made, it probably won't be the last. what i am encouraged by is the that we have a government that is serious about trying to deliver security and the prospect of that of life for the -- of a better life for the afghan people. we have a clear majority of the afghans who want to partner with us and the international community to achieve those goals. we have a bilateral security arrangement that ensures our troops can operate in ways that protect them while still achieving their mission. we have always known we had to maintain a counterterrorism operation in that region. in order to tamp down the emergence of active al qaeda networks or other networks that

might do us harm. this is consistent with the overall vision we have had and we anticipated, as we were drawing down troops there were times when we might need to slow things down or fill gaps in afghan capacity. this is a reflection of that. it is a dangerous area, so part of what we are trying to balance is making sure afghans are out a there doing what they need to do. but that we are giving them a chance to succeed and that we are making sure they can conduct -- that our force posture in the area in terms of conducting those narrow missions that we need to conduct, we can do so relatively safely. there are still risks involved. force protection, the ability of our embassies to operate effectively, those things all factor in. so we have to constantly reviewed these approaches. the important thing i want to emphasize is that the nature of

the mission has not changed. the cessation of our combat role has not changed. now, the 25 military and civilians killed last year, that always weighs on my mind, and 25 deaths are 25 to many, degree for the families of the fallen. but understand relative to what was involved when we were in an active, role and actively engage in war in afghanistan was a very different scenario. here you have a situation where we have clarity about our mission and a partner that wants to work with us. we are going to continually make adjustments to ensure we give the best possibilities for success. i suspect we will continue to evaluate this going forward as will the next president.

as conditions improve, we will be in a position to make other further adjustments. i'm confident this is the right thing to do. in i am not disappointed because my view has always been how do we achieve our goals while minimizing the strain and exposure on our men and women in uniform and make sure we are constantly encouraging and sending a message to the afghan people this is their country and they have to defend it. but we will be a steady partner for them. ok? thank you everybody. in the mirror and i don't see a president. my response was, quit looking in the mirror. >> on his book a run mitchell run about his longtime friend

mitch daniels and his decision not to run for president in 2012. i am i became convinced as we were toward the end of the process that he is very competitive. ithe made a decision to do he would've had his heart and soul into it. it is not something he really ever thirsted after. >> tonight on c-span's q and a. >> the charitable trusts held a discussion on the state's decision-making process for issuing driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. 10 states and the district of columbia have allowed illegal immigrants to obtain licenses. this is about an hour and a half. >> good afternoon everyone and thank you all for coming.

i am tom conroy, vice president for government performance here. thank you for sharing some time with us today. on behalf of our president and all of my colleagues, it is my privilege to welcome all of you here today. the few charitable trust is an independent nonpartisan nonpublic policy institution dedicated to serving the public. we are speaking today on the topic of immigration in that vein. our immigration in the states to explorecreated this intersection of federal, state, and local immigration policies and practices. panelists tonk my share their experiences on how

this intersection of federal state and local policies and practices actually affect their communities. with that i will turn over this program. going to focus on driver's licenses in these communities. thank you. >> good afternoon and thank you. we don't see broad immigration reform be enacted in congress is in the horizon on the near term. states have been active in passing immigration laws. according to the national conference of state legislatures, 171 laws were passed in 2014, across such policy areas as wide ranging as law-enforcement, health, and education. immigration in the state project explored this dynamic.

pre--- it isacy not to take a position on any particular policy but to explore them across levels of government to assess the impacts of the state policy choices. today focus is gaining attention in many statehouses across the country and was the subject of our most recent report. if those licenses have distinctive markings and text indicating they are not accepted for federal identification or for official purposes. the licenses if a righty of names, such as privileged cars or driver authorization cars.

this map highlights the places where unauthorized immigrants may have obtained these licenses today. we have eight states and the .istrict of columbia while the yellow two states, washington and new mexico, issued the same driver's license to everyone regardless of immigration status, delaware and hawaii, the two states of here both passed laws this year in 2014. to deepen our understanding of the issues states confront, we brought together panelists from three states, each with different roles and experiences. you have for their complete bios and their programs, so allow me to judy's them they are sitting here now.

-- enemy to introduce them as they are sitting here now. -- allow me to introduce them to sitting here now. overseeing implementation of this new program is going to be one of the key tasks. terry joins us from nevada. he has an extensive public career standing. is thes to us today administrator of the management services and program division of the department of motor vehicles. she has worked in that capacity to implement the driver authorization card, which is been issued since january 2014. governor sandoval appointed terry to be the interim director later this month. third we have erica, who joins us from the golden state of california, where she is chief of staff to --

sponsor that key creates an alternative driver's license going into effect to just earlier this year. finally we have my colleague who let our research team. i would like to start by turning over to michelle, the opportunity to share with you some findings of our report. michelle: good afternoon, thank you. we conducted research on all of the states currently issuing driver's license to unauthorized immigrants. we analyzed their laws and legislative reports. we spoke to other experts about their experiences implementing these laws. so that we could analyze the

critical decision that they made and the diverse approaches they took. while we also look at who made those decisions, in some states the legislator put very specific instructions and the legislative language. we did not look at the factors who let the state to make the decision to issue i should -- issue licenses to unauthorized immigrants. q -- q does not take a position. we do believe policymakers can learn from the experiences of another state. we identified four areas where states made critical policy decisions that allowed unauthorized immigrants to obtain driver's licenses.

