Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Wall St. Journal (Again) Hates Real ID Act

Posted on 02/19/2005 6:06:09 AM PST by ncphinsfan

Republicans swept to power in Congress 10 years ago championing state prerogatives, and one of their first acts was to repeal federal speed-limit requirements. Another was aimed at ending unfunded state mandates. So last week's House vote to require costly and intrusive federal standards for state drivers licenses is a measure of how far the party has strayed from these federalist principles.


TOPICS: Government
KEYWORDS: nationalid; realidact
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-90 next last

1 posted on 02/19/2005 6:06:10 AM PST by ncphinsfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ncjetsfan

Wall St. Journal editorial board appears to be drifting near the edge.


2 posted on 02/19/2005 6:07:36 AM PST by ncphinsfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ncjetsfan

3 posted on 02/19/2005 6:08:56 AM PST by agitator (...And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ncjetsfan
So last week's House vote to require costly and intrusive federal standards for state drivers licenses is a measure of how far the party has strayed from these federalist principles.

Dear WSJ: Like it or not, state driver's licenses are the primary form of ID used for air travel and other activity used by past terrorists. States such as Utah were creating a massive security gap with their drivers' license issuance policy. So untwist your knickers and smell the coffee...

4 posted on 02/19/2005 6:09:52 AM PST by dirtboy (Drooling moron since 1998...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ncjetsfan
WSJ's editorial board is fixated on open borders and uninterrupted immigration, illegal or legal. Consequently it opposes any legislation that restricts the free movement of illegals.
5 posted on 02/19/2005 6:12:59 AM PST by conservativehistorian (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ncjetsfan

Oh give me a break, this has nothing to do with federalist principles as far as the WSJ is concerned. They are being disingenous. It's all about any attempt to impede the cheap labor they've been relentlessly defending for years.


6 posted on 02/19/2005 6:13:52 AM PST by Reaganwuzthebest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ncjetsfan; Miss Marple

Is this another unsigned editorial?

This bs makes one wonder if Al Hunt really left the WSJ, or he is still there as the unnamed editor.


7 posted on 02/19/2005 6:18:48 AM PST by Grampa Dave (The MSM has been a WMD, Weapon of Mass Disinformation for the Rats for at least 4 decades.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reaganwuzthebest

I forgot to post the link to the article which is in Opinionjournal.com this morning. Sorry. It's my first time to try to post an article. I'm now reading the tutorial which explains how to post.
Thank you.


8 posted on 02/19/2005 6:19:40 AM PST by ncphinsfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ncjetsfan
So what is the solution? Continue with the status quo where each State adopts inconsistent and conflicting policies regarding acceptable ID, bestowal of driving privileges, authentication of voting eligibility, etc., etc.? Unfortunately, IMO this is a proper role for the Feds - Establishing a Standard for something the crosses between all States boundaries.
9 posted on 02/19/2005 6:20:15 AM PST by drt1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ncjetsfan
costly and intrusive federal standards for state drivers licenses

No one needs to read the rest of it.

Only 10 states don't require a "proof of presence" test for DLs. Virginia imposed more stringent regs shortly after 9/11, and the final "proof of presence" component went into effect Jan. 2004. It merely requires that the applicant provide a U.S. birth certificate, naturalization docs, a passport, or foreign passport with valid visa. For local residence, a utility bill or bank statement.

Hardly what anyone in their right mind would call "intrusive."

As for the allegation that it's so "costly", the only costs are for personnel to look at and validate the required documents. I did see one estimate that costs were projected to be $20 million over 5 years, which even conservatively is only $400,000 per year, per state. That's perhaps 8 extra man-years per state to check docs (for you sticklers, a 5 minute document check would mean those 8 people could check 200,000 new DL or ID applications per year, per state).

The WSJ is absolutely nuts and completely disingenuous on this issue.

10 posted on 02/19/2005 6:22:43 AM PST by angkor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ncjetsfan

No need to read the rest of it anyway being from the WSJ lol. But I wouldn't worry about it, you'll get the hang of it soon enough.


11 posted on 02/19/2005 6:30:20 AM PST by Reaganwuzthebest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: drt1
Simply have a place for a red line to indicate that the license was obtained without federally approved ID

The thin red line soution leaves the states in charge of deciding how they want to handle driver's licenses.

