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.
We don't want a national ID card.
The old giving up liberty for security thing.
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.
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?
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.
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.
No, how many? Name them.
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.
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.
bayourod, for the umteenth time, it's ANTI-ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS not ANTI-IMMIGRANTS. 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.
I do believe you're right.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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, "
"Universal indentiers - they are not just for farm animals anymore."
The state wants to keep track of its property - us.
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.
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.
"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.
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
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.
"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.
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.