Problem Solving -- The Driver's License Matter

By Sara

I have been distressed by the recent use of the proper use of a Driver's license as an electorial wedge issue.  Sadly, debates do not allow us to take issues apart and clarify -- but for the heck of it, here goes. 

The United States has been a party to international treaties since about 1943 regarding reciprocity of driver's licenses that certify one is capable of driving a car.  However this was not the first such treaty, in 1926 the Europeans managed a Paris Treaty directed at the same principle, namely reciprocity.  The Interamerican Automative Traffic Convention, signed in December, 1943 by FDR, was the first to link Canada, the US, and Central and South America on this principle.  After World War II, the current convention, subsequently amended, The Convention on International Road Traffic of 1949, was sponsored by the US, signed in Geneva in 1949, and then ratified by the Senate August 9, 1950, signed by Truman August 17, 1950, deposited with the UN, and because enough countries ratified it, it went into force in March, 1952.  Currently about 160 Countries are party to the treaty.  Assuming one understands that a Treaty is the same thing as a National Law -- in fact we have a very long standing international agreement on reciprocity of certifications of capability of driving a car.   Thus when Senator Dodd says "it is a privilege" and all -- and others are forced into yes and no answers -- in fact that is not exactly the case.  A Driver's license is certification of a skill, and under a series of international treaties, the certification is reciprocal.  Nothing more, and nothing less.   

Many Americans understand this in practical terms -- you fly to Europe and you want a car.  You walk into Avis or Hertz or Budget, put down your credit card (I can pay) and your passport, and your state issued driver's license, and wo-laa, they hand you the keys.  You can, if you are going somewhere strange, go to AAA before you leave, and get an international driver's license, which is essentially a translation into all the UN languages plus six extra ones, of your license.  By treaty they cannot require you take a driver's test -- though they can require you get an additional translation if you happen to be driving in a country with a wierd language.  You get that by walking into a police station, and request it, and by treaty, they have to provide.  It isn't about ID -- it is about certification that you can operate a motor vehicle.  In fact, the treaty does not require a passport number on an international driver's license -- just name, place of birth, (not even citizenship), date of birth, and an address in country, and the valid issuing jurisdiction's driver's license number, and the date it expires. 

We could slice a significant part off this "problem" if we just told those who want to become undocumented workers to get a local driver's license before they come, and then get an international license (a translation) before they come.  Remind them, it isn't ID -- it is just a certification they know how to drive.  But their right to drive a car is protected by treaty (in the case of the Americas, since 1943), and it would be very wise to comprehend this.  Most important, it is Recripocal.  We American Citizens also have treaty rights to drive into Canada and Mexico without taking a test or dealing with the police, after all.   

So what is this really about? -- I suppose it is about a National ID card, which would be a new Identity document.  That would be the honest debate.  Up North in Minnesota, where people really don't distinguish all that much between places in Canada where they shop or fish, and places in Minnesota where they also shop, work and live, they now they want $90 dollars for a passport to cross the border for a hockey game.  Yes, it is an identity document, but it discriminates.  People who live in Kansas are less likely to normally play pond hockey with Canadians. Likewise, if you use an expensive ID for voting, or getting on planes -- well you eliminate low income folk.  If keeping Atta off Airplanes depends on this stuff you have to ask if there is a less disruptive and less expensive way to do it. 

So let's problem solve.  Tell anyone coming into the country to bring their driver's license plus the International Driver's license in all the UN languages.  Follow that treaty.  Let people renew their driver's licenses at their Embassy if necessary.  Follow the treaty by requiring local police to offer -- free -- a translation of a non-English license. 

If we are to have a national ID card -- then figure how to cover everyone regardless of income or wealth, and link all the state and national records so as to make it accurate and easy.  Pay the cost of resolving all the bad and inaccurate records. 

Forget the business of "I am certified to drive a car" and thus I can get on a plane.  Protect the kids who just like to play pond hockey. 

 

Comments

[P J Evans]

The people pushing the DL-as-universal-ID may not realize that brown people also can have licenses ... but the very poor (who may not have a car _or_ a job that requires a license) and the elderly (who have quit driving for whatever reason) may not have them, regardless of color or citizenship (or party affiliation)

I think licensing the undocumented is a _good_ idea, because it gives some assurance that they know what they're doing when they're behind the wheel. (I also think that the licensing tests need to be tightened up, because there's a lot of native-born citizens who shouldn't have a full license.)

