The Los Angeles Police Department will soon start ignoring California state law, which requires police to impound the vehicles of unlicensed drivers for 30 days.

The majority of unlicensed motorists in Los Angeles are immigrants who are in the country illegally and have low-income jobs. The LAPD says the state's impound law is unfair because it limits their ability to get to their jobs and imposes a steep fine to get their car back.

As long as drivers can produce some form of I.D., proof of insurance and vehicle registration, they'll be allowed to keep their car. Police Chief Charlie Beck insists that it's simply leveling the playing field.

"It's about fairness. It's about equal application of the law," Beck told a Los Angeles TV station earlier this month.

Opponents of Beck's decision are furious and refer to studies showing unlicensed drivers are among the most dangerous on the road. Indeed, a 2011 AAA study titled "Unlicensed to Kill" finds they are five times more likely to be involved in fatal crashes and more likely to flee the scene of a crime.

The decision has angered Don Rosenberg, a resident of Los Angeles County, who lost his 25-year old son, Drew, in a 2010 accident caused by an unlicensed driver in San Francisco, a city with lax impound policies. The driver, who tried fleeing the scene, had previously been pulled over but was allowed to retrieve his car after a short time, months before the accident.

"It doesn't matter to me who killed my son-- what their nationality was. It was the fact that if the law were followed, he'd be alive today," Rosenberg told Fox News.

Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley wrote Chief Beck, saying his policy would be "invalid" in light of state law, which states a vehicle "shall be impounded." But supporters of Beck's decision say, regardless of the law, he's doing the right thing for illegal immigrants who cannot yet obtain driver's licenses here.

"A low-income person doesn't have the ability to pay the fees after 30 days to get their car back," said Cardinal Roger Mahony, former Archbishop of Los Angeles and an immigration activist. "Basically, we're just creating more punitive problems for them."

The L.A. Police Commission voted in favor of the new policy 4-1 last month. The LAPD says officers will begin implementing it in a matter of weeks. The city attorney has also sided with Beck's decision.

Immigrant advocates say the controversy highlights the need to provide provisional driver's licenses for illegal immigrants.

Don Rosenberg says he'd favor that, as long as the police enforce state law by impounding unlicensed drivers' cars when pulled over. But he believes that the city is pandering to the Latino community and doesn't hold out hope that the policy will change anytime soon.

"It's more important that people who are in the country illegally get to drive than it is that people who are here get to live," he said.

GrimTempest posted:

---

"It's more important that people who are in the country illegally get to drive than it is that people who are here get to live," he said.

---

Surge_MT posted:

---

Just build a separate road system for all the unlicensed/uninsured illegal drivers. It can be simple, lawless, Mad-Max style dirt roads, where they can crash into and kill each other in peace.

---

GrimTempest posted:

---

can we just give part of california to mexico already?

---

Terminius_Est posted:

---

Who is going to pay for the cost of keeping all those impounded cars? The state? I doubt it.

I suspect this is a biased report and cost is really at the bottom of this.

---

Lothland posted:

---

Terminius_Est posted:

---

Who is going to pay for the cost of keeping all those impounded cars? The state? I doubt it.

I suspect this is a biased report and cost is really at the bottom of this.

---

It's simple, if they are not payed for after a set amount of time they are auctioned off to the highest bidder.

---

GrimTempest posted:

---

he's referring to the fact that illegals are responsible for 5 times as many fatal vehicle accidents. if you willingly ignore the law to keep those people on the road you are essentially saying you think its more important that illegals can drive than it is to protect people from the much higher number of accidents they cause.

---

Fallen_daemon posted:

---

that is retarded. who is going to pay for the damage on accident. If my car was hit etc.. I would sue the stupid state for the situation.

---

Stormyblade posted:

---

driving is a privilege, not a right.

---

GrimTempest posted:

---

he's referring to the fact that illegals are responsible for 5 times as many fatal vehicle accidents. if you willingly ignore the law to keep those people on the road you are essentially saying you think its more important that illegals can drive than it is to protect people from the much higher number of accidents they cause.

---

-Mithan- posted:

---

I often wonder how America ever got to be great in the first place.

Oh ya, I forgot. The rest of the world bombed the s*** out of itself in the 40's.

---

deadcactus posted:

---

The disconnect between reality and American's perceptions of how laws, rights, and justice work is frightening...

---

Cuttlery posted:

---

Both them and Texas

---

Mangler_SC posted:

---

Stormyblade posted:

---

driving is a privilege, not a right.

