Thread: Edwards' Immigration Stand Muddled

Edwards' Immigration Stand Muddled


Dem Hopeful Accuses Clinton Of Double-Talk, But Experts See Problems With His Position
Nov 8, 2007
by Ben Smith.

http://www.cbsnews.com

Former Senator John Edwards (N.C.) has been accusing his rival Sen. Hillary Clinton (N.Y.) of double-talk for a week, since she refused to say clearly whether illegal immigrants should get driver's licenses - but his own position on the issue is also incoherent, experts say.

Immigration policy experts on both sides of the debate say they're puzzled by Edwards’ stance, which appears to hinge on blurring the distinction between state and federal powers.

"He supports licenses as part of a path to citizenship. He doesn't support the Spitzer plan because it doesn't include a path to citizenship," said Edwards' deputy campaign manager Jonathan Prince in an e-mail referring to the New York governor’s plan that prompted the question that flummoxed Clinton.

"That's not a rational position - Eliot Spitzer couldn't ever offer somebody a path to citizenship," said Margie McHugh, the Co-Director of the National Center on Immigrant Integration Policy at the Migration Policy Institute, which favors immigration reform.

"I don't know if they think you're stupid or what they think," said Frank Sharry, the executive director of the National Immigrantion Forum, another broadly pro-immigration policy shop.

Sharry laughed aloud when read Prince’s statement of Edwards’ position.

That is "sort of like saying I oppose the confederate flag in Southern states because there's not a corresponding flag burning amendment to it. It's nonsensical," Sharry said.

Indeed, opposing Spitzer's plan on those grounds amounts to de facto opposition to any driver's licenses for illegal immigrants, something Edwards and his aides have not previously stated.

That's a dramatic shift from Edwards' stand in 2004, when he told "Hardball's" Chris Matthews, "I'm for it," when asked about licenses for illegal immigrants.

Edwards may be changing his position to court working-class Iowa voters, among whom illegal immigration is an emotionally charged issue.

However, his effort to soft-pedal the change seems aimed at a party establishment that is resisting populist anti-immigration forces, and hopes to win the vast bulk of the Hispanic vote in the general election.

In Philadelphia last week, moderator Tim Russert asked the seven Democratic candidates, "Does anyone here believe an illegal immigrant should not have a driver's license?"

Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd was the only one to indicate opposition.

In the wake of the debate, Edwards aides told reporters that he favors driver's licenses for illegal immigrants, but opposes Spitzer's plan for other reasons.

They did not say that he opposes all efforts to extend licenses to illegal immigrants unless taken in the context of "some future comprehensive reform."

He and his campaign appear not to have been asked that question directly.

"Two of Mrs. Clinton's opponents, Senator Barack Obama and John Edwards, support granting licenses to illegal immigrants, although Mr. Edwards has problems with elements of Mr. Spitzer's proposal," The New York Times reported Nov. 1.

Politico reported that an Edwards aide "said after the debate that Edwards also supports issuing licenses to illegal immigrants, which is the most controversial element of Spitzer's plan."

In an interview Sunday on “This Week,â€

What a joke.

KEEP stating those positions on giving them licenses and the American people will tell you what they think on election day. The dems are trying to walk the fence, but everybody knows where they stand. They know they are in hot water, but they are trying their best to not "offend" any Hispanics by double-talking. It won't work!!!