As New York backs down on driver's licenses for illegal aliens, San Francisco rises up, offering new help for illegals.

The deliberate defiance of federal law, coming now from the West Coast, is a test for our nation and we should respond as one nation. Why? Because the basic principle of national responsibility for national problems — reaffirmed by, among other events, the Civil War — must prevail.

New York's Democratic governor, Eliot Spitzer, backed down on his plan for issuing driver's licenses to illegal aliens, ending two months of political hemorrhaging.

"Part of leadership is listening to the public's opposition," he said sheepishly, finally acknowledging the three-quarters of New Yorkers who disapproved of his plan.

But even as Spitzer retreats, the "Sanctuary City" movement — in which local jurisdictions declare they will not cooperate with the federal government to enforce immigration laws — advances, even metastasizes. Eight of the 10 largest cities in the United States have become "sanctuaries," including New York. Across the country, hundreds of localities are part of the "sanctuary movement," formally or informally.

Now San Francisco has taken an even more outrageous step. According to Wednesday's San Francisco Chronicle, the city council has voted 10-1 to "issue municipal identification cards to city residents — regardless of whether they are in the country legally." Since the mayor, Gavin Newsome, supports the measure, it's certain to be enacted.

Yet public opinion, nationwide, is strongly against such action.

In August, a Rasmussen poll found that by a 2-1 ratio, the American people were even willing to cut off federal aid to "sanctuary cities." Indeed, since the failure of the open-borders immigration "compromise" earlier this year, concern over illegal entry has reached critical political mass.

What was once a vague worry about disorder and bilingualism has crystallized into a specific realization: Our homeland security and national sovereignty are threatened by unknown intruders.

But the elites, of course, have been either clueless or actively hostile to this reassertion of our border integrity. This odd alliance of left-leaning multiculturalists and right-leaning business lobbyists has done its best to ignore, even scorn, legitimate popular apprehensions about unchecked inflow.

Happily, the Internet has changed the political power equation, enabling the grass roots to become grass fires. This columnist, for example, first got wind of the San Francisco story from an activist e-mailer, pointing to a posting at www.Lucianne.com, which helpfully cited a federal statute that's being violated: Section 274 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which forbids "bringing in or harboring" aliens and prescribes five years' imprisonment for each offense.

Lawyers might pettifog their way through differing interpretations of immigration law, but it's obvious that San Francisco is deliberately seeking to flout federal authority and national norms.

So now the question: What will happen next?

The Bush administration has little interest in immigration law enforcement; one of Spitzer's few enablers during his two-month crash-and-burn was Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, who was happy to cooperate on the failed ID card plan. And top Democrats, kowtowing to their core George Soros/Daily Kos constituencies, seem equally blase about immigrant lawbreaking.

But beneath the bipartisan crust of elite power consensus, a groundswell of public indignation has erupted. Ask Spitzer.

The American people, having struggled and bled to preserve their national unity for more than 200 years, naturally expect their leaders to preserve that union — including uniform law enforcement on vital concerns — into the 21st century.

San Francisco is challenging that basic principle. So the nation must respond to that challenge, by electing leaders who will enforce the law, everywhere.

James P. Pinkerton is a columnist for Newsday. Reach him at pinkerto@ix.netcom.com.