Driver\'s License to Illegal Immigrants

Driver's License To Illegal Immigrants

Senate Bill 1160. There are more than 2.2 undocumented illegal immigrant drivers in California (Bender 2004). They rallied with law enforcers, insurance companies and the religious sector in support of Senate Bill 1160 or the Immigrant Responsibility and Security Act. Signed into law, this bill would allow undocumented immigrants to apply for a driver's license. The then existing driver's license law in California required legal residency. This led many motorists to take the risk and proceed to drive illegally. The bill, authored by Senator Gil Cedillo, would allow illegal immigrants to secure a license by presenting a valid passport or identification issued by the consulate of the immigrant's country of origin. They had to be fingerprinted so that federal and state criminal checks could be conducted on them. In addition, an American citizen with a valid driver's license would need to sponsor the immigrant license applicant. Advocates said the bill would increase public safety, enhance a sense of responsibility and citizenship, and intensify homeland security by requiring applicants to undergo criminal background check by the FBI against the terrorism watch list. According to surveys, 66% of non-Hispanic whites opposed the bill. Save Our State believed it would condone and encourage the violation of federal immigration law and induce and facilitate the commission of more crimes (Bender).

Deal or No Deal?

The bill was losing ground but supporters continued to lobby for it through rallies (Counts 2004). They said it was an issue of safety and security. They attested to needing the licenses for their work on a daily basis. They claimed to contribute to the economy of California and yet were deprived of this basic right to a driver's license. They said they worked hard and tried to get ahead. There were 12 million Latinos in California or a third of its total population. Yet only 13% of them were voters who could make the difference. The legal residency requirement was imposed only in 1994 in obtaining a driver's license. Then voters passed Proposition 187, which would deny public services from undocumented citizens. Critics viewed both measures as anti-immigrant moves. The bill was vetoed by former Governor Gray Davis and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger for not containing the marker necessary as a security precaution (Drucker 2004). The Governor required it as an immediate indication that the owner was an illegal immigrant. Cedillo and his supporters from some parts of Los Angeles' Jewish community rejected the marker as similar to Nazi Germany's requirement imposed on Jewish citizens to put on a yellow Star of David (Drucker). Cedillo claimed that he had an agreement with the Governor that the latter would help pass a new law with additional security features, but that there would be no identifying markers for illegal immigrants. The Governor denied making any agreement with Cedillo. Instead, he maintained that markers were necessary for homeland security and to prevent terrorists from using a license to open a back account or enroll in flight schools. The license bill supporters argued that banks and airlines already accept consular identification cards. Many law enforcement leaders also claimed that a driver's license would enable them to track down illegal immigrants and that this would tend to result in fewer uninsured drivers and hit-and-run accidents. Conservative Republicans, however, countered that illegal immigrants had violated the law and must, therefore, be punished for it, not rewarded. They had begun taking steps towards a constitutional amendment, which would prohibit the grant of driver's licenses to illegal residents. They also worked for support for this initiative from voters in the March 2006 elections. Likewise, they accused the Governor of double dealing by requiring a marker but trying to keep the sympathy of Latinos (Counts).

Driver's License and the National Security

The issue of granting a driver's license to illegal immigrants specifically affected Florida and California (Elvin 2004). It later spread to other States, with millions of illegal immigrants driving throughout the country. The grant or denial of a driver's license is a safety measure against those who were disqualified or who had no insurance or had no knowledge of traffic laws. Advocates of licensing also stressed that illegal immigrants were those who managed to cross the border, entered the country unlawfully or whose visas have expired. They also included migratory workers and those who were still in the process of applying for or obtaining legal residence. Those who opposed licensing said that it was a de facto identify card, which carried with it certain benefits, privileges and opportunities. It would allow not only opening bank accounts and boarding an aircraft but also entry to any public building or establishment. Director of the Federation for American Immigration Reform said that the grant of driver's licenses was critical to the nation's security and the security of those who are in the U.S. (Elvin).

