Former New York governor, forced to resign due to a call girl scandal. May have been set up by some of those who he went up against, or it might just have been a case of him being stupid and getting caught.
In any case, Spitzer used his office to support illegal activity, specifically illegal immigration. In 2006, while still Attorney General of that state, he proposed creating a [[sanctuary law]] in regards to Medicaid. Then, starting in early 2007 (after being elected) he came out in support of [[drivers licenses for illegal aliens]]. That plan was very unpopular: in October 2007, 72% of New Yorkers were against it. And, steps he took revealed what might have been his real motivation all along: getting Motor Voter forms into the hands of illegal aliens.
Everybody is rushing to condemn AIG's bonuses, but this simple scandal is obscuring the real disgrace at the insurance giant: Why are AIG's counterparties getting paid back in full, to the tune of tens of billions of taxpayer dollars?
Former New York governor Eliot Spitzer makes his triumphant return into the spotlight with the Washington Post editorial "How to Ground The Street/The Former 'Enforcer' On the Best Way to Keep Financial Markets in Check" (link). I am, needless to say, in a forest of conflicted emotions:
Was Eliot Spitzer set up over predatory lending? (Bush, banks, the Fed, and, yes, Greg Palast) - 03/23/08
UPDATE 2: Mob links? This says it's in the court papers (PDF link), but a quick scan didn't bring anything up. That would indeed take this to the whole other level.
Mexican president Felipe Calderon visited five U.S. cities this week, and had 34 events scheduled with a wide range of movers and shakers (his wife had a few events also). Some of the dignitaries he met with are listed here; picture right is of him with New York governor Eliot Spitzer from presidencia.gob.mx/prensa/?contenido=33715
At every stop, he has scheduled meetings with top local and state officials, some of whom have direct links to presidential candidates.
In his speech to the California legislature (which includes several Democrats with obviously divided loyalties), he said that "I strongly believe that Mexican and Mexican-American workers are a large reason for the dynamic economy of California", which is certainly true. It's also true that millions of illegal aliens from Mexico have a very negative impact on the state and the country, but he didn't bring up the downsides. He also promoted changing illegal immigration into (massive) legal immigration. From this, he gave a shout out to the Bracero program and also said:
We need to make migration legal, safe and organized.
Compare that to George W. Bush ("I will work to ensure a system of safe and orderly migration"), a Bush rep ("safe, humane, orderly and legal program"), Rob Allyn ("safe and legal and orderly and controlled"), Jim Wallis ("safe, legal, and orderly manner") and various Mexican government reps: link, link, link.
Are they all reading from the same script?
Without specifically directing audience members to pick up the phone and call their congressmen, Calderon also hinted that a key component to ensuring a strong future for Mexico lies in the pressure Mexicans here can apply to U.S. leaders, arguing that the improvement of Mexico is a joint government venture.
One of the major costs he didn't discuss is that massive immigration from Mexico gives that country political power inside the U.S., as evidenced by a foreign leader urging Mexicans and Mexican-Americans to promote Mexico's agenda to U.S. leaders. Obviously, the agendas of the U.S. (but not necessarily our elites) differs from that of Mexico in major ways. In the case of conflicts, whose side would former immigrants from Mexico come down on?
UPDATE: Aurelio Rojas of the SacBee offers this, in which he says that Calderon said "Mexican American workers are a large reason for the dynamic economy of California"; in fact, that was actually "Mexican and Mexican-American workers..." He also said:
"The choice is not between migration and (border) security or between migration and prosperity... The choice is between a future of integration and success or a future of distrust and resentment."
But after the speech, Republican Sen. Tom McClintock of Thousand Oaks said it was "inappropriate" for Calderon to "lecture" the Legislature about U.S. policies. "I don't think it's any of Mexico's business what America does with its own immigration policy, just as it's none of America's business what Mexico does with immigration policy," McClintock said... Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, D-Los Angeles, who spent part of his childhood in Mexico, said McClintock did not have "a valid argument.".. "Any president of any nation has a right to their own point of view," said Nunez, who praised Calderon for his efforts to improve Mexico's economy and stem illegal immigration.
Calderon is entitled to his own POV, but whether he should be given a stage at the California Capitol is another matter. It's not surprising at all that Nunez would defend him.
