2008 Real Id. Scary And Coming


PDA






runswithscissors
May 31, 2005, 01:17 AM
Yes, this is what it looks like. Time to get active... :what: :cuss: :fire: :banghead:

http://www.jpfo.org/alert20050511.htm

http://news.com.com/FAQ+How+Real+ID+will+affect+you/2100-1028_3-5697111.html

Got Ammo? :uhoh:

If you enjoyed reading about "2008 Real Id. Scary And Coming" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Coronach
May 31, 2005, 01:24 AM
Uh...

Ok. Shiny side OUT with the foil.

I'm not saying that such things as this might not be down the road, or made easier by the establishment of this ID system, but they are most assuredly NOT part and parcel of it. All this does is standardize the information contained on drivers licenses and link databases (which, not incidentally, are already linked).

Does this have privacy and libertarian ramifications? Yes. But Let's not overtstate the case.

Mike

Joejojoba111
May 31, 2005, 01:38 AM
But isn't this the same bill that gives the Homeland Security Director the power to over-rule any, ANY law he desires, gives him complete oversight over - himself, and has written in it the clause that the bill is absolutely above judicial review (a section titled in caps NO JUDICIAL REVIEW)?

And then combine that with a cute little internal passport, yea MAYBE someday in the FAR FAR future it will be something to express concern about... Come on this is absolute BS it's illegal its wrong is just stupidly horribly scary.

runswithscissors
May 31, 2005, 01:38 AM
Coronach,

I pray you are right. :scrutiny:

Aren't both sides of foil shiny :p

Nice comment though ;)

Balog
May 31, 2005, 01:43 AM
Uhh, it's a nationally uniform, machine readable ID card. It's going to be linked to the right to drive legally, fly legally, and of course buy a gun legally. And that's just the purposes they acknowledge. Lord knows what they'll end up doing with it. Call me crazy but that seems like a pretty damn big deal to me.

Jeff White
May 31, 2005, 01:45 AM
That's right, the databases are already linked. I can get complete drivers license info from all 50 states and the 4 territories and all Canadian provinces from my squad car or portable radio..usually in seconds.

In fact, I usually don't care what the laminated card the driver hands me says..the info I get from the computer is what I go by. I would estimate that about 30% of the drivers I have contact with, don't actually have their DL in their possession. It was one of the first things that really surprised me when I became a peace officer..the number of people that don't feel bad at all about driving without their license on their person. Yes, I could write tickets for that, but it would overwhelm the system and around here the judges normally dismiss them if they show up in court with their license on them. So if a driver doesn't have his/her DL on their person, I get standard idnetifiers, first name, last name MI, race and DOB and the computer tells me if they have a valid license. If it matches up with the registration of the car, insurance card etc. and if the person matches the physical description of the licensee, I'm usually pretty certain they are who they say they are.

Like Coronach said, from what I can tell all this does is make sure that the information that goes into the sytem is verified better then it is. You see it's not that big a deal for al-queda or anyone else to get ahold of the technology to make a laminated card, even if it has fancy holograms or other security measures. It's what gets entered into the database that counts.

Jeff

runswithscissors
May 31, 2005, 01:45 AM
What happens when virtually all purchases must be made with this ID? Americans are the ultimate consumers. How much more control will the government gain by controlling what we are able to buy and in what quantities. I'm sure no one thought guns would be banned...DC, Commufornia etc.

I'm not suggesting that this will be the fall of American civilization, I'm just saying that if this ID is not kept in check, it could be used for ill.

Boss Spearman
May 31, 2005, 02:15 AM
Sensenbrenner also wants a law that would make it illegal for any US citizen to not narc on someone they see who might be doing something suspicious.

All US citizens would be required to spy on each other, to report anything and everything they see that looks out of the ordinary.

No more of this "It's none of my business" stuff from anyone.

rick_reno
May 31, 2005, 02:28 AM
I hope they give us a little bit of the secure Eeprom on the card so we can download cash to it. Ideally I'd like to have to carry just one card - I bicycle a lot and don't have a lot of room for additonal cards.

Jeff White
May 31, 2005, 02:29 AM
runswithscissors said;
What happens when virtually all purchases must be made with this ID?

Well considering it's a law everywhere that I can think of that you have to have this ID on your person to drive and a very significant number of people won't do that now, how much luck do you think they'll have getting people to make all their purchases with it. We already have a large underground economy in every prohibited substance in this country. All something like that would do would be to further organized crime and bring the all powerful government down faster.

