8:00am | Two major events occurred that make Los Angeles County a more lenient space with regards to undocumented residential drivers.
Firstly, last Thursday, Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca voiced his support for legal driving permissions for undocumented residents; this was followed by a statement the previous day from Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck supporting the same concept.
Secondly, following support from Baca and Beck, this Tuesday, the L.A. Police Commission voted 4-1 to amend the current impound law, permitting unlicensed drivers to get their cars back the next day with valid identification, registration, and proof of insurance. The move comes from the Commission despite warnings from both state and county lawyers fearing the new policy is clearly illegal.
Beck stated on Tuesday during a press conference:
“[The policy] will improve responsible behavior among unlicensed drivers[…] [I]t is a chance to build ties with a community that feels marginalized and that my officers have a lot of contact with. It is good to show some sense of understanding of their plight[…] While it may not be fashionable to some[, the policy] shows some compassion. We’re talking about human beings.”
Both of these events — of which have been under consideration for quite some time, as former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger dissented against the idea in 2004 — are strongly progressing the possibility of drivers licenses for undocumented residents (albeit not without its legal and political ramifications).
Critics put forth the argument that providing licenses would impede them from obtaining actual citizenship. Even further, critics argue that driving is a privilege for its citizens, let alone non-citizens — and extending a privilege to undocumented residents is the equivalent of condoning their illegal presence via some form of quasi-right.
Supervisor Michael Antonovich released a press statement stating, “Providing a legal driver’s license to one who has broken federal law so one can drive [‘]legally[‘] is an oxymoron.” While stating that legal immigration “strengthens our country,” he quickly reverted to the welfare costs of legal citizens whose parents happen to be undocumented. “Our county and state taxpayers can no longer afford to be the HMO for the world or to provide financial rewards for those who break the law.”
These kind of cum hoc ergo propter hoc arguments — that somehow providing licenses to undocumented residents will increase their welfare consumption — are part of the reason that immigrant rights groups, such as Mexican American Legal Defence and Educational Fund (MALDEF), so vehemently fight back. For them, the matter is an issue of safety and economics. MALDEF believes their approach is a practical one, claiming that the restriction of driver’s licenses exacerbates unsafe road conditions, increases insurance rates, and burdens taxpayers with the overcrowding of the court systems.
“Having a de facto class of illegal drivers,” Beck continued, citing a statistic that unlicensed drivers are five times more likely to be involved in a fatal accident, “– all that does is insure that they don’t get insurance, insure that they don’t have their cars registered to them, insure that they aren’t responsible when they get in a traffic accident.”
The second thrust of the pro-driver’s license argument — money — lies in the fact tougher immigration laws in general result in devastating economic losses. Providing licenses for undocumented workers to access their work will alleviate these losses. The three states with the toughest immigration laws — Alabama, Georgia, and Arizona — have seen losses at unforeseen levels. Alabama is expected to lose billions annually if it upholds its laws, while Georgia has lost $300 million in crops alone and estimated $1 billion in total economic loss. Arizona, meanwhile, has lost some $253 million since it enacted its tougher immigration policies.
Here we hit a conundrum based on both groups’ approaches: even if undocumented immigrants were permitted to drive legally, it most certainly doesn’t guarantee they’ll partake in purchasing insurance or behave more safely on the road; just as well, the fact that legal driver’s licenses do exist might equally cause them to take tests that they were previously unexposed to and therefore become safer drivers while feeling more inclusive.
The initial proposal put forth by Assemblymember Gil Cedillo — which was supported by then-Governor Gray Davis in 2003 and was a major reason for his recall — will continue to spark its controversy as attempts to legalize driver’s licenses for undocumented residents continues.