HR 418: National ID Card Vote (House) This Thursday

Status
Not open for further replies.
N

nick89302

Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2003
Messages
80
Location
IN
National ID Card Vote (House) This Thursday

The Liberty Committee said:
ACTION ALERT

February 8, 2005


Are the terrorists winning? When al-Qaeda attacked the United States on
September 11, 2001, they made it clear they hate America and want to
terrorize us into changing America.

If they could, the terrorists would destroy the unique American way of
life. But they can't. Only we can do that.

Tragically, too much of the legislation enacted by Congress in a
knee-jerk reaction to 9/11 does al-Qaeda's job for them. The Patriot Act
took the first, disastrous step toward fundamentally changing our way of
life. Then came the homeland security bill, followed by the 9/11
intelligence reorganization bill. And now the Real ID Act of 2005 (H.R. 418)
will be voted on Thursday, February 10th.

What's wrong with H.R. 418 -- a bill we are told will stem the flow of
illegal aliens through our porous borders? For starters, it does
NOTHING to stem the flow of illegal aliens. Instead, H.R. 418 will:

1. Establish a national ID card.
2. Establish a federally-coordinated database of personal information
on American citizens with Canada and Mexico.
3. Use the new national ID to track American citizens when traveling
outside the U.S. -- and within the U.S.
4. Re-define "terrorism" in broad new terms that could include members
of firearms rights and anti-abortion groups or other such groups as
determined by whoever is in power at the time.
5. Authorize the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to
unilaterally expand the information included in driver's licenses,
including such biometric information as retina scans and DNA information --
and even radio frequency identification (RFID) tracking technology.
Carry a driver’s license with RFID and governmental officials will know
your whereabouts 24/7.

Incredibly, H.R. 418 does nothing to solve the growing threat to
national security posed by people who are already in the U.S. illegally.
Instead, H.R. 418 states what we already know: that certain people here
illegally are "deportable." But it does nothing to mandate deportation.
H.R. 418 fails miserably on this most critical issue.

The Real ID Act or Real National ID Act will impose a Soviet-style
internal passport on law-abiding American citizens. Proponents of H.R. 418
say we must "make sacrifices" like this to control our borders and
fight illegal immigration. But H.R. 418 is a Trojan horse -- it pretends
to offer desperately needed border control in order to stampede
Americans into sacrificing what is uniquely American: more of our
constitutionally protected liberty. H.R. 418 does what al-Qaeda could never do
without our help.

H.R. 418 does what legislation restricting firearm ownership does. It
punishes law-abiding citizens. Criminals will ignore it. H.R. 418
offers us a false sense of greater security at the cost of taking a
gigantic step toward making America a police state. The terrorists will have
won.

Urge your U.S. representative to vote "no" on H.R. 418. Go to
http://capwiz.com/liberty/issues/alert/?alertid=6938731&type=CO

Kent Snyder
The Liberty Committee
http://www.thelibertycommittee.org
Click to expand...

eta: emphasis mine
 
Sensenbrenner was a phone-interviewee with Rush Limbaugh's stand-in, today. He spoke to the four main points of the Bill:

1. Those states which wish to allow illegal aliens to get driver's licenses may do so. However, they must be marked in some fashion, "Not a Citizen". These cannot be used as ID "for any federal activity" such as travel by commercial aviation. This is the extent of the "uniformity".

2. It provides for an override of the environmental brouhaha about building the border fence by San Diego.

3. It provides a stricter set of rules to control those illegal aliens who seek political asylum. Until their case is proven to the judge, they must remain in custody. These people will not be released on their own promise to reappear in court--given the history of their not doing so.

4. It provides that illegal aliens won't be released upon their own recognizance. They will be held in custody until repatriated, if I understood him correctly.

What I DID understand was that Sensenbrenner was speaking to HB 418. It would be a good thing, apparently, if the "Liberty Committee" would do the same. Sensenbrenner commented that there are 125 co-sponsors.

Anyway, I suggest that somebody hunt up the text. I haven't had time, this evening.

Art
 
H.R. 418 seems to have a questionable smell about itself

ACTION ALERT

February 8, 2005


Are the terrorists winning? When al-Qaeda attacked the United States on September 11, 2001, they made it clear they hate America and want to terrorize us into changing America.