12 posted on 02/19/2005 6:46:14 AM PST by From many - one. (formerly e p1uribus unum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ncjetsfan
"all of the hijackers entered the U.S. legally, which means they qualified for drivers licenses. The Real ID Act wouldn't change that. Moreover, you don't need a driver's license to fly. Other forms of identification--such as a passport--are acceptable and also were available to the hijackers. Nothing in the Sensenbrenner bill would change that, either. "

The people behind this ID bill don't care about terrorists, they're simply playing to the anti-immigrant crowd who want to make it more difficult for immigrants to compete in the job market.

What the anti-immigrants who can't keep a job don't realize is that they are their own worse enemies, not the immigrants. Most employers would rather close their business than hire the type of whining insecure malcontents that we see populating the immigration threads on FR.

13 posted on 02/19/2005 6:49:09 AM PST by bayourod ("It's for the children" has been replaced by "It's to fight terrorists.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ncjetsfan

The solution for terrorism is to carry arms anywhere at any time.

As for voting, stamp the voters forehead with indelible ink "I Voted!" As for verification of citizenship, get these lazy-ass bureaucrats and politicians out into the community knocking on doors meeting citizens so they know who is eligible. I have yet to meet my local county commissioner. Worthless bum. I know the guy who drives the county's front end loader better than I do the local pols.

I don't need a stupid ID. I know who I am. And I'm not a bloody cow.


14 posted on 02/19/2005 6:51:36 AM PST by sergeantdave (Smart growth is Marxist insects agitating for a collective hive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bayourod

shaking my head....


15 posted on 02/19/2005 6:51:36 AM PST by dakine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: bayourod
Most employers would rather close their business than hire the type of whining insecure malcontents that we see populating the immigration threads on FR.

You really should stop talking about yourself bayourod, conceit is so unseemly.

16 posted on 02/19/2005 6:53:39 AM PST by Reaganwuzthebest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: angkor
"The WSJ is absolutely nuts and completely disingenuous on this issue.

The WSJ that was passing on the opinions of others, ie.."governors, state legislatures and motor vehicle departments have denounced the bill as expensive and burdensome,

17 posted on 02/19/2005 6:56:48 AM PST by bayourod ("It's for the children" has been replaced by "It's to fight terrorists.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: From many - one.; dirtboy; sergeantdave
IMO this argument is almost moot. We don't object to standards for food, drugs, environment, labor and safety regulation, intra State Commerce and a host of other matters that extend beyond individual State boundaries yet the imposition of a standard for verifying the true and legal identity of an individual in a matter that clearly cross State lines is strenuously opposed by some.

I ask why in the full recognition of the validity of all of these other areas of Federal regulation. IMO this is another area that warrants the establishment of a uniform and effective standard and from, where I see it, the Federal Government is the only entity in a position to ensure that necessary standards are developed and enforced. What is the real rationale for opposition to this initiative?

18 posted on 02/19/2005 7:02:16 AM PST by drt1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: drt1
What is the real rationale for opposition to this initiative?

Keeping it easy for shady employers to keep hiring illegals, IMO.

19 posted on 02/19/2005 7:03:51 AM PST by dirtboy (Drooling moron since 1998...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Reaganwuzthebest
" It's all about any attempt to impede the cheap labor "

That's right, it has nothing to do with security. It's just about protecting big labor unions from competition while appeasing the people who don't like Mexicans.

20 posted on 02/19/2005 7:07:54 AM PST by bayourod ("It's for the children" has been replaced by "It's to fight terrorists.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: drt1

We don't want a national ID card.

"Papers pliss"

The old giving up liberty for security thing.


21 posted on 02/19/2005 7:08:18 AM PST by From many - one. (formerly e p1uribus unum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
"Keeping it easy for shady employers to keep hiring illegals, IMO"

Agree. That certainly is one reason. Another might be found in parochialism of some States re: Giving up a prerogative (A lousy reason IMO). Yet another might be a hesitancy to actually establish a basis for real, effective voter identification thereby limiting the 'Flexibility' of the parties (Wash State?) in conducting elections.

22 posted on 02/19/2005 7:11:40 AM PST by drt1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: dakine
"shaking my head.... "

Because you can't verbalize a response? You did know that the 9/11 hijackers had legal drivers' licenses just like they still would under this bill don't you?

23 posted on 02/19/2005 7:11:56 AM PST by bayourod ("It's for the children" has been replaced by "It's to fight terrorists.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: bayourod
It's just about protecting big labor unions from competition while appeasing the people who don't like Mexicans.

It's kind of tiring after a while trying to discuss this issue with you saying the same thing over and over and over again.

Are you aware of how many Hispanics are on this board speaking out against illegal immigration and the economic consequences as a result of it?

With you jumping to conclusions all the time about people's motives as you do maybe a more appropriate screename should be lightning rod because that's what you made yourself.

