KNX NEWSRADIO: Report: Illegal Drivers Behind High Hit-And-Run Rate In LA (http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2012/10/11/report-illegal-drivers-behind-high-hit-and-run-rate-in-la/)
QuoteThe number of hit-and-run accidents in Los Angeles is four times higher than the national average, with one in five fatal crashes involving an unlicensed driver, according to a new report.
QuoteDon Rosenberg, the founder of UnlicensedToKill.org, told KNX 1070 NEWSRADIO that an estimated 750,000 illegal immigrants live in the L.A. area and those who drive could pose "an immense threat to society" .
Quote"The AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety reports unlicensed drivers are five times more likely to kill, they will flee the scene over 50 percent of the time, five times more likely to drive drunk," said Rosenberg.
Mexicans are dirty heathens. they don't deserve to have driver's licenses.
Hits-and-runs is the wrong statistic. You need to look at how shitty a driver is, not whether they run after they make a fatal error.
The guy also implies that the high number of unlicensed bad drivers is because they're Mexicans (and Canadians?), not because the statistic includes people whose licenses were taken away for drunk driving and other crap. This is why statistics need to be processed by unbiased experts with input on possible biases from both sides of the debate.
It is also worth asking whether illegal immigrants can in fact obtain a valid California driver's license and tax and insure a car in California. It is certainly de jure correct to say that these people should not be in the country in the first place, but when the initial immigration violation--which is civil--is used to push immigrants into a position where they cannot avoid committing criminal offenses related to operating a non-road-legal vehicle on the public highway without a valid driver's license, then the people who suffer are the licensed drivers who properly tax and insure their vehicles.
Quote from: J N Winkler on October 11, 2012, 08:16:49 PM
It is also worth asking whether illegal immigrants can in fact obtain a valid California driver's license and tax and insure a car in California. It is certainly de jure correct to say that these people should not be in the country in the first place, but when the initial immigration violation--which is civil--is used to push immigrants into a position where they cannot avoid committing criminal offenses related to operating a non-road-legal vehicle on the public highway without a valid driver's license, then the people who suffer are the licensed drivers who properly tax and insure their vehicles.
You have just reinforced my opinion that the United States needs to desperately reform and restructure its immigration laws.
Quote from: NE2 on October 11, 2012, 07:41:47 PM
Hits-and-runs is the wrong statistic. You need to look at how shitty a driver is, not whether they run after they make a fatal error.
The guy also implies that the high number of unlicensed bad drivers is because they're Mexicans (and Canadians?), not because the statistic includes people whose licenses were taken away for drunk driving and other crap. This is why statistics need to be processed by unbiased experts with input on possible biases from both sides of the debate.
Wow, I'm usually the first one on here to say that something is racist against Mexicans. But actually, I would be hard pressed to say that the high number of unlicensed drivers in L.A. is
not due to the high number of illegal immigrants in the city, or that any ethnicity
other than Mexican is responsible for a large share of hit-and-run accidents. Let's just admit that these things are true, even if the lumping everybody into one number and then using the whole number to refer to one subgroup is poor reporting.
The hit-and-run mentality may be due not only to being uninsured (and in the country illegally), but also due to having grown up in a more intimidating police environment in México, where both parties are often detained in jail until fault can be assessed. I know a lady in México whose car was T-boned by a motorcyclist who ran a stop sign. He told the police, 'She works for Americans', and off to jail she went–until justice eventually prevailed, that is. So, in that instance,
[works for Americans] = [has more money] = [more worth holding responsible for the accident].
The opposite may well be true in Mexicans' minds on this side of the border; to their thinking, the following may be the mindset:
[illegal Mexican immigrant] = [scum of the earth] = [able to be abused] OR [will be kicked out of the country].
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 12, 2012, 08:21:24 AM
Quote from: J N Winkler on October 11, 2012, 08:16:49 PM
It is also worth asking whether illegal immigrants can in fact obtain a valid California driver's license and tax and insure a car in California. It is certainly de jure correct to say that these people should not be in the country in the first place, but when the initial immigration violation--which is civil--is used to push immigrants into a position where they cannot avoid committing criminal offenses related to operating a non-road-legal vehicle on the public highway without a valid driver's license, then the people who suffer are the licensed drivers who properly tax and insure their vehicles.
You have just reinforced my opinion that the United States needs to desperately reform and restructure its immigration laws.
I have mixed feelings about the DL issue. My first reaction is that DLs are primarily about safety, and someone's immigration status shouldn't matter. But, on the other hand, a DL is a very valuable piece of identification, considered government-issue ID. I don't know exactly what you can do with a state ID that you can't do without one, but it
might be worth it to keep such things unavailable to those who do not live here legally. My first reaction usually wins the argument in my head, FWIW.
In OK, we issue driver licenses and ID cards to non-resident aliens, but with a very large TEMPORARY stamp over the name and address, and an expiration date matching that of their visa. It might be worth doing to issue something like this to illegal immigrants, but then again if you know they're illegal when you're making the license, someone would ask why you're not deporting them at that point...
I know that when I moved to Tucson my insurance nearly doubled in price, and I was told that the reason was due to a massive number of unlicensed, uninsured motorists.