Action and Inaction

The Assembly Appropriations Committee was known for its quick decisions with little need to discuss the issues or obtain a roll call vote (Garcia 2006). But it froze the bill, an action, which surprised everyone because it could only mean killing it. Seven times in 7 years, Senator Cedillo of Los Angeles tried to push a measure, which would allow illegal immigrants to obtain driver's licenses. This time, he sponsored a bill, which would provide for a special license to California's more than 2 million undocumented drivers. His previous bill was thwarted by Governors Schwarzenegger and Gray Davis. Now it was the Committee, which did. The consensus was that the member of the Committee felt it was too controversial to deal with for an election year. The majority of the members were Democrats. Republicans opposed the bill because it would reward violators of the immigration law. Governor Schwarzenegger said he would veto it while his Democrat opponent, Phil Angelides, favored the bill. This meant that illegal immigrants in California would not be able to apply for driver's license in the foreseeable future. A Field poll revealed that a little more than half of all Californian adults did not favor the grant of licenses to illegal immigrants. The national president of the Mexican-American Political Association deplored the decision to freeze the bill. Another group collected signatures to support the license bill. This group said that it would not give the effort up (Garcia).

32% of Them in California

Records showed that there were 7 to 10 million undocumented workers in the U.S., mostly jobless people from Mexico and other countries of weaker economies, crossing from the South (IGS 2005). Most of them settled in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas to look for work. A major component of illegal immigration was the grant of driver's license to these undocumented workers. This was most critical in California, where almost 32% of them lived. In September, 2003, Governor Gay Davis signed a legislation, which allowed illegal immigrants to secure driver's licenses. The legislation was authored by Senator Cedillos. It was, however, only short-lived. Republic candidate Schwarzenegger promised that he would work for the overturn of the law if elected governor. After his win, the Legislature repealed the new legislation but it simply would not die. Senator introduced a new one but on the same topic. Schwarzenegger said he would sign it if it had sufficient security precautions and identity provisions. Sentiments against the grant continued to mount and develop into a key political topic in California. Those in favor argued that a driver's license would, in fact, do a lot of good things. It would provide more information on residents of a given place. It would help undocumented workers better understand traffic laws and rules of the road. It would help ward off bad drivers from the road. Overall, these would contribute to national security, rather than threaten it. Those who opposed said that it would tantamount to government approval of illegal immigration status. This would encourage further immigration in the future. They also felt that the grant of driver's licenses to illegal immigrant would pose a threat to national security (IGS).

Majority of Non-White Population in 2010

The problem of illegal immigration gained notice in the early 90s during a recession, following a period of prosperity in the 80s (IGS 2005). Californians were generally worried that they could lose their jobs to undocumented workers. Large groups of Latinos entered the State in the 70s and the 80s. Observers and critics felt that a change in demography indicated that California would have a majority population of non-whites. Hundreds of them crossed the California-Mexico border each day. The apprehension produced stricter illegal immigration legislations. Proposition 187 was voted with a 59% margin in November 1994. It denied welfare, health care and public education to undocumented immigrants. They could not be hired but they could obtain emergency and prenatal services. It was quickly challenged in court by Latino groups, such as the Mexican-American Legal Defense/Education Fund and the ACLU. Proposition 187 was never actually effective, although most Californians favored it. Public opinion on illegal immigration in California had many different shades. Proponents advanced that both legal and illegal immigration to California was a concrete and hard reality, which neither legislation nor strict controls could blot out. They envisioned a menial, lowly paid workforce, a source of cheap labor, on which the State would depend. They also held that opponents were racially motivated and too harsh towards non-whites who wanted to flee from poverty and despair. On the other hand, those who opposed illegal immigration blamed it for the country's shortage of social services, which illegal immigrants shared with citizens. These opponents argued that providing healthcare and welfare to these illegal immigrants necessarily infringed the law and made illegal behavior acceptable and legitimate. They denied that their support for legislations, such as Proposition 189, was racially motivated (IGS).