---

Quite honestly, I could not disagree more with this part of your statement.
Taking the illegal aliens completely out of the equation, American society as a whole has been geared towards personal transportation since the automobile has been introduced. Legal citizens should have every right to drive whether they have a license or not.

---

Stormyblade posted:

---

You can disagree with me all you want, but state DMV offices would agree with me. My son does not have a license and is a legal citizen - should he be allowed to drive a vehicle when he has not demonstrated that he can drive safely because it's his right to drive as a citizen? Would you want him driving your car? I looked it up - even the Oregon DMV driver's manual states in the opening paragraphs that driving is a privilege, and not a right. Such privileges can be taken away if the driver does not maintain safe driving habits. Sure, you can still drive, but if you get pulled over and the officer finds your license has been suspended or revoked, you are going to jail because the state is not recognizing your *right* to drive as a legal citizen. Unfortunately, every state that I have been in has declared driving to be a privilege and *not* a right in their DMV handbooks -- until each state changes their rules, driving is not a right.

---

BritonGuy posted:

---

Stormyblade posted:

---

You can disagree with me all you want, but state DMV offices would agree with me. My son does not have a license and is a legal citizen - should he be allowed to drive a vehicle when he has not demonstrated that he can drive safely because it's his right to drive as a citizen? Would you want him driving your car? I looked it up - even the Oregon DMV driver's manual states in the opening paragraphs that driving is a privilege, and not a right. Such privileges can be taken away if the driver does not maintain safe driving habits. Sure, you can still drive, but if you get pulled over and the officer finds your license has been suspended or revoked, you are going to jail because the state is not recognizing your *right* to drive as a legal citizen. Unfortunately, every state that I have been in has declared driving to be a privilege and *not* a right in their DMV handbooks -- until each state changes their rules, driving is not a right.

---

If states declared liberty a privilege and not a right, would you go along with it?

---

Stormyblade posted:

---

BritonGuy posted:

---

Stormyblade posted:

---

You can disagree with me all you want, but state DMV offices would agree with me. My son does not have a license and is a legal citizen - should he be allowed to drive a vehicle when he has not demonstrated that he can drive safely because it's his right to drive as a citizen? Would you want him driving your car? I looked it up - even the Oregon DMV driver's manual states in the opening paragraphs that driving is a privilege, and not a right. Such privileges can be taken away if the driver does not maintain safe driving habits. Sure, you can still drive, but if you get pulled over and the officer finds your license has been suspended or revoked, you are going to jail because the state is not recognizing your *right* to drive as a legal citizen. Unfortunately, every state that I have been in has declared driving to be a privilege and *not* a right in their DMV handbooks -- until each state changes their rules, driving is not a right.

---

If states declared liberty a privilege and not a right, would you go along with it?

---

I know what you are trying to do - bait me by giving me an ultimatum. Of course I would not just take losing my liberty lying down, but, honestly, what are any, or all, of us here on ACF going to do against all the states and their declaration of driving as a privilege vs. a right? Stage a revolt at our DMV offices? Burn my license and declare that as a citizen I have the right to drive and don't need some stinking card to prove that I am allowed to drive? The simple fact is that states have the power to enforce their definition of who is allowed to drive and who isn't by revoking your license, and unless you or I have some way of forcing them to re-evaluate that definition we have to abide by it, whether we agree with it or not.

---

Anonymous posted:

---

Wow, I am amazed you went there. Really you want to compare Nazi views to needing a driver's license to drive on public roads? If you have the right to drive without a license are you required to follow the posted speed limits?

You have the right to own a car and drive it on your personal property, the priveledge of getting a driver's license gives you access to public roads.

---

GrimTempest posted:

---

Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley wrote Chief Beck, saying his policy would be "invalid" in light of state law, which states a vehicle "shall be impounded." But supporters of Beck's decision say, regardless of the law, he's doing the right thing for illegal immigrants who cannot yet obtain driver's licenses here.

"A low-income person doesn't have the ability to pay the fees after 30 days to get their car back," said Cardinal Roger Mahony, former Archbishop of Los Angeles and an immigration activist. "Basically, we're just creating more punitive problems for them."

---

tantallous posted:

---

okay, sorry but... what???

""It's about fairness. It's about equal application of the law," Beck told a Los Angeles TV station earlier this month."

fairness? equal application? the law is supposed to be applied equally, to everyone. what they are doing is NOT applying the law.

---