24 posted on 02/19/2005 7:17:01 AM PST by Reaganwuzthebest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: bayourod
It's just about protecting big labor unions from competition while appeasing the people who don't like Mexicans.

So my wife, who is a third-generation American citizen of Mexican ancestry, doesn't like Mexicans because she is opposed to illegal immigration.

That's really special, bayourod. She has to hate herself for your theory to be valid.

25 posted on 02/19/2005 7:18:56 AM PST by dirtboy (Drooling moron since 1998...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Reaganwuzthebest
"Are you aware of how many Hispanics are on this board speaking out against illegal immigration and the economic consequences as a result of it? "

No, how many? Name them.

26 posted on 02/19/2005 7:19:05 AM PST by bayourod ("It's for the children" has been replaced by "It's to fight terrorists.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: bayourod

There are quite a few though I'm not going to mention names or ping them. If you stopped to read the posts once in a while you'd know who they are.


27 posted on 02/19/2005 7:22:02 AM PST by Reaganwuzthebest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: From many - one.; dirtboy; sergeantdave

How is a National ID any different than things now such as a Social Security Card, a Passport, credit card, birth certificate or any other of the host of ID currently used except that it would be more effective by establishing consistent standards? If you think a National ID reduces personal privacy just check a credit report sometime. What you fear is already a fact only the lack of standards in individual identification makes these outmoded methods susceptible to fraud and identity theft. IMO Current proposals might pave the way for closing some of these gaps.


28 posted on 02/19/2005 7:24:41 AM PST by drt1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: bayourod

bayourod, for the umteenth time, it's ANTI-ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS not ANTI-IMMIGRANTS. Can you not comprehend the concept of ILLEGAL?


29 posted on 02/19/2005 7:30:20 AM PST by antisocial (Texas SCV - Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: antisocial
Can you not comprehend the concept of ILLEGAL?

Since he's playing the race card, it isn't that he cannot comprehend the concept, it's that he doesn't WANT to acknowledge the concept.

30 posted on 02/19/2005 7:32:08 AM PST by dirtboy (Drooling moron since 1998...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

I do believe you're right.


31 posted on 02/19/2005 7:35:26 AM PST by antisocial (Texas SCV - Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: bayourod
You did know that the 9/11 hijackers had legal drivers' licenses

Sorry, you're wrong.

Several of them obtained Virginia ID cards (not DLs) under false pretenses and by using phony documents. At the time, it was possible to have a third party attest that you were a resident of Virginia in order to get Virginia IDs, DLs, and learner's permits. No proof of residency or proof or presence in the U.S. was required.

Worse, the people who provided these documents were running a larger forged documents business in Virginia, and at least one of them was an illegal. IIRC two were convicted and one was deported.

The hijackers made their first phony documents connection at the Dar al Hijra mosque in Falls Church; who in turn escorted them to the 7-11 at Bailey's Crossroads where they met the broker; who then escorted the hijackers (on more than one occasion) to the DMV on Five Mile Run.

32 posted on 02/19/2005 7:55:22 AM PST by angkor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: drt1

A national ID is a mandatory imposition by the state into my affairs.

Social security is a ponzi scheme, refined robbery by the state.

Credit card info is a voluntary, contractual association between me and a business. I can end that at any time.

The first 10 amendments of the US consitution can be boiled down to three words: "Leave me alone!"

I didn't move into the bush, far, far away from idiot, intrusive government, to see some nitwit politician tell me that I need to carry an internal federal fascist passport.


33 posted on 02/19/2005 8:02:32 AM PST by sergeantdave (Smart growth is Marxist insects agitating for a collective hive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

exactly...


34 posted on 02/19/2005 8:04:11 AM PST by dakine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Reaganwuzthebest
"There are quite a few"

I haven't see any. There have been several who have married Mexicans. Give me some names if you claim there are so many.

35 posted on 02/19/2005 8:14:45 AM PST by bayourod ("It's for the children" has been replaced by "It's to fight terrorists.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: bayourod; HiJinx
I haven't see any. There have been several who have married Mexicans. Give me some names if you claim there are so many.

HiJinx for one, not that I'm sure he wants to come to this thread and read your same old, same old...

36 posted on 02/19/2005 8:18:54 AM PST by Reaganwuzthebest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: ncjetsfan
WSJ editorial board has a few too many libertarians "rights" maniacs.
37 posted on 02/19/2005 8:21:08 AM PST by aculeus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reaganwuzthebest
Oh give me a break, this has nothing to do with federalist principles as far as the WSJ is concerned.

