to take a brief respite, as we settle that issue on this broadcast this evening. We thank you both for trying to do so. And we will be right back.
A major push in Congress to expand the size, the strength of the U.S. military. We'll be joined by Democratic Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher, the author of the bill. She will be joining us later in the broadcast.
We'll be back with senators Cedillo and McClintock in just a moment. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: We're talking with Senator Gil Cedillo of California and Tom McClintock.
Gentlemen, I want to turn, if I may, to Senator Cedillo.
Senator McClintock said that any illegal alien, any resident of another nation is entitled to get a driver's license in their country and have it recognized in the state of California. Is that true or is it not?
CEDILLO: Lou, I just think that's inaccurate, and I think tat to the extent that the can (ph) is very time limited. But I think that's beside the point. I think the point is...
DOBBS: But, wait, Senator if I may, it may be beside the point but I just want to understand the veracity of the statement first, and then we can go to the issue of its relevance. Is it true, or is it not?
CEDILLO: I don't believe that's true. I don't believe that's accurate.
MCCLINTOCK: Of course, it's true. We just had a hearing on that, Gil. You asked the California Highway Patrol commissioner that question. And he told you that the state of California recognizes a valid foreign driver's license as proof of competence to operate a motor vehicle in this state.
If you're not going to get trained in your own country to obtain a driver's license, what makes you think you're going to get one here?
The only purpose of this is to obtain a valid state identification document that, before your bill, said not only that you're competent to drive a motor vehicle but you're also legally a resident of California. For that reason, the driver's license was used for everything from financial transactions to security clearance at airports.
By giving these licenses to people who are in this country illegally, you have just destroyed the value of the driver's license as authentic proof of legal residency for every one of the millions of California drivers who currently hold one.
CEDILLO: Now, with all due respect, Senator McClintock, I don't believe that statement is accurate. I believe the commissioner indicated that the use was time limited, maybe to 90 days, if I recall correctly. But the point is that we are...
MCCLINTOCK: You're only supposed to be here for 90 days.
CEDILLO: I understand -- trained, licensed and insured, trained by our laws with our regulations...
MCCLINTOCK: Our laws say they're not supposed to be here to begin with. Our laws say they're supposed to be...
CEDILLO: Senator, you know, you and I agree not to interrupt each other, so let me finish.
So we want to make sure people are trained, licensed and insured in compliance with our laws. For 65 years, this was the law of California, and it served us well. It should serve us well again.
The failure of the bill when it was changed was that it made our highways more dangerous. We're trying to reconcile our laws to our reality and work with something that worked for us for 65 years. I think that's a great idea.
MCCLINTOCK: You talk about compliance with our laws. Illegal immigrants are here in direct defiance of the most fundamental of our laws, our immigration laws.
The United States has the most open immigration policy of any nation in the world. There are millions of people who are waiting in line to legally become American citizens and are willing to abide by our immigration laws to do so.
Illegal immigration is the process of people cutting in front of these folks in line. I don't believe that kind of behavior should be rewarded. And when you talk about people who ought to comply with our laws, you're talking about people who are deliberately violating our laws to be here in the first place.
CEDILLO: I understand that, Senator. But you also -- and that's probably an argument you're going to have to take up with the head of homeland security, Mr. Ridge, who has argued that perhaps there is eight to 12 million people we should legalize.
But that is beside the point with respect to what is, as the law indicates, our jurisdictional responsibility. Our jurisdictional responsibility as it applies to California is that you and I have a constitutional obligation to make sure that our highways are safe for all California motorists.
General (ph) and I are obligated to do that. We took an oath to do that, and you and I should work to accomplish that.
MCCLINTOCK: We have an obligation to defend the sovereignty of the United States, and if measures like yours become law, it's going to be infinitely more difficult to do so.
DOBBS: Gentlemen...
CEDILLO: We had a record of 65 years where our sovereignty was well in tact while we ensured all motorists were licensed, tested and insured. And you know that to be a case. That's not an argument, that's history.
DOBBS: We've got very...
MCCLINTOCK: These are very different times.
DOBBS: Sorry, Senator McClintock, I interrupted you.
MCCLINTOCK: I was going to say those were far different times.
DOBBS: Senator Cedillo...
CEDILLO: No. No, they're the same. We had all the same concerns for security that we have today and also concerns for sovereignty.
