Ab 60Edit
AB 60, officially Assembly Bill 60, enacted in 2013 by the California Legislature, created a formal pathway for undocumented residents to obtain driving privileges. The measure was designed to bring large swaths of California’s drivers into a regulated system, with testing, insurance, and residency verification, while explicitly not conferring citizenship or federal identification status. The policy introduced a distinct driving privilege card rather to a standard driver’s license, with the card clearly marked as not valid for federal identification or immigration purposes. Proponents argued that licensed, insured drivers improve road safety and reduce unreported or uninsured driving, while opponents warned about potential security and fiscal consequences. Implementation began in the mid-2010s, as the California Department of Motor Vehicles began issuing the driving privilege cards to eligible applicants who could demonstrate residency and identity, and who met testing requirements.
AB 60 sits at the intersection of public safety, immigration policy, and state governance. It is part of a broader national debate over what responsibilities a state should bear for residents who are not lawful permanent residents, and how to balance the rule of law with practical needs on the road. The policy does not alter federal immigration law, but it does alter the treatment of a substantial portion of the statewide driving population by recognizing driving competence and financial responsibility as legitimate public concerns. The program operates within the framework of California law and is administered by the Department of Motor Vehicles, with information sharing and verification procedures tied to state identity and residency standards. For travelers and federal purposes, the card functions differently from a Real ID, which has separate eligibility requirements and uses.
History and provisions
AB 60 originated as a measure intended to address a persistent gap in road safety and traffic compliance. The bill’s core provisions allow individuals who lack legal immigration status to apply for a driving privilege card, provided they can prove identity, California residency, and the ability to meet driving knowledge and skills tests, as well as financial responsibility through insurance or other means. The program aimed to reduce uninsured motorists and to bring a larger portion of drivers into the official system so that licensing data could support licensing checks, road-safety training, and accountability. The driving privilege card explicitly does not grant federal identification or immigration status, and it does not confer eligibility for federal programs tied to citizenship. The policy thus sought to improve state governance and public safety without revising federal immigration law.
From a governance standpoint, AB 60 required coordination between state agencies, particularly the Department of Motor Vehicles and law-enforcement communities, to ensure that the cards were issued to qualified applicants and that the system remained resistant to fraud. The DMV established testing protocols and documentation standards designed to prevent identity theft and to verify residency in California. The program also set expectations around the use of the privilege card in daily life, clarifying that the card is not a substitute for a passport or federal identification, and that it may not be used to cross national borders or to engage in activities reserved for federally recognized identification documents.
Impact and reception
Supporters emphasize several benefits: about bringing a large and previously unregulated group of drivers into a verifiable system; reducing the number of uninsured motorists on California roads; improving traffic safety by ensuring that drivers have demonstrated knowledge of the rules of the road; and contributing to the state's economy by enabling work and lawful participation in commerce. Advocates note that licensed drivers are more likely to carry insurance, report accidents, and participate in driver education programs, all of which can lower the social costs of driving and reduce the burden on emergency services and public safety resources. Proponents also argue that the program is a pragmatic step toward normalizing daily life for a sizable portion of the population and aligning state policy with practical needs on crowded urban and rural roadways alike.
Opponents raise concerns about immigration enforcement and fiscal impact. Critics argue that issuing driving privileges to individuals who are not legally present in the country may complicate federal-state relations on immigration, potentially creating opportunities for identity misuse or increasing costs for local governments and schools if not managed carefully. Some have argued that such measures could serve as a magnet for illegal entry, though proponents counter that the policy is about safety and accountability on the roads, not a pathway to citizenship. Public debate has also focused on the administrative costs of running the program, including identity verification, driver training, and the handling of insurance data, with critics warning that these costs could fall on taxpayers or require ongoing funding.
From a conservative-leaning policy perspective, the AB 60 approach is often framed as a compromise that improves public safety and road integrity while avoiding broader immigration policy shifts that are outside the state’s control. The emphasis on testing, insurance, and residency documentation is presented as a way to ensure that those who drive are accountable to state laws and responsible for financial liability in the event of accidents. Proponents of this view argue that the program reduces the incidence of hit-and-run incidents and unregistered, uninsured driving, and that it aligns California’s practical needs with a more orderly approach to mobility in a diverse and growing economy. Critics of the program sometimes respond by noting that the measure does not address border security or the larger questions of national immigration policy, and they question whether the costs of administering the program are justified by its safety benefits.
Controversies and debates
Security and identity concerns: A common line of critique centers on the potential for misuse of documents or identity fraud. Supporters contend that the program’s testing, residency verification, and insurance requirements create a system where drivers are known, insured, and accountable, thereby enhancing road safety rather than inviting risk. The driving privilege card is designed to be distinct from federal IDs to avoid confusion with national security documents.
Fiscal and operational costs: Critics argue that administering AB 60 entails ongoing costs for the state and localities. Supporters respond that the presence of insured and licensed drivers reduces uncompensated damage and emergency-response costs associated with uninsured driving, presenting a net public-safety benefit.
Immigration policy alignment: Opponents often frame the program as a step toward broader immigration leniency. Proponents insist that AB 60 does not alter immigration status or citizenship rights and that it targets a practical need on the road—keeping traffic safer by ensuring drivers are tested and insured.
Real ID and federal identification: The distinction between a driving privilege card and federal identification is central to debates about federal-state relationships and travel. The policy is widely seen as a tool for day-to-day mobility, not as a substitute for the documents needed for federal purposes.
Woke criticisms—if they arise in debates, and why some conservatives regard them as misplaced—tend to focus on the optics of immigration and identity rather than on practical governance. Supporters emphasize that the program’s central aim is to improve road safety and reduce uninsured driving, while critics sometimes treat the policy as symbolically endorsing immigration status. The counterpoint from supporters is that AB 60 is not amnesty or a citizenship grant; it is a targeted measure to ensure that those who drive are licensed, insured, and subject to state rules, regardless of immigration status. In this framing, criticisms that view the policy as an existential concession on immigration policy miss the policy’s narrowly tailored objective: improving road safety, insurance coverage, and consumer accountability on California highways.