SB 60, Granting Alien Driver's Licenses
By Jason Burgess
J.D., University of the Pacific,
McGeorge School of Law to be conferred May 2005
Most decisions are made by balancing the pros and cons and picking the side that seems to have the most weight. Many decisions are so closely balanced that in the end there is no clear winner, and the decision just has to be made by your best judgement. SB 60 seems like that kind of situation.
SB 60 is the bill recently signed by Governor Davis and authored by Senator Gil Cedillo (D- L.A.) that will allow anyone applying for a driver's license in California to do so without proof of U.S. citizenship, or a social security number. Instead, an identifying number, such as an IRS issued tax identification number can be submitted along with other identifying paperwork proving the person's identity.
The pros of the bill are presented this way; There are an estimated 2 million illegal aliens driving on the roads of California. Allowing these aliens to obtain a drivers license will increase safety through the testing and review functions of the DMV for all applicants. Obtaining a license will also allow aliens to obtain auto insurance, since insurance companies will only insure licensed drivers. This will benefit all California drivers by allowing insurance rates to decrease, due to fewer uninsured motorists posing a liability on the roads. And the warm and fuzzy benefit is that the illegal alien community will be recognized for it's contribution to California's economy by it's work and presence.
The cons go like this: There are an estimated 2 million illegal aliens who should not even be here. Rewarding them for breaking the law is contrary to our entire system of laws. Getting a license will not make them better, safer drivers, nor will it make them purchase insurance. They are already breaking the law and driving uninsured. What is the motivation a driver's license will supply to stop them? And as for the warm and fuzzy, how about allowing the jobs they have to go to unemployed citizens? And here is another thing; such lax standards will allow more people to obtain fake identification, and in light of September 11th, can we risk that?
So here is the dilemma. Both sides seem to have valid points. Each argument on it's own makes sense and can draw support from solid concepts. So it comes down to a judgement. The judgement is SB 60 is more of a benefit to California and here is why:
Inclusion offers more benefit and possible control than exclusion. Allowing access to a driver's license and the subsequent ability to acquire auto insurance provides the potential for increased safety and decreased cost of insurance. If no unlicensed driver obtains insurance, we are in no worse a position than we are currently. However if many do obtain insurance, which can only happen with this bill, California has a chance at benefitting. The chance is worth the attempt. We have nothing to lose. The reasoning is the same for safety. If any unlicensed drivers are made safer through the licensing process, California benefits.
National safety is no more threatened by the issuing of a California driver's license under the new standards than it was under the old. In fact, two of the terrorist pilots in the attack of September 11th received official identification from the Federal Government. They would have been able to get a California driver's license even before SB 60. The problem was that the supporting documents required for identification can be easily forged. Birth certificates, foreign identification, and passports can be faked by organizations with the proper resources. Even citizens of this country can do so; just look at the incident rate of identity theft. More concrete identification, such as biometric data (fingerprints, etc.), could be required, but collecting that sort of data too extensively can lead to violations of personal liberty and privacy. If fact, an earlier version of SB 60 called for such data to be collected, and was stricken due to objections on just such invasive concerns. Since any system can be circumvented by fraud beyond it's control or capability to discover, no matter how stringent a requirement is has, does it make sense to increase those requirements to the exclusion of legitimate persons, when the increase will effect no change? The old system would have allowed the 9/11 terrorists to obtain a driver's license in California, and excluded a working, undocumented California resident. SB 60 may also allow a terrorist to obtain a California driver's license, but it will not exclude the working, undocumented resident. No safety loss between the systems, but an inclusion of contributing segment of California's society. In comparison, that seems the better result.
Finally there needs to be a balance between the reward SB 60 gives to violators of the immigration laws, and the reward California, and the United States as a whole, receives from the labor of those violating the immigration laws. To obtain a driver's license under SB 60, an applicant will need to supply a tax identification number. This number is supplied by the IRS to track and catalog earnings and taxes for persons without social security numbers. If the illegal aliens are earning wages and paying taxes, meeting some of the obligations of true citizens; fairness would indicate that perhaps they have earned some of the benefits associated with meeting those obligations. And as offered previously, the benefits to them, bring benefits to the rest of us. SB 60 offers California an opportunity to benefit all it's residents; citizens and non.
Editor's Note: SB 60, signed into law in the waning hours of Governor Davis' administration, was repealed by Governor Schwarzenegger in one of the first acts of his administration and is not current California law. There has been some attempt to revive the measure without much success.