With Sights On Iowa, Edwards Takes New Conservative Line On Immigration

It is a rare position for former Sen. John Edwards. On the road to the White House, the North Carolinian has frequently positioned himself as the most progressive candidate among the Democratic frontrunners.

But as part of an increasingly aggressive push to make up ground in the race, he has staked out a position on immigration that is to the right of his chief primary opponents.

At the debate and on ABC's This Week this past Sunday, Edwards drew a distinction between himself and Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, saying he disagreed with New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer's proposal to grant drivers licenses to undocumented immigrants. Clinton backs the proposal as a way of solving crimes and promoting road safety.

Moreover, Edwards said that while states should have say over the issue until comprehensive reform can be passed, once reform is enacted, licenses should only be granted to those immigrants who are on the path to citizenship.

Edwards' stance contrasts sharply from what he advocated as the Democratic vice presidential candidate in 2004, when he was unequivocal in his support for issuing driver's licenses to the undocumented.

So how does a candidate who has embraced progressive stances on many critical issues from 2004 to 2008 shift conservative on immigration? The answer, some analysts say, lies in the political dynamics of Iowa, the first caucus state.

According to David P. Redlawsk, associate professor of political science and director of the University of Iowa Hawkeye Poll, Iowa Democrats are "center-left" when it comes to immigration policy. Sixty-seven percent, according to a recent poll, prefer to "allow undocumented immigrants to become citizens if they meet criteria." However, many blame the government and employers for the illegal immigration problem rather than the immigrants themselves.

In recent trips to Iowa, Redlawsk noted, Edwards has highlighted aspects of his immigration policy that go over well with the Iowa crowd. He has been greeted with applause for declaring that illegal immigrants should learn English as a perquisite for citizenship. He has also, to good reviews, declared that it is important to be "harder on employers who violate the law" by hiring the undocumented to work for them. Edwards' opposition to granting driver licenses to illegal immigrants appears to fit this mold.

Still, some political observers claim, the areas of immigration policy disagreement between Edwards, Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama, D-IL, are at once minor and exaggerated. Both Obama and Cinton have called for a greater crackdown on those who employ undocumented workers as well as for requiring immigrants to learn English as a step towards citizenship. And while Edwards has used the issue of drivers licenses as a way of separating himself from Clinton, those who study the issue say it's more of a political red-herring than anything else.

"Politically for the Spanish community they are going to want the candidates to be clear where they stand on the issue," said Vanessa Cardenas, director of ethnic media for the Center for American Progress. "Driver licenses is a part, but it is not the solution. At the same time, none of the candidates have been specific. They are trying to walk a fine line."

Comments

[way2muchsense]

When I was stationed in Germany (pre-EU), there was this thing called an "international" license. Get one, and drive all over Europe. The issuing country has your name and info on file, so if you got your fuehrerschein in Germany, and get a speeding ticket in France, Interpol and the German authorities got the update. If this is what Gov. Spitzer wants to do, it's a good idea. He's just going about it in a ham-fisted manner.

At this rate, we'll have Governor Bloomberg in a few years.

[deaniac83]

I am an immigrant. I'm not Hispanic (I'm originally from India), but I am an immigrant and a naturalized citizen. And I unequivocally support Edwards' stand. It is grossly unfair to grant to illegal immigrants the same documents - without them first having to go through paying a fine and being documented properly under our federal system - as is granted to legal immigrants - some of whom (my family, for example), waited 15-20 years to immigrate to the United States legally. While comprehensive immigration reform is necessary, it is also necessary to make sure we don't end up in the same situation 20 years from now. While Drivers' Licenses do not explicitly verify anyone's legal status, one needs to ask why state authorities should be issuing those to people who are here in violation of the law. Also, giving DL's to illegal immigrants will encourage big trucking companies to hire them, worsening the immigration problem even more. We can't be talking about employer enforcement at the same time as we are making it easier for some employers to hire illegal immigrants.

[TWOSHORT]

Smart man!Selling out American's for votes is know joke! We all have to obey the AMERICAN LAW's Y/N? so why are the Dem hiding on this issue when million's are braking our law's!Those who are here without premission can't vote in any election in our country any way like they can't drive here?American want them out[not me saying this]by most reporting story in the media[LOU DOBBS]Dem better wake up or we will have another Rep President.

[Marlyn]

"Sixty-seven percent, according to a recent poll, prefer to allow undocumented immigrants to become citizens if they meet criteria."

I don't see why they should be allowed to become citizens.

I think that instead, they should be documented, so as not to be illegal. THEN they could get driver's licenses.

[speakingtruth2power]

Immigration is an issue that the Republican party will win on if Democrats aren't careful how they go about the issue. Before we worry about advancing gay rights, getting more minorities in college or even what kind of guns our drug dealers have, we have to stop the theft of America by the fascists!

I am very much in favor of social evolution, but right now we have to get practical about what our priorities. Even global warming has to wait until 2009, when and if we can get our country back. Don't go marching in a one issue parade when when your house is on fire!

Populism is the cure for the cancer of corporate fascism.