More Arguments for and Against the same vigor and frustration characterized the struggle for driver's licenses in Illinois but which failed to get the vote in the House (McKinney 2004). The bill, sponsored by Rep. Edward Acevedo, needed 60 votes but got only 43. It was voted against by 74 others. The bill was a modification of the last, which failed to get the vote in the Senate. It would have enabled undocumented immigrants to secure the licenses if they also purchased auto insurance, submitted their fingerprints and agreed to surrender previous driver's licenses in their possession. Acevedo emphasized that his bill would assure that how those who are already driving could know the rules of the road and, therefore, drive safely. It would encourage and oblige them to learn those rules. Their opponents, however, disputed that special privileges should not be allowed or afforded to violators of immigration laws. Davis described the bill as "un-American" and expressed apprehension that felony charges could be filed in an effort at linking an offender to other crimes. He also noted Hispanic lawmakers' lack of sympathy towards the Blacks' concern over this matter as well as other crime bills (McKinney). On the other hand, supporters of immigrant rights, labor unions and Los Angeles Police Chief William Bratton suggested that the grant of driver's licenses would lead more motorists to take the State driving test and become insured (Wasserman 2003). Opponents insisted that a driver's license would reward illegal immigrants for breaking the law and could bring in more terrorist to the United States. There were 37 States, which required proof of legal residence as a condition to the grant of a driver's license. Among these States were Arizona, Colorado, Texas, New York, Florida, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Virginia, according to the National Immigration Law Center in Los Angeles. On the other hand, 13 States did not require it. Among these besides California were Hawaii, Oregon, Washington and Utah (Wasserman).

ITIN Issue and Other Issues in Kansas

Kansas had its own set of events. Executive Director Elias Garcia of the Kansas Advisory Committee on Hispanic Affairs perceived resistance to the passage of House Bill 2039 for the grant of temporary driver's licenses to undocumented immigrants (Adamson 2004). Like Senator Cedillo's bill, it too faced difficulties in getting the House vote. Garcia felt that senators would not favor it on account of the public sentiment against immigrants and terrorism following the New York bombings. He explained that the temporary license would not be like a regular driver's license, issued to U.S. citizens living in Kansas. It would simply certify that its holder or owner knew Kansas driving laws but that it could not be used for identification purposes. One problem the bill was to confront was the prohibition by the Internal Revenue Service to using personal tax numbers for identification. Proof of residence was a standard requirement for a driver's license in Kansas. HB 2039 was sponsored by Rep. Tom Kline, Democrat of Wichita. It allowed the owner to use it to show an IRS Individual Taxpayer Identification Number or ITIN, until the IRS issued the prohibition on December 17, 2004. The IRS clarified that it issued personal tax numbers so that all people working in the United States could pay taxes. It emphasized that it would accept fewer documents as proof of identity in issuing ITIN. It also said it would change the appearance of the ITIN card to distinguish it from a social security card. Senator John Vratil, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said that he would file for a reconsideration of HB 2039. Rep. Ward Loyd, Republican of Garden City, favored the bill and found it a rather simple issue. He did not see it as condoning illegal immigration, although he admitted that undocumented workers could keep on entering Kansa to look for work. He said that a traditional driver's license was different from a personal identification. The bill simply allowed the holder to drive on State roads. On the other hand, Emira Palacios, a leader of Hispanic activists, said that the bill would promote safe driving in all of Kansas and that its senators were expected to think and decide for the good of Kansas. She referred to a similar bill, which was passed in New Mexico, as basis for convincing Kansas senators of the benefits of the particular bill. The New Mexico bill had the support of law enforcement sectors and was endorsed by Governor Bill Richardson. Executive Director Garcia expressed hope that documented and undocumented immigrants in the Iraq war would influence legislators that immigrants were contributors to the economy of the United States. He said that denying licenses to undocumented immigrants would affect everyone else on Kansas roads. They would be unable to obtain insurance coverage yet could figure in vehicular accidents (Adamson).

