Cavuto: Document double standard?

If you want safe roads, you would probably want safe elections

What's the difference between demanding driver's licenses for people who are here illegally and voter IDs for people who are here legally?

On the surface, you wouldn't think much.

After all, if you think it's a good idea that illegals have licenses because it keeps our roads safe then by logic, of course, you would support voter IDs to make sure our election system is safe.

After all, you don't want people who shouldn't be voting, voting, right? Just like you don't want an accident victim of an illegal driver, not knowing who he's suing, right?

The license for illegal drivers is being pushed in Maryland as a protection, we're told, for legal drivers. The voter ID is being pushed in lots of places as a protection for legal voters.

The license keeps track of everybody who goes on the road; the ID, everybody who goes to a polling place.

Driving is a privilege but not a right. Voting is a privilege and a right. So actually you would think voting demands more documentation because it's like a "double-right," right? Then a form of identification for one should be no different than the other, right?

What boggles my mind is many liberals can't get that through their minds.

They find it offensive to ask any legal voter to prove he or she can vote, but haven't a qualm at all about giving an illegal the keys to a car.

So, IDs for illegals -- great. IDs for legals -- not great.

I'm just saying, if we're going to these great lengths to make sure those who shouldn't even be here can drive like they're real American citizens -- and they're not -- is it really so awful that we make sure this most sacred right of Americans be reserved for American citizens and they can prove they are.