Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
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 ...
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.
"The U.S. State Department issued a record 7,300,667 passports in fiscal year 2003, which ended Sept. 30, including first-time passports and renewals. The record followed two years of declining passport numbers, according to the department’s Bureau of Consular Affairs. The previous record of 7,292,182 was set in 2000. The increase brings the total number of valid passports to an estimated 59 million or about 21 percent of Americans, the highest percentage ever. Surges in passport applications usually indicate increased overseas travel by Americans, especially to Europe, as they did in the years 1993 through 2000. While this was not the case in 2003—overseas travel has declined because of the Iraq war, the SARS outbreak in Asia and concerns over the economy—the passport figures may be a strong positive indicator for 2004."
http://www.travelagentcentral.com/travelagentcentral/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=75568
Most recent data indicates 21%. That is still pretty low for a developed country.
I agree with the need to tighten border controls. However, there will be an economic cost to the tourism industry.
True enough. It is disturbing to see many Americans screaming for a National ID that "somebody else" pays for. A passport is good for 10 years (for travel outside the US) and even an expired passport is valid as proof of identity in the US, territories, and possessions. $9.70 per year is pretty inexpensive for I.D. A renewal is even cheaper, at $67.00 for ten years. People pay $12.00 a pop for TSA airport security fees. For me, that was over $1,000.00 last year. Tax deductible, of course ;)
The provision has no teeth. The same government that issued the order to confiscate cannot be expected to actually go ahead and prosecute
To really put some teeth into it, they should add "Any resident has the right to resist such felonious seizure with deadly force. No resident shall be arrested nor prosecuted for such use of deadly force"
Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
What exactly is the problem with doing this?
Well said.
I was going to post something on the order of "you can't or won't control the illegals, so tighten controls on the citizens. That way, it looks like you're doing something."
Too bad it's so damn cold up there, but apparently, the Free State Project's assessment was correct.
I don't have a cell phone precisely because I don't want to be found sometime...Like when fishing, on a run, a long hike or bike ride. I've been with the FedGov since '71 in one form or another and I need to get away.
Yet for access to secure or valued locations, your gonna need the ID. It's been like that since man was on Earth and grouped together
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.