issuing procedures and outreach and education. see howteresting to these four areas interact with one another. i'm going to highlight those examples as well. it really affects every other step of implementation. upfront planning is -- totes who really need estimate how many people will be eligible for their license, how many people will actually applied, and how often they need to renew their license. the keys totes are determining startup costs, such as technological upgrades. and costs associated with the administration. these estimates determine the revenues that the issuing agency can expect to collect from new customers. these are generally expected to planninghemselves, but is the key to make sure that

actually happens. obviously this environment, the states are making very important decisions and need to plan ahead. estimates are going to very widely. in vermont, where unauthorized immigrants make up less than one state's, they estimated 1500 would apply. these very different estimates affect the choices they made. they opened five new facilities to accommodate the subpopulation -- accommodate this population. we will see these estimates turned out to be low. states determined the

to improves residency. some states have applicants sign an affidavit saying they are ineligible for a social security number. in delaware we understand they will require fingerprints and background checks. the decision turned out to be key to implementation. immigrants don't have the same instances legal immigrants have. determining what documents unauthorized immigrants actually have and how reliable these documents are. the number of applicants and by reliefssued

directly to the people who can meet the requirements and produce the right documents. takete estimate needs to into account the people that will actually be able to meet the eligibility requirements. next we have issuance procedures. states make decisions about how and where and unauthorized immigrant can apply for, obtain, and renew their drive us licenses. some states hired more staff and opened more offices. some create appointment systems to regulate the flow of customers in a timely manner. decisions are directly related to the amount of resources that a state has for these purposes. the estimates for needed resources needs to take things into account like staffing and facilities. to think about

this when planning their systems. how many facilities and staff they will have available to serve this population? how many appointments they can actually accommodate. and is this enough to meet the demand? the number of apartment available mean states determine -- thisurse in the end affects the amount of revenues. we have outreach and education. to understand no program can be successful unless the target group knows how to access it. states used various tohod -- various methods

replace these laws. the department of the -- the dmv -- in illinois they used mobile units to educate the community and make initial consultation on people's documentation. the dmv makes information available through public libraries. one ton albee we found is they worked really closely with foreign consulates and with trusted community organizations to educate them about where and how to apply and what documents they need to show up to the dmv with. stressed the importance of reaching out to immigrant communities to warn them about the potential of consumer fraud. we heard stories that unscrupulous individuals may try to charge these applicants for things that should be free, such

as booking an appointment. you can see how outreach and education is related to the other areas of decision-making. an estimate of potential applicants won't be correct if the audience doesn't know about the program or is uncomfortable coming forward actually apply for a license. public outreach can also make sure that people know about the licenses and actually apply. it is critical to know that the -- and comere ready to the dmv with all the proper documentation. they can pass those the first time i don't have to come back multiple times.

we recently contacted all the states that began issuing days -- issuing these licenses. on how these licenses will be issued as of july 23, 2015. 800,000 alternative driver's licenses had been issued by these the places. it deftly correlated with the size of the unauthorized population. we want to know what are the factors that interlude the number of applicants and alternative licenses issued. we have already identified a couple of those. availability,t applicant's ability to meet the eligibility requirements and education being effective.

it affects how long it takes for one applicant to go through the process of getting a drivers license. there are other anticipated events that could affect other -- here vermont is a real outlier. this state had estimated 1500 people would be eligible for a drivers license. they had issued nearly 50,000 alternative licenses. we spoke to the director of the vermont dmv. the vermont drivers privilege who was available to anyone is an undocumented immigrant. citizens and.s. illegal immigrants have decided to receive this alternative though they are

eligible for the standard compliant license. others didn't have the documentation they needed. they were able to meet the requirements for the christmas card. we heard fraud may have been an issue. a dmv administrator noted there were some evidence of advertisement in some to get aate newspapers vermont driver privilege party. a number of alternative licenses have most likely -- most likely gone to state residents. as a result the number of licenses has exceeded the expectations. finally we have looked at the existing literature on the impact of these drivers license laws on public safety and the economy.

it is available now on our website. there are several challenges when try to ascertain the impact of an authorized impact. perhaps most importantly, eight onlye 11 jurisdictions began issuing in 2013 or later. passedugh time had together meaningful data. literaturethe between licensing unauthorized immigrants and insurance cover rates, accident rates, and , which isemployment related to immigration tax contributions and spending. while there is some literature about unlicensed drivers being very littlehere is specific information about an unauthorized immigrant and access. this points to a need for more research.

aboutomplete information the fact that allows unauthorized immigrant to get driver's licenses and perform a cost-benefit analysis of their proposed legislation, and it would allow state policy makers make more informed decisions. we hope information offers the to our state policymakers who are currently making decisions about issuing licenses and how to in -- and how to design and implement those laws. thank you. >> thank you very much, michelle. i have panelists coming up on stage.

we are going to take this conversation to the practical realities. we are not going to have each panelist to a presentation. i'm going to facilitate a discussion and ask a couple of questions i think is going to tease out some approaches. we are quite a star with a topic we have not covered yet. using your perks coming from the could youe branch, take us inside the legislative debate, highlighting areas where there may have been disagreement in your build moving forward -- in your bill moving forward. erika: thank you so much for the opportunity to be here and particularly to share some perspective from california. to your question, i kept looking at the fact sheet.

