Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
DODD V. CLINTON.
Mark my words: Chris Dodd's attack on Clinton for supporting "the privilege of a driver's liscence" for illegal immigrants, even though she said that's not, in fact, what she supports, is going to have legs. The issues of "privileges" for those who don't deserve them is a repeated Republican line of attack against Democrats who support rights for disenfranchised populations, and I was surprised to hear it coming from Dodd, of all people, as he's generally been to the left of the other senators.
--Garance Franke-Ruta
COMMENTS (4)
Do you ever stop reaching?
I don't agree with Dodd on this, but a driver's license is in fact a privilege and not in any sense a right.
Posted by: Joe Klein's Murdered Conscience | October 31, 2007 9:20 AM
JKMC, do you have the right to be issued a driver's license if you've met all the qualifications and passed the test, paid the fees, etc?
Please distinguish "rights" and "privileges" in this context.
Posted by: Brautigan | October 31, 2007 9:53 AM
I live in an ethnically diverse area, and am very much in favor of driver's licenses for immigrants regardless of status. It's more of a pragmatic concern than a principled one; I want the drivers with whom I might collide to be legal and insured. It also could mean that more people drive at the common speed instead of crawling along, which would be great for my blood pressure... although to be fair there are a lot of elderly drivers who do this in my area too.
Posted by: latts | October 31, 2007 10:27 AM
Rights aren't qualified, obviously, and one can't lose one's right to free speech for speaking while drunk.
Posted by: Aaron S. Veenstra | October 31, 2007 11:24 AM