“All this belly-aching about REAL ID could have been prevented if the states had done their job.”
To me, the idea of REAL ID sounds good. I really don’t understand the arguments against it.
Anyone care to help me understand their objections to this?
The government’s failure to stop illegal immigration should not be the backbone of a new government boondoggle that allegedly provides a fix for their ineptitude of the initial premise.
There are immigration laws already in place.
Government makes excuses why they cannot enforce the laws.
So their better idea, that makes government look like it is legitimately trying to solve the problem they have created, by not enforcing the current laws, is to impose on the “subjects” another program they will ultimately fail to deliver on.
We are born in a State. We live in a State. We are educated in a State. We learn to drive in a State. The State issues our birth records. We live under State Laws.
I am a citizen of my State first. I am not a subject of the federal kingdom. There is nothing wrong with the State recordkeeping. There is nothing wrong with State law enforcement.
But there is everything wrong with a federal mandate that forces me to obtain permission and travel documents within my own country when I am already a legal resident.
The Real ID is a distraction ploy. The American citizen is NOT the problem. The problem is with the illegal immigrants and the governments inability or willingness to enforce those SPECIFIC LAWS related to immigration.
They can’t even build a damn border fence. I bet in monetary cost, a border fence would be much less costly than duplication of ID documents already held by lifelong American citizens.
Checking people at the borders makes much more sense, just because of the low volume, than auditing CITIZENS.
Those 12 million illegals didn’t cross the border all at the same time. They came one at a time, and they can be sent back one at a time, even if it takes 10 years to do their job the Feds told us they would do.