the conversation of drivers licenses has been long. approved the back in 2003. it was not only in effect it was available for three months. 4s the conversation and political debate has been very long. it was never a question about who is going to drive. we knew there were undocumented individuals driving in our state. the question is how do we integrate and what is the responsibility to ensure we are with themoving forward

value of many of our --resentatives have wrong on the values many of our representatives have run on. had large populations they wanted to provide relief for that population. one of the debates was marking many legislators, who at the , he was ae debate chairman of the latino caucus, representing over 25 members of the legislature in each house. clearly the latino caucus wanted to provide relief for the population with very little

penalty. the individual marking was huge. for the real id compliance, if a state was going to succeed with issuing and -- issuing an alternative driver's license, there has to be a distinguishing mark. for our legislature, it was very important that marking not exists. there are many members of the legislature doing the caucus that did not want to marking. felt it was going to be very difficult for people to come out and take advantage of the opportunity. eventually that proved to be an area that could make or break the legislature and -- the

legislation. members and other that they wanted to proceed with a legislative solution. that is the debate that then moves the bill forward. >> turning to delaware but in the state of free of limitation, delaware took a unique approach. the legislature worked with communities and put together a task force of community members wide ranging to help them shape the legislative process. you were a participant of that task force. can you tell us about that experience. like california this is

something we have been considering for a long time. once it really started to take great-- we have a relationship with our legislature. we were able to do a lot of preplanning before a bill is drafted. in this case we said before we do this, why do we bring together all the stakeholders and find out what is going on and the potential sponsors of the bill. said, senate resolution to a foreign task force. we involved on the stakeholders we could possibly think of. we have law-enforcement theesentation, members of hispanic community. the chair of the hispanic commission. legislators representing the senate and the

house. months justmer debating this topic of whether delaware should enter into the business of offering a privilege card to undocumented immigrants. the need was clear. these folks are driving on our roads. highway safety publications by not having them properly credentialed. the desire to necessarily do that is what we were debating and how people are going about doing that. brought an external stakeholders to give us presentations. we ask the coalition of secure driver's license to come in and present information on what our states are doing. a are also trying to get natural view of what is going on throughout the country regarding this topic.

we took that information at the end of it decided to go forward with legislation and incorporating things we felt were very important in our state to make sure everybody that was involved is comfortable with this legislation. and some key components in trying to identify someone, we do require fingerprinting. we also required two years of tax returns. it was a great process and one to getwould recommend that stakeholder fine. it helped us put forward a bill that was going to benefit everyone. >> how did you manage participation and did you include members of that task thoughto may not have

themselves part of this issue. >> that was one area where my understanding was there was some initial opposition, because we are in the business of identifying people and how you do that if there aren't any documents to identify. we made sure we had a pretty balanced approach. maybe not straight opposition but concern. and then. or it. mostingerprinting was the debated topic. maybe two or three meetings whether fingerprinting made any sense for our state. >> as was mentioned, delaware and hawaii are the two states that have passed laws.

conversation to administrator alverson from youra, who was really model in nevada for implementing this type of a wall from the dmv perspective and what lessons did you learn? unlike what happened in his broughte dmv was not into the initial discussions regarding the introduction of the legislation. one senators who were involved in sponsoring this bill had introduced at the legislative level, that is when he became knowledgeable to us, at which point we immediately stepped in to join the conversation and see what it is that we could help them with. >> where their model states you are looking at? >> it was very helpful during

the legislative hearing process. they provided us with invaluable lessons learned. for five years prior to nevada -- we utilize their knowledge and lessons learned to help them implement their projects, which have helped us become very successful. >> did you do anything differently than utah? the first thing they didn't suggest we change the name from a driver privilege car -- private -- trevor privilege card to a private authorization card. and had a confrontation to that wasn't necessarily true. the first thing was to change the name from privileged authorization. one of the best lessons learned from nevada is what utah had used as far as the translation services as required for foreign

documents. it the legislature did not give us any statutory authority to regulate the translation of documents. we put that into the regulatory process. this was the biggest piece of debate that occurred during the legislative process for nevada. we had recommendations from everything that seven-year-old johnny should be able to translate their parents for documents to having dmv technicians do it. this is where we took the information from the stakeholders. we did determine indian that was not in the best interest of either the apartment or the individual to do that. we did require that translators self certify and the authorized through the department to be able to translate the four documents. -- foreign documents.

this was one of the biggest challenges for us. ensuring we had a proper translation process in place. hereat is clearly emerging is that maybe legislative wishes and implementation realities that the issuing agencies have faced. i'm curious giving back to erica. where the specific decisions that legislators want to prescribe in statute? and specific reasons to leave it to the dmv in california to make? once theeras: legislature decided they would move forward with a more current priorities, what priorities statesensuring that the strike a balance between meeting the requirements and not putting this population at risk for

deportation or discrimination, even in our local governments. there was definitely a lot of thought and work with into the legislation. the author had been working diligently with the stakeholders, including law enforcement on providing direction. specifically about discrimination and protection, indicating the information provided both for identity in the information, for example the list, applicants were not republican information or public record. there was a lot of thought put into that process in the senate with the bill was in the house. there were efforts to strengthen

that. we work very closely with the dmv and the governor to make d as this billine headed to the governor for signature. that was critical for our legislature. mr. hunter: after the bill was passed and the california dmv stood up to the program over the course of your, are you surprised at any decisions they took? ms. contreras: the way i describe it is the legislature, and int for staff to senator mora, and i was tasked with being very involved in the implementation. there were very specific parameters that were decided in statute. there were authorization for that element of emergency the type ofncluding documentation that should be used for the purpose of verifying identity. the process of verification.