If they could, the terrorists would destroy the unique American way of life. But they can't. Only we can do that.

Tragically, too much of the legislation enacted by Congress in a knee-jerk reaction to 9/11 does al-Qaeda's job for them. The Patriot Act took the first, disastrous step toward fundamentally changing our way of life. Then came the homeland security bill, followed by the 9/11 intelligence reorganization bill. And now the Real ID Act of 2005 (H.R. 418) will be voted on Thursday, February 10th.

What's wrong with H.R. 418 -- a bill we are told will stem the flow of illegal aliens through our porous borders? For starters, it does NOTHING to stem the flow of illegal aliens. Instead, H.R. 418 will:

1. Establish a national ID card.
2. Establish a federally-coordinated database of personal information on American citizens with Canada and Mexico.
3. Use the new national ID to track American citizens when traveling outside the U.S. -- and within the U.S.
4. Re-define "terrorism" in broad new terms that could include members of firearms rights and anti-abortion groups or other such groups as determined by whoever is in power at the time.
5. Authorize the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to unilaterally expand the information included in driver's licenses, including such biometric information as retina scans and DNA information -- and even radio frequency identification (RFID) tracking technology. Carry a driver's license with RFID and governmental officials will know your whereabouts 24/7.

Incredibly, H.R. 418 does nothing to solve the growing threat to national security posed by people who are already in the U.S. illegally. Instead, H.R. 418 states what we already know: that certain people here illegally are "deportable." But it does nothing to mandate deportation. H.R. 418 fails miserably on this most critical issue.

The Real ID Act or Real National ID Act will impose a Soviet-style internal passport on law-abiding American citizens. Proponents of H.R. 418 say we must "make sacrifices" like this to control our borders and fight illegal immigration. But H.R. 418 is a Trojan horse -- it pretends to offer desperately needed border control in order to stampede Americans into sacrificing what is uniquely American: more of our constitutionally protected liberty. H.R. 418 does what al-Qaeda could never do without our help.

H.R. 418 does what legislation restricting firearm ownership does. It punishes law-abiding citizens. Criminals will ignore it. H.R. 418 offers us a false sense of greater security at the cost of taking a gigantic step toward making America a police state. The terrorists will have won.

Urge your U.S. representative to vote "no" on H.R. 418. Go to http://capwiz.com/liberty/issues/al...6938731&type=CO

Kent Snyder
The Liberty Committee
http://www.thelibertycommittee.org

**********

From thomas.loc.gov

Sec. 202 under minimum issuance standards, at (c), one finds the following.

Proof of the persons social security account number or verification that the person is not eligible for a social security account number.

Interestingly, it was my understanding that the recently enacted and signed into law Intelligence Reform Act precludes the states from using Social Security Numbers in connection with drivers licenses. I guess trhat The Congress has the ability to speak from all sides of it's face(s)
 
Actually I figured out a really simple test for any law that proposes to curb illegal immigration.

Does it put troops on the border or go after employers of illegals?

No?

Then it is just a power grab.
 
Those yahoo potlickers are bound and determined to get those RFID chips stuck in my hide.
This of course will require another bureaucracy within the bureau of snoop and poop.
More jobs I suppose to go with the FBI's 4,000 new jobs. How many citizens is each FBI agent assigned?

More administrative law just in case there is anyone yet left un touched.
Do we know how many government employee's there actually are out there amongst us?

I especially like the idea of a shared database with canada and mexico.

Time to start writing my no load reps again.

Text of Legislation http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.418:

Vick
 
Well, IANAL, but I can read the text. I received three separate e-mails, including one from GOA, hyperventilating about the RFID microchip soon to be implanted in our skulls. ;)

But Mr. Eatman's summary of Sensenbrenner's remarks seems to closely parallel the actual text of the measure. States can opt out, but won't because any such non-complying state-issued ID would be have to:
(A) clearly states on its face that it may not be accepted by any Federal agency for any official purpose; and

(B) uses a unique design or color indicator to alert Federal agency and other law enforcement personnel that it may not be accepted for any such purpose.
Click to expand...

My understanding is "any official purpose" includes entering fed.gov facilities and passing through the TSA gauntlet at airports.

The measure also establishes requirements for linked data bases of drivers' records, including histories, violations and points, and would require State DMVs to scan all source documents presented by applicants and store these images in transferrable format.