And I can tell you that if the number of young people I meet who don't have their DL on their person is any indication, the public school system isn't close to making them all compliant little serfs....

Jeff

Coronach
May 31, 2005, 02:58 AM
Also, requiring all mercantile transactions to be associated with an ID would require a law to that effect.

Mike

Balog
May 31, 2005, 03:15 AM
I don't imagine it'd be required for all transactions. Just ones already requiring ID. Alcohol, tobacco, firearms, ammo etc. Since it's machine readable it'd be easy to go from "showing" your ID to "swiping" your ID.

Would it spark an underground economy? Sure would. And if there's one thing Prohibition and the "War on Drugs" has taught us it's that nothing gives the .gov more authority to destroy the Constitution than a law designed to promote massive non-compliance.

spartacus2002
May 31, 2005, 06:53 AM
requiring all mercantile transactions to be associated with an ID would require a law to that effect.

Or, simply, a rule promulgated by an administrative agency. But that will never happen, because we don't suffer from swarms of bureaucrats churning out tens of thousands of rules every year :rolleyes:

aquapong
May 31, 2005, 08:40 AM
Since it's machine readable it'd be easy to go from "showing" your ID to "swiping" your ID.

And if it's swiped, there's a computer record of it. The national database got queried for a Jim Smith 123 Main St Anywhere PA 17777 from Joe Bob's Cigar Shop @ 1235 on 5/31/09 and again from Shaggy Yeti Gunshop @ 1421 on 5/31/09. They may or may not transmit what you bought, but it wouldn't be hard for the system to flag certain types of vendors.

dave3006
May 31, 2005, 08:52 AM
The ultimate end will be to require all who buy or sell to receive a mark on their hand or forehead.

Read Revelations 13 about the mark of the beast. Of course, the real ID is not "the mark". But, it sure takes us closer.

2nd Amendment
May 31, 2005, 11:57 AM
However bad you think this could be, however thick your tinfoli may be, get ready, it's going to be a LOT worse.

Time for me to drag the fake ID's back out...

Jeff White
May 31, 2005, 12:30 PM
Fake ID?? That might be good for buying alcohol if you're underage, getting into a R or NC-17 movie or renting a video game or DVD, but it won't stand up in any dealings with the government. Like I said in my earlier post, we already check things through LEADS and NCIC. Unless you can get your fake ID info into the computer system, it will come back as not on file, which is a sure flag that something is wrong.

You need to roll back the clock about 30 years or so, back to the time when those records were on microfiche and the police could only do a manual lookup of drivers licsenes from their home state. The thing you're so concered about has been here for decades.

Jeff

jefnvk
May 31, 2005, 12:31 PM
Sorry, I can't read that and take them seriously. Three years, and we are somehow going to have a chip in our licenses that tells any officer anything we've ever bought?

Sometimes, I think that not everytime someone proposes something, they do it with the hidden intention of enslaving the Americans.

Waitone
May 31, 2005, 12:53 PM
Don't like RealID because of what might happen at some point in the future?

OK, What would you suggest to deal with the problem of criminal aliens getting DL's in certain irresponsible states whose governors flip the bird to the US Attorney General and refuse to fix a problem that has killed people in the past and will get people killed in the future? What would you suggest?

In my pathetic world you deal with the most dangerous problem first then deal with the next threat.

Joejojoba111
May 31, 2005, 01:14 PM
Umm, for all those that think it's probably just harmless legislation... You might have a valid point IF there wasn't such scary stuff also in it. SCARY STUFF.

OK so internal passports are not a big deal? What about when you combine them with giving the homeland security director DICTATOR POWERS. HONEST TO GOD LEGITIMATE DICTATOR POWERS.

And then look at it and tell me the concurrent internal passport is no big deal. It's the freaking icing on the facist cake.

Vodka7
May 31, 2005, 01:25 PM
Jeff:

This is a professional question that you don't have to answer publically, but I would like you to think about it. When a driver's license is presented to you at a traffic stop, do you run it by name/DOB, or by DL#? If you do not check by DL#, is that verified at any time?

I ask you this because anyone can find out quite a lot about another person on the Internet. You, for example, were born in 1956, live at house number 1003, and the first three digits of your phone number are 547.

But let's say I don't want to impersonate you: anyone will do. Let's say I'm a terrorist. I'm arab, average height, average weight. Well, pretty much all I have to do is flip the phone book open to the M's, E's, or A's, and I'm all set. I can pick pretty much anyone at random--then link it up to the internet to make sure that person is roughly my age, memorize their details, and slap it on a fake ID. If the DL# is not verified, then the officer will see that I, like the person on my ID, am an Arab, average height, average weight, brown hair, brown eyes, born on the correct date... Ok sir you're good to go.