No doubt the WSJ has an agenda.

That does not negate the fact that a national ID tramples state powers and expands those of the fedgov.

38 posted on 02/19/2005 8:25:10 AM PST by NMC EXP (Choose one: [a] party [b] principle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Reaganwuzthebest; HiJinx
"HiJinx for one"

He certainly doesn't appear to be you typical "Hispanic". From his profile page:

"Started out as AF brat, born in England, moved to Italy, then all around (California, Mississippi, Libya, Ohio, Arizona) till I joined the Army in '76. Entered in Phoenix, served at Ft. Meade, Ft. Riley, tours in Berlin and Augsburg, retired down here at Ft. Huachuca in Sierra Vista, and currently working for a defense contractor. Married to a wonderful Italian gal, "

39 posted on 02/19/2005 8:25:53 AM PST by bayourod ("It's for the children" has been replaced by "It's to fight terrorists.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: agitator

"Universal indentiers - they are not just for farm animals anymore."

Good one.

The state wants to keep track of its property - us.


40 posted on 02/19/2005 8:27:02 AM PST by NMC EXP (Choose one: [a] party [b] principle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NMC EXP
No doubt the WSJ has an agenda.

That does not negate the fact that a national ID tramples state powers and expands those of the fedgov.

I'm not in favor of a national id either but from what I gather this bill doesn't necessarily do that. Anyway that's a separate debate, I'm only questioning the motives of the WSJ in writing this, they obviously get upset when any attempt to stop or at least get a hold of illegal immigration is made. Their audience at the moment is the Senate.

41 posted on 02/19/2005 8:33:25 AM PST by Reaganwuzthebest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: ncjetsfan

Require national ID cards and the left will soon find uses for them in order to control citizens.

The place to stop illegals is at the border.


42 posted on 02/19/2005 8:33:43 AM PST by Celtjew Libertarian (Shake Hands with the Serpent: Poetry by Charles Lipsig aka Celtjew http://books.lulu.com/lipsig)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

"Where are your papers?" was a symbol of the horrors of Nazi Germany.
Now you want to bring that here?


43 posted on 02/19/2005 8:38:23 AM PST by ctdonath2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2
"Where are your papers?" was a symbol of the horrors of Nazi Germany. Now you want to bring that here?

I'm curious - how does this law change how often or where your state driver's license is required to be provided as identification?

I'm sorry, but irresponsible states such as Utah and California basically forced federal action here.

44 posted on 02/19/2005 8:40:58 AM PST by dirtboy (Drooling moron since 1998...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: bayourod
Read this
45 posted on 02/19/2005 8:42:28 AM PST by Reaganwuzthebest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: angkor
Hardly what anyone in their right mind would call "intrusive."

The new federal standard requires participation in a federal retirement plan before you can get a state driver's license. It's true, and already being implemented: no Social Security card, no driving in NY. That's ******* intrusive.

Before you say "oh well, SSN is already a default ID#", consider:
- Participation in SS is NOT mandatory
- SSN cards originally explicitly forbade use as ID
- There is no Constitutional basis for granting the feds that power

46 posted on 02/19/2005 8:42:36 AM PST by ctdonath2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: bayourod
If the immigrants are in this country legally how will this bill hurt them?
47 posted on 02/19/2005 8:44:51 AM PST by FactsMatter (:))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy; bayourod
So my wife, who is a third-generation American citizen of Mexican ancestry, doesn't like Mexicans because she is opposed to illegal immigration.

I'll go you one better -- my wife was born, raised and lived most of her live in Mexico and she is against (and somewhat resents) illegal immigration.

She continues to love the country of her birth and finds the illegal alien problem to be a huge embarrasment.

48 posted on 02/19/2005 8:45:00 AM PST by freedumb2003 (We will win with the Sword Of Teamwork and the Hammer Of Not-bickering!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: bayourod
He certainly doesn't appear to be you typical "Hispanic". From his profile page:

"Started out as AF brat

That's pretty bigoted of you, bayourod. My wife was born to a Hispanic father who was in the Air Force at the time. And all of my father-in-law's brothers served in the military.

49 posted on 02/19/2005 8:45:39 AM PST by dirtboy (Drooling moron since 1998...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Reaganwuzthebest

But the hispanics who speak out against illegals aren't 'real' hispanics in the eyes of some people. We are talking about people who can not understand the difference between LEGAL and ILLEGAL immigration after all.


50 posted on 02/19/2005 8:47:14 AM PST by FactsMatter (:))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-90 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson