Posted on 05/18/2009 3:29:41 PM PDT by Sarajevo
Buddy, Real ID is national ID.
Fact: REAL ID simply sets minimum standards so that the public can have confidence in the security and integrity of driver’s licenses and identification cards issued by all participating states and jurisdictions.
--States and jurisdictions will maintain their ability to design and issue their own unique driver’s licenses and identification cards. Each state and jurisdiction will continue to have flexibility with regard to the design and security features used on the card. Where REAL ID details the minimum data elements that must be included on the face of the card, most states and jurisdictions already include all or almost all of these data elements on their cards.
--REAL ID identification documents will not be the only form of documentation accepted by the federal government or any other entity. You can still present another form of acceptable identification such as a U.S. passport, military ID, or government identification badge. If you do not have another form of acceptable documentation, however, you may experience delays at the airport due to the requirement for additional security screening.
Friend,
it is de facto national ID. The Feds are forcing a standard on all states so that the FEDs have all the data they want on an ID. This is a states rights and individual rights issue. They will make life miserable for citizens (who are citizens of the sovereign states, we are not federal citizens) whose states don’t kowtow to the demands. It is none of the federal government’s business to compel states to issue IDs that contain what the federal govt wants. These are official state ids. It has already been proven people will be able to change data on a real ID card. They have already shown they cna do this with biometric US passports that the feds claimed were hacker-proof encrypted. These things will also be copied. It is a total joke. It is unbridled federalism.
I don’t have time to argue with you. I suggest you spend time reading things about Real ID other than this one recent article. You are late to the game, and the guy who wrote this, has it wrong.
I am very familiar with the Real ID act. The Reps in the House, namely Jim Sensenbrenner, fought a tough fight to get it passed. The Dems fought against it because they want their buddies in ACORN to continue with their voter fraud and they want to protect the "undocumented workers." And the terrorists are given free reign. The 20 9/11 hijackers had 65 state driver's licenses between them.
The link I provided was from DHS. Oh, by the way, your good pal, Janet Napolitano is trying to get it repealed. Homeland Security chief seeks to repeal Real ID Act
Obama and his toadies are dismanteling our security safeguards, including Real ID. For those of us who work on the immigration issue lobbying on the Hill, the real reason they want to kill Real ID is because Obama doesn't want to hassle the illegal aliens who are running around without driver's licenses or have used fraudulent documents to get them. And there are four states that issue drivers licenses to illegals.
I gather you are a Libertarian who can care less about our borders or voting fraud. I suggest you read the actual legislation. Also, what is your solution to sorting out the 12 to 30 million illegals living amongst us and the tens of thousands of potential terrorists who are entering our country. What documents do you propose that we use to demonstrate that someone is here legally? What ID document do you use to board an aircraft? Do you support E-Verify?
The idea of Federal involvement in these matters is also unsupported by the Constitution, unless you can find it in the penumbras and emanations of which liberals seem so fond.
The America of the 1940s is far different than the one we have now. The Immigration Act of 1965 changed it forever. There are now over 40 million foreign born residents of the US. The total population of the US in 1940 was 132 million.
The U.S. adds one international migrant (net) every 36 seconds. Immigrants account for one in 8 U.S. residents, the highest level in more than 80 years. In 1970 it was one in 21; in 1980 it was one in 16; and in 1990 it was one in 13. In a decade, it will be one in 7, the highest it has been in our history. And by 2050, one in 5 residents of the U.S. will be foreign-born. Currently, 1.6 million legal and illegal immigrants settle in the country each year; 350,000 immigrants leave each year, resulting in net immigration of 1.25 million. Since 1970, the U.S. population has increased from 203 million to 306 million, i.e., over 100 million. In the next 40 years, the population will increase by 135 million. Three-quarters of the increase in our population since 1970 and the projected increase will be the result of immigration. The U.S., the world’s third most populous nation, has the highest annual rate of population growth of any developed country in the world, i.e., 0.975% (2009 estimate), principally due to immigration.
No one is advocating an National ID. Certainly not the author of this piece from the Heritage Foundation. We do need ways to identify who is here legally and illegally. An estimated 500,000 illegals enter this country annually.
These powers were all far more formidable than are the Muslim terrorists, and also had a considerable body of domestic sympathizers, such as German-American Bund and the Christian Front during World War II and the Communist Party and its fellow travelers during the Cold War. Yet, unless you were a young man of military age during World War II or a Communist or a sympathizer during the 1950s, your freedoms were not restricted.
We did round up Japanese, Italians, and Germans and put them in camps during WWII. Today, we are fighting an enemy that is a non-state actor. They operate in countries throughout the world, including in the US. More people were killed on 9/11 than at Pearl Harbor. WMD is now more readily available to the terrorists, which makes them much more dangerous in terms of civilian casualties. You really can't compare the two. Different threats, different times.
The Eisenhower administration did an effective job in rounding up and deporting illegals in the Southwest without imposing controls on the general population.
We no longer have the political will to conduct an Operation Wetback and the numbers are much greater today. Obama and the last GOP Presidential candidate both wanted to legalize the status of those who entered illegally, i.e., amnesty. It remains to be seen if it happens, but if it does, this country is finished with the stroke of a pen. Moreover, even if amnesty doesn't happen, we are still being destroyed by the 1.2 million LEGAL immigrants who enter this country. We can't assimilate those numbers, especially since most of them are poor and uneducated. Milton Friedman said, “You cannot simultaneously have free immigration and a welfare state.” The idea of Federal involvement in these matters is also unsupported by the Constitution, unless you can find it in the penumbras and emanations of which liberals seem so fond.
The Federal Government is responsibile for our national security. We have 12 to perhaps 30 million illegal aliens running around this country, about 30% top 40% are visa overstays, i.e., they entered legally. How do you propose we deport them without the federal, state, and local governments cooperating with one another? Do you believe that states and cities should be allowed to establish sanctuaries for illegals? What is your opinion on 287 [g] authority and E-Verify?
There has been a lot of knee-jerk response to Real ID, which is not a national ID card and doesn't invade personal privacy. The federal government is dictating such things as airport security. Do you think that should be allowed up to the states?
Are you against metal detactors and x-ray machines prior to boarding an aircraft. We didn't have that in the 1940s or 1950s so why are they needed now?
Very true and yet, just a symptom of the much greater problem of our society's abandonment of its moral underpinnings and cultural virtues.
I'm a lover of technology, but while it has increased our capabilities exponentially, it remains a strictly amoral proposition: it can be used for tremendous good or evil. The decline in personal, professional and public ethics will almost inevitably lead to its use for control of the masses rather than to expand individual liberty. A national ID is simply one of the first steps in this direction.
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.