during the time the bill was getting ready to go into the there was aesk, year and have delayed implementation. the staff is concerned. my boss was concerned. why was it taking so long? why can't they just figure it out quicker? we have direction to take the authorization. it should be done quickly. we care about this and have been talking about it so let's do it. when we were in the process after the bill got signed, how i describe it is we did not know what we did not know. and things happen into dmv would come up with the process where they would decide a procedure and we were like weight, though --wait, those are amazing major policy questions. how do you do with a population that

would previously had a drivers license because there were no rules about whether you needed a proof of residency or u.s. legal residency? what if somebody had provided other identification that was not their own? they were things we did not know and the urine at delayed implementation was a very helpful thing to help guide some of the administrator policies. to better understand and have a good relationship with the dmv. engage on thelp stakeholders that may have the expertise in implementation. mr. hunter: helen did you have a nevada to set of your program and was it enough? ms. albertson: nevada had six months once the bill was approved. most motor vehicle agencies do have the process to issue a credential today. this one is different. the six months was an adequate time period for us to develop

regulations that we needed as well as work with our car production vendor to make sure we can properly at the markings on the new card type. mr. hunter: did you feel you had sufficient guidance? you mentioned having just joined the process once the first village reduce -- first bill was introduced. did you have sufficient latitude granted to make your decision as the administrator in designing the program after the law passed? ms. albertson: once the bill was introduced and we became aware of it, we became actively involved with the bill sponsor. id compliant at the time we do what we had to do to remain real id compliant. provide insight, information, and guidance to the senator who was more than willing to work with us to ensure that this important piece of legislation we get past what the department support. mr. hunter: turning a bit more

towards implementation, in delaware you are right about the midpoint of when the law passed in june to when you say you should be ready. do you have a date certain? losses december 27 so everything is aimed towards that date. we have six months like nevada to implement. i would've liked more time. we are going to make some concessions on the process efficiency that we will implement afterwards that will stop us from getting this bill and this new law up and running. with a little bit more time we could be ready right out of the gate. any state that is looking into this ever devised more than six months of possible. understandably they wanted to become quickly. when you are in the meat of the dmv and you have been for some time you understand all the processes. in our case, even before became

the bill, that his work to our advantage because we understand where everybody's mindset is that will be impacted by this. we can make our policy decisions based on a lot of conversations that we've had in the past. that helps us be a lot more proactive than it would be otherwise. we are definitely not flying blind. mr. hunter: you mentioned the delaware will be instituting this fingerprint and background check process. as i understand it, it involves two separate agencies for applicants. that then approach states that currently issue these laws have not yet taken. can you talk a little bit more about how that will work and where you are in finalizing those implementation plans? mr. vien: the city, they do fingerprinting for the driving privilege card. that is where the idea originated from. this is one thing that was important to all -- law enforcement for the state. when a full somebody over on the

road they want to know who they are dealing with. obviously fingerprinting is one way you can certainly identify somebody. a biometric that you have captured of them. there is great debate about this, whether or not should be a state check, a state and federal check. we decided we would do a state sbi check at the various state police facilities in the finger printing. unless there is a conflict with a name or aliases the person provided, or they have an outstanding warrant, it will not go any further. they will clear the individual. they will capture the fingerprint and pass the information along to us. if there is a warned or conflict rant or conflict they can dig into it further. we are making the process as seamless as possible.

we are working on outreach to make sure the state police is the first step in order to get a driving privilege card. go there and once they have been feted at the state police it will be electronically verifiable by us. to haveer: do you plan capacity ready on day one for the anticipated new demands that these agencies will see? mr. vien: we are going with a scheduling model. the state police are doing the same thing. that is our best agenda controlling capacity. one thing i can attest you is you do not know the entire -- what the population is you are dealing with. we've had several different numbers. they keep going up as we dig more into it. legislation and work around 32,000. that was the number we queued in on. that was on pew research in 2008. we also heard much more than that. we were recently at the mexican consulate in the city of 40,000

valid mexican passports issued to delaware residents. that is just one nationality. for -- backig step for a moment. who knows of those people are still living in our state. we look at the state of implement it scheduling. forill be scheduling multiple reasons. not only do not infect other customers who are there and increase wait times, because it's all about the wait times. we don't would increase wait times. also for the individual coming to get a driving privilege card will be established timeframe be will be able to service them. they can come in and get questions answered and don't have to wait a long amount of time. we are not having to have them wait in lines every single day in hopes to be served that day. mr. hunter: california, delaware sounds like and most of the other states do have appointment systems.

nevada did not. aboutrious if you tell us what strategies you employ to be mindful of wait times and to concurrently serve the existing client base already have? ms. albertson: because there was not a lot of other sensitive limited similar bills and we do not have capacity or an appointment to some, our approach was to work in the legislature and have them authorize 18 additional staff. averages for the amount of time it takes for a technician to process a transaction and multiply that times the estimated 60,000 people they anticipated would come in for these cards and came up with the need for nine additional staff. the legislature did a private -- provide that appropriation. that was for nine technicians and nine driving staff. it definitely was a challenge. we had worked with the community groups and advocacy groups before handling of the that the

cards would be made available as of january 2. we literally had busloads of 2ople at our doors on january that were ready to come in and get their drivers authorization cards. evenf the big challenges, though we worked with the community advocacy groups as far as educating individuals on the cards, there was not a wide awareness that it was not just a matter of coming in and paying the fee in filling out an application. that they were tests associated with this. nevada really missed the mark in that regard. when we met with california after we implemented's after several months there was a group of us that would to the california dmv in said learn from us. effort to make great improve upon the mistakes that nevada had made. it worked itself out.