[orionATL]

thanks, sara.

as usual, your post informs me greatly and reflects an unanticipated view on a social problem.

treaties aside,

i would think that within the u.s., safety and indemnity issues would hold some power.

driver's licenses identify an individual. they provide a way to track traffic offenses (not to mention ...).

they are uniformly connected with a requirement to have insurance coverage.

the insurance coverage requirement, by itself, should be enough to make most people support the idea.

would any of us like to be injured in an auto accident in which an immigrant - illegal or otherwise - did not have a license, and therefore, had no incentive to buy auto accident insurance?

i won't hold my breath on this suggestion,

but the diver's license "issue" could and should be attacked as a premier example of republican (right-wing) "meanness"

and also

a premier example of republican (right-wing) stupidity when it comes to making laws and public policy.

driver's license for all really can be viewed as a public health issue - like getting immunization shots, or chest x-rays.

accountability, record-keeping, lowered medical costs would be some of the possible benefits,

but the republican trumpeters, like limbaugh and boortz, make the license issue sound like legal handel,

instead of the bar-room sing-along, it really is:

the whole matter can be summarized as :

"don't give those (---------) welfare",

all over again.

[BlueStateRedhead]

Thanks for providing thought and information on a subject that up to now has not had enough of both.

I have had the experience of have a national id card when living in France. I survived.

[emptypockets]

Having lived almost exclusively in cities where you can walk everywhere (or take excellent public transportation), I went a long time without a driver's license. I finally got one, not because I owned a car (I never have) but because it was necessary as an ID. (You can get a non-driver's ID card -- weirdly, issued by the DMV -- but it causes delays and hang-ups since people aren't used to being handed that.)

Separating the functions of ID and driving, in debate and in policy, is so sensible it may never happen.

What was the common ID of preference before cars were commonplace?

[space]

I think this post completely misses the point.

If I travel to a foreign county, yes, I expect to be able to drive a car if I plunk down my credit card, passport, and New York State Driver's Licence.

What I don't expect to able to do is travel to a foreign country on a visa (but without a DL), overstay my visa, and have that foreign country ISSUE ME a driver's license even though I have no legal right to remain in that country.

I wouldn't expect any other country on the planet to do that and I don't think New York State should.

The fact that there are racists out there who oppose any given policy on racist grounds doesn't automatically transform an otherwise bad policy into a good one.

[DeeLoralei in Memphis]

Sarah, thank you for this very educational post. I knew I could drive in amother country, but not why, i.e., treaty obligations. TN used to allow anyone who could pass the written and road tests get a drivers license and it was because we wanted to know that people driving knew the rules of the road and had insurance. And that always seemed to me to be an eminently reasonable law. And it actually helped the rest of us with lower insurance costs because fewer uninsured drivers were on the road.

Anyway, I thought Gov. Spitzer was doing the right thing. And, I thank you again for letting me know this is a treaty obligation for the US to recognize and respect the drivers of other nations.

[Sara]

Space, my point is that there is a policy -- it is National and International Law, and it is contained in a treaty ratified by the Senate, and which has had regular technical revisions over the years. It does not require any state to issue a driver's license, it does require them to issue translations of valid licenses, and honor those as a matter of reciprocity.

I think the problem arises because we have wrongly made the driver's license something that was never intended -- an ID card. The intent was to certify you know how to operate a car.

[Jodi]

Sara,
according to what you have said they need a passport even if they have a drivers license. Also they need insurance, and this requires more information than just a drivers license.

Rentals actually are a bit different, for at least in the USA they won't let you rent a car without a credit card, again establishing identity and a way to charge you more if something happens to the car.

So granted what you say about the DL, but the other stuff required, Passport, insurance, credit is still an obstacle.

A drivers license doesn't allow you to skip the passport, the insurance, and credit if you rent a car in another country.

Also I think the old license can be used just temporarily. You must obtain a permanent one with all the usual problems after a period of time, even if you move from one state to another state.

