U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Dole criticized Democratic rival Kay Hagan's record on illegal immigration at an N.C. Bar Association debate in Atlantic Beach on June 21, 2008.
What she said: "My opponent has voted to make it easier for illegal immigrants to get North Carolina driver's licenses."
The background: In an effort to encourage illegal immigrants to get car insurance, the N.C. Division of Motor Vehicles decided in 1998 that applicants establishing residency for a driver's license could submit a broad range of forms of identification, including papers issued by the Mexican government.
The looser standards led to reports that immigrants from other states were getting North Carolina IDs, then using those to get licenses back home.
After the Sept. 11 attacks, concerns about fraud and national security led state lawmakers to toughen standards for driver's licenses. Republican legislators sponsored bills that would have required a Social Security number, making getting a license impossible for illegal immigrants.
But Democratic leaders in the state Senate sent those bills to die in committee, so neither Hagan nor any other senator voted on them. Instead, they opted to require applicants provide either a Social Security number or an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number, which is given to all U.S. workers regardless of immigration status.
The measure, which Hagan supported, did not make it impossible for illegal immigrants to get a license, though it did make it more difficult. Over the following four years, the number of licenses issued without proof of citizenship dropped by roughly half.
Measures to toughen standards further also died in committee over the next several years. Then, in 2006, the legislature ordered the DMV to stop accepting taxpayer ID numbers, essentially making it impossible for illegal immigrants to get a license. Hagan supported that measure as well.
A Dole spokesman, Hogan Gidley, argued that the state Senate should have adopted the tougher standards earlier, and said it was still easier to get a driver's license in North Carolina than in other states after the 2001 vote.
"Social Security numbers should be the standard, and anything less than that is making it easier," he said.
Is the claim true? No. In 2001, Hagan voted to make it harder for illegal immigrants to get licenses, and in 2006 she voted to make it impossible. It's fair to say that Senate Democrats — Hagan included — could have backed stronger standards, but that's not the same thing as voting to "make it easier."
Blog RSS feed
Re: Claims Dept: Dole on driver's license vote
Using this as an example:
Is the claim true? No. In 2001, Hagan voted to make it harder for illegal immigrants to get licenses, and in 2006 she voted to make it impossible. It's fair to say that Senate Democrats — Hagan included — could have backed stronger standards, but that's not the same thing as voting to "make it easier."
...the first part: "Is the claim true? No. In 2001, Hagan voted to make it harder for illegal immigrants to get licenses, and in 2006 she voted to make it impossible." ...is basically a neutral statement of fact.
The second part: "It's fair to say that Senate Democrats — Hagan included — could have backed stronger standards, but that's not the same thing as voting to "make it easier." ...is not neutral. It is an editorialization wherein the writer is telling readers how to interpret the facts.
As a reader it is my place to decide whether the proffered facts do or do not support the claim in question. One the one hand, Hagan's record at least technically refutes Dole's claim. On the other hand, it is within reason to feel that failing to come out stronger against licensing illegals is tantamount to making it easier for them. A more graphic example would be if Hagan had voted to require illegals to stand on one foot while applying, thereby making it 'harder' to obtain a NC license. Technically correct, but....
I applaud the intent and efforts of the Claim Dept., but ask they restrict themselves to the facts and leave interpretations of the facts out of it. The N&O is so obviously leftist and liberal (read the recent editorial torpedo against Pat McCrory implying he believes Sheriff Andy Taylor is real) that it's created the need to be scrupulously exacting when purporting to be any sort of bipartisan fact-checker. Bias isn't always overt and purposely committed. Bias may be injected merely by being selective about whose and which claims are chosen for review. Also, the biased are typically blinded to their own bias as a requisite of being biased.