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 12, 2012, 02:21:16 PM
In OK, we issue driver licenses and ID cards to non-resident aliens, but with a very large TEMPORARY stamp over the name and address, and an expiration date matching that of their visa. It might be worth doing to issue something like this to illegal immigrants, but then again if you know they're illegal when you're making the license, someone would ask why you're not deporting them at that point...
I don't like the assumption that anyone who finds out someone is an illegal immigrant will report the person. If I recall, Oklahoma was famous for that a while ago, as simply giving an illegal immigrant a ride was to be considered a crime (maybe I have the wrong state). Similarly, if someone's I-9 doesn't check out in the job application process, the business is required to report the person to immigration. This is utter bullshit. It's like teaching your kids to be tattletales. Why should the DMV care what someone's immigration status is?
(see how my first reaction ends up winning its argument with my mind?)
Quote from: kphoger on October 12, 2012, 03:11:18 PMWhy should the DMV care what someone's immigration status is?
Because, unlike an employer or someone giving someone a ride, the DMV is a government agency, issuing a document that generally implies legal residency.
But why not? If you investigate someone for a job opening and find out they've committed an unreported felony, wouldn't you report it?
Quote from: Steve on October 12, 2012, 11:19:07 PMBut why not? If you investigate someone for a job opening and find out they've committed an unreported felony, wouldn't you report it?
Being in the country illegally is not the same thing. It attracts civil, not criminal, penalties, so it doesn't even classify as a misdemeanor or felony. Meanwhile, the driving population as a whole benefits from the DMV deliberately licensing qualified drivers regardless of their immigration status.
It is a myth that driver's licenses prove residency. Yes, they are one piece of evidence that can be cited to show ties to a given state, but they are not exclusive in this role, nor is that their intended function. It is not that uncommon for drivers to have multiple licenses from different jurisdictions (I have two, for example).
QuoteIt is a myth that driver's licenses prove residency. Yes, they are one piece of evidence that can be cited to show ties to a given state, but they are not exclusive in this role, nor is that their intended function. It is not that uncommon for drivers to have multiple licenses from different jurisdictions (I have two, for example).
I always look at the college residency test- yes, I have an Arizona license, license plates, voter registration, utility bills, work full time in AZ, and basically everything but a 520 phone number, but the University of Arizona doesn't think I'm an Arizona resident. Same deal in Wyoming. And in Washington. (Actually, at this point there are zero states in the union for which I qualify for in-state tuition) College requirements are obviously pretty extreme, but I could go to any state, lease an apartment for a month, show that bill and my social security card, and get a license and register to vote in any state.
Criminal immigrants do not commit a "civil violation". They commit a crime, and continue to commit a crime every second of every day. Of course, if a wanted person, be he a crimal immigrant, a bail jumper, a deadbeat dad, or whatever, comes into the DMV, the DMV should call the cops (who are often in the same building) and the person should be arrested and returned home. Same issue if he shows up at a school, a college, a welfare office, a court, or wherever.
Quote from: SP Cook on October 13, 2012, 08:41:18 AM
Criminal immigrants do not commit a "civil violation". They commit a crime, and continue to commit a crime every second of every day.
You are incorrect. They commit a civil violation. You can find this in, among other places, Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/harveysilverglate/2012/05/03/the-arizona-immigration-law-is-beside-the-point/).
You are incorrect. Read the United States Code. Crossing the border without authorization is a crime.
Why do you support criminals?
Most illegals cross the border with authorization- they just never leave. That's a civil violation.
The illegals that cross in the barren desert are in the minority, but yes, they are committing a criminal act.
Quote from: SP Cook on October 13, 2012, 09:20:26 PMWhy do you support criminals?
Ignoring the tendentious framing and pretending the question is asked in good faith--because it keeps crime down, and makes it less likely that I myself will be a victim of crime. This is why the Arizona police chiefs' association campaigned
against SB 1070: it makes illegal immigrants less likely to cooperate with the police when they are trying to investigate
real crimes, as opposed to the invented one of being on the wrong side of an ugly sheet-steel fence.
Quote from: SP Cook on October 13, 2012, 09:20:26 PM
Why do you support criminals?
Because Nixon was the bomb.
Quote from: Steve on October 12, 2012, 11:19:07 PM
But why not? If you investigate someone for a job opening and find out they've committed an unreported felony, wouldn't you report it?
Maybe, maybe not. But I don't appreciate the government
requiring me to in any but the most extreme cases (murder etc.).
Quote from: SP Cook on October 13, 2012, 08:41:18 AM
Criminal immigrants do not commit a "civil violation". They commit a crime, and continue to commit a crime every second of every day. Of course, if a wanted person, be he a crimal immigrant, a bail jumper, a deadbeat dad, or whatever, comes into the DMV, the DMV should call the cops (who are often in the same building) and the person should be arrested and returned home. Same issue if he shows up at a school, a college, a welfare office, a court, or wherever.
And jaywalkers commit a crime. So if an applicant is in a hurry and crosses on a red light to come in for the interview, and I see it happen, then I should feel compelled to call the cops? Do you really think it should be a crime for a school teacher not to report a father picking up his child from school simply because the teacher knows he hasn't been paying child support? Really??
