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.
Wall St. Journal editorial board appears to be drifting near the edge.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The thin red line soution leaves the states in charge of deciding how they want to handle driver's licenses.
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.
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.
shaking my head....
You really should stop talking about yourself bayourod, conceit is so unseemly.
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,
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?
Keeping it easy for shady employers to keep hiring illegals, IMO.
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.