We can all think of catastrophic times and events that caused us to open the purse and spend. WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Katrina, the tsunami in Indonesia, etc. that were extremely costly, but characteristically time or event-limited in some way, after which, we went back to business as usual--and supposedly smaller government(or should have!). Even Iraq will be considerably limited in the end, although it may take a new presidency to alter a few policies.

The next problem is, of course, a new Democratic presidency, which would automatically open the purse-strings, IMO, for increased spending on their favorite entitlement programs, while still carrying the burdens passed on to them from previous administrations--including Iraq and the GWOT.

My suggestion for the Illegals problem is supposed to last till we can declare ourselves adequately free of Illegals, both in the US and in trying to get here. I would give it 4 to 5 years, after which we can close down the large logistics aspects I proposed: bases, feeding, transportation, etc., that is driven by the huge numbers of Illegals to be processed out.

The difference between this type of "dill" drill and that of, say, universal health care, is that it is not a permanent entitlement spending program that mortgages our taxpayers forever, and creates a lasting bureaucracy of gigantic proportions. Problem solved; tax money stops (for the most part!), and the organization reverts to "normal". No huge bureaucracy would be remaining, it says here.

You can see that this happens by surveying the closed bases of the military, and their reduced numbers of troops after Vietnam. Cuts of up to 30-40% were made to achieve a "peace dividend", which has come to haunt us to this very day, but it actually happened on Clinton's watch--rightly or wrongly. (a shudder here--it may happen again!)

Generally, I am not in favor of socialization of anything, including Social Security, and I will most likely not live long enough to recover what I put into that system. So it is a net tax on me that I have already paid. (Benefits creep has destroyed the fiscal integrity of SS, but that is another problem entirely.)

...Spend money in the right ways to solve the problem...

manning,
I take it from your above comment that you are not a small government conservative. Your argument seems to say that if the people see a problem that they think is large and important enough then they should empower government to solve that problem regardless of the expense or expansion of government power and influence in the daily lives of citizens. Am I misreading you?

Illegals will not willingly obey the law to get a license, fearing deportation as well as having contempt for our laws by definition. False DLs are common to them anyway.

To give a license to an Illegal is to compound the problem immeasurably, unless the license clearly shows that it is issued to an illegal, which means they would have to identify themselves: this they won't do.

So, what to do?

Spend money in the right ways to solve the problem.

Announce clearly and often that we will start a dragnet to find and deport or jail Illegals everywhere in the US. The announcement itself would solve much of the problem, so long as it is enforced sufficiently for all to see.

Announce everywhere that we will prosecute those who hire Illegals, starting with the biggest offenders. Follow up on this effectively.

Use all of our law enforcement resources to identify those who do not have valid IDs and work permits, haul them in, charge them with violation of our laws, fingerprint them, photograph them, and turn them over to the INS for out-processing.
(The no-beds excuse is a sham: we can refit old army bases as temporary shelters until most are sent home. Remember that we housed, fed, gave medical support, transported all over the world, and clothed over 10 million servicemen in WWII, which lasted 4 or so years. Spend money!)

Second offenders go to jail and are deported after that. Build jails or other facilities to house them.

Within a few years of using this approach, we would have solved much of the problem. Border controls, fences, and enough personnel on the borders would solve most of the influx problem.

Meanwhile, a migrant worker program with strict controls should be instituted, and should directly involve local law enforcement.

Legal immigration limits should be raised where it is in the interest of the nation.

But, there should be no driver's licenses for Illegals! That would become rather unnecessary.

LET'S SEE.... You should be able to get something like 150 moving violations before you run out of licenses and by then the first ones would be reinstated.WOW!Talk about PRIVILEGE!!

Agree. However, what is the justification for state control?. I can't think of a better reason than public safety. Abuse of state power might make safety a leaf. Nevertheless, if safety wasn't an overwhelmingly great reason to accept state control the current system would 've been overthrown long ago.

People who are willing to enter this country in violation of our laws, who stay in this country in violation of our laws are unwilling to drive in violation of our laws? I think the participation is going to being almost non-existent.

Not having a license is only a problem for law enforcement because it means that if stopped an unlicensed driver will probably require more writing (added violations) or even need to be taken in - and probably the vehicle too, at that point.

As to safety, I've encountered drivers who are very unsafe despite licensing, registering, insurance... Heck, I've been beeped at and yelled at for going the wrong way - by a driver who was going the wrong way but seems not to have noticed the red signs with white letters saying so...

In the comments over there, I noticed "Giving illegal aliens a drivers license allows them to get car insurance. That means that if they have an accident, their victim can be recompensed." Huh? You do NOT need a driver's license to insure a vehicle anywhere that I know of (at least four states by personal experience) - the vehicle is insured [usually: it is possible, but rare, to insure your license separately] albeit New York is not one I know personally (can't you insure a farm tractor cheaply with a clause it is only valid on your property?). Nor do you need to prove residency, although if you do not the company will probably assume you live in the area with the highest rates.

I understand the inherent "ridiculousness", as Yglesias puts it, but I think in this case practicality trumps principle.

On a philosophical note, this is one more instance of the phenomenon wherein certain folks criticize the behavior of illegals in a particular way (They drive without insurance!), while simultaneously advocated policy that encourages that very behavior. There are many, many other such instances.

lol

But isn't that a central tenet of the WoT?

Still, the idea that we’re going to have people who are violating our laws by simply being here line up in a government building to get issued a license that makes it even harder to enforce said laws is mind boggling.

Funny. I had almost the exact same thought this morning.

Personally, I think we are missing out on a great opportunity. We should create a guest worker program with a path towards citizenship, but at the same time require guest workers to pass English proficiency exams. Guest workers can fully participate in our economy, but can't vote.

Workers should be admitted based on such factors as IQ and expertise. The ideal is that we want to steal the world's best and brightest in all areas.

Doesn't seem to be working, from my time on the road.

Otherwise, what's the point of DLs for any of us?

Well, if the cop gives you a ticket but never sees your ID, then how does he prove it was you in the car?

State control is the # 1 reason for DL's; safety is just a fig leaf.