Quote from: kphoger on October 14, 2012, 08:56:39 AM
Quote from: Steve on October 12, 2012, 11:19:07 PM
But why not? If you investigate someone for a job opening and find out they've committed an unreported felony, wouldn't you report it?
Maybe, maybe not. But I don't appreciate the government requiring me to in any but the most extreme cases (murder etc.).
"Sorry I was late; my normal shortcut across the construction site was blocked."
"Trespassing on a construction site is a felony. Bend over and call me daddy."
Illegals causing accidents is a problem here in Tulsa. Especially in east Tulsa. There have been multiple fatalities caused by illegal drivers in the region.
Women causing accidents is a problem here in Orlando. Especially in southwest Orlando. There have been multiple fatalities caused by women in the region.
I don't drive myself, due to limitations such as autism which doesn't prohibit me from going behind the wheel. My wife is able to drive to her temp jobs while she's looking for a new permanent job at this time. I ride my bike to work about a mile from where I live and I noticed so many wild wreckless drivers on the street regardless of nationality behave like they are "on meth/crack", there's no excuse for unsafe driving habits on the roads wherever in the world. California state government attempted to give the privilege to undocumented immigrants, because a privilege like driving licenses is NOT a right.
Yes, we all get it that driving is a privilege, not a right. But the pertinent question is, 'What criteria should be used to deny someone the privilege?'. As NE2 smartly pointed out, sex should not be a criterion. Obviously things like race, religion, marital status, and all that other jazz shouldn't be criteria either. OTOH, I think we could all agree that age is a reasonable criterion (no seven-year-old drivers, even if they can reach the pedals). I simply think that someone's immigration status shouldn't be a criterion either, simply because it too is unrelated to how safely one can drive.
However, I think it would be foolish to assume that, were illegal immigrants to have valid driver's licenses and insurance coverage, they wouldn't flee the scene of an accident. Unless it were written into the law that police officers responding to a car accident would not ask about immigration status, then they would still have something to fear. Even with such a law, a good number of them would still flee the scene, either because they weren't aware of it or because they don't trust officers to actually abide by it. Many would likely weight their options (flee the scene and probably have nothing happen, wait for police and risk the chance of being deported) and choose to flee.
Quote from: kphoger on October 15, 2012, 12:59:03 PMHowever, I think it would be foolish to assume that, were illegal immigrants to have valid driver's licenses and insurance coverage, they wouldn't flee the scene of an accident. Unless it were written into the law that police officers responding to a car accident would not ask about immigration status, then they would still have something to fear. Even with such a law, a good number of them would still flee the scene, either because they weren't aware of it or because they don't trust officers to actually abide by it. Many would likely weight their options (flee the scene and probably have nothing happen, wait for police and risk the chance of being deported) and choose to flee.
These are all valid concerns and I can see that some of the possible methods for resolving them can be objected to on the basis of their amounting to a
de facto amnesty policy. Even so, I would still argue that the safety and risk-pooling benefits of ensuring that illegal immigrant drivers are fully integrated into the driver and vehicle licensing systems are compelling. First, drivers who keep their insurance up to date reduce insurance rates for the rest of us. (Most states regulate insurance on the basis of underwriting profit. It is the difference between premiums and loss payouts, and regulators tend to fix it as a maximum percentage of the loss payouts.) Second, not all collisions involve the police--if the crash is property-damage-only, the involved drivers frequently don't file reports even when the aggregate damage is above the reporting minimum for the state in which the collision occurs. Third, if illegal immigrants are allowed to hold driver's licenses and buy insurance for their cars, then that gives moral legitimacy to aggressive tactics to crack down on illegal driving, such as spot checks (similar to sobriety checkpoints) of driver's licenses and insurance documentation, since those enforcement methods cannot be seen as backdoor deportation or population transfer. Fourth, drivers who are licensed and insured--even if they are illegal immigrants--have a stake in the system and are less likely to cover for others who, regardless of their immigration status, are driving illegally.
The last I heard, the USA recognizes most foreign-issued non-commercial driving licenses, so why don't they just use their licenses from back home?
:hmmm:
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on October 16, 2012, 01:18:28 AM
The last I heard, the USA recognizes most foreign-issued non-commercial driving licenses, so why don't they just use their licenses from back home?
Gangsta rap made them do it.
Assuming a person who commits a crime every second of every day is going to buy insurance is laughable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US-border-notice.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US-border-notice.jpg)
Assuming a kook is going to listen to argument is laughable.
Quote from: mgk920 on October 16, 2012, 01:18:28 AMThe last I heard, the USA recognizes most foreign-issued non-commercial driving licenses, so why don't they just use their licenses from back home?
A few reasons:
* They might not have one, for a variety of reasons ranging from being part of a persecuted minority to not having the skill level needed to pass the licensing examinations (the latter is actually another reason to ensure that good and bad drivers who both happen to be illegal immigrants are not in the same boat in terms of not having driver's licenses).
* Foreign licenses are not indefinitely valid for driving abroad. In Britain, for example, you are legally entitled to drive on your foreign license only for an unbroken visit of up to one year; you must leave the country within the course of that year to reset the clock and retain your ability to drive on the foreign license. In most US states this concessionary period is far shorter--generally on the order of 30 to 90 days.