[Sara]

No Jodi -- the reciprocity is not based on a passport, it is based on having a valid driver's license and an approved translation -- which you acquire with an International License, which is a treaty approved form for the translation. The treaty signed now by over 160 countries, says nothing about passports. Rental agents will want to see such -- but they are not obligated by law or treaty to look at such.

Most undocumented workers in the US do not rent cars, they buy used cars, the kind that get advertised in local papers, or sold at car swaps. They don't need ID other than their own valid driver's license with the translation, to buy and transfer title. You go to a notary public, and sign over the title, and get the title stamped -- all there is to it. No passport required. Perhaps you go on line and buy some insurance -- or maybe you know an agent who will sell the necessary. Anyone look at a passport in such transactions? Has anyone ever asked to see your birth certificate when you registered a car?

And no, you don't have to take a test and get a US license after a period, you renew your original one. In many countries (and in the US) it can frequently be done by mail. (In Minnesota you have to go in and prove you can still see.)

What I am saying is that a driver's license is only about being certified to drive, and 160 nations are signed on to an international treaty agreeing to respect reciprocity on driver's licenses. The US agreement with Mexico dates from 1943, and predates the 1949 convention. When we swear in a President, they say they will inforce the laws, and a properly ratified treaty is the same as a law -- that is in the constitution.

So what I am saying is you have to start the argument from where the law is right now, and in making an argument, remember there are millions of Amerians who have taken advantage of this reciprocity agreement and done business and had some lovely vacations without the need to take a foreign driver's test. I really don't think you will find Americans who travel abroad supporting a revision of this treaty. Avis, Hertz and Budget would spend millions on lobbyists against any revision.

It is mostly an emotional wedge issue, and a few facts about treaty law will clear that up. I don't really blame the candidates -- when was the last time they actually drove a car themselves? -- I do blame the media for not doing the elementary research on this. What is the actual law?

Now why, generally do I know about this. You learn odd things in odd ways. Back when I was an exchange student in 1959-60, it turned out I was one of the only students in my Danish School who had a driver's license -- one from Ohio. I also had the International license. But no car. Some of the students wanted to go on pub crawls, and there was an old pre-war Ford at the school that could be used by a licensed driver. In those days, a Danish driver's license required something like 50 hours of supervised driving and then a test, plus hours of classroom work. So my clever Danish friends consulted the law, and the only thing I needed was a Danish translation of my Ohio License, so they took me on the scooter up to the police station to get one. Once we got it, I approached the 36 Ford, and drove it around for a couple of hours on the farm roads just behind the school. (I knew how to drive 50's Chevies with automatic transmission). Then we began to sample the rural Kros -- the rural pubs. Of course it was one beer for me, and the others had a few more -- but it still was fun. Nifty to have an exchange student with an Ohio Driver's License willing to drive an old Ford as the designated driver.

After World War II, German was not considered an international language, and US issued International Licenses, did not include a German Translation. Back in the 50's if you drove into W. Germany they made it easy -- they had a kiosk at the border where you could pick up the German, and have it put in your little booklet. But in the 80's, I found myself in Denmark, headed into E. Germany, and they had strict rules about having a German translation. So -- I went to the Police Station, got a Danish translation of my Minnesota License, and then went to the Danish Version of AAA and got a Danish International Driver's license, with lots more minor languages, but also German included in it. With the E. Germans, you always were very careful to know the rules, and follow them exactly. Thus my knowledge of the treaty and its provisions. The treaty is for the driver's benefit.

[darclay]

Bravo Sara, the arguments against licenses never made any sense to me. Thanks for putting it into a very concise and easy format that most anyone can understand. I always enjoy your posts.

[MayBee]

In the foreign countries I've lived in and have friends that have lived in, you may drive a car on an international driver's license if you are visiting, but not if you are setting up a residence there, even temporarily. And not if you have certain types of visas. If you have a work visa or take a job or rent an apartment, you have to have a driver's license from the host country. Driving without the proper license can be cause for deportation.

FWIW, I also had national id cards when I lived internationally. I think they are a good idea for the US, because we are turning driver's licenses and social security numbers into defacto id cards, which as Sara points out, they were not meant to be.

[Forest Dean]

To my mind the Bush Administration and DHS is reason enough to oppose RealID compliance by 2009.

You trust a government that uses the treat of Islamofascism to be responsible with a nation ID?

[oldtree]

Perhaps the insurance companies rule our land? perhaps, thats a good one. Insurance guarantees stupidity. Insurance is like religion, both guaranteeing the acceptance of stupidity, but worse, helping someone for doing notably stupid things that a simple education might prevent.
if cars were made to protect their riders, and pedestrians and others outside the car, we wouldn't likely need insurance would we? If we had health care that was simply paid for by our taxes, we wouldn't need insurance companies at all, would we?

[grayslady]

Sara, I appreciate the issues you've raised. However, much as some people may have been offended by Chris Dodd saying that a driver's license is a privilege, he is correct. In my state, Illinois, you can have your license revoked for not paying court required child support or if you have a DUI offense. In other words, it doesn't matter what skills you may have or what tests you have been able to pass, the State of Illinois can still revoke your license under the aforementioned circumstances. That says to me that driving is a privilege. Additionally, I think every country has minimum age requirements for obtaining a driver's license, and most require passing a written test as well. Those are also forms of privilege, since it is conceivable that a 14-year old is capable of operating a vehicle safely, but the authorities have decided that, for whatever reason, 14-year olds are too young to drive in most countries. The reasons for passing a written test are probably less important today, since so many signs are now universal, but literacy is still used as a way of deciding who receives a driver's license in most countries, and therein lies the problem for many who are crossing our southern border without documents. It is unlikely that many could obtain a driver's license in their own country, so an international license doesn't help them much.

I agree that it would be useful to have a form of identification other than drivers licenses or passports for those who simply wish to cross the border for an event such as a hockey game. However, I would prefer that such identification be voluntary rather than a mandated form of national identification. We already seem to have lost a lot of our privacy.

[Tomj]

Here is what would solve the problem: turn driver education and licensing over to the insurance companies. If they are willing to give you insurance, they can be responsible for the license itself. Then you only have to carry around one document. Folks who own cars also would pay a fee based upon value and ability to cause damage to other driver's automobiles and passengers. If the state wants to issue regular id, great. Of course, the state would still maintain a database of who shouldn't get a license, and if an insurance company had a habit of violating that policy, they could be heavily fined. In fact, you could just do a computer audit. Hmmmm, but how exactly would the insurance company know who they are insuring? Seems like a catch-22. I think that it would still be possible to establish who you are without birth documents, and if the license comes with a financial responsibility to pay for any damages done by the driver, the industry would find a way to figure it out without id. And for those who have trouble with English or whatever, there will appear niche providers.

The goal should be similar to universal health care: the industry must pay for all damages done, since you could always track who caused what damage using what license, you could shift funds from one company to another. If someone has a history of turning down not so excellent drivers, instead of providing training, they would still have to share in paying, as they probably have avoided losses and costs.

[Mimikatz]

In the '60s and '70s civil libertarians strongly opposed a national ID card as is used in Europe and many other countries. So we ended up using drivers' licenses and social security numbers as identifiers, purposes for which they are not necessarily well suited.

I've come to the conclusion that we were wrong on this issue, and that we ought to have identity cards here that are unconnected to ones financial information.

The issue of ability to drive once in a country is separate from the issue of how one gets into the country, and the issue isn't really whether undocumenteds are able to legally so mush as whether the State should issue them an identity document--a separate issue.

The immigration problem is very complex and one can't really separate out one issue to try to solve (like driving) because it is connected to all the other issues of how people get into the country and what to do once they are here and putting down roots. And a foreign drivers license doesn't help with immigration status or eligibility for employtment even if it does by treaty give a right to drive. Telling a would-be immigrant to get a drivers' license when they are fleeing poverty and lack of employment in Mexico seems a little off the point.

[freepatriot]

the shit stain strikes again

have you ever seen anybody offer advice so confidently and FOOLISHLY

what kind of dolt tries to "correct" somebody by posting TOTALLY BOGUS INFORMATION

THE SHIT STAIN IS THAT KIND OF IDIOT

you should KNOW BETTER than to fuck with Sara

this just might be the quintesential shit stain post

Sara,
according to what you have said they need a passport even if they have a drivers license. Also they need insurance, and this requires more information than just a drivers license.