And, whereever Calderon went he was greeted by some number of Mexicans protesting his pro-business policies; some pictures from Chicago here, which mentions another one of those unmentionable costs of massive immigration from Mexico:
why are we allowing the internal politics of a foreign country to play out within our borders?
And, speaking at a winery founded by a Mexican immigrant, Calderon used another stock term, referring to illegal immigration as a "phenomonon", as if it were the tides:
"We came to be here with you to defend thousands of families of Mexican workers that are here because of a natural phenomenon, that compliments the economy of the U.S. and the economy of Mexico. If we want to seek prosperity for our cities we have to have this prosperity together."
UPDATE 2: Tom Tancredo has sent a letter to Calderon. An AP report on Los Angeles mayor Antonio Villaraigosa meeting with Calderon is here; per the comments, the L.A. Times doesn't seem to have reported on their meeting. The latest they appear to offer featuring both is a short report from Nancy Vogel (link), which doesn't mention anything that the reports above don't cover. The only artifact they provide from their meeting is this photo, captioned "Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, left, and Mexican President Felipe Calderon discuss trade opportunities in downtown Los Angeles":
UPDATE 3: There's another roundup here:
On the night of Feb. 13th, meeting with LA Mexican leaders, Calderon discussed the formation of a "league of anti-defamation and anti-discrimination," modeled on the Jewish Anti-Defamation League, to protect Mexicans in the U.S... Quoth Calderon, "If anyone is mercilessly defaming, ridiculing, and exacerbating hatred against Mexicans, all of us need to neutralize that force."
That links to this, which says that he said that just as the Jewish community had their league, he hoped that Mexicans would have their own. It also includes another picture of our favorite collaborateur:
Felipe Calderon Feb. 2008 U.S. visit: Eliot Spitzer, Blagojevich, Schwarzenegger, Villaraigosa, Fabian Nunez - 02/09/08
In addition to U.S. officials, and some who are supposedly U.S. officials, he'll probably also be meeting with community leaders, such as those from non-profits, "hometown associations", the leaders of his PAN party who operate inside the U.S., and the like. Unfortunately, it's difficult to find a listing, but if anyone could leave information in comments that would be quite helpful.
In addition to addressing the California legislature, some people he's known to be meeting with are:
* U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon
* New York governor Eliot Spitzer
* Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich
* California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
* Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa
* Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez (private meeting)
UPDATE: According to this:
...officials said he'll meet with Mayor Richard Daley, Gov. Rod Blagojevich and other leaders... ...includes a private meeting with some Mexican community leaders at McCormick Place... ..."We will be there making our proposals to him in what we expect to be a sincere dialogue," said Salvador Pedroza, chairman of the Little Village Chamber of Commerce and leader of the Illinois chapter of Calderon's National Action Party... In the afternoon, Calderon is expected to attend a town-hall-style meeting at Little Village High School on the Southwest Side.Please indict him already.
...After Calderon met privately with Blagojevich, officials announced an agreement for a teacher's exchange program that would send Mexican educators to Illinois to help teach math, natural sciences, Spanish and other subjects in local classrooms.
"It's very important that we recognize the contributions Mexico has made to Illinois and the United States, by strengthening our mutual bond and improving the quality and scope of Mexican culture in Illinois," Blagojevich said in an e-mailed news release.
UPDATE 2: His first meeting was at the Council of the Americas, with their honorary president David Rockefeller. Then, it was off to meet Eliot Spitzer (presidencia.gob.mx/prensa/?contenido=33715); Calderon congratulated him for his "efforts... to provide Mexican migrants with access to public education and health services as well as to guarantee their work rights". Then, a private meeting with the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal, and he also spoke at Harvard, with Deval Patrick, and with the President of the New York Federal Reserve Bank. In Chicago he met with mayor Richard M. Daley and with Blago. He even met with Jesse Jackson. All that and much, much more here.
Barack Obama reiterates support for driver's licenses for illegal aliens (Carolyn Lochhead) - 01/28/08
Sen. Barack Obama easily won the African American vote in South Carolina, but to woo California Latinos, where he is running 3-to-1 behind rival Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, he is taking a giant risk: spotlighting his support for the red-hot issue of granting driver's licenses to illegal immigrants.She's actually right about most of that, but she forgot to include New York governor Eliot Spitzer in her list of casualties. It also isn't clear from her article who exactly is renewing Obama's support for those who've broken our laws; no quotes from Obama or an official spokesman are provided.
It's a huge issue for Latinos, who want them. It's also a huge issue for the general electorate, which most vehemently does not. Obama's stand could come back to haunt him not only in a general election, but with other voters in California, where driver's licenses for illegal immigrants helped undo former Gov. Gray Davis.
It's also not entirely true that "Latinos... want them". Latinos who are here legally can already get them. As for those who put their race ahead of the best interests of their country, see page 14 of the 2007 Pew Hispanic Survey (pewhispanic.org/files/reports/84.pdf). Respondents were asked whether there should be a check for immigration status before granting a license. 85% of non-Hispanics said yes, as did 40% of all Hispanics. A majority of native-born Hispanics (56%) said yes, but a majority of foreign-born Hispanics (66%) said no. Whether any of the latter included illegal aliens isn't clear.
So, just as long as Obama goes for the foreign-born Hispanics (perhaps including illegal aliens), he's got it made. It's only the other 75%+ of American citizens he needs to worry about.
The article also quotes Gil Cedillo and former Clinton administration official Federico Pena, who's now a supporter of Obama. In 2006 he led a group that tried to thwart a Proposition 187-style measure in Colorado and the spokeswoman for that group was the vile Polly Baca, meaning that Pena is linked at least tangentially linked into the Western Union gravy train.
More on Obama's immigration issues here.
The Washington Post offers a vile, spittle-flecked editorial called "The Immigration Swamp/As the presidential campaign intensifies, so does the nativist ferocity." They turn on Mike Huckabee for changing from a strong supporter of illegal immigration into someone who (supposedly) wants illegal aliens to return home within 120 days:
The idea that
One perhaps overlooked part of Hillary Clinton's wishy-washy non-answer to the question concerning driver's licenses for illegal aliens concerns this:
[New York governor Eliot Spitzer is] making an honest effort to [bring illegal aliens "out of the shadows"]. We should have passed immigration reform.
The "reform" she mentions wouldn't solve the problem.
To try to smooth some of the anger, Mr.
Feds strike deal on Eliot Spitzer driver's licenses for illegal aliens (victory or defeat?) - 10/27/07
The Bush administration and New York cut a deal Saturday to create a new generation of super-secure driver's licenses for U.S. citizens, but also allow illegal immigrants to get a version.The first tier is an "enhanced" license, followed by one that complies with the REAL ID Act. The third tier is one just for those who are making money for corrupt businesses and banks and who just might vote for Democrats, i.e., illegal aliens. They wouldn't be valid as federal ID. As Rep. Peter King says, this might be a defeat for Spitzer because few illegal aliens might want the licenses since they would strongly indicate that the bearer is here illegally. Needless to say, "immigrant rights" groups will probably protest it for that reason.
...Saturday's agreement with the Homeland Security Department will create a three-tier license system in New York. It is the largest state to sign on so far to the government's post-Sept. 11 effort to make identification cards more secure [joining Arizona, Vermont and Washington].
...Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said he was not happy that New York intended to issue IDs to illegal immigrants. But he said there was nothing he could do to stop it.
"I don't endorse giving licenses to people who are not here legally, but federal law does allow states to make that choice," Chertoff said.
The governor made clear he is going forward with his plan allowing licenses for illegal immigrants. But advocates on both sides of the debate said Spitzer had caved to pressure by adopting the administration's stance on tighter security standards for most driver's licenses.
UPDATE: The plan won't go into effect until mid to late 2008. Rensselaer County Clerk Frank Merola says he'll continue his plan to sue to try to prevent any kind of licenses being issued to illegal aliens. And, as predicted, those on the other side are complaining, with Chung-Wha Hong, executive director of the New York Immigration Coalition, saying:
"He has crossed the line to the other side, letting his good name be used to promote an anti-immigrant, junk security measure in the Real ID."Here are some details on the tiers:
A lower-level license for driving and state ID purposes will be available to illegal aliens and citizens. The license will carry the words "Not for U.S. government purposes" and won't be acceptable ID for boarding a plane, entering a federal facility like a courtroom, or crossing the border.The "WHTI" sounds like it warrants a bit more research.
A more expensive second license, a federally recognized document that meets the REAL ID security requirements enacted by Congress in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, will be available to citizens and legal aliens and will be good for boarding a plane or accessing federal facilities.
The third document, known as an "enhanced driver's license," will be strictly for U.S. citizens. It will carry all the federal benefits of the REAL ID, plus allow New Yorkers to cross the border into Canada without a passport under the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative.
UPDATE 2: Ray Rivera of the New York Times offers "Governor Accused of Betraying Principles", which will probably be repurposed as an NYT immigration editiorial. It contains a similar Chung-Wha Hong quote, together with this:
[Hong] said having separate licenses would amount to a scarlet letter for illegal immigrants. "I know I'm speaking for millions of immigrants when I say I just feel so thoroughly betrayed."If Rivera were a real reporter he would have called her on that. Isn't she basically play-acting? "Immigrants" - those who've pledged to abide by our laws - can get the middle-tier, normal licenses. Is she making the false claim that most legal immigrants feel solidarity with illegal aliens? To the extent that that's true, isn't that more of either a personal thing (mixed status families) or a racial solidarity issue? Is encouraging either of those good public policy?
And, never fear, the ACLU is here:
The separate licenses could also serve as an invitation for law enforcement to arrest anyone carrying one on immigration charges, said Donna Lieberman, executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union. She added that the new proposal could send illegal immigrants further into the shadows, compelling them to drive with forged or no licenses and without insurance.That's what's happening already, so it's not going to get worse just because they won't get the new, special licenses just for them.
UPDATE 3: The picture at the top of this post is apparently from a protest which was held today in front of Spitzer's NYC office (link). Hong was apparently there, as well as another play-actor:
"You have forsaken a practical policy that would have been a benefit for all New Yorkers - for what? For just your own short-sighted political cover," said S.J. Jung of [Young Korean American Service and Education Center]. "Today, New Yorkers are outraged by your flip-flopping and New Yorkers are ashamed to have someone like you as our governor."YKASEC is also a member of the "New York Coalition to Expand Voting Rights", a group that wants to let "immigrants" vote; whether that means illegal aliens or not isn't known. They also say that "New York government officials do not adequately reflect the faces of the people they represent."
How badly has Spitzer's corrupt scheme failed? He's lost support among law-abiding New Yorkers, and he's also lost the support of at least the leaders of a couple groups that, like him, support illegal activity. On one hand it's good that his career has been damaged; on the other hand, it would be better if there were no licenses for illegal aliens at all.
Desperate New York Times immigration editorial plays race card; afraid attrition might work? - 10/22/07
Like clockwork, the New York Times offers yet another immigration editorial and, of course, they're still wrong ("AinaLike clockwork, the New York Times offers yet another immigration editorial and, of course, they're still wrong ("Ain’t That America", link). Per them, not enacting comprehensive immigration "reform" is yet another in the long line of "greatest historical shames" perpetrated by the U.S. The national mood is slipping into "hatred and fear" against those "documented or not, who speak Spanish and are working-class or poor":
The evidence can be seen in any state or town that has passed constitutionally dubious laws to deny undocumented immigrants the basics of living, like housing or the right to gather or to seek work. It's in hot lines for citizens to turn in neighbors. It's on talk radio and blogs. It's on the campaign trail, where candidates are pressed to disown moderate positions. And it can be heard nearly every night on CNN, in the nativist drumming of Lou Dobbs, for whom immigration is an obsessive cause.
As evidenced by their coverage, supporting illegal immigration and cheap labor is an "obsessive cause" for the NYT. As for those questions, the fact that the NYT's "reporters" aren't out there taking the candidates to task for the gaping holes in their policies shows that they're just a propaganda source and not a real newspaper.
Then, after promoting Eliot Spitzer's scheme to give driver's licenses to illegal aliens, they offer three choices to solve the problem. The first is mass deportations, something that no national leaders are calling for. The second could have been written by either the Democrats or the Bush administration:
Find out who they are. Distinguish between criminals and people who just want to work. Get them on the books. Make them pay what they owe - not just the income, Social Security, sales and property taxes they already pay, but all their taxes, and a fine. Get a smooth legal flow of immigrants going, and then concentrate on catching and deporting bad people.