We went through World War II. We hunted communists in our universities. We were concerned about young people in the '60s. We spied upon them. We were concerned about...
DOBBS: Gentlemen -- Gentlemen, if I may just interject with one thing. Seventy percent of the people of California, gentlemen, in the most recent polls, just about 70 percent, almost 70 percent, said they don't want this, period. Driver's licenses for illegal aliens.
How do you respond to them? And it was one of the principle issues in Governor Schwarzenegger's campaign. How do you respond to them?
CEDILLO: Well, we respond to them like we did, Lou, is we went -- And I personally was one of the co-authors of the recall in a bipartisan effort, working with the governor, we repealed SB-60. I was the author of that bill and worked with on it for five years.
We've listened to the people. We've listened to what their concerns are. And with the governor, and I imagine in a bipartisan manner, we are going to propose new legislation that will address the concerns that were raised during the debates and during the floor debates and come back with legislation shortly in January that will address those concerns. And also address the concerns of 22 million motorists to make sure that our highways are safe and secure.
MCCLINTOCK: I don't understand how that's going to work. You're going to do a background check on people. The background check's going to determine one of two things. Either they're here in the country legally, in which case they don't need this bill; they're already entitled to a driver's license, or they're in this country illegally and the law requires they be deported.
I don't see how you compromise on that issue.
DOBBS: Well, General (ph) we'll look forward to finding out how you all do compromise on that issue, if the art of politics is fruitful in this case. Senator Gil Cedillo, Senator Tom McClintock, we thank, gentlemen, both for being here. We hope you'll return to discuss this important issue.
MCCLINTOCK: Thank you.
CEDILLO: Thank you very much.
DOBBS: Coming up next, expanding the size and the strength of the U.S. military, a movement gaining moment in many Congress and leading much of that momentum, Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher, member of the House Armed Services Committee and the author of legislation that would expand the military. She's our guest next.
Please stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
Gee, thanks, Arnie. I'm sure glad I voted for McClintock. I just wish everyone had.
Karl Rove?
Hb
MCCLINTOCK: Of course, it's true. We just had a hearing on that, Gil. You asked the California Highway Patrol commissioner that question. And he told you that the state of California recognizes a valid foreign driver's license as proof of competence to operate a motor vehicle in this state.I laughed out loud at that one! McClintock makes so much sense.
If you're not going to get trained in your own country to obtain a driver's license, what makes you think you're going to get one here?
The only purpose of this is to obtain a valid state identification document that, before your bill, said not only that you're competent to drive a motor vehicle but you're also legally a resident of California. For that reason, the driver's license was used for everything from financial transactions to security clearance at airports.
By giving these licenses to people who are in this country illegally, you have just destroyed the value of the driver's license as authentic proof of legal residency for every one of the millions of California drivers who currently hold one.
CEDILLO: Now, with all due respect, Senator McClintock, I don't believe that statement is accurate. I believe the commissioner indicated that the use was time limited, maybe to 90 days, if I recall correctly. But the point is that we are...
MCCLINTOCK: You're only supposed to be here for 90 days.
Also, "general(ph)" instead of "gentlemen."
Enclosed is Senator McClintock's speech that he delivered on the floor of the California State Senate a few days ago.
Last year, I and many others on this floor believed it was a bad idea to borrow $13 billion to paper over the state’s deficit.
And today, I believe it is still a bad idea to borrow $15 billion to paper over that same deficit.
I am not going to get into the debate over whether it is better to borrow that money over 13-years or 30-years. The only distinction in that debate is between bad public policy and really bad public policy.
There are only three ways to remedy a deficit. You can raise taxes – in a state that already suffers one of the heaviest tax burdens in the nation. You can borrow money – in a state that is already up to its eyeballs in debt. Or you can rein in spending -- in a state that is now spending a larger portion of people’s earnings than at any time in its history.
I would think the choice would be self-evident.
We need to suspend the state’s spending mandates and restore to the Governor the power he had from 1939 to 1983 to make mid-year spending reductions. A 13.5 percent reduction effective January 1st would cure the entire deficit in 18 months and allow California to begin the next budget year debt free, with a clean slate, and $12 billion of breathing room going into 2005.
And it would still provide annual general fund spending 15 percent above what we were spending the day Gray Davis took the oath of office.
If we succumb to the Siren song of borrowing, I fear that this will not be the end of it. New York City tried this – and just this year they rolled over their now 25-year-old debt yet again.
