Posted on 01/01/2002 9:13:35 AM PST by Jhoffa_
Come on, fork em over..
:)
Since the Soviet Union was still around as recently as 1989, it would seem that comparisions to that system would be much more timely and relevant than comparisons to a system that was crushed over fifty-five years ago.
I don't know why Bush would even give Larry Ellison the time of day. The man is a big-time clintonoid of the worst kind. The last thing we need is to feed his wallet.
That's a good point.. We didn't do anything wrong.
Not a thing. Ergo, we should not be punished.
The ironic point is that the ACLU used to defend individual "liberties." They still do, to some extent, but they have been sadly diverted to issues like "abortion rights," pornography, and sexual perversion, and when these pet issues conflict with basic freedoms, they sometimes come down against freedom--Right-to-Life counseling being a typical issue of this kind. On an issue like National ID, however, conservatives could and should ally themselves with liberals on preserving our basic constitutional rights. After all, the politicians who would like to impose these controls also form strange alliances, such as the one that threatens between Ashcroft and Ellison.
I think the Nazi stuff always comes to the surface because it's a fantastic example of what can happen when you abuse executive power..
I mean, Look what happened.. and then look what nearly happened..
It's no wonder people make these refrences and compare..
sorry..
Very true, and very sad. The fact is that the Soviet Union was so exhausted and wretched by the end that it was incapable of producing a pen that actually worked for the purposes of signing itself out of existence. When Gorbachev went to publicly sign the document that would end the Soviet Union, he had a ceremonial pen that had been produced specifically for this task. When Gorbachev went to use this ceremonial pen, it didn't work. Nobody had thought to actually check to see if the pen worked. Typical Soviet efficiency. A reporter from CNN had to hand Gorbachev a ninteen cent Bic pen, that actually worked, and Gorbachev used that pen to sign the instrument that ended the existence of the Soviet Union.
My question still stands, however. What was the official policy of the Soviet Union regarding ID? Did they have a national ID? How was it handled? How did it impact the daily life of the average Russian or Ukrainian? Is the new "National ID" being proposed similar to what the Soviets had? How similar, or how different? I'm really curious here, does anyone have the facts handy?
Looks like the Russkies still have their "National ID"
Propiska
Susan Brazier *
Background
A propiska is a permit issued by the authorities that registers the bearer's place of residence. Its use is a legacy of the Tsarist government's internal passport regime implemented to control population movements throughout the Empire, particularly to manage urbanisation in the late 19th century. Restrictions on peasants' movements were lifted in 1906 and the entire internal passport system was abandoned shortly after the 1917 Revolution. In December 1932, however, the Soviet government aped its predecessors by re-introducing internal passports.
Under the Soviets, internal passports were issued at the age of 16, subject to renewal every five years, with a propiska, or residency permit stamped inside. No change in residence could be made without official permission and failure to register was subject to fines or imprisonment. A valid propiska was required in order to work, get married or gain access to education or social services. Individuals were required to present their passports and propiski for internal travel or on demand by authorities or employers.
Propiska was particularly difficult to obtain for certain places, such as Moscow. Many people were refused propiska for Moscow virtually as a rule, including ex-convicts, political dissidents and Roma. Because these documents were so difficult to get, and were sometimes arbitrarily withdrawn, bribery and fake marriages became common methods of circum-venting the law.
Post 1991 Propiska was officially abolished when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. However, several successor states continue to use propiska or some form of official permission to register one's place of residence, including Belarus, the Russian Federation and Kyrgyzstan. Armenia, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Ukraine have abolished the need to apply for permission, but still require that residence be registered. Georgia has done away with all forms of registration, and in Moldova the practice was declared unconstitutional in May 1997.
Registration laws are often contradictory or unclear, enforced haphazardly or simply ignored. In Kazakhstan, the government can still refuse registration in certain places, especially the capital. In Ukraine, access to social benefits is tied to place of registration, meaning individuals can lose access to social benefits after moving. In Belarus, refugees have had difficulties obtaining their propiski because of housing shortages and bureaucratic difficulties. On the other hand, in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, the propiska laws still on the books have been increasingly ignored over the past several years.
Russian Federation: evolution of the system In the Russian Federation, courts have tried to address the issues of residence registration and freedom of movement on several occasions. The Russian Constitutional Court has abolished propiska five times since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, yet legislatures at various levels have continued to issue laws aimed at controlling migration and residency that are blatantly unconstitutional, and a propiska-like system is still in place across many parts of the country. Between 30 and 40 of Russia's 89 regions have laws unconstitutionally restricting local migration or registration, including Moscow City and Moscow District, St. Petersburg, Krasnodar and Stavropol Territories and Voronezh District.
Residence registration in Russia is restricted by a web of local, regional and national regulations that, among other things, detail the amount of floor space legally required before a propiska can be issued and list who can sponsor newcomers to an area. The enormous fees charged for registration are another common restrictive measure. These fees have usually been highest in urban centres and areas that might receive influxes of population due to ethnic conflict. In some cases, they could be higher than the cost of a house, running to several thousand dollars. In April 1996, the Moscow District decreased their registration fees to 300 times the minimum monthly wage (approximately 25,000 Russan rubles or 890 euros).
On February 2, 1998, the Constitutional Court declared un-constitutional restrictions on duration of registration at place of sojourn and floor space quotas, as well as regional restrictions. Moscow Mayor Luzhkov responded by declaring publicly that he would refuse to obey the Court's ruling.
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.