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.
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.
I'm an AF brat. So what? Does that make me an expert on Hispanics?
It is a lost cause, he doesn't want to debate the issue he just wants to get people upset so they post something stupid.
The whole point is to make DLs into National IDs precisely so any complaints regarding why it can't be used for that purpose will be solved. By standardizing, use of other IDs will fade, people will get in the habit of flashing their DL.
Go a step further: with a truly national ID, it's a short step to eliminating credit/debit/ID cards of all kinds.
Ultimately, not having a DL, and not showing one on demand, will be considered suspect - raising absurd irrational questions ("are you a terrorist?").
In the end, the ID infrastructure will be in place and available to any tyrrant. Do you REALLY trust President Hillary to not use every bureaucratic tool at her disposal?
I have heard that you employ "un-documented workers". Is that the case?
If so that would certainly explain both your position on illegal immigration and your perspective on what hispanics tend to think about immigration policy.
No, you insinuated that, because someone said on their home page that they were born an AF brat, that was not indicative of being Mexican. A lot of people of Mexican ancestry have served in the military, including my father-in-law and all of his brothers. So you were making a rather racist assumption there, dude - that because someone was born an AF brat, that they probably weren't Mexican like the poster claimed.
Pretty funny coming from someone playing the race card left and right in this debate.
Sorry, but I will not succumb in this case to the conjectural path of where this COULD end up, but instead examine the specifics of the bill. The actions of a few states basically forced Congress's hand on this matter. So I will go along with this bill and the federal action it entails - and then watch carefully to make sure that power is not abused.
Answered another way: given a National ID disguised as a DL, now or soon:
- You can't drive without one
- You can't fly without one
- You can't take a prolonged bus ride without one
- You can't take a train without one
- You can't get a job without one
- You must participate in a confiscatory federal program to get one
- You can't drink in a bar without one
- You can't participate in any federal or state program without one
- You can't borrow a library book without one
- Failure to show one on demand makes you immediately suspect of illegal immigration or terrorism.
Practically speaking, you don't legally exist without one.
Where's the freedom and liberty in that?
I suspect that the WSJ editorial board is more libertarian, than conservative.
To bayourod everything is about race, there's no such thing as us all just being Americans wanting the best for our country.