This works better in metro areas, where I have a greater chance of finding someone with my real name. I can drive my own car, and the registration and insurance will match my fake ID.

But from what you're saying, I don't even need to bother making a fake ID. I can just tell you the information I've looked up on the internet and you'll "verify" it on your computer. After all, I can't be expected to remember my own driver's license can I?

The only potential weakness would be if SSNs are linked up with DLs, but even those can be purchased on the internet if one knows where to look.

thereisnospoon
May 31, 2005, 01:51 PM
My tinfoil Hat is red hot with anticipation of the Real I.D. Act.

Like all Legislation, this particular Bill/Law is suppose to "fix" a problem with Illegal immigration, but we seemed to only be able to do that by trampling the rights and privacy of the people who are rightful citizens of this Country. :cuss:

Why is it we can't just simply stop the flow at the source then round em up, etc. rather than waisting time and money on a program ONLY law abiding citizens will adhere to? Someone who is here illegally has already proven they will break the law, DUH?

MORE government is never the answer! NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, EVER. All that get us is more waste and beurocracy, such as the Department of Real I.D.

Hey, wait a minute :scrutiny: ...Maybe they'll make me the Cabinet Minister for the Department of I.D. Nevermind....

Jeff White
May 31, 2005, 01:54 PM
Joejojoba111,
Please post the text of the law that requires internal passports and mandates you get permission to travel along with a link to the law on an official site.

I'd also like to see the same information about the part of the law that makes the Secretary of Homeland Security a dictator. I can't see those power happy idiots in congress cedeing any power to anyone....

Vodka7,
You have identifed the weakness in the the system. Yes there have been cases of people using other peoples information to avoid arrest on warrants or even get traffic tickets written in someone elses name. Sometimes the computer burps. Last Thursday night I arrested a man known to me for DUI. He didn't have his license on his person because the court still had it after the DUI I wrote him back in March. I needed his file number to complete the paper work. But every way we ran him through the computer brought up his twin brother's information. The sheriff's dispatcher even called the state police district headquarters and their TCs got the same results. I ended up driving the 10 miles from the jail to my office to pick up his file from the first DUI, just to get his DL number to complete the paperwork.

If the officer has an MDC in his car he can check the file number against what's on the fake ID. He can also run the DL by file number, and you'd be surprised at how many people have been able to rattle off their DL number like they can their SSN.

No system is perfect or foolproof. I do think that by standardizing what identification is required to get an official ID that will match up in the database is a good thing.

I also think that they went to far with the provisions that require people to verify the validity of utility bills etc. when applying for a license. Congress is stupid enough to think that that would actually be workable? I hope not, more likely no one, not even the sponsor of the bill actually ever read it. I'm sure this bill was produced in the private sector by a think tank and Sensenbrenner just introduced it. It's going to be interersting to see how fast it's amended once the utlity companies and other people in the private sector who are charged with verifying this information have to start dealing with it. I wonder how many of the congresscritters who voted for it will own up to never reading it?

Jeff

Joejojoba111
May 31, 2005, 03:29 PM
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:h.r.00418:

If some people find the navigation confusing, here's the good stuff, out of sec. 102.

" `(1) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall have the authority to waive, and shall waive, all laws such Secretary, in such Secretary's sole discretion, determines necessary to ensure expeditious construction of the barriers and roads under this section.

`(2) NO JUDICIAL REVIEW- Notwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), no court, administrative agency, or other entity shall have jurisdiction--"

Connect the dots - Secretary of Homeland Security can waive ***ANY LAW*** he determines necessary, based on his ***SOLE DISCRETION*** and this is absolute, as no authority known to man shall have jurisdiction to say otherwise ***NO JUDICIAL REVIEW***

Does that look remotely like any legislation ever passed before? What the hell is that? Is it even legal to deny the courts judicial review? Is it even legal to waive any law? Does it matter, if he can waive any law? This is NOT NORMAL. THIS IS VERY ABNORMAL, EXTREMELY DISCONCERTING.



Also, just for fun, here's the bit where they decide it's actually OK to use SSNs as ID
"Proof of the person's social security account number or verification that the person is not eligible for a social security account number".


And if you can't enter an airport, let alone board a plane, without one of there I don't know what else to call them.

Joejojoba111
May 31, 2005, 03:42 PM
"SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Intelligence
Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004’’."

"SEC. 7214. PROHIBITION OF THE DISPLAY OF SOCIAL SECURITY
ACCOUNT NUMBERS ON DRIVER’S LICENSES OR MOTOR
VEHICLE REGISTRATIONS.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 205(c)(2)(C)(vi) of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 405(c)(2)(C)(vi)) is amended—
(1) by inserting ‘‘(I)’’ after ‘‘(vi)’’; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subclause:
‘‘(II) Any State or political subdivision thereof (and any person
acting as an agent of such an agency or instrumentality), in the
administration of any driver’s license or motor vehicle registration
law within its jurisdiction, may not display a social security account
number issued by the Commissioner of Social Security (or any
derivative of such number) on any driver’s license, motor vehicle
registration, or personal identification card (as defined in section
7212(a)(2) of the 9/11 Commission Implementation Act of 2004),
or include, on any such license, registration, or personal identification
card, a magnetic strip, bar code, or other means of communication
which conveys such number (or derivative thereof).’’.




"SEC. 7212. DRIVER’S LICENSES AND PERSONAL IDENTIFICATION
CARDS.
(a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:
(1) DRIVER’S LICENSE.—The term ‘‘driver’s license’’ means
a motor vehicle operator’s license as defined in section 30301(5)
of title 49, United States Code."




"H.R.418
REAL ID Act of 2005 (Introduced in House)

SEC. 207. REPEAL.

Section 7212 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-458) is repealed."





...SOOOO if a driver's license no longer has anything to do with operating a vehicle, this does not arouse ANY SUSPICION?!>!>!>???

PEOPLE OPEN YOUR EYES THIS IS HONEST TO GOD REAL THEY'RE IMPLEMENTING ACTUAL INERNAL PASSPORTS THEY'RE NOT DRIVER'S LICENSES THIS IS REAL THIS IS REAL THIS IS REAL

Joejojoba111
May 31, 2005, 03:48 PM
OH yes, and also youre Homeland Security Secretary can waive any law he wants, and absolutely no person or court can say or do anything to curb him.

THIS IS REAL! THIS IS HONEST TO F-ING GOD REAL.

You say he's only allowed to waive laws regarding roads, right? Good point, unfortunately He's the only one who decides what is related to road or barrier construction, it's his Sole Discretion, and no person or court has the ability to question his choices or actions, let alone hinder them.

And to humor those who consider it only road and barrier construction (because if you can waive any law any time any where for any reason, you'll naturaly curb your ambitions and exercise great self-control...) Imagine the next political rally, uh-oh it's not a seure area. Better bulldoze those houses there, and fortify that building there, and cut all the trees down, and voila.

Wow, even better if there's a slum that you want to get rid of you just have some politician give a speech there and then you can bulldoze the entier slum and let some nice condo developer move in. Expense? $0.00, because no-one is entitled to compensation.


AND THAT'S THE OPTIMISTIC VIEW THAT THE POWERS (which by definition are unlimited) WILL BE VOLUNTARILY LIMITED.

kbheiner7
May 31, 2005, 03:52 PM
How the hell can congress pass a law that isn't reviewable by the courts? Does that seem silly to anyone else? :cuss:

Waitone
May 31, 2005, 04:10 PM
I'll deal with one provision, the first one you cited. Yep, it does say Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall have the authority to waive, and shall waive, all laws such Secretary, in such Secretary's sole discretion, determines necessary to ensure expeditious construction of the barriers and roads under this section. but a careful reading shows it refers to one specific provision of the law pertaining to a wall the federales have tried to complete outside of San Diego but have been stopped dead cold by enviro-nuts. This provision mere lets the wall be completed without re-writing environmental legislation.

I trust nothing the federales do. I assume there will always be dark ulterior motives. I firmly believe if you don't want legislation in the hands of Hillary then don't put it in the hands of anyone else because it will eventually abused. That said, there is the small problem of governance. Tin foil or not, the country must be governed. To do nothing about a problem because of what may happen in the future is irresponsible. There is plenty ot bellyache about without jumping at shadows today. If you are going to get seriously wrought over legislation, you owe it to yourself to be absolutely correct that you are jumping for a good reason. I can't think of a better way of discrediting an entire movement than have lots of sound and fury over something that is misrepresented. In my early years I jumped into legislative activism and the first time I jumped and raised hell over a mis-reading of the legislation. I looked just like the ass that I was. Since then I make sure I'm right, then jump. I guess age tends to keep one from showing one's kester.

Jeff White
May 31, 2005, 04:17 PM
Well the way I read it the secretary of homeland security can waive any and all laws he deems necessary to ensure expeditious construction of roads and barriers. I think that means that if we decided to actually fortify the border, that opponents couldn't tie up construction for decades by claiming inadequate environmental impact statements were completed or that some obscure insect would have it's traditional breeding ground destroyed. I think that the DHS would have a hard time convicing anyone that this law empowered him to confiscate firearms or any other private property or suspend habeous corpus...The court battle will be over if this provision is constitutional. And any decsision DHS made that he couldn't obviously justify as for the expeditious construction of roads and barriers would be in court before you could blink an eye. All you have to do is look at all the laws that the courts strike down.

I guess you read this as empowering the DHS to crown himself emporer like Napolean did. I don't, Napolean could get by with it because he commanded the Army. How many battalions does the DHS have?

If you look in the definitions section of the bill that actually passed you'll find that we still have drivers licenses:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:3:./temp/~c109MBnpKD:e46432:
TITLE II--IMPROVED SECURITY FOR DRIVERS' LICENSES AND PERSONAL IDENTIFICATION CARDS

SEC. 201. DEFINITIONS.

In this title, the following definitions apply:

(1) DRIVER'S LICENSE- The term `driver's license' means a motor vehicle operator's license, as defined in section 30301 of title 49, United States Code.

(2) IDENTIFICATION CARD- The term `identification card' means a personal identification card, as defined in section 1028(d) of title 18, United States Code, issued by a State.

(3) SECRETARY- The term `Secretary' means the Secretary of Homeland Security.

(4) STATE- The term `State' means a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands, the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, and any other territory or possession of the United States.

I don't see how this is an internal passport. I read the entire bill, I can't find the part that prohibits you from travelling without a drivers license or ID card. I also can't find the part that says you have to apply for an internal visa or other government permission to travel to an adjoining state. In fact I can't even find the part that was discussed in a newspaper article I posted in another thread on this very subject that stated that utility companies would have to verify it was your bill before you could use a utility bill as proof of residency.

I can already scan the barcode on the back of an Illinois DL with the scanner on an MDC and get all the information contained on the DL. All I see this bill doing is making all the states have this technology and make them use the same format.

As I've stated before, the databases are already linked and have been for decades. So now we'll have federal standards for what goes into the databases. A states rights issue, yes. I just don't see how this bill is the mark of beast. I guess I missed the part where you have 10 days after the birth of a child to get the newborn an ID card so that you can take the child across the country to see grandma :uhoh:

Jeff

Waitone
May 31, 2005, 04:24 PM
How the hell can congress pass a law that isn't reviewable by the courts? Does that seem silly to anyone else? In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make. from Article III, Section 2, Paragraph II of the US Constitution
http://earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/constitution/text.html

In 21st century language, congress does have the authority to remove appellate jurisdiction from the supreme court for any legislation. In other words, congress can tell the courts to keep its hands off <insert legislation of choice>. This particular provision of the constitution (one among many) was short circuited by the supreme court in Marbury v Madison. Thomas Jefferson strongly disagreed with the courts interpretation of its role in the government.

<Flame away>

BTW, congress routinely uses this provision typically around pork spending bills. Tom Daschle got caught just before he was unelected. He got legislation acted up to permit control burning of SD forests (so his forests would not burn like Cali forests burned) but that was in violation of EPA regs. So he slipped in a provision that kept the legislation from being reviewed by the courts. The legislation failed to pass but it was one clear example that congress can tell the courts to keep hands off, has done so in the past, and can do so in the future.

Joejojoba111
May 31, 2005, 09:46 PM
I don't know how to define internal passport then. Sooo you can't buy stamps, you can't drive, you can't collect benefits without one etc etc. But it's clearly passport-esque when you can't enter an airport or fly on a plane, even domestically, without the card. And put 2&2 together, interstate commerce, public roads, new uber-secretary with supra-statutory powers on barriers and roads... Hmm seems pretty straight forward to put a barrier on roads at state borders, use whatever reason you want, federal funding in road construction, interstate commerce (tourism, business, plan to buy gas or a pack of cigarettes over there), or maybe even a new grab-bag law that says roads and barriers (and anything else, by default) are vulnerable to any rule the Homland Security Secretary deems.

Once again, checkpoints on highways is the optimist view, that's if the Secretary curbs ambitions and actually only over-rides laws to do with barriers and roads. To be very clear, the legislation says ANY LAWS and ALL LAWS, ANY AND ALL, there can be no misinterpreting that, it doesn't say "super strict eco-laws can be ignored to built a fence". It says, *ANY* "...Notwithstanding any other provision of law..." and it says *ALL* "...and shall waive, all laws such Secretary..."

And for further clarity, "I think that the DHS would have a hard time convicing anyone that this law empowered him to confiscate firearms or any other private property or suspend habeous corpus...The court battle will be over if this provision is constitutional. And any decsision DHS made that he couldn't obviously justify as for the expeditious construction of roads and barriers would be in court before you could blink an eye. All you have to do is look at all the laws that the courts strike down."

What courts? What courts?

"`(2) NO JUDICIAL REVIEW- Notwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), no court, administrative agency, or other entity shall have jurisdiction--"

What courts???

And he'd have a hard time convincing WHOM that he couldn't confiscate private property or do anything at all he desired? WHOM? He doesn't have to convince a damned soul, no-one, not his counterparts or his cockerspaniel. Nothing.

"in such Secretary's sole discretion"

Sole Discretion. No judicial review. Waive any and all laws.

This is real.


P.S.

"How many battalions does the DHS have?"
Sort of tongue-in-cheek, but Homeland Security has command of ALL federal super-troops, no?


P.P.S.

For those who still think that this is about fortifying borders against illegal aliens, think again. See the Patriot Act
""TITLE IV--PROTECTING THE BORDER

Subtitle A--Protecting the Northern Border

Sec. 401. Ensuring adequate personnel on the northern border.
Sec. 402. Northern border personnel.
Sec. 403. Access by the Department of State and the INS to certain identifying information in the criminal history records of visa applicants and applicants for admission to the United States.
Sec. 404. Limited authority to pay overtime.
Sec. 405. Report on the integrated automated fingerprint identification system for ports of entry and overseas consular posts.

Subtitle B--Enhanced Immigration Provisions...

Subtitle C--Preservation of Immigration Benefits for Victims of Terrorism..."

There is no section D. The Mexican border is exluded. It was NOT an accident. The Mexican border is porous by design - I reiterate, the Mexican border is SUPPOSED to be as weak as it is. If there was ANY will to strengthen it they could have applied merely the same improvements they did to the northern border to it. They did not, they did not on purpose, now they want you to believe they suddenly care, and their care requires Fascist powers to implement your will.

runswithscissors
May 31, 2005, 09:50 PM
Not bad YET, but I don't see things getting better. True, not the mark of the beast, but then again, the bible cannot be translated word for word and taken literally. It's kind of funny. We have all seen those low budget "set in the future movies" where there are people who live in the "system" and their are people who live outside the "system". This might not be too far from the truth. I don't think this will become too big of a problem unless the government pushes to have cashed phased out. Think about it, if virtually all transactions MUST be made with the REAL ID, cash will become virtually obsolete. Guess the politicians will tell us its for the best since people might not try to rob you as often ;) . Wonder how this will all turn out...good I hope.... :uhoh:

jefnvk
May 31, 2005, 10:03 PM
Haven't we beaten the whole 'they can do anything they want, because we say so' thing enough in the original thread?

I'm kinda tired of this whole whining about the gov't not doing anything about illegal immigration, then when they do something, more whining because you don't think it is the best solution. You want them to build a fence, then complain that the wording giving them permission to build a fence lets them do whatever necessary to build that fence. Simply put, you aren't going to crack down on illegals, without disturbing legals.

and you'd be surprised at how many people have been able to rattle off their DL number like they can their SSN.
N1203907770xx (sorry, don't trust all of you enough)

Flyboy
May 31, 2005, 10:35 PM
I think that the DHS would have a hard time convicing anyone that this law empowered him to confiscate firearms or any other private property or suspend habeous corpus.
And the NRA thought they'd be able to overturn the prohibition on issuing new machine gun stamps. And pretty much everybody thought that McCain-Feingold would be overturned on 1st Amendment grounds.

Do I need to inform you of how those went?

In 21st century language, congress does have the authority to remove appellate jurisdiction from the supreme court for any legislation. In other words, congress can tell the courts to keep its hands off <insert legislation of choice>.
That's not how I read it. To wit:In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.In context, it appears that Congress has the power to exempt a case only from appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court; by default, then (reading in context), the Supremes would have original jurisdiction. Of course, I'm not a lawyer, at least not yet--if anybody wants to support me through law school, I'm listening, and I think you all know my politics. :D

taliv
June 1, 2005, 12:04 AM
you guys are completely missing the real tin-foil concerns.

echelon

what this card does is link our databases with Britain's. Other countries will be next.

parts of our gov are (as far as we know) still prohibited from spying on US Citizens. However, other governments can spy all the want. We spy for them, they spy for us.

This just makes it easy for some other gov to put something on your Permanent Record.



I'm joking, of course, but i really do think a national ID in any sense of the term is a phenomenally, galactically bad thing. You could argue, of course, whether or not social security numbers, which are our de facto national IDs are worse, so maybe going with a card intended for that purpose would fix that problem.

cracked butt
June 1, 2005, 12:33 AM
My biggest fear is not the government, but the wife. If we did away with all cash transactions and used an ID to buy things, I'd be in deep doo-doo if my wife found out how many guns I buy and how much I spend on shooting/reloading supplies when the monthly statement from bigbrother.org comes.


I fear a cashless society more than I fear .gov knowing that I bought a gun today or knowing that I just reregistered my car for the year.

dustind
June 1, 2005, 01:13 AM
I guess I missed the part where you have 10 days after the birth of a child to get the newborn an ID card so that you can take the child across the country to see grandma SSNs and birth certificates where mandated a long time ago. It is hard to go through life without them, but some people do.

Fletchette
June 1, 2005, 01:14 AM
OK, What would you suggest to deal with the problem of criminal aliens getting DL's in certain irresponsible states whose governors flip the bird to the US Attorney General and refuse to fix a problem that has killed people in the past and will get people killed in the future? What would you suggest?

Uhhh, how about a big wall on the border...

thereisnospoon
June 1, 2005, 05:10 AM
Y'all are some really smart dudes! Mt ADULT ADD won't stand for all that legal mumbo-jumbo, but here's how I judge a "Bill" -the more jumbo, the less FREEDOM for the States subjec...er citizens...

This bill is being foisted upon us as a "fix" to the illegal alien problem my Senators and Governor believe is non-existent. Again, why don't we just build a big wall (using cheap illegal alien labor force) and control access to our country :banghead:

All this talk is very good...I like reading the way y'all interp this stuff and it gives me ammo to discuss things with others who are uneducated about this law, as am I......HOWEVER.....

Shouldn't we close the gate before another horse gets out (i.e. 9/11)? :cuss:

c_yeager
June 1, 2005, 05:33 AM
If the feds get the keys to every form of identification available they get the keys to a lot of other things along with. Try buying a gun without any kind of ID.

RealGun
June 1, 2005, 12:05 PM
I'm kinda tired of this whole whining about the gov't not doing anything about illegal immigration, then when they do something, more whining because you don't think it is the best solution. You want them to build a fence, then complain that the wording giving them permission to build a fence lets them do whatever necessary to build that fence. Simply put, you aren't going to crack down on illegals, without disturbing legals.

My main concern is that civil rights oversight was claimed by the Executive. The Congressional claim was dropped in conference committee. To me, the fox is minding the henhouse, i.e. there is no oversight. What kind of accountability is accountability to self? They can spin anything the way they want to.

Joejojoba111
June 1, 2005, 12:39 PM
If they really cared about the border you'd see a section in the Patriot act caled 'Protecting the southern border" as well as ""TITLE IV--PROTECTING THE BORDER

Subtitle A--Protecting the Northern Border"

Or maybe they'd just call it 'protecting the borders. Someone went to a lot of trouble to make absolutely sure that there was no confusion, to make sure that the southern border absolutely was not reinforced. This isn't about illegal immigrants.

RealGun
June 1, 2005, 01:30 PM
I was thinking something along those lines too. I don't know that the Real ID amendment directly addresses immigration at all. Everything these days is represented as about fighting terrorism. At the same time I am well aware that this is John McCain's answer to AZ qualifying people for public services. I will bet you that AZ will be among the first to implement it.

TamThompson
June 1, 2005, 05:37 PM
I agree with Dave3006. This really paves the way to having to have some sort of mark (or biometric marker) to buy and sell. Which, of course, will be sold to us as a protection against identity theft. Now, I don't deny that id theft is real...I just wonder how much of it the govt. turns a blind eye to because it creates a crisis and then govt. can sell everyone on the Real ID card.

Have you made your reservations yet at the Hell in a Handbasket Inn? 'Cause that's where this is going...

