Give us your tired, your poor, your undocumented and we will license them!

Illegal aliens, or undocumented immigrants if you prefer, have long had a problem. Forget the debate for the moment about whether their very existence within a particular space on the map is a violation of the law - that's not what this blog is about. "They" (and for convenience, not for any other reason, that's how I'll be referring to illegal aliens or undocumented immigr. . . oh, you get it now, don't you) have been otherwise unable to comply with a great many laws.

And far more importantly to everyone else around them, holding them accountable to our laws has also been nigh unto impossible.

What do I mean?

Hold that thought a moment. For now, we must mention some very big news here in Illinois. Trust me, it all fits in. Illinois has just passed a law that goes into effect later in 2013 which will provide the opportunity for undocumented or illegal immigrants to obtain valid driving privileges in Illinois. This is going to have a significant effect, in some very interesting ways. Regarding Illinois DUI law, an arrest for DUI while unlicensed is a felony. Not because the driver did something particularly nefarious or had greater criminal intent (no one seems to care about intent when it comes to DUI, do they?) but simply because the driver, for whatever reason, does not have the State's imprimatur via a piece of plastic saying they can drive. Whether a person just never bothered to get a license (yes, we've seen that over here in our law office, recently in fact) or because they were legally unable to obtain a license, it is a crime to drive without a driver's license.

Now there are different reasons one might not be able to obtain a license. If your name is Dick Whitman, but you're posing as Don Draper, that might've worked in 1962, but nowadays, that's a tough sell. Maybe your license was taken away for a good reason by the State. Or, maybe there just was no way you could legally get one.

Rather than seeking out friends of a certain former Governor and Secretary of State of Illinois for help, you can now direct undocumented friends and family to an actual, honest to goodness legal way to get a license.

And it's good for all of us I say, no matter your political persuasion, that we'll have these "Temporary Visitor's Licenses".

Here's why:

• A valid driver's license creates a vested interest in keeping that license valid. Think about this - aside from safety, what stops you from speeding? You want to keep that license, right? Yes you do, and so will "they".
• Getting a valid driver's license is going to require familiarity with the rules of the road, just like every other licensed driver. 
• Vision tests. That's right, you can be undocumented or illegal. Just not blind, okay?
• Included in those rules of the road is a requirement that we all maintain valid liability insurance.
• Valid liability insurance means if we get into an accident, those we get into an accident with are not left on the roadside with empty hands (I really wanted to get more colorful there, but my kids might read this blog, you know?).
• A valid driver's license has an address and identifying information on it, and this kind will be electronically tied to facial recognition software to prevent fraud. Know what that means? Accountability - "they" can be sued and more importantly, served. And if necessary, more easily tracked down by police if laws are violated.
• Insurance companies are going to be very happy about those premiums, aren't they?
• Greater accountability can only lead to one of those things we all want in our society in general - more stability and greater responsibility.
• These silly (yes, silly I say) enhancements of DUI offenses to felony status simply because someone finds themselves in an impossible situation ends.

Does it feel sort of like rewarding bad judgement or poor behavior or simply a sop to a sad story? Yes. It does a bit. That said, there's a lot to like about this one, espescially if we want a way to make "them" just as accountable to the law and to their neighbors as all the rest of "us".

And then "they" are actually in many important ways,  a great deal more "us", aren't they?

Yes, driving is a privilege. But a driver's license is a government document which creates a government record. It's an albatross around all our necks - a yoke we all willingly wear for the benefit of our community.

I welcome your comments.

Is drinking and driving the same thing as DUI in Illinois?

Maybe you had a drink at dinner. Or you toasted the bride at a wedding. Perhaps you just enjoyed a beer with a friend. Under Illinois DUI law, is it illegal to drive home after you've had that drink? Many people automatically assume drinking and driving is DUI. But the answer may surprise you . . .

If you've been arrested for DUI in the Chicago area, but don't think you were impaired by the alcohol you consumed, you're going to need an attorney right away. Give us a call at 800-454-4Law or 800-454-4529.

Don't drink and drive! 'Cause that's DUI. Really? No.

I'm going to say something about DUI law that might sound controversial. It isn't though - it just sounds that way. And that's because of the outrageous, emotionally exploitative mantra you've heard over and over. Say it with me . . .
DON'T DRINK AND DRIVE
. . . oh, didn't catch that one? Maybe you've heard . . .
YOU DRINK, YOU DRIVE, YOU LOSE

Of course, there have been other great variants. They do their job well. They are catchy, they drive home the idea that . . . wait, what idea do they drive home exactly?

I'll tell you. The idea they drive home is that if you've consumed any alcohol whatsoever, even if you are in no way affected by it, someone (someone angry in uniform with a gun) is coming to get you because society won't tolerate it.