* It can be complex to insure a car on a foreign driver's license.
Quote from: J N Winkler on October 16, 2012, 10:32:02 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on October 16, 2012, 01:18:28 AMThe last I heard, the USA recognizes most foreign-issued non-commercial driving licenses, so why don't they just use their licenses from back home?
A few reasons:
* They might not have one, for a variety of reasons ranging from being part of a persecuted minority to not having the skill level needed to pass the licensing examinations (the latter is actually another reason to ensure that good and bad drivers who both happen to be illegal immigrants are not in the same boat in terms of not having driver's licenses).
* Foreign licenses are not indefinitely valid for driving abroad. In Britain, for example, you are legally entitled to drive on your foreign license only for an unbroken visit of up to one year; you must leave the country within the course of that year to reset the clock and retain your ability to drive on the foreign license. In most US states this concessionary period is far shorter--generally on the order of 30 to 90 days.
* It can be complex to insure a car on a foreign driver's license.
Also:
(1) One is generally required by law to obtain a local driver's license within a short period of moving to the state. When I moved to Kansas from Illinois, my DL was still going to be valid for a few more years. However, by law, I had to trade it in for a Kansas license; I was even reminded of that fact within the first few months of living here by an officer who had pulled me over for speeding.
(2) Not only are foreign licenses not indefinitely valid for driving abroad, they're also not indefinitely valid period. They're good for about three years or so; if the person had crossed the border at any point in time other than immediately after obtaining a DL, then it will be valid for an even shorter period. Eventually, it's going to expire.
(3) Illegal immigrants were often quite poor back in their home country. In México, poor people generally don't have their own car, and therefore no reason to obtain a driver's license. Those who do have their own car and a valid DL generally have at least an average standard of living and possess the ability to manage their money and lives fairly well, and are therefore less likely to emigrate–especially illegally.
(4) Then there are those who came to this country with their parents when they were children. They obviously don't have foreign DLs.
Quote from: SP Cook on October 16, 2012, 06:41:34 AM
Assuming a person who commits a crime every second of every day is going to buy insurance is laughable.
from another thread:
QuoteAnybody that believes that traffic cops don't wear seatbelts for the same reason that traffic cops drive 30 or 40 over (hint: because they are arrogant hypocrites) lives in a fantasy world.
so wait, are you pro- or anti- a fascist state? I just can't tell.
Quote from: SP Cook on October 16, 2012, 06:41:34 AM
Assuming a person who commits a crime every second of every day is going to buy insurance is laughable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US-border-notice.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US-border-notice.jpg)
As was mentioned earlier, as famous as the desert crossings are, most illegal immigrants enter here legally... they just don't leave.
Quote from: deanej on October 16, 2012, 01:28:16 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on October 16, 2012, 06:41:34 AM
Assuming a person who commits a crime every second of every day is going to buy insurance is laughable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US-border-notice.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US-border-notice.jpg)
As was mentioned earlier, as famous as the desert crossings are, most illegal immigrants enter here legally... they just don't leave.
Either way, if they cause an accident, they should be forcibly fined and deported.
My modest proposal is to tattoo any illegal caught in the US and send them back home. If they show up again send them to prison for 25 years. That would scare a lot of them away.
Quote from: bugo on October 20, 2012, 02:20:53 PM
My modest proposal...
That's one of those phrases where you know whatever follows is exactly the opposite. Like "No offense, but..."
It is also an indirect reference to the original modest proposal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal) (raising Irish babies for human consumption).
Quote from: agentsteel53 on October 16, 2012, 12:35:55 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on October 16, 2012, 06:41:34 AM
Assuming a person who commits a crime every second of every day is going to buy insurance is laughable.
from another thread:
QuoteAnybody that believes that traffic cops don't wear seatbelts for the same reason that traffic cops drive 30 or 40 over (hint: because they are arrogant hypocrites) lives in a fantasy world.
so wait, are you pro- or anti- a fascist state? I just can't tell.
It isn't facism when you're merely supporting the radical concept of having your government enforce the existing laws. And this BS of "it's
racist!" has to stop. By that measure, Australia is the most racist state on Earth because their immigration laws are so strict. And it is laughable when the president of Mexico comes to this country and criticizes us for not bestowing every single right of a U.S. citizen to their 'undocumenteds' who illegally live here while Mexico enforces very strict immigration policies against the rest of us. OMG, talk about hypocrisy.
OK, rant on that over.
As a factual matter, unskilled, unlicensed non-citizen drivers should not be allowed to drive on our roadways. I can tell you from personal experience that driver's ed in countries such as Mexico, Honduras, El Salvador, etc. is substandard. Cultural practices that are common in many of those countries (particularly the poorer, rural areas) include drinking and driving, having multiple passengers (including children) ride unrestrained in the backs of pickup trucks, not using seatbelts, and generally driving in a poorly skilled manner.
Those who immigrate legally from those nations and who obtain a green card are
absolutely entitled to take our driver's ed courses, sit for the examination, and to be licensed like the rest of us. Those who cannot do these things are an appalling hazard who should not be permitted on our roadways.
Quote from: StogieGuy7 on October 22, 2012, 03:54:34 PM
I can tell you from personal experience that driver's ed in countries such as Mexico, Honduras, El Salvador, etc. is substandard. Cultural practices that are common in many of those countries (particularly the poorer, rural areas) include drinking and driving, having multiple passengers (including children) ride unrestrained in the backs of pickup trucks, not using seatbelts, and generally driving in a poorly skilled manner.
That sounds a lot like where I grew up in rural northwestern Kansas. And I got my DL there without ever having taking a road test.
Let's say a person from Bolivia got his licence by simply paying money–no testing or education at all. He can come here as a tourist and legally drive a car with his license, as a visitor. How is that any different than the poor Honduran illegal immigrant you describe?
Quote from: StogieGuy7 on October 22, 2012, 03:54:34 PM
As a factual matter, unskilled, unlicensed non-citizen drivers should not be allowed to drive on our roadways. I can tell you from personal experience that driver's ed in countries such as Mexico, Honduras, El Salvador, etc. is substandard. Cultural practices that are common in many of those countries (particularly the poorer, rural areas) include drinking and driving, having multiple passengers (including children) ride unrestrained in the backs of pickup trucks, not using seatbelts, and generally driving in a poorly skilled manner.
All the more reason to allow them to get licences. Preventing them from getting a DL does not prevent them from driving. It just causes them to illegally drive without a DL. Do you really think that someone who doesn't mind being here illegally is going to mind driving illegally? I'd rather that they be held to the same standards we hold everyone else rather than be "off the hook" as long as they don't get caught. It's not like it costs a state anything to issue a DL; all the money is made back via fees.
And the sad fact is, the immigration issue is mixed in with racism. There are many people who are against "illegal" immigration who are also against immigration period. In fact, people like that are the reason our immigration system is broken in the first place - why do you think we have ethnic quotas, for example?
Quote from: deanej on October 22, 2012, 05:36:11 PM
Quote from: StogieGuy7 on October 22, 2012, 03:54:34 PM
As a factual matter, unskilled, unlicensed non-citizen drivers should not be allowed to drive on our roadways. I can tell you from personal experience that driver's ed in countries such as Mexico, Honduras, El Salvador, etc. is substandard. Cultural practices that are common in many of those countries (particularly the poorer, rural areas) include drinking and driving, having multiple passengers (including children) ride unrestrained in the backs of pickup trucks, not using seatbelts, and generally driving in a poorly skilled manner.
All the more reason to allow them to get licences. Preventing them from getting a DL does not prevent them from driving. It just causes them to illegally drive without a DL. Do you really think that someone who doesn't mind being here illegally is going to mind driving illegally? I'd rather that they be held to the same standards we hold everyone else rather than be "off the hook" as long as they don't get caught. It's not like it costs a state anything to issue a DL; all the money is made back via fees.
And the sad fact is, the immigration issue is mixed in with racism. There are many people who are against "illegal" immigration who are also against immigration period. In fact, people like that are the reason our immigration system is broken in the first place - why do you think we have ethnic quotas, for example?
I disagree. If you can't get the person to apply for a visa to be here legally, how do you expect them to take a full drivers' ed course, and then to apply for (and pass) the exam?
We're not having these issues with Klaus from Bremen who overstayed his student visa. Klaus had to pass some pretty rigorous training in order to obtain a license to drive a car in Germany. And, he could pass the average DMV driving test without breaking a sweat. No, the issue is with those who hail from countries without adequate drivers ed training. Where enforcement is lax and bribery on the highways is ubiquitous.
I find that those who are in the country legally (with a visa) seem to have no problem obtaining a license. They respect the law and do what is required to drive. OTOH, those who are raising insurance rates in LA and Tucson are those who do not respect the law. And let's skip the damn race card. It's very tiresome. It's not about race, it's about fairness. If I could sneak into Mexico, sign up for government health care, social security and free food, I'd seriously think about it. Of course, we all know that they do not put up with such silliness.
Lastly, please tell me of any country in the world (aside from this one) that is stupid enough to give a drivers license (or other benefits) to people who lack the permission to live within it's borders.
Quote from: StogieGuy7 on October 23, 2012, 03:44:57 PMI disagree. If you can't get the person to apply for a visa to be here legally, how do you expect them to take a full drivers' ed course, and then to apply for (and pass) the exam?
If there is no verification of immigration status as part of the licensing procedure, then it is a hell of a lot easier to get a driver's license than it is to get a visa, since less documentation is required and quotas don't apply.
QuoteWe're not having these issues with Klaus from Bremen who overstayed his student visa. Klaus had to pass some pretty rigorous training in order to obtain a license to drive a car in Germany. And, he could pass the average DMV driving test without breaking a sweat. No, the issue is with those who hail from countries without adequate drivers ed training. Where enforcement is lax and bribery on the highways is ubiquitous.
It is easier to attack those problems when the drivers involved can be integrated into the system in some way. If you refuse them licenses and insurance on the sole basis that they don't have legal status, then they become phantoms, and only become visible when there is an expensive incident whose costs have to be borne by licensed and insured motorists. On the other hand, illegal immigrants with insurance and valid driver's licenses contribute to the risk pool and can be reached by road safety education initiatives.
QuoteIf I could sneak into Mexico, sign up for government health care, social security and free food, I'd seriously think about it. Of course, we all know that they do not put up with such silliness.
But we don't use reciprocity as a policy guideline: we try to do what is best for American society as a whole. Maybe the Mexicans' system works for them; maybe it doesn't; either way it makes no sense for us to adopt a policy that disadvantages us simply because it is seemingly easier for Mexicans to come here and scrounge than it is for Americans to go to Mexico and scrounge (I don't think that is actually the case, BTW).
QuoteLastly, please tell me of any country in the world (aside from this one) that is stupid enough to give a drivers license (or other benefits) to people who lack the permission to live within its borders.
Where driver licenses are concerned, there are plenty of them. There is no inherent reason for driver licensing to be linked to immigration status and in many countries it isn't. I was able to get my driver's license in the UK without having to show I was legally resident (though I could have demonstrated leave to enter, had I been asked to do so). And most wealthy countries provide a fairly large proportion of their public services on a community basis, without any need to demonstrate immigration status. (Wouldn't it be a bit silly if libraries had to ask for your green card or whatever before they gave you a card? Or if you had to show your green card before you were allowed to walk on the sidewalk, take your children to the public park, . . . .) It is typically only subsistence payments, housing benefit, etc. that require some demonstration of status as a citizen or legal immigrant.
Quote from: StogieGuy7 on October 23, 2012, 03:44:57 PM
I disagree. If you can't get the person to apply for a visa to be here legally, how do you expect them to take a full drivers' ed course, and then to apply for (and pass) the exam?
As has been mentioned, legally moving to the US is a pipe dream to the vast majority of Mexicans (and many other nationalities)–especially the poor. There's a world of difference between obtaining a US resident visa and obtaining a DL. Seriously?
Quote from: StogieGuy7 on October 23, 2012, 03:44:57 PM
We're not having these issues with Klaus from Bremen who overstayed his student visa. Klaus had to pass some pretty rigorous training in order to obtain a license to drive a car in Germany. And, he could pass the average DMV driving test without breaking a sweat. No, the issue is with those who hail from countries without adequate drivers ed training. Where enforcement is lax and bribery on the highways is ubiquitous.
Do you speak from recent personal experience on Mexican highways, or have you simply heard stories? Whence comes your expertise regarding the Mexican driver's education program? Bribery on Mexican roads is more common than here, but it is far less common than it was in decades past. It's certainly not what I would call 'ubiquitous'. Nowadays, it's hardly ever the police officer who initiates the bribe, but rather the motorist. FWIW, I've seen just as much bribery in eastern Europe as I have in México. And I know of at least two Germans who obtained their licenses without ever taking a road test, having gone through driver's ed in rural Kansas (where there is very little traffic) and simply trading their US license in for a German one.
Quote from: StogieGuy7 on October 23, 2012, 03:44:57 PM
If I could sneak into Mexico, sign up for government health care, social security and free food, I'd seriously think about it. Of course, we all know that they do not put up with such silliness.
It's quite easy to sneak into México; I've personally met illegal American immigrants there, and have even crossed the river in a rowboat for cash four times myself. As for health coverage, who needs government assistance? Vaccinations are free, regardless of citizenship, and costs are very low. I know of a gentleman who fell ill while in México a couple of years ago; he had to be hospitalized for a good five days or so, including tests, medicine, and whatnot. The total hospital bill for his stay was less than 200 USD. I know another fellow who scraped his hand with a rusty nail while we were working there and went in for a tetanus shot. Not only was it free, but he got to go right up to the front of the line; as far as I know, he didn't have to show his FM-T in order to receive the shot.
Quote from: J N Winkler on October 13, 2012, 02:11:08 AMIt is a myth that driver's licenses prove residency. Yes, they are one piece of evidence that can be cited to show ties to a given state, but they are not exclusive in this role, nor is that their intended function. It is not that uncommon for drivers to have multiple licenses from different jurisdictions (I have two, for example).
This is also why the standard driver's license is no longer valid for crossing a border under the WHTI (which requires a proof of citizenship) and the reason they make special "enhanced" licenses for that purpose.
Quote from: StogieGuy7 on October 22, 2012, 03:54:34 PM
As a factual matter, unskilled, unlicensed non-citizen drivers should not be allowed to drive on our roadways. I can tell you from personal experience that driver's ed in countries such as Mexico, Honduras, El Salvador, etc. is substandard. Cultural practices that are common in many of those countries (particularly the poorer, rural areas) include drinking and driving, having multiple passengers (including children) ride unrestrained in the backs of pickup trucks, not using seatbelts, and generally driving in a poorly skilled manner.
Those who immigrate legally from those nations and who obtain a green card are absolutely entitled to take our driver's ed courses, sit for the examination, and to be licensed like the rest of us. Those who cannot do these things are an appalling hazard who should not be permitted on our roadways.
driver's ed in the US is also extremely substandard. if we're gonna start deporting Hispanic idiot drivers, why not deport Good Ol' Boy idiot drivers too? hell of a lot more of those in the US.
Quote from: StogieGuy7 on October 23, 2012, 03:44:57 PM
I disagree. If you can't get the person to apply for a visa to be here legally, how do you expect them to take a full drivers' ed course, and then to apply for (and pass) the exam?
We're not having these issues with Klaus from Bremen who overstayed his student visa. Klaus had to pass some pretty rigorous training in order to obtain a license to drive a car in Germany. And, he could pass the average DMV driving test without breaking a sweat. No, the issue is with those who hail from countries without adequate drivers ed training. Where enforcement is lax and bribery on the highways is ubiquitous.
I find that those who are in the country legally (with a visa) seem to have no problem obtaining a license. They respect the law and do what is required to drive. OTOH, those who are raising insurance rates in LA and Tucson are those who do not respect the law. And let's skip the damn race card. It's very tiresome. It's not about race, it's about fairness. If I could sneak into Mexico, sign up for government health care, social security and free food, I'd seriously think about it. Of course, we all know that they do not put up with such silliness.
Lastly, please tell me of any country in the world (aside from this one) that is stupid enough to give a drivers license (or other benefits) to people who lack the permission to live within it's borders.
Show me a DMV that requires you to have immediate family with a license or demonstrate some special skill that no other person has just to get on a 10-20 year waiting list.
Very informative infographic: http://thumbnails.visually.netdna-cdn.com/what-part-of-legal-immigration-dont-you-understand_50290c8272a8d.jpg
Quote from: deanej on October 24, 2012, 11:46:02 AM
Show me a DMV that requires you to have immediate family with a license or demonstrate some special skill that no other person has just to get on a 10-20 year waiting list.
Very informative infographic: http://thumbnails.visually.netdna-cdn.com/what-part-of-legal-immigration-dont-you-understand_50290c8272a8d.jpg
meanwhile, you can be as dumb as a post if you had the good sense at age 0 to decide where, inside which set of invisible lines, to locate the vagina you dropped out of.
hypocrisy much?
Wow, so many comments and so little time. Overall, a number of the replies I see here are emotionally wrought while leaving logic at the doorstep. Let's begin:
Quote from: agentsteel53 on October 24, 2012, 09:58:28 AM
driver's ed in the US is also extremely substandard. if we're gonna start deporting Hispanic idiot drivers, why not deport Good Ol' Boy idiot drivers too? hell of a lot more of those in the US.
That's not the point, now is it? The "Good Ol' Boys" are supposed to be licensed and, if not, should be punished. Illegals are here without permission and certainly shouldn't be driving. And accident rates in "good ol' boy" land are certainly much lower than in your average Latin American city.
Quote from: deanej on October 24, 2012, 11:46:02 AM
Show me a DMV that requires you to have immediate family with a license or demonstrate some special skill that no other person has just to get on a 10-20 year waiting list.
Very informative infographic: http://thumbnails.visually.netdna-cdn.com/what-part-of-legal-immigration-dont-you-understand_50290c8272a8d.jpg
Absurd question that has nothing to do with the issue. Again, people spend a lot of time, money and effort to obtain LEGAL residency in the USA. I support those people 110%. The rest need to do it right or be tossed out. And they should not qualify for the privilege of obtaining a U.S. driver's license. Next.....
Quote from: agentsteel53 on October 24, 2012, 12:01:02 PM
Quote from: deanej on October 24, 2012, 11:46:02 AM
Show me a DMV that requires you to have immediate family with a license or demonstrate some special skill that no other person has just to get on a 10-20 year waiting list.
Very informative infographic: http://thumbnails.visually.netdna-cdn.com/what-part-of-legal-immigration-dont-you-understand_50290c8272a8d.jpg
meanwhile, you can be as dumb as a post if you had the good sense at age 0 to decide where, inside which set of invisible lines, to locate the vagina you dropped out of.
hypocrisy much?
Wow, so this is we get when dealing with someone who knows he's wrong and can't articulate enough of an argument in defense of his position to discuss things further.
Do me a favor and convince Canada of your point of view. I like Canada, their climate, people, etc and would love to live there. Please ask them to make relocating to the Cottage Country of Ontario as seamless for me as moving to Milwaukee would be. And, I'd like all the benefits of being Canadian too. Financial and otherwise. Without bothering with all of their pesky immigration laws, regulations, fees, etc.
See what those "racist" Canadians have to say about that.
Quote from: StogieGuy7 on October 24, 2012, 01:20:52 PM
Do me a favor and convince Canada of your point of view. I like Canada, their climate, people, etc and would love to live there. Please ask them to make relocating to the Cottage Country of Ontario as seamless for me as moving to Milwaukee would be. And, I'd like all the benefits of being Canadian too. Financial and otherwise. Without bothering with all of their pesky immigration laws, regulations, fees, etc.
See what those "racist" Canadians have to say about that.
you're actually proving my point here. immigration is a bureaucratic nightmare that punishes people who didn't have the good sense to be born where they want to live.
this coming from someone who has actually gone through the process of acquiring a green card, and is fed up with being asked more discriminatory questions at internal checkpoints in 2012 USA than he ever was in late 1980s communist Hungary.
when the US border patrol stops fucking around in Needles, California, we can discuss a rational immigration policy.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on October 24, 2012, 01:24:38 PM
Quote from: StogieGuy7 on October 24, 2012, 01:20:52 PM
Do me a favor and convince Canada of your point of view. I like Canada, their climate, people, etc and would love to live there. Please ask them to make relocating to the Cottage Country of Ontario as seamless for me as moving to Milwaukee would be. And, I'd like all the benefits of being Canadian too. Financial and otherwise. Without bothering with all of their pesky immigration laws, regulations, fees, etc.