Group Lobbies for Immigrant Rights in Kansas

Democratic Governor Kathleen Sebelius told Hispanic activists that she would support the legislation, which would allow undocumented immigrants to secure drivers' licenses (McLean 2003). This was to fulfill her campaign promise to meet with them. The bill, sponsored by Rep. Tom Klein, Republican of Wichita, would do so after the applicants passed the required tests. Other States conducted similar measures, but Kansas lawmakers refused to take swift actions. Governor Sebelius said that the passage of Rep. Klein's legislation would need more than her support. It needed the support of both parties, according to her. The Hispanics said that Rep. Ward Lloyd supported the bill.. Rep. Lloyd was an influential member of the Judiciary Committee. On the other hand, federal immigration officials and chiefs of the Kansas Motor Vehicles and spokesman Rick Oltman of the Federal for American Immigration Reform opposed earlier legislations of a similar kind. They said that the promotional slant of public safety and insurance was misleading, because the real goal of the support for valid State documents for illegal immigrants was amnesty. Hispanics claimed that undocumented workers made key contribution to the State's economy and thus deserved to be granted the right or opportunity to drive legally and safely. Record showed that there were roughly 150,000 undocumented illegal immigrants residing in Kansas (McLean).

Driving Permit for Utah Immigrants

It was a different story for Utah. Senate Bill 227 got all 21 Republicans to vote for it and all 8 Democrats against it (Bulkeley 2005). It would replace the drivers' licenses of illegal immigrants whose driving permits could not be used for identification purposes. Its sponsor, Senator Curt Bramble, Republican from Provo, first kept the legislation on hold when he realized he did not have the sufficient number of votes for it. He and his supporters wanted it to take effect immediately. It would produce a driving privilege card for those who did not qualify for a Social Security number. At that time, illegal immigrants could obtain a driver's license by presenting a tax identification number or ITIN, issued by the IRS. Rep. Curt Oda, Republican from Clearfield, amended an unrelated bill to make it compatible with Senate Bill 227 by Senator Bramble. This unrelated bill was filed with the Senate Judiciary Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Standing Committee. Senator Oda's House Bill 223 was unanimously voted by the Senate. Senator Oda said that his bill would produce a "third class of drivers," consisting of foreigners who were then ineligible to work. At that time, only those with a Social Security number of ITIN could obtain a Utah driver's license. Those who got licenses under HB 223 could use these as their "driving privilege cards" as illegal immigrants. The card would be valid for a year for illegal immigrants and five years for legal residents or until the expiry of their visas. Senator Oda added that his bill would also benefit student visa holders and Olympic trainees in Utah. Senator Bramble commented that his bill would establish standards for driver's licenses if it passed. He said that his bill derived from a state audit, which revealed that Utah was a destination for illegal immigrants from other States for their licenses. He also pared down the issue on racial profiling, alluded to in his bill. He said that a policeman could not differentiate the color of the license until after it was checked. He also claimed that his bill would prevent undocumented immigrants from buying guns and voting. His bill was supported by the majority of Latinos but not the activists among them. Many other members of the Hispanic community, however, opposed the bill and asked that it be referred to interim study (Bulkeley).

Related Bills

House Bill 130, sponsored by Rep. Aaron Tilton, Republican from Springville, would extend certain benefits if passed (Bulkeley 2005). It would extend tax concessions in exchange for a monthly fee from a private company, which would offer English and government courses to illegal immigrants. It would create a voluntary database of these undocumented immigrants. However, it required a separate legislation for compulsory participation by certain State services. House Bill 316 required participation for illegal immigrants in securing State driver's licenses. Tilton expressed apprehension over this feature of his bill, as, if passed, would enable the State to track down illegal immigrants. It elicited objections to the offer of English classes already available elsewhere and to the lengthy and tedious database tracking. Republican co-chairman of the Utah Hispanic Legislative Task Force, Joe Reyna, had the same objections. He concluded that it would seem not to benefit the State, not even the Hispanic community (Bulkeley).