Meanwhile, the borders are WIDE OPEN, people...WIDE OPEN! Yeah, national security...right... How about taking all that tax money they've earmarked for Real ID and spending it on closing and policing the damned border??? Oh, wait--that would MAKE SENSE. Nevermind.

ctdonath
June 1, 2005, 11:44 PM
I don't see how this is an internal passport. I read the entire bill, I can't find the part that prohibits you from travelling without a drivers license or ID card.Outside taxi-laden major urban centers, you can't seriously function in society without a car. Just going to the grocery store is a drive for nearly all citizens. Travelling more than a couple hundred miles nearly requires flight (for most practical purposes; I've been making thousand-mile drives lately, and that can't go on long); driving coast-to-coast would take three solid days. Bicycles, horses and shoes won't get people far in this country (save the hardiest with extreme free time & motivation). Hiring long-distance no-ID transportation is prohibitively expensive for most (New York to Florida charter runs $3000). Generally speaking, no ID = no travel. In many jurisdictions, not having an ID is a jailable offense, either by law or by accepted protocol.

Obviously we're not at a point where your trip is subject to approval at any time, be it checking in/out or reviewed spontaniously. However, even that is a very real possibility given the "homeland security" axioms being put in place: if your travels deviate outside your socially-accepted norms, officials may self-justifiably become suspect and detain you. Just as credit card purchases may abruptly stalled when occurring outside your normal patterns, we're not far from "homeland security officers" noticing that you're driving out of your usual/expected routine, and may be asked to explain. :scrutiny:

Waitone
June 2, 2005, 12:42 AM
If they really cared about the border you'd see a section in the Patriot act caled 'Protecting the southern border" as well as ""TITLE IV--PROTECTING THE BORDER

Subtitle A--Protecting the Northern Border"

Or maybe they'd just call it 'protecting the borders. Someone went to a lot of trouble to make absolutely sure that there was no confusion, to make sure that the southern border absolutely was not reinforced. This isn't about illegal immigrants Or maybe the conference got bogged down in a fist fight over what what needed to be done on the southern border. Rather than fight it out and delay Real ID maybe the conference said, "Look, we are taking heat from the yokels back on the plantation. Rather than look like we are dragging our feet, lets us get this package out the door and come back later and deal specifically with the Mexican border. That way we can really grandstand and suck up to the great unwashed; you know, those people who think they control what we do."

pax
June 2, 2005, 01:01 AM
Just have to observe here that no one has to have nasty, ugly motives in order for this law to have nasty, ugly side effects.

pax

You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered. -- Lyndon Johnson

Joejojoba111
June 2, 2005, 01:05 AM
Good point, but I think you made a typo because the border fortifications legislation I posted is from the first Patriot act, so if there had been any desire to do anything to strengthen the Mexican border, they could easily have put it in the Patriot act. Or if you're right, they could have just copied the reforms on the North border and applied them to the south in this Real ID bill/law.

Instead of those two legitimate and explainable rationales, we see them pursue option #3 - mandate the Secretary of Homeland Security a literal honest-to-god Carte Blanche, he can write anything, Anything he wants on that card.

Now just bear with me for a second, because I'm going to do some wild-ass speculating.

A)They specifically refuse to fortify the Southern border at a time when they are fortifying borders.
B)When the Minutemen take action to spur movement by the government, they lead by example to show more feet on the ground REALLY WOULD SECURE THE BORDER - when they do that the man in Arizona in charge of the border security takes actions to counter their presence, giving agents time off and cancelling regular patrols, and generally doing anything he could to make sure the border did not become more secure due to active patrolling.
C)In response to the weak border they are rushing through this Real ID bill, with IDs that can't change the way anything is, and the powers to declare any law moot.

My WildAssGuess is that the border was kept porous on purpose, and the Minutemen were sullied because they would interfere with the larger plan. Using only the tools specifically laid out in the REAL ID bill (and they go much farther than they specifically say), using only those tools, how could national ID cards and barriers and roads curb illegal immigration?

The only way I can see that national ID cards and barriers and roads can do anything like they suggest, in regard to illegal immigration, is to put up checkpoints (barriers) on roads, and check for IDs.

And that is the Optimist view, as I said i don't think they will limit their carte-blance powers with roads and barriers. The only question I have to ask is who is They? If there is a they then they can influence state and national policies in a timely manner.

Or else it's just coincidences, and this is also a real possibility. Or I'm just totally interpreting bad motivations into harmless actions, which would be my crazy problem.

thorn726
June 2, 2005, 03:28 PM
oh sure Bush is behind the idea, so we all better just think it is totally dandy.

i dont like it one bit.

yeah, let's downplay this and not worry about it at all until it's too late, no big deal, bush would never infringe on yer freedoms.......

If you enjoyed reading about "2008 Real Id. Scary And Coming" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!