of course we had that initial bubble of individuals they came in to get the cards. but once they found they had to take the written tests as well as the driving test, that help to level out somewhat the impact on the offices. for the 18 analysis additional staff was that we did not want to impact our customer wait times because that is what it is all about the dmv. how long your customer wait times are. we missed the mark a little bit in that area but it could've been much, much worse. mr. hunter: pivoting back to you, what did you learn from nevada and in the state that has the largest unauthorized immigrant population estimated at 1.4 million, this is a huge operation. california did estimate it would be 1.4 million at -- applicants over three years. in the 10 months that the dmv has the issuing driver's licenses we've had over 500,000

people who have a drivers license. for the marked cards. there was absolutely a lot to learn from other states. of time withperiod -- late implementation, u.s. you asked me or my boss how we felt about the delay, concerned are nervous? when we realized how much education was needed and how little time we had, it was good we had a time. it allowed legislators to meet with their communities. we partnered with the dmv. the dmv would send a spokesperson to a community. they would host a forum and the message was, are you ready? are you going to ready january 2? what do you need to do? look at documents the need to

get ready? the dmv held over 200 workshops throughout the state and continued to do education about the state. -- throughout the state. part of why i am excited to participate today is because our conversations and our provideons did really great information that is not just sensationalizing the paper. they can help inform decisions of legislators. we are happy to learn from nevada. mr. hunter: we are very glad to provide that opportunity for all of you and everyone watching here as well. vien, weus, director heard about other state models from california and nevada. censure in the throes of making decisions to implement this program, which other states are standing out? what types of programs are you looking to implement in delaware? mr. vien: as we are implementing

we are looking at california. we are trying to leverage their extensive research body they have the dmv because of the size -- the state the size of narcissistic couple of research managers. we're looking closely at maryland. they have already been doing this. and vermont is another state and connecticut is another statement that. we pulled information. we really study. and utah's well. as.tah well how we can translate those lessons learned to our state. on their partfort to keep other states from -- full to mother states from flooding their doors with false residency documents. they wanted to say this person has lived here for two years as a resident of maryland and we're looking to do the same thing. because we are so small and close to everybody else it is easy to come into delaware.

that is our attempt to do the same thing maryland is doing, trying to limit the number of people that can say yes, i'm a resident here they just showed up yesterday. >> can we ask a question? mr. hunter: certainly. just a moment, he will get a microphone. right over here on the side, please. >> thank you. pbs, we are broadcasting in spanish nationally. this -- found out to be found this to be a burden on the state at all? ms. albertson: no, not at all. the numbers game in significantly lower than what was anticipated in with the additional staffing resources we were given by the legislature it is not been a burden. ,> is interest --ms. contreras:

in california i heard of one of the news channel stating that in california everybody is getting registered to vote. once they get their drivers licenses. this will allow undocumented immigrants to vote. can you please clarify? ms. contreras: there was a piece of legislation authored by an , co-authored by number of latino legislators and sponsored by the secretary of state. to purpose of the law is create a mechanism to basically better meet the voter motor act. this is an attempt to get more people to register to vote. is the author, our office,

in the sponsor work closely with the dmv to make sure that the bill was amended so that they were no provisions in the bill that would inadvertently register undocumented individuals to vote. moving forward, since we have parameters of who we know is applying for a license in the dmv has a mechanism to say these people are not eligible. follow -- going to automatically register this population because they are not eligible. you don't need the criteria. the information you are hearing is not fact. legislature has taken great caution to ensure that no undocumented individual is accidentally register to vote.

state's officef is working closely with the legislature of the of limitation to make sure there is nothing left where that is a risk. why new mexico and have issuedtate licenses without marking on them -- justy are not for taking -- issue two undocumented? >> they have in issuing the same drivers license to everyone regardless of immigration that is for quite a long time. the state of washington has never had a legal presence requirement, meaning they never had to prove they were legally in the united states to get a license. and new mexico passed a law in the early 2000's that allows unauthorized immigrants to get a drivers license.

these two states are not real id compliant. create anot need to special alternative license with the distinctive markings to get to the unauthorized population. if they did want to become real id compliant, and another of conversations in those two states about becoming related compliant, they would need to also make decisions regarding licenses for unauthorized immigrants. >> think you very much. mr. hunter: this is a good opportunity if other people have questions to please move in line up behind the microphone there and i would be glad to call on you. michelle, your speaking to the examples of new mexico and washington. can you tell us more about two states that passed a lot now, delaware at the table and hawaii. can you tell us what is going on there? ms. waslin: hawaii passed the law the same day as delaware. we have been speaking to dmv

officials and legislators in hawaii. we examined their legislative language and are trying to learn more about that state. one thing that is really interesting about hawaii is there unauthorized population is a little bit different than the state are presented here. many filipinos, people for micronesia. we will see how that affects their decisions run implementation because i expect that the languages they have to produce materials in and the documents they accept from foreign countries are going to be different for that. their law also creates an alternative license that is for unauthorized immigrants but goes well beyond the unauthorized immigrant population as well. they wanted to create a document that other populations that have a hard time getting documents could get. they include the homeless, the elderly, people who are institutionalized. there are a couple different groups of people listed in their

legislation. author -- alsoon tends to be specific in terms of what documents are going to be accepted. we really wanted to learn from the dmv officials about what decisions they are able to make in light of this very specific legislation. we are learning that hawaii is unique because their implementation happens at the county level. the counties operate independently and take a lead on this. we are going to learning more about that in the next couple of days. you mentioned documents and i would like to go back to nevada. there were some particular experiences you had regarding documents and translations and lessons learned that surprised you. ms. albertson: again, because we were not getting any statutory authority over regulating the translation of foreign documents we did include that into the regulatory process.

we received the most feedback from the stakeholder groups as far as how we wanted to handle that. initially we wanted to have the documents notarized and that met with great opposition. that was one that the department was willing to say we concede. it's an unnecessary burden to place it on individuals who also have documents notarized. we also could not be so lax in our processes we would allow a child to translate the document for a parent. we did come to a consensus with the groups and for the most part it is worked very well. it's a self regulated process in the state of nevada which means you as a new visual attest to us you are authorized or that you are eligible to translate documents from particular languages and english. you self certify that with a signature and you have to provide that in its original form to the department.

there is a station associated to that because of fraudulent statements. we take you on your face value with that. we have no way of authenticating that. one of the first incidents of fraud that experienced with the limitation of the driver authorization card was through an interpreter, excuse me, the rate translation piece. they are still serve -- sell certified to translate from spanish to english and they submitted a document that was in a line which other -- i don't recall which one specifically. i think it was farsi. they were consulted and they said basically done a google translation. they enter the information from the foreign document into google and they even provided that translation. we were able to remove that person from our authorized translator's list. is thathe other pieces learning lessons from utah is that they suggested we do not

allow businesses to register as translators. everybody wanted to be aaa interpreter services. our specific regulations say we would only allow the to be for a natural -- actual person. doing business as aaa interpretation services, but when i go into our website which contains 700 flute -- approved translators, it would be done through out but it will order. i would encourage those of you that it can get the legislators to allow you to post the costs the individual wants to charge, it ranges from everything to hundreds of dollars for a simple birth certificate to free of charge. without the regulatory authority to oversee that or to provide oversight to that you also need the resources in order to do that, it does leave the community somewhat vulnerable.

when you have a list of 800 individuals and our website will list what languages you can translate in, if your going to run into 500 of them what is the likelihood you will call a number of those individuals to get your documents translated to find out what they are charging? you will probably go with the first one on the list. unless the cost is so prohibitive you will continue down. there is nothing on the website and a regulatory or statutory we need to be able to post your fees there so individuals can make those choices. from that perspective. mr. hunter: i think you can appreciate the challenge of issuing agencies in the states are having to serve a population that may not have served before and to recognize identification documents, credentials that are issued in different countries in differently wages, and still trying to maintain avenues of

integrity in ensuring offer -- also to vacation. california developed a unique model of electronically verifying certain documents with the mexican foreign ministry. can you talk about that? ms. contreras: ousted briefly about it because the deity represented probably would best be able to describe it. we understand the dmv was able to get a more -- countries like mexico to be able to develop achnology that can verify u.s. passport or other documentation. verifiableeasily be and where the customer can go from submitting the application and being cleared of tickets and being able to go from the ticket window with a first login to getting a drivers license within just a very short period of time. which was the goal in our case. a state like california, a

country like california, that's the way it feels. in a state like california we have so much diversity immigrants from all over the world, there are countries where the country of origin of the individual may have documentation that is appropriate for that country but does not meet the security features that our state requires specifically for the implementation of the bill. moving in that direction for california with a large population of undocumented individuals who are seeking drivers licenses, it could result for us in less wait time and more excited processes and the ability to serve all customers, including applicants more efficiently. people get very discouraged when they go to the ticket window without an appointment and it

being several weeks and months before they can get direction about the appropriate documentation. because of the large number of people coming through the dmv it could be several months. a worst-case scenario the dv is sensitive to that. the legislature as well. we are excited about that technology. mr. hunter: to open it up, how important are forward consulates in your work? do you have to seek them out or is it opens anybody? we've been working with the mexican consulate and that is proven to be very beneficial for us. just eye-opening and the potential number of individuals. they were very proud and happy to show us their issuance process. we like to think we're kind of the be-all, and all of document issuance of dmv because we take it very seriously. see thele to go and

consular id cards and the vetting process they use, it's very eye-opening for us them will allow seven high level of confidence represented with those documents that the proper vetting took place before coming into cs. that was very beneficial. they are remaining a part of the conversation. i care the transportation subcommittee for the delaware hispanic commission. they of becoming to our meetings and being a part of the conversation as we planned it out and we are reaching out to other consulates as well. ms. albertson: the same holds true for nevada. when we started having townhall meetings with our public information officers we included not only law enforcement with -- consulate office representatives as well as the representatives from local churches. as many as we could think of to invite. the hispanic chambers of commerce. organizations that have greater outreach to the community to help us get the word out. mr. hunter: i want to pause and

see if there are questions in the room. go ahead. could you approach the mic? >> hi. quick question for scott. when you talk about fingerprinting, does that go through any the processes for secure communities? does get to immigration authorities as well? mr. vien: no. the finger printing process is what our state police agency deems. it are going to become a school bus driver, a taxicab driver, a schoolteacher or what have you,

you have fingerprinting. it does not commingle with criminal finger printing records. it's not reported any agencies like that. it's a completely separate process but is still gives them tools they need so they can compare against the things they need to. to be a part of the applicant pool. mr. hunter: you look like you wanted to jump in. about whatwe talk the seats are going to do. you should better understand how existing -- between immigration and enforcement and dmv works. also between law enforcement information systems which are hosted by the dmv and immigration. put that oura, we

members of the legislative or sensitive and wanted to make sure there w the greatest accessas. conversation about not knowing what we didn't know, we tc, a california law enforcement telecommunications system. if you get stuck five a traffic officer and they write you a ticket, they look you up and find your information. there are existing things between law enforcement and the dmv in california that allows access. that's also the national level. while there is protection in places where you can't use the information to specifically arrest somebody, the knowledge that the person has an ab-16 license in california does not

mean they are not undocumented. we made it clear. debate -- we made it a crime to discriminate based on that. enforcement can't just go to the dmv and sale and the entire list of all applicants in those that have licenses, they can't do that. what they can do is if they are looking for an individual because a different -- they have a a deportation order or something that allows them to go to the dmv, the dmv must comply. i we want to pick them up, can you please give us their address? in that case the person may be found and deported accordingly. that is not something done by the states. it is a federal level. in the conversation about states and moving in the direction of drivers licenses, one of the key

messages from california was status about information and keeping information private does not preclude officers from being able to find people who have deportation orders. my senator, when he does a presentation or a workshop on about the opportunity for people to get access to drivers licenses, to drive their children to school. if you have a deportation order or have questions about your background, you should probably consult an attorney before you go to the dmv. i state that because while there is a lot of protections in place there are things that are not in the state-controlled -- state's control or management. pew.am becky with

i was wondering if other states are contacting you in their expiration of this? we saw the map and there was a bunch of states that have not considered this. are you hearing from states that are looking into this? and speaking to michelle's point about vermont, if we did see other states pursue this, with academic fraud? -- would that cut down on fraud? ms. albertson: in the case of nevada, whenever -- when california implemented their law they reached out to us. they were five or six of us is unhappy with the director in her administrators and deputies to share the lessons learned. it is invaluable what you can learn from the other states. i know scott has alluded to the american association of motor vehicle administrators organization that both my stay in his long to. a very valuable networking resources. i would be happy to share

lessons learned with any jurisdiction that would be interested. where the seat reaching out to everybody, nobody is asking us. ms. contreras: for california, it's interesting you bring up the point, as a legislative staff and from my senator we've been very engaged in -- specifically, my boss is on the immigration task force. gives conversations through the task forces he gives legislators and their staffs the ability to talk off the record really about lessons learned. about things you might want to admit you don't want to admit. and build relationships. phoneou can pick up the and call the number yourself. say hey, i thinking about these things and who can you connect me to in california?

absolutely, states are reaching out. specifically in our experience to ncsl and the immigration task force. it is been wonderful. mr. hunter: we talked about implementation and challenges of your experience. i'm curious about outreach. we talked a little bit off-line about this conversation. in the case of california with the high estimate of 1.4 million people that would be served down to vermont's 1500. these are all estimates and new populations and nobody can put their finger on how they need to be served, whether nationalities are, what languages they speak. your outreach approach and what lessons you learned? do you feel you have found the sweet spot in reaching in serving this population where if they don't know if they can apply for these licenses the program will not be successful? one area we are

focusing on is our hispanic population. simply due to the statistics that make up about 10% of our population in delaware. that will be our largest area affected by the legislation. i've mentioned i serve in the hispanic commission which gives the dmv access and outreach in the community. speaking on spanish radio. later this month is when people start publicizing this. these are the requirements when you come and these are the things you should expect. the hispanic population is not the only population we need to serve. we are reaching out to as many community centers as we can possibly think of to start having those conversations with other nationalities and other communities. we are doing things, simple things like making sure our translate button on the website is very visible and easy to use so somebody can see that right now. i did not even know it was there.

our print material will be in english and spanish. as we start seeing a need for other languages to be in print or for us to do more and other areas we will continue to and just. -- adjust. ms. albertson: a similar extremes for nevada. i will piggyback on erica's comment, you don't know what you don't know. until they come forward with a request for information or services that is when you find out. excess ofe have in 700 translators on the list, we did have a request for an individual of a unique language. i don't recall specifically which one it was. what we did to help the consumer is we reached out to the local university he was able to revive it with a translation service they need. we had to make an exception to our rule because we only allowed an actual person to be an approved translator.

