When Attorney-General Anne Milgram announced this week the results of her probe into the circumstances surrounding a Newark crime scene investigation, she rightfully called attention to a serious lapse in policing standards.

Two witnesses, one of whom is in the country illegally, were asked about their immigration status, in violation of a new state directive setting ground rules for police reporting of undocumented immigrants to federal authorities. As most of us know, the cooperation of witnesses is crucial to any crime-fighting effort.

She also urged Newark Police Director Garry McCarthy to take appropriate disciplinary action against the officer responsible for the incident and to implement a training program on her immigration directive.

Kudos to the AG for taking prompt action in this matter. Training is absolutely crucial. However, her call for disciplinary action seems to go too far, at least for now.

We live these days in an atmosphere of near hysteria when it comes to unauthorized immigrants, hysteria whipped up by radio and TV commentators who prefer to generate more heat than light on the issue.

Police officers, like the general public, are bombarded with propaganda and crude images of undocumented immigrants violating the laws of the country, by robbing, raping, drug-dealing, murdering, and, yes, let's not forget, committing, or scheming to commit, terrorist acts. It wasn't too long ago that the 9/11 Commission warned us of the importance of creating tamper-proof identity documents and improving security on all our borders (both north and south) and at our airports to prevent the entry of potential terrorists.

The presence in the country of millions of people, many of whom were not subject to inspection upon arrival, sets off alarms in people, even if research suggests that undocumented people are less prone to crime than US-born citizens.

Given this background, and understanding that law enforcement officers are human beings exposed to the same influences and prejudices as the rest of the population, I would argue that it is next to impossible to expect the police, on the front lines of the battle against crime, to observe the fine distinctions of Milgram's directive, without effective training - training designed with the active participation of leaders of the various immigrant communities in New Jersey.

Absent that training, the Attorney-General's directive will likely produce racial profiling on a massive scale, lower levels of trust and cooperation between police and immigrant communities, and more confusion.

Tolerance is not a particularly inspiring word. It suggests putting up with something a bit irritating or confusing. Indeed, when talking about intergroup relations, experts prefer words like "respect" and "appreciation," even if such attitudes are hard for mere mortals to attain.

Tolerance also smacks of permissiveness, as in refusing to take a principled position, condoning bad behavior, or neglecting basic values.

However, tolerance is making something of a comeback. A new book by Yale Law Professor Amy Chua points to tolerance as the key to the success and stability of all the great "hyper-empires" in world history, from Alexander the Great, to the Roman Empire, to Genghis Khan and the Mongols, to the British Empire, and to the United States today.

The absence of tolerance also sealed the doom of would-be empire seekers, like Adolf Hitler whose fanatical belief in the superiority of his own people blinded him to the humanity and talents of others and whose fear of difference led to a program of genocide. She also cites the example of Spain, which never recovered the brilliance of its Golden Age after it expelled the Jews and Moslems in 1492.

Tolerance in the United States is indeed a precious legacy, something we should remember and celebrate this Thanksgiving. It's the tradition of fair play and equal opportunity that most of us at least endorse in principle. It's certain rules of behavior, like "live and let live." It's the simple yet profound language of the first amendment. Perhaps, it's something as basic as the poet's "softening of what is rigid in our hearts," which allows us to resist the siren call of fundamentalism in the modern world.

Yes, we have a "culture of tolerance" in the United States today, but we've failed the test of tolerance too often to be complacent about its future. Despite the short-lived moment of amity between Native Americans and Englishmen at Plymouth Colony, when the seeds of tolerance were perhaps first planted in America, Indians were dehumanized and demonized, driven off their lands, and exiled to reservations or killed. Millions of African slaves were treated like commodities, to be seized, bought and sold, and held in subjugation for generations. And immigrant groups were exploited and scapegoated for society's ills. Tolerance is, regrettably, still under threat today.