As to RFID, the bill calls for licenses to include
9) A common machine-readable technology, with defined minimum data elements.
Click to expand...
but doesn't define what those data elements might be. The devil is in the details here.
 
I believe that it was LawDog who pointed out that many states, for years, have been busily linking their databases. Much of what people are complaining about as being part of HB 418 is already in place and has been in place for quite a while. Even without 418, this process will continue at the state level, albeit with varying amounts of federal grants.

From what Sensenbrenner said, it seems to me that there are improvements over the present methods of dealing with illegals. Much of it doesn't require new funds; it's just that judges have more authority over illegals.

Art

Edit-add: Okay, I read the driver's license portion. Aside from linking data-bases--which is in progress already--I see nothing wrong with the language. Somebody please reference whatever "bad" part is there?

Art
 
As to the provision for "states opting out", in THEORY, perhaps, however in PRACTICE, consider the following and HISTORY, which is ALWAYS informative.

When the push was on to raise the drinking age from state set levels, some of which were 18, to the federal set level of 21, states could choose not to join in the festivities. If they so chose, they would loose at least a portion of that ever present FEDEREAL HIGHWAY MONEY, as I recall.

As memory serves, that highway funding hook was also used respecting some other things that the states, in theory, could opt out of. As a PRACTICAL matter however, it turns out to be un affordably expensive for the states to so act, or at least that is the story we got from the state politicos.

As I mentioned in my earlier post, there ia a questionable smell about this H.R. 418. Your congress critters need to hear from their constituents, NOW.
 
SEC. 102. WAIVER OF LAWS NECESSARY FOR IMPROVEMENT OF BARRIERS AT BORDERS.

Section 102(c) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1103 note) is amended to read as follows:

`(c) Waiver-

`(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 shall have jurisdiction--

`(A) to hear any cause or claim arising from any action undertaken, or any decision made, by the Secretary of Homeland Security pursuant to paragraph (1); or

`(B) to order compensatory, declaratory, injunctive, equitable, or any other relief for damage alleged to arise from any such action or decision.'.


Since this is going to be administered by bureaucrats I can see where landowners along the border will be a bit upset. It looks like another land grab in the making.
Unless I'm misreading this the FEDS can make a buffer zone all along the border, condemn the property without due compensation or court review.
Then again, the FEDS wouldn't misuse authority like that would they?

Something else here. They are erasing the "Attorney General" and updating the new language to be "Secretary of Homeland Security or Attorney General".
What if there is a disagreement between these 2 offices? Someone is in charge of making the final decision which means that someone is the real boss.

As far as the federal funding. Anytime the state or local potlickers DON'T get their hands on free gov money, they feel it is a loss in income, so they will do whatever it takes to get the money.
They are in charge. Look at your local city council's, what is their attitude towards the public? Your state officials? You are an inconvenience.

All those nice neat things they say "it provides for...." ought to be looked at carefully for unintended consequences.

I agree, there's an odor.
Vick
 
Vick, I suggest you contact Sensenbrenner's office with your concern. From what he said on the radio, his interest is that particular area of fence and barrier that has been at issue for some serious amount of time. The US Rep from San Diego is also involved.

It just occurred to me that the issue of Rights of Way and Eminent Domain for road-building along the border should be addressed. It appears the language of the Bill, in sections c 1 & 2 removes this protection. IANAL. I know of no prohibition against a boundary road, however. And, in most areas, there's darned sure nothing there to damage...

Art
 
I, too, get really edgy when federales start messin' with things like IDs.
However, if what Sensenbrenner is unacceptable, what would the esteemed forum suggest.

Fact, we have a problem with DL's being default national ID's.
Fact, the 911 goons diddled the DL's get gain access to everything this country offers.
Fact, states are increasingly participating in Creeping Institutional Lawlessness (tm) by simply refusing to cooperate in the apprehension of criminal aliens.
Fact, DL's are the default national ID credibility of which is exceeded only by that of a US passport.

So how do you fix the problem if what Sensenbrenner is suggesting is unacceptable.
 
Well, I think the National ID card proposal fails to state precisely what the card is intended to accomplish. As has been said, there is no resolve or plan to actually deport people or call some authority if one lacks proper identification.

