The talk of guest-worker programs, mass deportation, a militarized southern border, the construction of a 700-mile long border fence and official English-language laws can be overwhelming. Combine this multitude of policy options with a constantly shifting language on immigration, in which politicians shun the word "amnesty" but support everything it means, and in which the decision to use the word "undocumented" rather than "illegal" to describe immigrants is cast as some politically correct, Orwellian trick. It's difficult to track any of the Democratic presidential candidates' stances when the debate is so complicated and multi-faceted.

The spotlight fell on the Democratic positions on immigration reform when Tim Russert asked Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., to clarify her position on Gov. Eliot Spitzer's recently abandoned attempts to include immigrants without proper documentation in a tiered driver's license system in his state during an Oct. 30 Democratic debate. The law would force drivers who currently drive but have no access to a legitimate license to work within the system to prove they are qualified to drive and provide them with identification in the case they get in an accident or are stopped by law enforcement.

Clinton responded by saying she understood why Spitzer would want to instate such a law when there is such a strong presence of immigrants in New York and the federal government has done so little to help the state cope with this often undocumented population but that she did not necessarily support his plan. Sens. Barack Obama, D-Ill., Chris Dodd, D-Conn., and John Edwards, D-S.C., pounced on her answer as an instance of flip-flopping. Yet, isn't Clinton's response actually quite rational? She does not believe such an approach by a state to be the ideal solution to problems with immigration, but she completely understands why the governor has turned to such a solution? In today's political climate, such answers are immediately cast aside as political dodging, rather than as complicated answers for complicated questions.

Following the debate, a Boston Globe article argued immigration was an issue the GOP could exploit to create division among Democratic candidates and eventually the Democratic Party. In fact, most of the Democratic candidates agree on the basics of what comprehensive immigration reform should include: a more secure border, some form of a guest-worker program and a path to citizenship. The disagreement in the Oct. 30 debate was more a sign of other candidates' desire to pounce on an opportunity to portray the frontrunner in the polls as too polished and indirect than of some great schism in the Democratic Party.

In response to Clinton, Dodd declared he was opposed to Spitzer's plan because driver's licenses are a privilege, and illegal immigrants have not earned that privilege. His "clear and simple" position begs the question, however: what should states do about the fact that undocumented immigrants are driving anyway? How does that stance help law enforcement in New York or in any other state?

Immigration reform must balance consideration for the nation's economic interests, national security interests and for human rights. We can't expect the answers to problems with immigration to be simple and clear-cut, and we shouldn't imagine simply electing the right president will take care of any concerns we have about immigration. Responses to mass immigration will come from Congress and perhaps more importantly, from our state and local governments. We must keep in mind in order to understand and create appropriate reforms, the conversation about an issue so complex cannot merely take place in presidential candidates' debates, especially those in which candidates are often asked to provide their stance in 30 seconds or less, regardless of how complicated the question might be.