Let us be honest. This proposal is set at $15 billion to assure that the underlying problem can be ignored for 2003. Let me remind the members that the LAO’s November report predicts a $15 billion gap between estimated expenditures and estimated revenues again in 2004.
If we are going to borrow $15 billion because we don’t want to address the problem this year – right now – with the full impact of an historic election fresh in mind – how can we seriously believe that somehow we will muster the political resolve to do so next year in the middle of an election?
So far, only $1.3 billion of actual cuts have been proposed this year and only $1.4 billion for next year. Ladies and Gentlemen: that's barely enough to cover the annual debt service on the bond now before us.
The only way this bond can be issued constitutionally is to temporarily repeal one of the oldest provisions in the state constitution that dates back to the original document of 1849.
Why did the Founders place that provision in the law? They were very clear. Let me share the words of the State Supreme Court just seven years later in 1856:
"The Framers of the State Constitution were mostly men fresh in the experience of the errors into which other states had fallen. They had witnessed the unhappy results that followed extravagant legislation, and were anxious to rear a bulwark here, which would protect us against similar disasters...they were aware that years would scarcely repair the follies of a single day, and that the high rate of taxes imposed in many of the States, to pay the interest of the debts so improvidently contracted, had the effect to drive capital and population from their shores."
The next year, the court wrote:
"The framers (of the Constitution) knew that it was not the practice of governments, well conducted, to borrow money for the ordinary expenses of government...the framers of the Constitution knew that if they permitted the Legislature to borrow money to defray the ordinary expenses of the government, it would not be long before the State must be brought practically to rely upon the yearly revenue...Besides this, the Convention doubtless thought it unjust to throw the burden of paying the present expense of the government upon posterity, who would be compelled, in addition, to pay their own expenses, or resort to the same method of postponement."
These are the warnings of a generation of giants who built our state. They have been heeded by every generation that has followed until this one.
And of this one, what can be said? Words are vain. Reason is vain. With this vote you now set in motion the classic spiral of spend-borrow-and-tax that California's Founders had anticipated, feared, and protected against.
There's a thread here on FR with it!
McClintock Floor Speech on AB9 Deficit(California Bond Issue)
The only way this bond can be issued constitutionally is to temporarily repeal one of the oldest provisions in the state constitution that dates back to the original document of 1849.
I think this is the purpose of Prop 58 (which also reaffirms the balanced budget requirement). Without the repeal (temporary or not), it would be unconstitutional to issue a bond such as the Prop 57 $15 Billion bond, because the bond wouldn't be for a specific project. If Prop 58 passes, the legislature will be free to "throw the burden of paying the present expense of the government upon posterity."
Who said Bush was a RINO? Oh yeah, YOU did in your strawman beating. Well, I pointed out the dis-similarities between the two so what does that mean?
Its means you are trying to ignore the differences between Bush and (R)nold, because hiding behind Bush's legs are all you shameless apologists have, like the Democrates, few core principles -just defensive Talking Points.
Well call me a Bush basher til your heart's content, that's no reason to be in support (R)nold. As always, your crew never does have reason to be FOR him.
No doubt. I watched The California debate and I found McClintock very impressive. Hope to hear more from him.
Well, I can split hairs that SB60 is worse, but I can't. Bush just sucks on immigration, its just plain undefendable. I will say that immigration has shown to be more of a state issue recently, since Prop 187 so in a state like CA its more important of an issue than a President...but that's splitting hairs.
Schwarzenegger's repeal of SB60 is MORE conservative than the Presidents position of "work for everyone", clearly a "RINO" position.
While that has just been talk from Bush, I believe there isn't a strong likelihood of anything happening on it. Now Gil and Arnold working together to "improve" SB60, I think in your heart of hearts you know that this is going to actually happen. Which is why I can't give him any props on getting Gil to take a step backward.
similar to the bonds the Governor and Legislature have agreed to float. It's not Apples and Oranges
I agree. All the more reason to reject (R)nold's idea to paper over the debt. Although to states, its just worse because they are forced to pay quicker, unless of course they can get long term loans...what an innovation.
The contrast here is that (R)nold is taking us in a bad direction and setting bad precident that Davis wanted to take CA down.
At least for Bush, he has inherited 100 years of this buck passing, (R)nold could have a legacy far beyond this generation, all from the party of smaller government®.
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.