Confusing and Self-Serving

Former Governor Gray Davis first vetoed a bill to grant driver's licenses to illegal immigrants for fear of increasing the nation's vulnerability to terrorism (Freddoso 2003). In defense of his action, he explained that a driver's license was not only a license to drive but also a proof of identification. Terrorists who attacked America on September 11, 2001 had and used driver's licenses in moving about and carrying their crime out. Some of these terrorists' driver's licenses were illegally obtained in Virginia and this easily allowed them to board the doomed planes. But when Davis discovered that his popularity had plunged by 23% during the recall election, he turned around to serve the interests of voters to improve that popularity. He suddenly promised to sign a bill, which would allow illegal aliens to obtain California driver's licenses. What was more surprising and confusing was that this second bill was more liberal. It did not require full-hand fingerprinting, passing a criminal background check, or even a pending application for permanent U.S. residency. Fingerprinting, criminal background check and permanent U.S. residency were the basic requirements in 2002 and this second bill by former Governor Davis omitted them. Supporters of Davis' second bill argued that unlicensed illegal immigrants endangered traffic and they should, therefore, be properly licensed. That way, they could become better drivers as well. Opponents, on the other hand, countered that it would encourage illegal immigration and the commission of voter frauds through the use of federal "motor-voter" law to register without presenting proof of citizenship. Non-citizen aliens, whether legal or illegal, could not vote in any State. Many States were considering granting driver's licenses to illegal aliens in the past, but the option vanished when the September 11 attacks occurred (Freddoso).

Former State Senator Dick Mountjoy, chairman of the California Republic Assembly, said that former Governor Davis' surprising turn-around was not surprising to him (Freddoso 2003). Davis' veto of the stricter bill made him lose the support of the 24-member Latino Caucus in the 2002 election for governor. Nonetheless, he managed to secure a slim victory over Republican businessman Bill Simon. But Davis' troubles would not disappear and instead increased. Surveys said that his negative rating went up to 65%. But Davis is now in even greater political peril. Indications said that his major constituencies appeared to have given him up. Hispanic voters were said to have favored his recall at 48-49%. Davis thought that approving the Hispanics' driver's licenses could win back some of their support. The same survey revealed that 51% of Californians wanted Governor Davis out and only 43% proposed a recall. He was intent on regaining his popularity by signing other bills to fulfill his goal (Freddoso).

What California Residents Feel

Ten States allowed illegal immigrants to apply and secure drivers' licenses and it was something always of importance to Latinos in California (Edds 2004). Senator Gil Cedillo spoke in their behalf against Governor Schwarzenegger's refusal to fulfill a deal to come up with a mutually acceptable bill. Cedillo said that such a bill would strengthen rather weaken or threaten national security and public safety. At the same time, he said, it would induce the highest level of responsibility within them towards the country. His supporters stressed that immigrants were contributors to the country's economy. They also insisted that the bill would, in fact, improve road safety because it would oblige them to take driving tests and obtain insurance. Opponents continued to reject it in that it would reward those who entered the country illegally. They contended that it would also allow terrorists to come together and facilitate their activities. Surveys revealed that the majority of California voters were against granting driver's licenses to undocumented immigrants. Senator Tom McClintock, Republican, spoke for them and said that federal immigration laws required undocumented aliens to be deported rather than accommodated and rewarded (Edds).

Senator Cedillo persisted in presenting the advantages of the bill. He explained that illegal immigrants would have to pay $141 for extensive background checks and fingerprinting as compared to only $24 for standard licenses (Edds 2004). More than 20 States, including Virginia, refused to grant licenses to illegal immigrants (Edds).

Other Group Reactions to the Grant of Drivers' Licenses (About 10% of all the States, including Wisconsin, did not require licensed drivers to be in the country legally. James Sensenbrenner, House judiciary chairman, described the issue as a big security loophole that had to be plugged Craig 2004). A driver's license could be used to board airplanes and enter federal buildings. House negotiators disapproved the grant of licenses to undocumented immigrants. This was why the chairman of this powerful committee helped shelve a House vote on the reforms, as urged by the commission, which investigated the 9/11 New York attacks. While Chairman Sensenbrenner wanted the House to come up and approve stricter rules on deportation and asylum to be included in the September 11 bill, the change in the rules on drivers' licenses would affect most people. There were then approximately more than 9 million illegal immigrants in the country. The federal government would accept as valid identification only State-issued drivers' licenses with proof of legal presence in the country. The American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators said that roughly 10 States did not impose this "legal presence" requirement. Association spokesman said that, prior to 9/11, the trend was to make licensing available to illegal immigrants. But this trend was reversed since 9/11. Although King said his Association would not take a specific approach, he believed that using different rules in different States would make the country vulnerable and open to fraud. He urged for uniformity. He stated that undocumented immigrants should be licensed or not licensed. Wisconsin was one of the States, which did not make the requirement.

Governor Jim Doyle remarked about "safety problems" in denying the licenses, such as the failure of undocumented immigrants to meet driving standards (Freddoso).

Sensenbrenner's Concessions

Some of Sensenbrenner's critics commented that the issue should be left to the discretion of the States (Craig 2004). If not, it could result in more unsafe unlicensed drivers. Still others believed it should be considered a part of an overall immigration debate and approach. But it should not delay the September 11 bill. Top immigration official under President Clinton and now a senior fellow at the Migration Policy Institute, Doris Meissner, interpreted Sensenbrenner's argument. On the one side, she said Sensenbrenner's position would appear to break the law. On the other, the reality was confronted that illegal immigrants were present and would go on driving, anyway. She emphasized that everyone else was facing a risk. American Civil Liberties Union lawyer Tim Edgar spoke for his group. He commented that federalizing standards for the grant of licenses would constitute a step towards a national ID card, something which civil libertarians considered undesirable. Those who favored immigration restrictions also said that the grant would encourage and enable illegal immigration. Sensenbrenner agreed with them that it also posed a security question and a contradiction. The Center for Immigration Studies, which sustained immigration limits, said that an anti-terrorist policy was inconsistent with the presence of illegal aliens. Although the White House had then not yet taken a formal position on the issue, there were feelers that it wanted Sensenbrenner to abandon his insistence on its inclusion. Sensenbrenner would not do so unless exchanged for other concessions. While the September 11 commission was not absolute on requiring legal presence to the issuance of drivers' licenses, it nevertheless urged the establishment of federal standards in the grant of drivers' licenses by the States. As concessions, Sensenbrenner wanted the States to strictly require legal presence and to tie the license expiry date to the expiry of the aliens' visas. His basis could have been September 11 realities. It was learned that 19 of the hijackers had expired visas and all of them obtained more than 60 drivers' licenses from different States (Craig).

Standardizing Drivers' Licenses

That was the direction Congress was taking. It would first verify the legal presence of each applicant in the U.S. (Wald 2005). A House and Senate conference discussed the requirements, which would apply to all 50 States and other jurisdictions, which issued drivers' licenses. A precedence was a bill passed by the Utah Legislature, which replaced illegal immigrants' drivers' licenses with driving permits, which could not be used as proof of identification. A driving privilege card was issued to those who did not qualify and could not obtain a Social Security number. Officials of the different States, however, commented that these new requirements would mean an additional, costly and complicated burden to their basic chore of issuing licenses. For their part, civil rights groups and privacy advocates expressed concern that a standardized driver's license could serve as a national identification card and create a central database, which would be open and vulnerable to identify theft. The new regulations replaced an old provision in the intelligence bill, which mandated State and federal agencies to come up with new rules for licenses. It did not require them to check on the immigration status or citizenship of applicants. This means that licenses were granted to non-citizens who did not have visas. In addition, they had no records of how many licenses were issued to non-citizens and with or without legal presence. The new rules would now require proof of citizenship or legal presence, an address and a Social Security number. The procedure would also include checking on the legal status of the non-citizen against a national immigration database and a digital image of the face of each applicant. These new rules also provided the licenses expired with the visas of the temporary legal residence or presence of the owners (Wald).