They can't even get that right: all of the amnesties so far proposed would have allowed terrorists and criminals to sneak through the cracks, with the latest Senate bill allowing the DHS to admit known gang members. At least one version would have forgiven two years of taxes. And, that "smooth legal flow" sounds vaguely like an attempt to flood the U.S. with cheap foreign labor.
Their last choice is a mischaracterization of attrition, and they appear to have done that because they're afraid it might work:
Catch the few you can, and harass and frighten the rest. Treat the entire group as a de facto class of criminals, and disrupt or shout down anyone or any plan seen as abetting their evildoing.
Most people who support attrition are obviously not guilty of what the NYT claims; they're simply playing the victim. In fact, the ones trying to do the "shouting down" are those on the NYT's side who continually try to racialize the issue, use misleading "news" reports (such as from the NYT), smear people like Lou Dobbs, and so on.
The New York Times doesn't want a real debate on this issue: they want to try to kneecap their opponents by calling them bigots rather than, for instance, doing real reporting on this issue and disclosing all the downsides of the "reform" they support or asking the presidential front-runners to defend their flawed policies.
A new front has opened up in the war over Gov.
A key Republican lawmaker [Assembly Minority Leader James Tedisco (R-Schenectady)] disclosed several "smoking gun" e-mails yesterday showing [New York governor Eliot Spitzer]'s administration had OK'd funding for a local health-care clinic last month - before suddenly canceling the grant on Monday after his attack on Spitzer's plan to give driver's licenses to illegal aliens...
Seventy-two percent of New York voters who have read or heard about the [New York governor Eliot Spitzer's] proposal to allow undocumented aliens to obtain New York driver's licenses oppose the Governor's plan, while only 22 percent support it, according to a new Siena (College) Research Institute poll of registered voters released today.
New York Immigration Coalition supports Spitzer driver's licenses for illegal aliens plan - 10/03/07
UPDATE: If you're in NY state, there's a petition - including a printable version - here.
Tomorrow, October 3 at 10am in Manhattan various state Republicans will be leading a meeting to discuss New York governor Eliot Spitzer's scheme to give driver's licenses to illegal aliens.
Those attending include Rep. Tom Tancredo, columnist/former INS employee Mike Cutler, Peter Gadiel (9/11 Families for a Secure America) and T.J. Bonner (National Border Patrol Council). Details here.
[New York governor Eliot Spitzer's scheme to give driver's licenses to illegal aliens] starts in December but is already under fire from New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a pro-immigration politician who said the change could lead to the state's licenses not being acceptable proof of identification for air travel.
Bloomberg said Wednesday that the city's lawyer "does believe that in fact this would make New York's state drive
[Otsego County Clerk Kathy Sinnott-Gardner says:] "I don't see why we should make the requirements more lenient for illegal immigrants than they are for our own citizens."
...State Assemblyman Peter Lopez, R-Schoharie, a former county clerk, said, "I'm stunned.
New York governor Eliot Spitzer is considering giving driver's licenses to illegal aliens. Former governor Pataki required social security numbers to get a license, but the Coalition for a Secure Driver's License says he's about to repeal that:
"The 9/11 Commission pointed out that the 19 terrorists had at least 35 licenses," a board member of the coalition who lost his 23-year-old son in the World Trade Center attack, Peter Gadiel, said.
If terrorists are able to infiltrate the U.S. and carry out attacks, few other issues on the table in this election will matter. Every proposal that groups of voters support - from lower taxes to universal healthcare - is predicated on the internal security of the U.S. Protecting the U.S. from attacks at home should be the first priority of all of our political leaders, but unfortunately it is not.
The Bush administration, the GOP leadership, and almost all Democratic leaders have been negligent in this regard, placing other interests ahead of the security of the U.S.
The following are more suggestions than endorsements, and in many cases these are votes against their opponents.
...The candidates were asked whether they would enforce the federal law that went into effect July 1, mandating that states require proof of citizenship from Medicaid applicants.
Spitzer responded: "I would not enforce that provision . . .
From the NYT (nytimes . com/2004/06/16/nyregion/16labor.html):