That's the message, but that's going too far. The truth is that unless it is otherwise illegal for you to consume alcohol, drinking and driving is not DUI, and you shouldn't lose a thing. Drinking to the point that your judgement is affected, your coordination, your sense of timing, your reaction time . . . that's what's important. Why not just say that?

It's not catchy, is it?

Want to learn more? Watch the video:

Worried that people getting arrested for DUI just won't learn their lesson? Don't.

According to the Illinois Secretary of State 2012 DUI FactBook, 85% of all people arrested for DUI in Illinois in 2010 were first-time offenders. Also according to the report, 3,440 motorists resulted in revocations after their second offense, 866 for their third, and 436 for their fourth or later (a revocation only occurs after a conviction, and does so automatically). The overall number of DUI arrests has decreased annually from 2008 through 2010 as well.

Unless police simply aren't arresting as many people for some reason, it would appear that Illinois' efforts at preventing recidivism, or the tendency to re-offend, are largely effective.

In Illinois, motorists charged with DUI for the first time are generally eligible for a special one-time chance to dispose of their case via a sentence of Court Supervision. After a finding of guilty, whether after trial or plea of guilty, a defendant can avoid a conviction and jail as long as they comply with certain conditions. This is no free ride - there are significant fines, alcohol education classes and treatment are required, and a criminal record remains forever.  The Court also requires a VIP or victim impact panel run by MADD, and can require significant community service, random alcohol testing and other conditions.

Consistent with the Secretary of State's previous reports on the issues I've written about, the cost of a DUI remains extremely high, and the Secretary of State still pegs the estimated cost of a first DUI at over $16,000.

DUI statistics used, incorrectly again, for the force of good?

The hand of Prohibition is still being felt across the country, if this article from Pennsylvania is any indication. The author notes that "privatization" actually seems to reduce DUI fatalities. By privatization, he means allowing merchants to decide what type of alcoholic beverage to sell, and when to sell it, to the maximum extent possible.  The article specifically points to DUI in Illinois as an example of lower DUI fatality rates.  The author notes:

"I compared Pennsylvania's alcohol-related traffic fatalities with those of the five largest states that freely allow sales to adults of all three types of alcoholic beverage — beer, wine and spirits (the hard stuff, such as gin and whiskey) — in grocery stores."

Upon comparing those results according to the NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration), he see that:

"In 2008, the most recent year for which I found statistics, every one of those five states had fewer fatalities per capita than Pennsylvania, which had one alcohol-related traffic fatality for each 25,604 in population. In California it was one per 36,248; Illinois, Indiana and Michigan were only slightly worse; and in Massachusetts the rate was only one in 52,419."

While I think the author is essentially correct, I'd feel . . . remiss, I suppose . . . if I didn't at least point out that he is using the same failed logical argument that leads those who (whether they consciously recognize it or not) promote prohibition, such as MADD or AAIM advocates. These advocates all miss, intentionally in some cases, a very important distinction.

The statistics and figures given by the NHTSA do not measure drunk driving fatality.

These statistics include any person involved in an accident with any measurable amount of alcohol present in their system. Thus, a rear-seat passenger with a blood-alcohol content of 0.01 (which incidentally may not indicate consumption of alcoholic beverage at all) in a vehicle driven by a completely sober driver determined to be not-at-fault would still be considered in the accident. Doubt me? Check the glossary in NHTSA's own documents here under the term "Alcohol Involvement".

The value of theses statistics is dubious. The value of drawing conclusions related to the efficacy of DUI law in Illinois or any other State of the union is almost . . . silly. Or perhaps more accurately . . . pernicious?

Help! Canada won't let us in!

One of my least favorite calls frequently happens around 2 or 3pm.  Usually it's a young newlywed bride on the verge of tears.

"We're here for our honeymoon and the Canada border people won't let us in because my husband had a supervision for DUI in Chicago four years ago! My hubby didn't even remember this! Can you do something?" [note - expletives deleted to protect my innocent readers].

Sadly, for the most part, the answer is no. You see, in Canada, DUI is a felony offense every time, and is a basis for exclusion from admission.  The most I can suggest in this situation is to ask to speak to a senior agent that has the authority to override the exclusion.  Planning ahead would help, and a call to the Canadian Consulate to determine eligibility for what our northerly neighbors lovingly call "rehabilitation."

According to a recent article in the National Post about DUI exclusion, it would appear that Canada's tourism folks would prefer that exclusion based on DUI cases were perhaps a bit less rigid.  We're thinking somebody told them that occasionally, hunters and fishermen (fisherpeople too) sometimes drink *gasp* alcohol. We'll let you know if we hear about any movement on this.

Meanwhile, let us know what you think about Canada's policy for punishing newlywed brides for DUI arrests their husbands have already forgotten about.