For Tighter Measures

Those who favored the new law said it addressed important security issues and would help control illegal immigration (Wald 2005). Numbers USA was a group, which supported stricter border and immigration laws. Its spokeswoman, Caroline Espinosa, commented that these new laws would discourage illegal immigration into the U.S. And make opening a bank account or buying or renting a house or car more difficult. These new rules were known as the Real ID measure. The measure required difficult verification procedures, such as the authentication of birth certificates, which even the federal government found arduous. Some senators found the proposal cumbersome and expressed the reaction in a letter to the Senate Majority Leader. The senators wrote that the new and rigid requirements could jeopardize initiatives for the promotion of national safety from terrorist attacks. The director of the transportation committee at the National Council of State Legislatures, Cheye Calvo, warned that the new measure could breed new problems and conflicts. It could become law without need for hearings. He felt that it indicated a shutdown of the department itself. Many State-licensing officials, however, admitted that there was need for tighter licensing standards and more efficient linking of databases. This surfaced with the revocation of the licenses of many drivers in one State and would apply in another. In reaction to the hurdle, experts who represented governors, State legislatures, motor vehicle departments, police departments, the federal departments of Transportation and Homeland Security, the AAA and the American Civil Liberties Union met with experts from the information technology sector for three days. They recognized the complexity of the procedure and discussed it thoroughly. They found that the new rules would cost the States $500 million to adopt. At this time, the 11 States, which issued licenses to non-citizens were Maryland, Michigan, Montana, New Mexico, North Carolina, Hawaii, Oregon, Tennessee, Utah, Washington and Wisconsin. Tennessee indicated that those licenses were for driving purposes only and not valid as personal identification without proof of legal presence in the State. Spokeswoman Melissa McDonald of the Tennessee motor vehicle department said that the department had to address the homeland security issue while processing license applications. The procedure included road tests for applicants and provided them with a document acceptable to insurance companies. This document was a traditional requirement to car owners. The written test was in Spanish, French, and Korean but the road test was in English only. The chief lobbyist for the ACLU, Timothy D. Sparapani, commented that a standardized license would be equivalent to a national identification card and allow access to data in a single database. As expressed by an earlier comment, this would invite identity theft (Wald).

Asking for Just a Little Bit

Madison Hispanic immigrants appealed to legislators not to limit the issuance of new drivers' licenses to those who had proof of American citizenship or legal residence or presence (Walters 2005). Angel Porras pleaded that they were not asking too much. He and other Hispanic immigrants only wanted to work hard and make something out for themselves. They regretted that every immigrant in the U.S. was blamed for the 9/11 disaster. Many of them came to the U.S. many years back and had been simply working. Without a driver's license, their work and existence would be disjointed. But Rep Mark Gundrum, Republican of New Berlin, said that many States had changed their laws about requiring proof of legal residence in securing drivers' licenses. His bill, AB 148, if passed, would prohibit issuance without such proof. Congress would strongly press the States to adopt the same stance as a national standard. Gundrum admitted that he did not know of any Hispanic linked or suspected to be linked with terrorism. Yet he was also concerned that dangerous persons could take advantage of weak laws, such as those of Wisconsin's, to obtain a driver's license, open a bank account or carry out their mean task. He viewed a license as a stamp of approval (Walterman).

The Case of Wisconsin

This was why Wisconsin became a favorite destination to illegal aliens who wanted to get those licenses (Walters 2005). He also said that the proof of legal residence was imposed only on first-time license applicants. Those who already had a license needed only to renew it. AB 69 was a bill sponsored by Rep. Mark Pettis. It would provide that the licenses issued to illegal aliens should expire at the same time as their visas. But a simultaneous expiry date could make the bearer or possessor a target or object of suspicion or disadvantage. Business executives who interviewed them would not be inclined to hire them in view of the expiry date. Wisconsin drivers' licenses were effective for eight years, three years for probationary licenses and four years for ID cards. State Department of Transportation officials Erin Egan and Gary Guenther disputed the measures as encouraging an increase of unlicensed and uninsured drivers. As a consequence, the Department might need to hire more staff members and longer lines to the DMV offices (Walters).

DMV Workers' License Scam

Federal prosecutors said that four employees of the Department of Motor Vehicles received cash bribes from illegal immigrants in exchange for drivers' licenses or state identification cards (Richman 2005). They and their brokers were charged with crimes punishable by many years of imprisonment. DMV Licensing Operations Division's deputy director, John McClellan, thanked the FBI and his own staff of committed officers for the task of turning the employees in. He said that they were setting even stiffer security measures to make sure this crime would never recur. The federal grand jury found that DMV employees conspired with a non-worker to offer illegal immigrants licenses or ID cards for $3,000 to $4,500 cash each. The illegal immigrants were provided with real but fraudulently secured Social Security numbers. They were accused of granting licenses without proof of legal presence and of providing fake Social Security numbers. This discovery led to 200 fraudulent licenses and ID cards. The other employees received $100 bribes to enter false information into DMV computers and sold vehicle registration stickers to those who had not passed smog tests and licenses to those who had not yet taken the examinations. They paid recruiters up to $200 for stickers and $500 for the licenses. Two other DMV employees were accused of allowing the use of false identities in obtaining drivers' licenses or ID cards. The employees worked at Oakland Claremont Avenue. Two of them were accused of two counts of conspiracy, five counts of mail fraud, and five counts of fraud connected with false identification documents. Each of the 12 counts could be fined up to $250,000 (Richman).

Hazmat Licenses

Mohammad Yusef Mullawala, an illegal alien, possessed drivers' licenses from New York, New Jersey and Rhode Island (Malkin 2006). He was in a hurry to secure a commercial driver's license and a permit to carry hazardous cargo when driving school officials became suspicious about his quaint behavior. They described his behavior as terrorist-type. Mullawala did not show interest in learning how to drive a tractor-trailer, according to the driving school officials. Residents reported their observation to the Department of Homeland Security, which detained him. Mullawala had a student visa and had also overstayed (Malkin).

9/11 hijackers secured hundreds of identification, such as drivers' licenses, in carrying out their crime (Malkin 2006). They conspired with illegal alien day laborers at a Falls Church in Virginia 7/11 to obtain government-issued photo IDs. Some of them got IDs in Arlington, Virginia. It may be recalled that terrorist truck bombs killed hundreds of Americans in Beirut and in Iraq. The FBI placed law enforcement officials on high red alert for activities connected with the al Qaeda and who could be in possession of commercial drivers' licenses in order to use truck bombs. Reports said that a suspected al Qaeda agent and illegal alien Nabil al-Marabh in Boston secured a license to drive semi-trucks loaded with hazardous materials, including explosives and caustic substances. Another suspected al-Qaeda operative in Minneapolis named Mohamad Elzahabi, obtained a green card through a fake marriage. He was also able to get a commercial driver's license to drive a school bus and haul hazardous materials despite FBI;s awareness of terrorist ties. Other reports disclosed that 200 Somalian and Bosnian immigrants illegally secured commercial drivers' licenses or certifications in Missouri to handle hazardous materials through a truck driving school with State connections. The policy of openness advocated by some politicians towards illegal alien workers and potential terrorist drivers was seen as a veru dangerous thing for the whole nation (Malkin).