Rentals actually are a bit different, for at least in the USA they won't let you rent a car without a credit card, again establishing identity and a way to charge you more if something happens to the car.

So granted what you say about the DL, but the other stuff required, Passport, insurance, credit is still an obstacle.

A drivers license doesn't allow you to skip the passport, the insurance, and credit if you rent a car in another country.

Also I think the old license can be used just temporarily. You must obtain a permanent one with all the usual problems after a period of time, even if you move from one state to another state.

Posted by: shit stain | November 17, 2007 at 03:27

ever seen anybody offer such OPINION as fact ???

and then watch that person get taken to mthe cleaners by somebody who ACTUALLY HAS THE FACTS TO BACK UP HER STATEMENTS:

No SHIT STAIN -- the reciprocity is not based on a passport, it is based on having a valid driver's license and an approved translation -- which you acquire with an International License, which is a treaty approved form for the translation. The treaty signed now by over 160 countries, says nothing about passports. Rental agents will want to see such -- but they are not obligated by law or treaty to look at such.

OUCH

TALK ABOUT A SLAPDOWN

guess you learned something today, huh shit stain ???

don't fuck with people like Sara who actually , you know, look up facts an shit

so you wanna tell me about Passports now shit stain ???

oh, and thanks for making my day, shit stain (ROTFLMAO)

ALL HAIL THE MIGHTY SARA

[P J Evans]

emptypockets

Before DLs - I think it was a matter of everyone knowing who you were. You moved to a place, you met the banker, the post office people, the grocer, the blacksmith and the wagonmaker and the farrier, they met you, and you were identified that way. (Think small town.) In a city, you'd be dealing with your neighborhood equivalents of those people; you weren't likely to be going all the way across town for something, unless that was the only place it was available.

[P J Evans]

emptypockets

Before DLs - I think it was a matter of everyone knowing who you were. You moved to a place, you met the banker, the post office people, the grocer, the blacksmith and the wagonmaker and the farrier, they met you, and you were identified that way. (Think small town.) In a city, you'd be dealing with your neighborhood equivalents of those people; you weren't likely to be going all the way across town for something, unless that was the only place it was available.

[along]

I think freepatriot's comment is inappropriate and disgusting.

Sara: I too appreciate your research, knowledge and ability to explain the very interesting Treaty issue. I think it's important to know, and should be a required course for all state and local bureaucracies and police jurisdictions.

But I still don't think it provides a template for fully addressing the problems.

I agree that we should have a national ID that is separate from our Driver's License.

But right now our DL really does function as our ID--on many occasions it's our proof of residency. It also implies, but does not prove, citizenship. We know that if we don't have a DL, the only other iron-clad ID is our Passport. Or a foreign Passport with Green Card documentation.

To purchase auto insurance, we need:
-valid Driver's License (I agree that a foreign license should be valid)
-valid Registration
-proof of Residence--1 or 2 current utility bills in your name. This is a front-line protection against insurance fraud. (a Passport works if it's the same address as your DL, but it's not necessary.)
-Social Security Number, or valid exemption

This is where undocumented immigrants fall short. If you have no SS# or Tax ID#, I can't see any reputable insurer providing coverage without a Passport and Green Card documentation.

I think the public safety issue is very important. But I think there are real workable solutions:

1. Establish a true National ID, separate from Driver's Licenses.

2. Establish a migrant worker program that provides legal documents, which would include temporary Driver's Licenses and proof of residence.

3. Via comprehensive immigration reform, encourage undocumented immigrants to come out of the shadows on their own, and initiate the long, hard, expensive process of becoming a citizen.

[bmaz]

Living in Arizona has allowed me to make this observation: "They" don't necessarily possess much "skill to drive a car". On the other hand, most of "us" ain't real adroit at it either.....

[Jodi]

Grandmom said in her day that they went to the drug store to get drivers licenses, as well as hunting and fishing licences. Also there was a soda fountain where all the kids, Grandmom too, met and made goo-goo eyes (her depiction)at each other.

I'm going to download some Doris Day and some kind of short movie star "mickey rooney??" movies. Grandmom said those were good. Trying to get an idea of the times.

[Jodi]

I really wish they had home movies from those days.

: (

[Chris Loosley]

Keep trying, Jodi. By the time you are a grandmom, maybe you will actually get an idea. But until you do, just show some respect.

[Sara]

Most states introduced driver's licenses in the second half of the 1920's and the early 30's -- though there were still states without them in the WWII era. Late arrivals were mostly southern and rural states. As they were introduced a state had to support a filing system, a road testing system, and a state traffic police system able to enforce, and the small government minds resisted this for many years. When they were introduced, they grandfathered in all drivers over 16. Many states have and had special permits for farm kids to operate farm equiptment on state and federal roads who were under 16. This debate back in the 1930's (when you will find most of it in State Legislatures) was all about safety and the auto operator's competence -- it was never about ID. It was in the 1950's that the drivers license became a teen agers rite of passage -- a whole new cultural meaning having little to do with knowing how to safely drive. It was also during the 50's that the Auto Makers started sponsoring driver training in High School. They furnished the cars for road training, and paid the instructors. It was a corporate means of growing the market for cars. Of course they only did this in the better off schools where it was likely Daddy would buy a new car, and let the kids drive the older one. Again -- a Cultural and Corporate Welfare decision. Similarly, drinking laws that came in at the state level at the end of Prohibition, led to the use of the Drivers License as a means of establishing age. It isn't till the 70's or 80's that most states adopted picture licenses -- this mostly at the request of the Restaurant and Bar industry as a means of protecting themselves by "carding" clients requesting a beer. This is still a major reason why young people, even though they do not have a car, and don't need to drive, get drivers training and get a driver's license. Obviously being old enough to drink a beer says nothing about whether you can or should drive.

And now of course we have the effort to require driver's licenses in order to vote. So how many other totally irrelevant cultural wedge issues are we going to hang on this piece of plastic?

Yes, I understand the civil liberties arguments against a national identity card. But I think the really big reason the notion of a clear program for creating such a document has much more to do with the sorry state of State and National records than it does with Civil Liberties. States in many cases do not have their files in proper electronic data formats. They don't cross match births, marriages, divorces and deaths. Ditto for many other sorts of files. If they were to establish some sort of national identity document the mess would be up front and in public, and fixing it would cost billions. That's the real hang up.

[freepatriot]

looks like we got a newbie

I think freepatriot's comment is inappropriate and disgusting.

inappropriate and disgusting

that's me

when the shit stain rears it's ugly head, I'm there to let the shit stain know how much we appreciate the shit stain's contributions

so "along", I'll let you know just this once, the multipul posters who call itself "jodi" are a troll. I call them the "Shit Stain". they only post here to disrupt the discussion. you might notice that the shit stain's posts are, in the first instance, totally fucking bogus, and in the second instance, totally repetitive and condesending. the shit stain doesn't have an intelligent or original thought

under normal circumstances, when a person is berated and ridiculed constantly, the person would leave the place of his humiliation. but not the shit stain. we've been treated to over two years of it's stupid and condescending repetition of repuglican talking points

the shit stain belongs to me

please don't feed the trolls

all your trolls are belong to me

(wink)

[freepatriot]

freepatriot:

i am not a "newbie"

and

i also think your comments using "shitstain" are

inappropriate and disgusting.

this is a gig you have worn out completely.

furthermore, from my point of view, it is your primary "contribution" to this site.

many other frequent commenters here seem to sanction your angry fixation on the "jodi(s)" that post here with a sort of verbal "hah,hah, hah - that's old freep".

i don't.

there is really no excuse for any commenter to carry on at the length you have carried on using the vile language you have directed toward "jodi".

everybody's entitled to an angry outburst now and then.

but you've gone well beyond your quota in your dozens of fixated response to "jodi".

how about just writing about the issues brought up here for a change,

instead of waiting around for jodi to yank your chain and listen to you bay.

[orionATL]

the 8:52am post above,

addressing freepatriot by name and

criticizing his language and obsession with "jodi"

was written by orionATL,

not by freepatriot.

[Mitch Guthman]

Sara,

I agree with you regarding the problems with using the DL as a de-facto national ID card and that it would be much better to simply have an honest and open debate about both national identity cards and immigration rather than using objections to giving aliens driving licenses based upon their ability to safely operate a motor vehicle as a sort of proxy for that debate. Also, I agree that the cost barrier to obtaining a national identity card is significant and discriminatory in its application. But I don’t think that having people who are not legally in the country use DLs from their home countries is going to be an effective answer for a couple of reasons.

In the first place, we are not talking about visitors or tourists but rather about people who have illegally “migrated” to this country and intend to remain here either permanently or at least for a significant period of time. My understanding is that you are allowed to drive in a foreign country (which is a signatory under one of the relevant treaties) for some reasonable period of time, typically 90 days, using your own driving license or a properly issued international license. After that time, again in England it was 90 days, its necessary to apply for an English license and take the test. I don’t believe there is anyplace where you can just show up at the local DMV or police station, show them your driving license from California and have them hand you one of their driving licenses in return. Also, even under the treaties that you cite, the host nation still has the right to require tourists and others to purchase approved insurance and so forth. (This is why, for example, most Californians don’t drive our cars into Mexico even though our driving licenses are recognized there). So I don’t think you are comparing apples to oranges on this one.

The second problem has to do with the legal situation of the people who are experiencing problems getting driving licenses: They are not in the country legally. Everything flows from that fact. Even if they had valid ones from their home countries, they would not want to show their driving license to the local authorities for fear that the authorities will then want to see papers allowing them to reside and work here. Again, since you are only allowed to drive in the US for a limited amount of time after you arrive here, a traffic cop (for example) would be well within his rights to ask someone presenting an English or Guatemalan license to produce documents (airline tickets, stamped passport, whatever) to show that he or she has not been driving in the US for longer than the specified period (whatever that may be----California, like other states, says everybody who moves here---even from another state---needs to get a California drivers license if they stay for more than 90 days). (Obviously, Mexicans and, I think maybe, Canadians would present special problems for local authorities because they can have documents allowing them to go back and forth for short periods but US Customs does not stamp those cards each time).

Basically, if you are not in the country legally, the fact that you have a driving license in your home country won’t really help. And so we are back to where we started:

1. Should we issue DLs (or even identify cards as in California so that people can cash check without paying outrageous fees) as proof of the ability to drive and nothing more? And should we make sure that anyone with the proper driving skills can get a driving license (and insurance) without regard to legal status because it is an important health and safety issue?

2. Should we require some sort of proof of both citizenship and identity when applying to make it more difficult on illegal immigrants to live and work here either because we want to keep them in fear of being deported and so pay them as little as possible or because we are using state issued driving licenses as de facto national identity cards so that we can avoid having an actual debate on the merits of such an identity card? Or because we don't want to put government employees (police, DMV workers, etc) in the position of pretty much knowing that the person they are dealing with is not in the country legally but being required to pretend otherwise?

3. Should we have an open, honest debate about immigration giving due weight to human rights issues, economic issues (no illegal immigrants or very few unskilled immigrants generally will mean that the cost of everything will go up; open borders will surely make Americans even worse victims of globalization and be a death sentence for the unions)?

I see a lot of good points on all sides and I’d like to hear the issue of immigration debated and then resolved democratically. Mostly, I have serious issues with the idea of establishing a right to the free movement of labor for both economic and political reasons.

[Sara]

Mitch, the treaties regarding DL's are based on reciprocity, meaning that the country in which you are driving as a "guest driver" has to respect the experation date on your valid driver's license. Most International Licenses cover 5 years, even though, for instance, a Minnesota license has to be renewed every four years. It is the date on your actual driver's license that counts. And yes -- under the treaty there must be an official location where one can get an approved translation of a license. In Europe it is in police stations or sometimes at Kiosks near the border. None can cost more than a dollar or so. In the US we subcontract issuing International Licenses to AAA -- but I would assume any state DMV could provide an english translation, say should you have a license in a very minority language. It is that treaty principle of Reciprocity that is hard for folk to get their minds around, and how changing our own law about it could have profound and negative consequences for many Americans.

Yes, limiting the use of the DL to only original intent -- you are authorized to drive a car -- would push the question of a strictly Identity document to the fore. But given the state of many vital statistics files in states, finding the right sets of data points on which to base an identity confirmation for purposes of a good document would be difficult. If we had a strong identity document, it would make dealing with illegal employers much easier -- which I think is the key to getting a handle on the whole migration matter.

[MayBee]

Sara, the treaty does not apply to people in the country illegally.

[Comrade Rutherford]

Vermont's GOP governor has signed the state up to be the first to issue RealID DLs. This is based on the many border towns that straddle the un-mlitarized Canadian border. The first thing Bush did was to replace the Customs agents that worked the borders with Border Patrol thugs flown up from the deserts of AZ and NM.

The Customs agents knew everyone in town. When Canadian and US citizens freely walked across the street that runs along the border in one of the towns, the agents knew who they were. When a stranger breezed into town, the agents knew to keep their eyes on them.

But now that the Border Patrol thugs have taken over, they've brought their siege mentality with them and routinely harrass townspeople for fun. They know by now who is who, and they still screw with these folks just to get their jollys by bullying people.

One town in Vermont has a library right on the border, one end of the building is in the US, and the other end is in Canada. The Border Patrol now demands that all US citizens travel 75 miles to the nearest 24 hours crossing point and bring their passport, just to get to the town library! Insane!

In Maine, the Border Patrol arrested a US citizen for getting gas at a station 15 feet over the border. They knew who he was, they knew where he lived, but they arrested him simply to bully the guy because he knew their Zero Tolerance policy was BS. He dared to question their authority to be dicks, so they felt threatened and reacted by being even bigger dicks.

These border towns have lived this way for over 200 years, and now these out-of-town bullies are needlessly harrassing peaceful US citizens because they won't obey stupid and illogical decrees of power-mad thugs.

And don't get me started on the pointless airport 'security' of the totally incompent bullies in the TSA!

[MarkH]

We need to stop thinking of our government as running this place and instead think of the people as running this place.

Once you do that you can see more easily that a sane border policy is to let people come and go as they wish, but to observe closely to keep out criminals, politicians (oh I repeat myself) and dangerous things like nukes and trucks without headlights.

In the country, we need to be free and that means as little paperwork as possible. A driver's license makes sense, but certainly isn't related in any way to immigration.

If we must have papework, then we should require that anyone coming into the country have an ID which identifies them by name, address, nationality, perhaps birth date or other information.

To go beyond that is simply to spy.

In America there shouldn't be prejudice towards foreigners except in sensitive jobs.

Separating border control from severely limiting immigration to America is silly. They're distinctly different.

[MarkH]

OOps, 'separating border control from severely limiting immigration to America is silly.' should be

Combining border control with limiting immigration to America is silly.

They're distinctly different.

[mariachi mama]

Late to the discussion and a noobie here, but this is how it works in México. Your license has to be the same as the plate. You can drive and keep a car with Ohio plates in Mexico forever, as long as it's plated and tagged and you have a US DL. You have to purchase some permits to do so. If you are a foreigner and drive a Mexican plated car, you need to get a Mex DL, which on paper requires that you be a legal immigrant, three states allow it on a tourist visa, the other 28+DF require a resident visa..of course, in reality, in México, usually a few hundred pesos will get you a DL, regardless of immigrant status.

Tourists who rent cars are a whole different category and don't apply here.

I am entirely in favor of state issued DLs regardless of immigration status, but I disagree that the Intl DL is a solution.

And many, many migrants lack DLs and any sort of ID in their own countries, not even a birth certificate.

Interesting idea, though.

[Jordie]

The whole political ID / Drivers license debate never made since to me. To me it is like so many other liberal bait and switch ideas. Here is my reasoning to believe their step one "create a problem" was a ruse. There is no problem. We already have a national ID in place for those who wish to participate. Its called a United States of America Pass Port. I have had one for years and it works good. Emigrants have the option of getting one issued to them from their respective countries also and they work good here too. As others have posted here. An international license translation is accepted anywhere in the United States along with a valid license from their country. So we can put the Drivers License issue to bed right away too. Step 2 "create opposition to the problem" All the wrangling in the media about this created problem is only designed to foster anger over a fabricated injustice. Step 3. "Offer a solution to the fabricated problem". Drivers licensing for illegal Emigrants. The end game is to issue state licenses to illegals. But the reasons have nothing to do with their ability to have an I.D. or to drive.