Proof of citizenship could be required for obtaining or renewing a drivers license. Lacking a drivers license, a desire for one, age eligibility, or physical ability, an alternative State ID could be made available, also requiring proof of citizenship. If the ID is intended to do more than prove entitlements of citizenship or legal immigration status, I think the lawmakers need to lay their cards on the table.

What they aren't openly proposing is the need for and cost of implementing instant verification or whether that would be an unfunded mandate. It seems to me that those who do not have proof of citizenship may need verification of their current status, somewhat similar to verification of a concealed handgun license. They are not saying what it would really mean to lack such a card.
 
Looking some more at the Bill, it seems that the worst part is the absence of limit for Section c as posted above by CHNG.

The "no judical review", if extended beyond the specific area of concern, could be buckets, not cans, of worms...

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

`(A) to hear any cause or claim arising from any action undertaken, or any decision made, by the Secretary of Homeland Security pursuant to paragraph (1); or

`(B) to order compensatory, declaratory, injunctive, equitable, or any other relief for damage alleged to arise from any such action or decision.'.
--
Click to expand...

Doesnt this violate the constitution, with respect to guarrantee of due process and separation of powers?????
 
Doesnt this violate the constitution, with respect to guarrantee of due process and s

Not if the Constitution is viewed as a living breathing entity capable of being changed to match the current political environment.

Also the general population needs to know and understand more than they do of the Constitution. Most of those that vote are content to get their "moneyman" in office and reap the rewards of income redistribution.
We as a society are doing a poor job of raising our young'uns in regards to social responsibilties and personal accountability. Ask a few people what "integrity" means, if you get more than a blank stare as in a few mumbled and garbled words that individual is still reachable.

As I understand it, the No Judicial Review is part of the process of building a fence or border barriers and roads. This means to me that the Secretary of HD has full power and authority to disregard ALL laws federal, state and local. Thats EPA, spotted owl, oil splurfing, cut the timber, zoning, eminient domain, take your house, take your gun stuff.

The private landowner might very well get to keep his land, however comma, what he will be able to do with it is another story. It's still his land to be taxed I'm sure at a higher improved rate.

It would be much easier and effective to deputize the citizens along the border and issue milspec equipment for home protection. But it's not about keeping America safe, it's about keeping America under control. Each government entity has an interest in asserting itself into the lives of as many Americans as possible. By doing so they have insured their "job" for another budget. Individually each thinks they are "Just doing my job, sir" and the little bit he, she or it does seems inconsequential on the surface but taken as a whole it appears sinister. I think the government is way too cumbersome and inefficient for a massive conspiracy.

What we have is kingdoms, territorial protectionism. Like the farmer says, "I don't want all the land, just what's next to mine".
Misguided thinking fershur.

I haven't seen or heard anyone talking about the land grab aspects of this bill other than right here in this thread. I've wondered if the license issue is a smoke screen. We need to keep an eye on both hands here and not have a tunnel vision zeroed in on the national ID. Once powers are granted to the Dept. of Homeland Security all becomes classified and any attempt at information disemination, discussion of policy or even discovery in a legal sense becomes another way for you to land in the big house on Guantanamo, the new Alcatraz.

All this before my morning coffee.

Stock up.
Vick
 
Re H.R. 418, notwithstanding such adverse constituent comment as there might have been, a questionable degree of "openendness", and other aspects thereof that have been discussed in this thread, unless I misunderstood what I heard on a newscast, our congress critters did it again, that is to say the above mentioned legislation passed The House.

With such people standing guard we surely can sleep safe in our beds, provided that is, that our "nightstand" pistols are cocked and locked.

Will The Senate do better, who knows? Perhaps he answer to that question depends on the "politics" of the matter, which includes the amount of heat that Senators get from their constituents.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

C
  • Locked
Email from Cobray: .R. 418: Bad for America, Bad For Gun Owners
Replies
0
Views
414
cidirkona
C
A
  • Locked
more on H.R. 418, something to think about
Replies
0
Views
248
alan
A
S
  • Locked
Reply from a congressman in my home state
Replies
8
Views
606
MudPuppy
M
A
  • Locked
readers might find the following of interest
Replies
8
Views
557
Standing Wolf
S
A
  • Locked
came in today's e-mail, read it and weep, or better yet, raise hell!
Replies
8
Views
755
Agent_Iron
A
Back
Top