The FBI recently published data showing an almost 8% national increase in hate crime incidents in 2006. Although race-related intolerance persists as the most common and virulent form of hatred, anti-immigrant intolerance seems to be on the rise. Although it's hard to disaggregate anti-immigrant bias from numbers reported by race and religion, it seems likely that a growing number of hate crimes are directed at immigrants. It's also likely that many immigrants, in particular unauthorized workers, are unwilling to report hate crimes for fear of possible deportation.

The Southern Poverty Law Center, which monitors the activities of nativist groups in the United States, has concluded that the actual hate crime rate is more than 20 times higher than the reported numbers.

It's probably the tradition of tolerance that explains the focus of today's hate-mongers on undocumented immigrants, a group that can be attacked without admitting any ethnic or racial bias, even though class and race are strong undercurrents. Images of invasion, parasitism, and criminality are manipulated to produce the same result: the dehumanization of millions of people. The undocumented immigrant is quickly becoming the "Willie Horton" of the 2008 presidential election. Any effort to discuss immigration in rational terms is resisted.

Yes, there is a real discussion to be had about immigration policy in the modern world. Yes, there is something deeply flawed about an immigration system that denies legal channels for unskilled workers to migrate to the United States. Yes, border control is an important goal. But the conversation is not really about these things. It's more about blaming the victims and walling the country off from those who are different.

It's sad and strangely ironic that many of the victims of today's hatred, in particular Mexican immigrants, are the mixed-blood descendents of the very same Indians that were mistreated throughout our history. Can we find it in our hearts this Thanksgiving Day to repay the kindness of these strangers?

As the controversy over whether to issue drivers licenses or certificates to unauthorized immigrants plays out in New York state, motor vehicles officials around the country are scratching their heads, trying to figure out how to fulfill their responsibilities to the public and comply with the federal Real ID Act, which will eventually transform the drivers license into a national identity card.

Three issues have been jumbled together: protecting the safety of the public, controlling illegal immigration, and creating a national identity card. Governor Spitzer argues that safety and verifiable identity should be the state's primary concerns. I think he's right.

The function of the motor vehicle law is to protect the public by ensuring that drivers know how to drive, obey the rules of the road, and have adequate insurance.
 
Is the public interest better served by denying licenses to thousands of drivers based on their immigration status, in effect asking states to neglect their public safety mission in order to perform a quasi-policing function for the federal government, or by licensing all qualified drivers so that safety is protected and the identity of all drivers is clear?

My guess is that most New Jersey residents would argue for the latter.  A recent poll found that almost 2/3 of NJ residents believe that undocumented immigrants who have worked in the country for two years should be given a path to legal residence. Our elected Congressional representatives seem to agree, judging from votes in Congress on comprehensive immigration reform over the last two years and public statements from Governor Corzine.

Despite legitimate concerns over a dysfunctional immigration system, why punish people for taking the "three D" (dirty, difficult, and dangerous) jobs that Americans avoid and for which an insufficient number of green cards are available?

It seems strange, therefore, that New Jersey is silent on this issue and actually tightened the screws on its undocumented residents by requiring drivers previously licensed in other states or countries to apply for a New Jersey license within 60 days.
 
Is this an example of the quirky nature of New Jersey politics, or of politicians too frightened by the constant drumbeat of  anti-immigrant rhetoric from a vocal minority to act in the public interest?

Sure, there are many questions that must be taken into consideration, including the cost of introducing a two-tiered licensing system and fears within the undocumented population that such a license might serve as a "scarlet letter" exposing them to deportation.
 
An even more profound question is when and how do we accept people as members of the community, entitled to certain rights and privileges. The Constitution grants immigration power to the federal government, so fundamental status determinations must be made at that level.

However, I'm not sure driving falls into the category of "privilege." Rather, it's an activity that must be regulated for the public good, an activity open to foreign visitors and temporary residents, and for most people, including immigrants toiling on the lowest rungs of the economic ladder, a means of survival. To treat it any differently is a threat to public safety and an invitation to lawlessness.