[straticaster]

This tack by Edwards is causing me to question my support for him and look at other candidates, such as Obama and Richardson. When I watched the recent NBC debate and saw the way he was challenging Hillary on her waffling, I was assuming that he had a more progressive stance than Hillary; in recent days, I have learned that the opposite is true. The issue of drivers licenses is one that I see through the realistic lens of someone (myself) who has lived in neighborhoods with large numbers of Latino immigrants. Granting drivers licenses to the large majority of immigrants who are law-abiding (and who can pass a driving test) makes it less likely that I am going to be subject to a hit-and-run collision by a driver who is scared of the police, unqualified to drive, uninsured, or all of the above. By bringing the majority of immigrant drivers into the system, we allow law enforcement to focus on those who don't play by any rules, and who pose serious dangers to the communities in which they reside. Those of us who live in the real world don't have the luxury of debating whether a driver's license is a right or a privilege. We need law enforcement to focus on people that pose real dangers, rather than turning into immigration agents.

[FirstForty]

Im pleased to see John Edwards get real on this issue. We cant classify everyone as left or right. We need the right answers on the issues. I support this position. Illegal is illegal and we need to protect our language and culture. I dont think this is a unique position amoung dems.

[Boadicea]

He's just doing what Thom Hartmann told him to do. Edwards is running for president of the liberal blogosphere, and Hartmann is one of it's guru's. I'm sure Edwards will win that race.

That said, Edwards's position on this issue at this moment coincides with my own view.

But I know that, with Edwards, like the Northwest weather, if I wait a minute, it will be completely different.

[OhgReaTone]

Immigration is reduced to economics and statistics. The candidates are working on the trees when there is a forest at stake. The forest of humanity has great beauty in the fall because of the variety of colors of the bountiful trees - not because there is one beautiful tree that survived the wildfires.
Ohg.
http://thefireside.wordpress.com/2007/11/04/immigration/

[Giordano Bruno]

After re reading his position, the only part which I find mildly regressive is the part that says one must learn English in order to be American. Hell, most Americans and their president don't speak English, why should we insist that Mexican Americans do?! Giordy

[rssrai]

If JRE is conservative than Bush is Mother Theresa.

[BruceMcF]

Thanks for debunking the "conservative" part of the headline cosbo ... there is also the "new" part of the headline, which ignores that fact that John Edwards has had the same immigration policy all year ... on the one hand, putting the pressure on illegal employers, and on the other hand, providing existing illegal entrants the opportunity to pay a fine for their misdemeanor and start the process of normalizing their status.

A "new" line, when the policy on the drivers license question is consistent with the immigration policy that John Edwards has been stating since January?

A grossly inaccurate headline, reflecting lazy reporting at best, at worst a deliberate effort to misinform.

[RSchewe]

It nice to know that there is a template out there where you can label everyone. I'd like to know who cast the mold.

So according to this structure Spitzer is a far left loon and Edwards is a right winger now.

You also have Conservatives that consider Hilary Clinton to the the most far left of the Democratic candidates and you have Liberals and Progressives that believe the opposite.

Who defines these scales that define where politicians fall into on the political spectrum? It seems to me that people are constantly shifting the goal posts.

We need some candidates that are independent and believe what they think is right instead of trying to best complete a checklist that fits one of the two parties.

[TexasYoungDemocrat]

As the article suggests, John Edwards has made his name in recent news cycles by vehemently arguing that Senator Clinton apparently "waffled" in her response to the New York governor's plan to issue licenses to undocumented workers. However, this Sunday on ABC's This Week, Edwards rejected the plan without hesitation or qualification.

Interestingly on the night of the debate when asked, by a show of hands, those who were completely against the proposal, only Chris Dodd raised his hand. Isn't Edwards now guilty of what he has been criticizing Senator Clinton for?

Who's calculating now Mr. Edwards? You shouldn't throw stones if you live in a glass house...

[StrategicThinker]

John Edwards should simply say, "Yes, I have evolved a lot of my positions since 2004, because the problems facing this country have gotten a lot worse since then. Iraq is in worse shape, health care costs have more than doubled, what was a looming housing crisis can no longer be ignored, and citizens in this country are more outraged over illegal immigration. Since the problems have gotten worse, the solutions have to be greater. So, I haven't 'changed' as a person since 2004, but my view is the solutions have to be greater to meet the challenges that we now face."

For a candidate who claims to have learned his lessons, that's all that he needs to say, and most voters will accept his "evolution."

Like Albert Einstein, "The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them."

I would add though, that for someone running on a populist platform, he needs to be painting U.S. workers and illegal immigrants as victims of the same trade policies and conservative economic policies. What the oligarchs did in Mexico that created the conditions that led to Mexican citizens becoming economic refugees, is the same agenda that the wealthy elites have in the United States. They are driving down wages here, and making Americans desperate. American citizens then, being unable to understand why they can no longer afford the same standard of living, blame their problems on the illegal immigrants who come here and compete for the same jobs, and get them because they are willing to work for the low wages that regular citizens cannot afford to.

The problem is not the illegal immigrants or the U.S. citizens. The problem is the trade agreements that are intended to lower wages and benefit the wealthy. The problem is the economic situation in Mexico.

This is what John Edwards' message should be about illegal immigration. The illegal immigrants and U.S. workers are victims of the same ideology that were negotiated for the benefit of multinational corporations.