Driver's licenses for deferred illegals - Arizona says "No", California says "Yes". Who's right?

Question

"Arizona was the first to say no, and California -- home to more than 400,000 young immigrants expected to qualify -- was one of the first to say yes when deportation relief became available this week."

http://www.mercurynews.com/nation-world/ci_21327328/young-illegal-immigrants-will-be-eligible-california-drivers

Icoulator · Accepted Answer

It depends on whether you believe that those in the country illegally should be entitled to rights previously granted only to legal citizens.

Dan B · Answer

They both are.  Driver's licenses are left up to the individual states to issue.  It's not a federal driver's license, yet.

Marylou · Answer

Spaghetti

Hanna Lawrence · Answer

There is no right or wrong here. I think they should be eligible for driver's license. This is about safety, not about benefits. The same with IDs. I do not see they they will benefit getting an ID.

ibu guru · Answer

Drivers licenses are a state matter and each state sets their own eligibility requirements.

Jane Doe · Answer

Deferred action is not a law.It did not go through Congress.The states have no legal obligation to do any of it if they so chose.So they are both right.

Maricopa County · Answer

Well, clearly we don't want people driving without a license and breaking the law while they're breaking the law.

Brother Hesekiel · Answer

Driver's license law is state law, so it's up to the states to decide what requirements they impose on somebody who applies for one.

George L · Answer

if you assume that the states have the right to control who gets drivers' licenses in their area, they both are.

tonalc2 · Answer

CA. I for one would rather have a licensed driver on the road, especially since they would legally have to be insured.

Trending News

Driver's licenses for deferred illegals - Arizona says "No", California says "Yes". Who's right?

13 Answers