Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, some people have argued that undocumented immigrants should not be allowed to obtain drivers licenses or other forms of identification, such as "consular IDs" issued by foreign governments. States and localities have taken different approaches to this issue. Some have made undocumented immigrants ineligible for driver's licenses. Others realize that it becomes a public safety problem if undocumented workers are not allowed to have licenses—in some cases it forces them to drive without being tested on the rules of the road. Without a license, undocumented immigrants cannot get insurance, and this drives up the cost of insurance for other consumers. ~National Immigration Forum
Overview of U.S. driver’s license restriction:
One of the results of the post-9/11 focus on security is the increase of drivers’ license restriction bills being proposed and passed in many states. This trend has taken the form of stricter rules for application for drivers’ licenses, limits on availability of licenses to non citizens visiting for less than one year, additional information on the licenses of foreign visitors, and even different driver identification cards for non-citizens that indicate that the cardholder is not a citizen and the card is not valid for any form of identification other than for purposes of driving.
In 2003, H.R. 1121 was put before the U.S. House of Representatives. Also known as the ‘Driver’s License Integrity Act of 2003,’ the act proposed to limit the validity of a non immigrant’s driver’s license to the period of validity of the non immigrant’s visa. The act was to be implemented and funded through the Department of Homeland Security and has been referred to the House Committee for review. (Source: H.R. 1121, 108th Cong. 1st session, Rep. Cantor, VA)
Why license restrictions may be considered harmful:
Concerns about driver’s license restrictions include an increase in insurance and accident-related problems. Many people must drive to get to their employment or other obligations and therefore may feel compelled to drive even without a license. In addition, a license restriction inhibits the ability to obtain auto insurance. Proponents for broader license granting raise the concern about an increase in auto-related accidents in connection with license restrictions. They comment that license access ensures driver training and tracking through driver records. They cite the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety study that found unlicensed drivers to be five times more likely to be involved in fatal crashes than drivers with valid licenses.
Aside from creating potential safety issues by denying licenses to non-citizens without proper documents, the restrictions also create problems for documented foreign visitors who are in the United States for under a year and therefore are not eligible in some states for any state license, while their homeland license is not accepted as valid in the U.S. This creates transportation problems for foreign visitors since many states do not have public transportation that is as effective as individual vehicle transportation. Additionally, many U.S. insurance companies choose not to insure drivers who use foreign licenses, or charge higher rates to those that they will insure. This means that the lack of a driver’s license or driver’s documents that differ from a traditional driver’s license may cut off access to car insurance completely, or increase the costs prohibitively.
Finally, some groups have asserted that the license restrictions have increased the incidents of identity theft. The Center for Policy Alternatives states that there have been reported issues of identity theft and fraud specifically pertaining to driver’s licenses in New Jersey, New York and Virginia.
Why license restrictions may be considered desirable:
Many proponents of license restriction have concerns focusing on the safety of U.S. citizens from further terrorist attacks. Those expressing these concerns in relation to driver’s licenses assert that the need for security includes the need to verify the identification of each license applicant in an appropriate manner. Opponents of license restriction assert that accepting foreign identification documents for driver’s license applications will be sufficient to increase security since these are official documents of the applicant’s country and will allow for additional security tracking through the driver records system. However, in many states, including Minnesota, foreign identification documents, such as ‘matricula consular,’ are not considered acceptable forms of identification for a driver’s license application, although some of these documents are accepted as identification for purposes of opening bank accounts and receiving marriage licenses.
Minnesota law:
Minnesota law regarding driver’s license restrictions has been a matter of contention at varied levels of intensity since the 1990s. As of July 14, 2004, Minnesota requires a social security number (SSN) unless the driver’s license applicant can show she has never had a SSN or is ineligible for one (Minnesota is 1 of 44 states to so require). Minnesota law also requires a ‘lawful presence’ in the state unless a SSN is provided (26 states have ‘lawful presence’ requirements, 4 including Minnesota require ‘lawful presence’ if the applicant has no SSN). Minnesota does not accept an Individual Tax Identification Number (ITIN) in lieu of an SSN. The state also does not accept the matricula consular (a form of identification card in Mexico) as a valid form of identification for driver’s license purposes although the matricula consular is accepted in Minneapolis and St. Paul for marriage certificate and bank account identification purposes (10 states accept the matricula consular for driver’s license application purposes). Minnesota requires that a driver’s license expire with the visa expiration (1 of 18 states to so require). Minnesota is one of six states that put distinguishing features on non citizen driver’s licenses; Minnesota’s feature is in the form of a ‘status check’ requirement on the non citizen license.
The Minnesota Angle:
After September 11, The Advocates for Human Rights met with leaders from refugee and immigrant communities in the Twin Cities. Representatives from the Asians and Pacific Islanders communities and individuals from Arab countries described incidents in which members of their groups had been denied access to government services, including obtaining driver’s licenses and opening post office boxes. In these reported cases, government employees told these individuals that they were not eligible for such services, or, in some cases, government employees questioned the validity of the individual’s legal documents. For a brief period, one community’s Department of Public Safety displayed posters indicating that no head coverings could be worn during driver’s license photos, even though the policy had not been approved by the proper authorities. In some cases, advocates accompanied immigrants who previously had been denied Minnesota driver’s licenses. Discrimination continued in the presence of these advocates, who then intervened on behalf of their clients to ensure that proper procedures were followed. The Advocates voiced concern about how many refugees and immigrants have been turned away without knowing that their rights were being violated.
Sources: