Skip to comments.The Real ID Rebellion (National ID)
Posted on 04/17/2006 8:50:15 AM PDT by af_vet_rr
In 1775, New Hampshire was the first colony to declare its independence from oppressive laws and taxes levied by the British crown.
Now it may become the first state to declare its independence from an oppressive digital ID law concocted in Washington, D.C.
New Hampshire's House of Representatives has overwhelmingly approved a remarkable bill, HB 1582, that would prohibit the state from participating in the national ID card system that will be created in 2008. A state Senate vote is expected as early as next week.
The federal law in question is the Real ID Act (here's our FAQ on the topic) that was glued on to a military spending and tsunami relief bill last year. Because few politicians are courageous enough to be seen as opposing tsunami aid, the measure sailed through the U.S. Senate by a 100-0 vote and navigated its way through the House 368 votes to 58.
Unless states issue new, electronically readable ID cards that adhere to federal standards, the law says, Americans will need a passport to do everyday things like travel on an airplane, open a bank account, sign up for Social Security or enter a federal building.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.com.com ...
Had this happened under Bill Clinton, Republicans would freak out. As it is, it was pushed by Republicans, under a Republican Administration, by a Republican-controlled House and Senate, and was deliberately attached to a bill that few would dare vote against, rather than on its own as a free-standing bill where there would be some debate.
Even if it was pushed as a free-standing bill, I think that too many people with R's next to their names would champion this without really thinking about the future implications.
Just out of curiousity, how do you police illegal immigration without some form of I.D.?
Unfortunately the world is filled with illbehaving jerks, and we either have to hunt them all down and kill them, or put up with driver's licenses that conform to a national standard.
Of course the real question is will we have the guts to do anything about it? Right now they basically get a total free pass, anyway.
The way you police ILLEGAL ALIENS is to require all LEGAL immigrants to carry a digital ID card, and digital visas . A simple green card makes it easy to copy and forge, a digital ID on the line of most drivers licenses today would make it easy to verify the identity of immigrants and weed out the ILLEGALS from the legals. No need for a national ID, we live in freedom here and an ID is another chunk out of our freedoms.
If you can't see the danger of requiring a national ID then you have a problem.
Call it a "Patriot Card". We'll line up like lemmings.
"Just out of curiousity, how do you police illegal immigration without some form of I.D.?"
That's an excellent question, and one that doesn't get raised often enough. In reality, there's not much of a way to enforce those laws without some recognizable form of I.D.
Social Security numbers don't work, since they can be obtained pretty easily, really, and the Social Security card isn't an I.D. anyhow, since it doesn't include a photo or any fingerprints or any such stuff.
A birth certificate is useless, too, since you can get one by sending a request for it to the local county clerk. A quick trip to a local newspaper archive for the year you were born will pop up a number of names you can use to request a birth certificate.
Driver's licenses....well, they'll do, as long as the process of getting one involves some sort of proof of citizenship. But you can see the two paragraphs above for ways around that.
How DO we tell who is a citizen and who is not? That's a tough question, and I don't have a good answer for it.
Recent naturalized citizens have their naturalization papers, even if they only speak English haltingly. I have my passport, which should serve.
Many of those existing forms of I.D.'s are easily forged. Social Security cards even more easily. Without an integrated database, an employer can request and receive valid I.D. information from an illegal, only to find out weeks or even months later that it was bogus.
If the feds are dependent on inadequate state I.D.'s for identification, how are they supposed to enforce the immigration laws properly?
I'm really not taking a position on this because I don't like the "National I.D." thing anyway. But I do see a problem with controlling illegal workers under the current system.
actually it just says STATE id's have to adhere to a standard.
IOW no easily counterfited DLs or State ID's.
This is a good thing.
An easy wway for a state to avoid this entirly is to just not issue ANY ID document. No DL's no ID's NOTHING.
But isn't that already the case with the current I.D. system? I mean, I can't imagine that the state I.D. currently required to enter federal courts are tougher to forge than a federal one using updated technology.
It's a tough issue.
I don't see the big deal with and ID. You have to show ID for everything, like cashing a check, getting on a plane. Why not have one that means something and would discourage illegals.
You know, there are some interesting difficulties in this whole lack of a uniform system of identifications. Let's take this case:
1. The person is not a citizen.
2. He/she speaks excellent English, as do many people outside of the USA.
3. He/she never attempts to vote.
4. He/she never applies for any sort of welfare.
5. Through some subterfuge, the person has a SS# and Driver's Licence (it's not that difficult).
6. Most importantly, U.S. Citizens are not required to present identification on demand.
How do you identify this person as an illegal alien? The answer is that you don't. He/she lives and operates as a legal citizen, and probably will never be discovered.
Policing illegal immigration is treating the symptom. Tens of millions of illegal immigrants arrive because (a) it's so hard to be legal, and (b) socialism gives them a great deal for nothing.
If the gov't would stop stealing from legals and giving to illegals, thus curtailing the demand for entry at all costs, there wouldn't be a need to police illegal immigrants.
"Papieren, bitte" ("papers, please") was long considered the indicator of the worst of totalitarian governance. Suddenly it's considered normal and expected - that indicates something has gone horribly wrong.
Living in a state where the IDs are a total joke (they used to be cheap laminates that looked like fake IDs, then they finally got "modern" but made them good until you turn 65 so after a few years they stop being at all useful as identification) I can see a definite need for some better rules and standardization on what an ID is in this country. Not sure Real ID is the right answer but I do know something had to be done. Oh and did I mention that in AZ you can order a replacement ID for $4 off the web with no proof of anything, anybody that wants to start a fake ID business need only only move to AZ, you can get DMV to mass produce your fakes for you, don't worry if the people you sell them to look nothing like you half of us in AZ don't look anything like our IDs anymore.
Well, if they're not voting, not collecting welfare, paying taxes (that's why they have the SSN), and not committing other crimes, I don't have as much problem with them. Set up a system to legalize that exact status, with a valid I.D. to confirm it, control the border, and you've got a solution. No freeloading, no crime, no voting, and paying taxes.
National ID? When did that become law? I refuse to get one!
it is not.
it should have been titled the "anti-counterfit" law.
No more cheep laminate IDs. No more paper SS cards.
(it is a way to also have good IDs for voting)
Exactly right...a National ID card is not going to "protect" any of us...and, in any event, the feds are less interested in protecting the American people than in making sure the American people feel they need to rely on the feds to protect them. The great state of NH is always on the frontlines of the battles against the federal nanny state:
New Hampshire bill aims to prevent Katrina-style gun seizures
Concord NH--Concerned by perceived abuses of Federal power during the Katrina crisis, New Hampshire state reps are reviewing a bill which would criminalize certain weapons seizures - even if the perpetrators are Federal officers. House Bill 1639-FN, prohibits the confiscation of lawfully owned and lawfully carried firearms during a state of emergency, making a felon of any law enforcement officer who attempts to seize such a firearm during a disaster.
The bill was sponsored by Rep. Paul Hopfgarten at the request of local Free Staters - members of a group trying to recruit freedom lovers to New Hampshire and turn it an even more libertarian state than it already is
The bill reads: "Any law enforcement officer, person acting as a law enforcement officer, or other public official who confiscates or attempts to confiscate lawfully carried or lawfully owned firearms in this state during a declared state of emergency shall be charged with a class A felony."
In the chaos following Hurricane Katrina, various government agencies - including Federal Marshalls - made systematic attempts to sweep New Orleans of guns - even if that meant entering the homes of law abiding gun owners. The move did not cause widespread outrage in most states. But New Hampshire residents reacted by burning a FEMA flag in front of a local Federal building. They also circulated a petition pledging resistance if such a move were ever attempted in the "Live Free or Die" state....a place where guns are part of the culture and gun laws are the second-loosest in the nation.
Activists say whether it passes or not, this "Gun Protection Bill" is one more small thing they can do to try and protect themselves from disarmament at the hands of any government, during a time when they believe they will need their weapons most.
These days and times make it unfortunately necessary for one to be able to identify one's self via an untamperable bio-metricmethod.
Identity thieves (who I believe should be executed upon discovery right in the store, or shortly thereafter) won't have such an easy time passing checks & stolen credit/debit cards, getting fake loans, purchasing in your name, etc.
Notification of foreigners here on visas that have expired should be part of the system, also the phoney ones too, with swift deportation awaiting the cheaters, who could also be criminals with ill intent.
As for the Illegals, they will be quickly be gone for failing ID checks for/at empolyment, bank accounts, check cashing, wire transfers, ER & free clinic, driving and other licenses, an array of social services, SSI benefits, so much more. Gone to then try to return via legal means.
Hey? isn't that what the Nazi party was?
It only restricts the lawful.
The American people need to understand that the United States is under attack!
And then, after that, they'll use them to read our minds! Oh, no!
Is it implated in the forhead or back of the hand? </sarc>
Nope. Not if you set up the legal burdens correctly. The problem with the current system is that employers have the easy "out" from legal liability by claiming they relied on forged documents. Close that loophole with a better I.D., limit by statute the appeal process, and you can greatly increase enforcement.
The trick, though, is that you've got to give them an incentive to signup for the I.D.'s in the first place.
The incentive is to require the ID to transfer their money to Mexico. Once we cut down the flow to Mexico, the Mexican govt will feel the pressure and stop encouraging the immigration.
Well we don't deport or even detain illegal immigrants. We don't require English to be spoken. Their children are entitled to a free education, free emergency medical care and cannot be asked their status as a citizen ( in NY anyway).
How will my carrying a national ID card change this situation? Fix those problems first, build a wall, then see if we still need a national ID.
Why can't they just carry it, and go back over the border the same way they came in?
That's not true, and you posting that as fact is indicative of one of the biggest problems in trying to debate this subject intelligently. Namely, that there are too many people asserting things as facts that aren't.
"No person in the U.S. is required to present identification on demand. The fourth amendment does not say anything about citizenship. Suffrage is a whole separate issue, and the leftists tend to lump them together. Once the right to be secure in your person, papers, and effects is waived; suffrage becomes moot. Retroactive laws that disenfranchise a larger group are desired by both parties."
You are correct. Howwever, that is the source of the problem. On one hand, we have the freedom not to "show our papers" on demand. On the other, that means that anyone in this country must be assumed to be here legally.
There's a definite conflict here, and that's at the heart of our immigration problems right now. If you cannot demand that someone prove his or her citizenship, then everyone becomes a citizen by default.
So, what to do? Either we have some sort of uniform national I.D. or we have no control whatever of those who may have entered the country illegally.
Which situation do you prefer?
We already have a uniform national ID, and I have one. It is a United States Passport. Curiously, it does not contain my Social Security number, or a Service Identification number. Most states have similar (yet not identical) requirements to obtain a drivers license or a State issued photo identification. Having traveled internationally, I also have an international driving permit/license. Something that very few Americans realize is that the souvenir hospital "birth certificate" is NOT valid for a passport (or drivers license in most cases). It must be a Bureau of Vital Statistics certified copy. And it is not wise (or practical) to carry a birth certificate with you at all times. I believe that the requirements to have a valid passport to travel to Canada or Mexico in 2007-2008 will help document illegal migration and illegal immigration. I will never allow a National ID. Because they will tie it to the "Brady" laws and perform a national registration.
A lot harder to do than making a bank transfer or sending a money order. You're not going to give too many people your cash.
Assuming they're just sending the money and not carrying it themeselves, all you get is a little cottage industry of guys, like check cashers, who will do it for you. Go in, give them money, they take a 5% fee, and then they wire the money for you. No way to stop that.
My point is that you make it more difficult, not stop it completely. If you squeeze the employers to demand the card and squeeze the money transfers, you squeeze the illegal immigrants. The ID card is a tool to take away their incentive. It's not the only thing, certainly.
Honestly, requiring an I.D. to ship money to Mexico is nothing. All they do is get any intermediary to do it. No squeeze at all.
As for the I.D. cards, everyone applying for a job should be required to present either a high-tech social security card (for citizens), or a guest worker I.D. (for immigrants). Immigrants will be required to carry that on them at all times, citizens won't.
If decades of anti-narcotics laws and, in many big cities, anti-gun laws, have not had any effect on the supply of contraband, how will a National ID card system not be circumvented by organized crime? Like narcotics, forged IDs will be controlled by criminal elements and distributed through word of mouth among the illegals.
This requirement will likely depress American-Canadian tourism. A Canadian wanting to go to Florida or Texas for a week will probably not bother, nor will an American wanting to visit Vancouver or the Canadian side of Niagara Falls. I would guess that less than 20% of Americans own a passport, and given the cost and hassle, I doubt many casual travelers will bother to do so to visit Canada, Mexico, etc. I must wonder if the travel industry will not put pressure on Congress to repeal the new passport regulations.
Same way they do today. Ignore the illegals and send the folks who have ID the bill.
I think that's about it. Expecting the government to distinguish between illegals and citizens without a valid I.D. system is impossible.
And exactly how can you get one without showing some form of ID to the clerk? They do check that nowadays.
"And exactly how can you get one without showing some form of ID to the clerk? They do check that nowadays.
Depends on the jurisdiction. It really does.
You would guess correctly regarding Americans with a valid passport. The legislation was crafted with input from the tourism industry. A passport is less expensive than a state drivers license or photo ID, unless you need to expedite it. This common misconception is used by the Democrats to scream "poll tax" whenever there is talk of requiring ID. Even with the passport requirement, illegal immigration will be a problem with respect to Mexico. Simply because their government requires an "exit visa" of Mexican nationals. The Canadian impact will be much lower for two reasons; stable government and economic policies, combined with sound emigration - immigration policies. It is very unusual for a Canadian national to overstay a NAFTA visa, or tourist visa.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.