See what those "racist" Canadians have to say about that.
you're actually proving my point here. immigration is a bureaucratic nightmare that punishes people who didn't have the good sense to be born where they want to live.
this coming from someone who has actually gone through the process of acquiring a green card, and is fed up with being asked more discriminatory questions at internal checkpoints in 2012 USA than he ever was in late 1980s communist Hungary.
when the US border patrol stops fucking around in Needles, California, we can discuss a rational immigration policy.
Illegal is illegal. Reform the immigration system, sure, but we need to screen before just letting people in. News flash: a sudden influx of poor people without jobs doesn't help our economy.
Quote from: Steve on October 24, 2012, 06:45:08 PM
Illegal is illegal.
Unless you're speeding. Then it's just keeping up with the flow of traffic.
Sorry, I don't buy "illegal is illegal" as an argument because that avoids the whole question of whether it is good public policy for a thing to be illegal in the first place. In China it is illegal to circumvent the Great Firewall: should we therefore write off the Chinese who do so as antisocial lawbreakers? From September 19, 1941 to the end of World War II, all Jews in the German Reich were required by decree to wear yellow stars: are we to accuse the Jews who chose not to wear them, and instead to hide in plain sight as what eventually became known as "U-Boats," of being antisocial lawbreakers too? If you do not, then how do you draw a moral or utilitarian distinction between US immigration policy and censorship in China or the wearing of badges in Nazi Germany?
All law enforcement is inherently selective. Laws work not solely because they are enforced, but also because they have some measure of popular consent, and this is particularly true in democracies because the range of coercive measures that can be deployed is much smaller. In the US the immigration laws may have a significant degree of support from citizens, but the reality is that by setting up all-but-impossible paths to legal residency and citizenship for low-income workers, they in effect create large populations of "U-Boats" even though in this country they are not subject to extermination if found out. If we want to maintain good compliance with the law while being selective about whom we let into this country, we need to be realistic about the gains and losses that can be expected from such a policy and also about our ability to keep out those who are not inclined to follow the law. The politics of immigration in the US has, with rare exceptions, never been governed by this kind of realism.
Quote from: J N Winkler on October 25, 2012, 09:40:58 AM
Sorry, I don't buy "illegal is illegal" as an argument because that avoids the whole question of whether it is good public policy for a thing to be illegal in the first place. In China it is illegal to circumvent the Great Firewall: should we therefore write off the Chinese who do so as antisocial lawbreakers? From September 19, 1941 to the end of World War II, all Jews in the German Reich were required by decree to wear yellow stars: are we to accuse the Jews who chose not to wear them, and instead to hide in plain sight as what eventually became known as "U-Boats," of being antisocial lawbreakers too? If you do not, then how do you draw a moral or utilitarian distinction between US immigration policy and censorship in China or the wearing of badges in Nazi Germany?
All law enforcement is inherently selective. Laws work not solely because they are enforced, but also because they have some measure of popular consent, and this is particularly true in democracies because the range of coercive measures that can be deployed is much smaller. In the US the immigration laws may have a significant degree of support from citizens, but the reality is that by setting up all-but-impossible paths to legal residency and citizenship for low-income workers, they in effect create large populations of "U-Boats" even though in this country they are not subject to extermination if found out. If we want to maintain good compliance with the law while being selective about whom we let into this country, we need to be realistic about the gains and losses that can be expected from such a policy and also about our ability to keep out those who are not inclined to follow the law. The politics of immigration in the US has, with rare exceptions, never been governed by this kind of realism.
Excellent post. And much of the what we call "illegal" immigration to the United States was legal up to the early 1920's, when Congress decided to limit it.
Most "illegal" immigration is for economic reasons, and it is
not a new phenomenon.
As a U.S. citizen, I am ashamed of our asinine and often self-contradicting immigration laws and policies, and the amount of my tax dollars that get sucked up by immigration enforcement.
Indeed - I go so far as to ask "why should one's life be dictated by which arbitrary set of lines on the map they were born in".
Quote from: StogieGuy7 on October 24, 2012, 01:20:52 PM
Absurd question that has nothing to do with the issue. Again, people spend a lot of time, money and effort to obtain LEGAL residency in the USA. I support those people 110%. The rest need to do it right or be tossed out. And they should not qualify for the privilege of obtaining a U.S. driver's license. Next.....
You were asserting that people would be too lazy to apply for a DL because they immigrated illegally rather than legally. I was showing you why that comparison is so bad as to be laughable.
Take a look at the chart. For many (I would say most), legal immigration is NOT PRACTICAL or even possible. The system is BROKEN. We need to fix it first.
I'm also not saying that your opinions on the matter are racist. But there are many peoples' who are. Why do you think we have quotas? They were originally put in place because people hated the Chinese and Italian immigrants - no other reason. Since then they've been switched to whichever non-white group we want to keep out. The quota system should be abolished immediately.
Btw, I don't consider driving a privilege. It's a right contingent on following traffic laws and not getting into too many accidents. And last I checked, Driver's Ed isn't required to take a road test.