but we were able to authorize the universities provide that service. ms. contreras: for california and mentioned the dmv did a beginning job of their work for the limitation through the workshops. they were soliciting information from the community about what type of documents would you suggest we use in verifying the identity if you can't use traditional document. workshops.er 200 legislators had a lot of interest in doing outreach and educate the community about it. the media played a key role. spanish media played a key role. level i have been very impressed with the amount of outreach that the of the has done and we are very pleased. i am austin from georgetown

university. we are doing a research project on the rollout in d.c. we are interviewing individuals who are looking to apply for the license or who are in the process. we are asking them about some of the reasons you might be held back from doing it. what are some of the difficulties or why you are not applying? we are finding some people, whether or not it is rational, are afraid of coming out of the shadows to apply for this license. my question is for anybody on the panel. has there been any reports or evidence, i know it's hard to find, of police discriminating on the basis of seeing the mark of a license? i know you spoke to how state can't control everything as far as immigration and customs enforcement. has there been any reports of that mark on the license resulted in any discrimination for people who are pulled over on the road? to date we have

not heard those stories. we do require in statute and the legislation that there be a any cases ofting discrimination that you reported to the state. in california it is a crime to discriminate based on that marked card. is in violation of the civil rights act. in the coming years as we get reports coming from parts of the community we may have data at that point. i have not heard anecdotally if it's been a problem. for us, isn't helpful that during the presentations of the workshops there was law enforcement sitting next to the of the representative saying don't be afraid, come out, they wanted to get licenses and insurance. everything will be safer.

we have not seen it. >> thank you. mr. hunter: i heard a couple of times when you are discussing your own outreach plan, reaching up to this community-based ethnic organizations. did you encounter resistance as government officials contacting these partners who serve what would be vulnerable communities to partner with government? was there resistance? ms. albertson: in nevada that responsibility was delegated to our public information officers and they welcomed the opportunity to join with us. the community groups did. we had no resistance. we had law enforcement officials there we had educated on the process and encouraging individuals to not be afraid. come forward and do this because that individual is driving behind their car. there was no marking on their cards that indicates to a law enforcement officer that they have a drivers authorization card inside. it's only when it's been

determined there was a name to pull -- a need to pull that person author -- over, when it pull the license other bullet and shows it to the officer that only them with the officer in the indication that they were a cardholder and not a holder of a standard issued license. mr. vien: same thing on the lines of what terri just said about the marking on the card. same thing with us. it is a class-d license like the one i possess myself. for all purposes in our system is a class-d license. if the visible card that does make the indicator. we have -- the folks we've reached out to so far have been very open and willing and very eager to talk to us, work with us. this will help their communities. there is concern with some of the provisions we have. ae of the things we're doing, sister piece of legislation that little over the bill was to have our task or three can be this

may, 2016. to study the early parts of the of limitation to see if there's anything that was passed in the legislation that is chilling participation. or is there anything we do better. that task force will be coming back in -- together in may. is there concern for law enforcement or government officials or anything of that nature? mr. hunter: for california and nevada, states currently implement thing, i think it is going? how would your own evaluations be in your efforts thus far? i think ours: community is happy they have access. in california there were a lot of people losing vehicles, getting impounded. we have laws in place that and in theoundment

vehicle gets house for 30 days with facing costly for people to be able to get their property back. our residents generally represent the area that the senator represents, they are happy they have a choice if they want to take advantage of it or not. person's levelhe of comfort. very,l people have been very pleased they have a mechanism. the concern about the marked card for some of them, it's a philosophical. we have no evidence it is being used incorrectly. having a marked card -- we are working diligently with organizations to make sure that people have all the means to get comfortable or they consult with an attorney accordingly.

i think my boss is pleased in many community members as well. mr. hunter: i'm hearing a plug for more research. these programs are still new. given theson: estimates of approximately 60,000 individuals that would apply for this and nevada and we are well over a year to our implementation. we have met barely half of that. i would encourage continued outreach with the community groups. to provide information to these individuals because we can say based on 14 months of experience we have not had any negative withity associated individuals having a drivers authorization card. i can't think of a better group than those that have the card to speak to others and encourage them to also become compliant by obtaining the drivers authorization card. that's all he matter of resources and the time it takes to do that. i think that would be something that maybe the community group

should consider, go out and educating individuals and getting people to have a car to sit on a panel and talk to others in they you don't have anything to be afraid of. mr. hunter: we are nearing our time so i wanted to get one final call to the room for questions and to the panelists if you have questions for one another. we will start here. >> i know that delaware worked with insurance companies as part of the process. i was wondering if california andnevada did similar work was it important? ms. albertson: four nevada will be reached out to the insurance agent -- industry and they were part of the hearing process during the legislation. they did not have a position on it one way or another. part of our analysis including the fact there was potential for increased insurance premiums to be sold to these individuals. it is not a requirement in nevada to have insurance to have a license. it's only a requirement if you register a vehicle.

on where the individual once to use the drivers authorization card for, it doesn't necessarily equate them directly into the selling of an insurance policy. they were part of the discussions. >>, specifically my boss was interested in helping people become -- get the insurance. we knew there were some insurance companies that were already providing insurance to some individuals that do not have a drivers license. usually it was very costly. we work very closely with the insurance commissioner in california. in statute we have a low income, programle insurance that is within the department of insurance. the same year we were working to wes the drivers licenses, were working to bring clarify

and expand its of people have better access to that program in california. we specifically, our office did not work with private companies for during the engagement process for the program, low income, affordable insurance programs, to give us the opportunity to educate people. mr. hunter: i would like to ask each panelist a final question and that is really an hour role at pew as a policy institute. putting this information from a policy makers as you are considering whether and how to approach these laws in your jurisdictions. i would like to start with michelle and go down the line. what is your biggest piece of advice and lessons learned from your experience? what's the most important take away for you from your work in this process? ms. waslin: i've learned so much. i think the biggest take away for me was that the legislatures must speak to the d

driver's licenses, he talked