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.
If there is no change in how often or where ID's are checked, then the ID will have no benefit for controlling illegal immigration. Keep in mind any ID checks would have to include detention and deportation of illegals to be effective. So why have a new ID instead of an air travel card or some other ID for the specific purposes that you have mentioned. Obviously there is a bigger agenda than just safe air travel.
The ID will either be just as useless as the current DLs are (which plenty of illegals do quite well without) or it will be part of a system of increasingly intrusive ID checks which will bag a few illegals (while the rest go around), a few deadbeat dads, some DUI with suspended licenses, etc. Against those meager benefits we will have a new national database, better fed tracking of gun purchases, etc, etc. Clearly not worth it.
All of these are pretty much the case already, due to security and identity theft concerns - except for access to government bennies, which, quite frankly, SHOULD require proof of citizenship.
- Failure to show one on demand makes you immediately suspect of illegal immigration or terrorism.
You can still verbally identify yourself if needed. You just need a license to do much of the things above. This law does not change anything, other than trying to prevent people who should not have a driver's license from getting one.
It will have one major benefit to controlling illegal immigration - namely, getting a job. Illegals will have a harder time getting bogus IDs.
Not really. The illegals around here work for cash ($100/day) without any ID whatsoever. The businesses that hire them have a large burden of taxes and paperwork if they hire legals, so it is cheaper and easier to hire the illegals. The illegals get rides or drive without licenses and live in a mostly unassimilated community.
But on second thought, you are right. Being a legal citizen and working under the table will probably get a visit from the state DOR or fed IRS wondering how you are making those monthly payments without taxable income.
You are ignoring the fact that illegals get jobs without IDs. The reason is pretty simple, because of unemployment and withholding taxes along with copious paperwork for deducting employee expenses from the business revenue, it is easier and cheaper to hire illegals for cash.
I am not ignoring that fact. However, employers argue against rules cracking down on their hiring of illegals by complaining that they can't tell if ID is false or not. OK, now the IDs will be of much higher quality. Which means this law can eventually be coupled to much stiffer penalties for hiring an illegal.
In the end, illegal immigration will be curbed by three actions - better border control, cutting off illegal access to government bennies and services, and cutting off the demand for illegal labor by making it too risky to hire illegals. Improving standards for driver's licenses and outlawing their issuance to illegals is a big step forward towards the second and third actions.
Frankly I don't like parts of this Real ID act.
It's amazing how many people are ready to approve this without thinking the whole thing out.
Now what if the House had mandated that we all have a Bar code tattooed on our forearms so that the Government can just scan us, catalog us,etc. or even better we will be mandated to have an electronic chip placed under out skin.
The question is at what point do you say no?
Did everyone miss the part of the RFID chip in the License to track it or did that just pass over your heads?
I think there are better ways to deal with the Illegals and the Terrorist threat with the existing laws we have with some refinement.
As Conservatives we should be the ones opposing intrusions like this not supporting them. Smaller Government, well here we are creating yet another bureaucracy and to track it's own citizens even better than we are right now.
I expect this stuff from Liberals rather than Conservatives.
Who wins with this kind of legislation, Terrorists do, by forcing our open society to become more closed and regulated. By trying to protect the rights and freedoms we have, we have to lose more of them to fight the terrorists. Kind on an interesting Conundrum isn't it?
Databases contain Information.
Information is Knowledge.
Knowledge is Power.
Your 3 suggestions are ok in an ideal world, but not in the real world. The border ought to be patrolled better but even then it will be porous. Also there are unassimilate millions here already. Your second suggestion is getting less likely by the day. I support the Shenandoah free health clinic, it's independent of the government and gives free health care to anyone. The government is able to pay for less and less of that kind of care, that's why I support the clinic. Third, it's getting more risky to hire real workers. Just trying to deduct the employees expenses from revenue will make it more likely that you will get audited. The small businesses that hire the illegals can't easily be caught using that labor except with a sting. There's no paper of any kind to go back to investigate. Your suggestion works for large businesses but that's not where the problem lies.
I disagree. So we'll just have to leave it at that.
To start with, does it say anything about "To Be Used to Counter Terrorism Only"
(Not that that ever stopped the government from abuse.)
The slurs flow so easily from your keyboard, bayourod.
No, you were slurring just about the other side of the debate. Attacks can be personal on FR without being specifically directed at a poster. Comments like that only perpetuate the flame wars that have been going on over this subject for the last few days. They need to stop.
Are you one of the ones who continue to accuse me of hiring illegals after I said I don't?
That's a classic, bayourod. You phrased it just right - so you could challenge my integrity without having to look up my posts and prove that I have done such.
Or do you just defend the ones who do because you see nothing wrong with it?
Go ahead and defend yourself without the slur on the other side - and I'll give your defense a fair evaluation. But it's hard not to laugh at your complaints of being unfairly attacked when you couple that complaint with ... an unfair attack against others.
No it doesn't. It requires that you have an SSN.
You can opt out of the "federal retirement plan" by not working, or taking up a life of crime, or marrying well, or living in a shack like Ted Kascinski (living under $50/month will keep you out of the taxation system).
All of those occupations will allow you to get a DL and drive to your heart's content.
The fact that there's lots of information out there is not at all the same as requiring me to carry national ID.
I said that people who accuse me of hiring illegals after I've made it very clear that I do not hire illegals are people who lack integrity and most are pathetic losers who can't keep a job so they blame illegals.
If you take personal offense at that tell why. If you want to accuse me of hiring illegal laborers be prepared to be offended by me every time.